Hacker News Reader

Comment by _acco | Hacker News Reader

I love Waymo and use it all the time.

One aspect I'd still like to see them figure out:

As a bike commuter, I share the road with Waymo often. When cycling, you're always checking the eyes of other drivers to confirm if they see you.

I've had a couple incidents where I was a little thrown/unnerved because I couldn't confirm if a Waymo was registering me. It ultimately behaved fine, but I had to put my guard way up because I just couldn't tell.

I've wondered if they could use the light/display on top to signal acknowledgment? How do you simulate the precision of a gaze with a machine that's "seeing" everything at once?

View on HN

They have tried many variations out, but so far they don't seem to think they work better than doing nothing. The only communication the Waymo's currently do it to signal that they are stopping for pedestrians, both to the pedestrians themselves and also to the cars behind.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/13/23913251/waymo-roof-dome...

I don't know how aware Waymo cars are of their surroundings. Why don't they have a (or something like a) 360 degree string of LEDs (for example on the roof) that lights up a few in the direction of human obstacles if they're close enough? Bonus points if they're colored to indicate everything is ok or there's potential caution/danger.

They're still trying to do this weird universal signage when they need some way to replicate eye contact and 1-to-1 signaling. I feel safe biking or driving around other cars because I can directly communicate and negotiate with other traffic participants. I can't do that with an automated car as they're currently designed, and I feel like that's a huge flaw.

> I don't know how aware Waymo cars are of their surroundings.

Waymo cars are extremely, extremely aware of their surroundings. They have a category, distance, speed, and distribution of possible future paths for all cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists within sight over 360 degrees.

> Why don't they have a (or something like a) 360 degree string of LEDs (for example on the roof) that lights up a few in the direction of human obstacles if they're close enough?

I don't think it's so obvious this helps. What is the threshold for how far away something is before it's indicated on the ring? If I'm standing just outside that distance, how will I know it's because of distance rather than because I haven't been seen? If the distance is set long, how will I know it sees me and not something behind me?

The natural way to get around these problems is for the car to "point out" everything it see using, e.g., fake eyes. But now you have a car covered in eyes surveilling the neighborhood, and people don't like that either.

> What is the threshold for how far away something is before it's indicated on the ring? If I'm standing just outside that distance, how will I know it's because of distance rather than because I haven't been seen? If the distance is set long, how will I know it sees me and not something behind me?

I feel like this is a non-issue. The LEDs can be a certain size. They could be dimmable so their brightness can be modulated by distance.

All the things you mention are an issue with real drivers too, but we make it work because we can signal and communicate. Give these cars the same functionality and experiment. This isn't an insurmountable issue, but it is one that needs to be addressed that isn't being addressed at all. Throwing up your hands and saying it's too difficult is less than helpful. They're putting these things on the road with people. They have a responsibility to figure this stuff out. Especially if they want to go beyond a handful of cities.

Strong disagree that this is all non-issue/obvious. There are plenty of cases where it's better to not communicate rather than try and communicate in a way that is likely to be misinterpreted. Regarding your "just make the LEDs dimmable", this just adds more opportunities for confusion; humans will have no idea how the distance-brightness relationship is calibrated, it will appear different depending on the lighting conditions, etc. Just like consider how many gauges you have ever seen that communicate a continuous variable based on the brightness of the display. (Very few or none).

No one is throwing up their hands. Human-autonomous-vehicle communication is a whole research field. Waymo has every incentive here to both make the vehicles safer and to make pedestrians feel safer (holding actual safety fixed).

The ultimate test is not your first gut reaction as to whether they have done "enough", but rather it's whether the vehicles are safer than human-driven ones, and the evidence so far strongly points to that being the case.

Even if the cars had a "I'm currently deciding" indicator it would be a major improvement. My only issue with these sorts of anti-socialized services is not being able to promptly and easily sue for remedy. Maybe a blood price on a few mid-level managers (or possibly higher depending on the situation) if the service ends up killing people. That would put my heart at mind in the marketplace of the future.

> My only issue with these sorts of anti-socialized services is not being able to promptly and easily sue for remedy.

What do you mean by that? Do you think if their cars hurt someone or cause damage to property you can't sue them? What is the basis of this belief?

Maybe we can start with putting a blood price on human drivers, since they have direct culpability?

When a human driver is negligent or reckless, they don't potentially endanger millions of people at once. So there's a difference

> "I'm currently deciding" indicator

Million dollar idea right there

Isn't that constantly happening? Every millisecond it's "deciding" what to do.

Japanese already tested it, with googly eyes. It seems to work. Modern cars are expensive, some extra plastic and servos is not going to break the bank.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543174.3546841

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11250965/Jap...

https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2022/09/26/56244997...

British used a LED matrix. More "output" options (frowns and smiles, text), similar results.

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/first-ever-uk-ghost-driver...

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/pedestrian-study-...

Joking, not joking: Cylon scanner [1] at the top the windscreen that locks on to you when it's giving way

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faukADr0_6g

Maybe they should have two screens in front of the car that show eyeballs, like the ones in the first picture here:

https://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car

Cylon + vehicle = KITT (Night Rider)

Both shows produced by Glen Larson. Some call it a Larson Scanner.

I have very little BSG in my head but I still jumped to this solution. Odd.

As a biker, I feel MICH safer around self driving cars because I know they are paying attention.

I don’t need to check if they see me. They do.

Going forward - I think it's important to not just categorically say all self driving cars are safer than human drivers. It's probably better to say I feel safer around Waymo and <insert other trusted company> self driving cars.

With such complexity and unknowns within the codebase - there is likely going to be a much higher amount of variability w.r.t. safety and AI decision making. I'm not so sure I'd categorically say a self driving car from say Nikola or some SPAC'd startup would make me feel all that safe.

"I feel so safe around commit 07cc283a8344 of the Waymo software."

I'm the exact opposite. I've had a couple incidents that make me not trust them.

(Weird this was down voted, just sharing personal experiences)

With Waymo? Or others?

Waymo and Cruise.

I live right near Oracle Park where there was a big Cruise Yard, and there is a ton of traffic and cruise, zoox, etc self driving cars circling the neighborhood endlessly.

It's not as if I've had a overtly terrible single incident. It's as though they're causing unsafe driving conditions for pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists regularly.

Driving unreasonably slow and erratic, stopping in the middle of streets, blocking traffic, not responding to the need for them to move or respond as human driver would.

They're problematic. I could start a youtube channel or something it happens enough in my day to day life.

All of your descriptions perfectly match my experiences with Cruise but not at all my experiences with Waymo.

I bike by Oracle park almost every day.

Because you didn't share why. Also, please don't complain about downvotes, it's in the HN guidelines.

Seeing a bike and recognizing a bike are two different things with self driving cars. I like OP's idea of having a visual cue that it recognized a bike.

That's the exact opposite assumption I'd make. As a biker, a pedestrian, or a driver.

> they do

Until you're being dragged under them.

> I've wondered if they could use the light/display on top to signal acknowledgment?

They have started trialing exactly this as of about two weeks ago. [edit: But I haven’t seen it operate up close yet.]

So like Apple Vision Pro's EyeSight but for a Waymo?

Combine this: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-prev...

and this: https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/17fjv1h/emoji_sph...

Assuming that they will eventually have displays around the sides to show ads, they could also use those to show nearby people who they see and how they plan to maneuver around them.

So if they are showing an ad on the display on your side it means that either it doesn’t see you or thinks you are far enough away that it does not have to account for you in its short term planning.

If it sees you and is taking you into account it could show a diagram showing you and what it plans to do.

If they will be running around with displays showing ads I'll never be without few rocks in my pocket just to keep things balanced and maintaining healthier society.

I know it sounds harsh, but force feeding me ads I definitely don't want to see while being unable to avoid them (stay home ain't no argument in civilized world) is unacceptable, and there is no but XYZ to make that stance any weaker.

Ads are a cancer of society, not the worst one but the core principle is rotten beyond reason - manipulate general population at your will, against their default choices, for money or power (or worse).

How do you feel about billboards?

Ditto as a motorcyclist.

Making eye contact with drivers makes riding a lot easier. You know they see you.

When I'm on a motorcycle, I assume they are never seeing me - but it's still useful to see them, and I can often tell what they are about to do before they've started doing it. I have not yet had the chance to share the road with a robot, but I wonder whether that feeling for traffic will still work.

The motorcycle safety courses teaches NOT to assume a driver sees or will yield the right away because of "eye contact".

Agreed.

It would be nice if there were a simple directional light on the top of robotaxis that indicates where it’s intending to go next (directional light) and how imminently it will begin moving (perhaps how fast the light blinks) when e.g. at a stop sign.

Yeh, the only time I assume a driver has really seen me is when we make eye contact.

(But - twice in 20 years I’ve had the chilling experience of a driver making eye contact and pulling out in front of me anyway.)

I don't think that's actually all that uncommon. I'll give them the benefit of doubt and assume that they habitually turn to look, but don't actually see or that they grossly misjudge your speed.

That was more of a problem in my 'Sturm & Drang' time. These days grannys on their electically-assisted bicycles are faster than me, hence I don't surprise car drivers any more.

As a motorcycle I have been pleasantly surprised by the fact that they always seem to see me and give way when lane splitting.

I was very harsh about the extremely poor interactions with Cruise, but I have yet to see anything to sour me with Waymo.

since I'm out walking the dog often, in the dark and in daytime:

Often you can't tell if a human sees you. Even in day, they may have tinted windows, or the sun might make it impossible. At night, you definitely can't tell.

As a constant pedestrian, my main concern is people turning right at a light as I'm starting out in the crosswalk. In that case you can usually check their eyes from the side even at night. If I don't have confirmation they see me, or if they aren't obviously stopping for me, I don't go.

If it's someone at a 4-way stop, you can usually tell when they come to a stop far from back the crosswalk. Otherwise I don't walk out in front of them. I also try to be aware if I'm in their blind spot.

yes. Always cautious. And yell "Stop!!!" if in any doubt. Better to have them be pissed off than running over you.

You can imagine some ominously humorous implementations of this. Red dot laser for pointing out people?

In the now defunct Apple Car, the windshield exterior was a giant OLED that rendered weird big eyes using the same code as on the Vision Pro. Apparently Johnny Ive insisted on this expensive external screen to make the car feel more human.

(Not really. But you never know?)

Jobs already worked on this during his time at Pixar:

https://cdn.webshopapp.com/shops/70489/files/113563271/600x6...

as a biker, they are seeing you and that is how i always assume

I agree that the UX could be better but it's definitely seeing you better than a human would. It can see you behind shit and around corners and in blind spots. Whether it reacts correctly is another story, but additionally, there's a strong incentive for Waymo not to hit you because of the regulatory regime. They have to report all collisions to a regulatory body and they have to send in all the data they had showing why they hit you. If they're at fault, you're almost certainly getting a big payout.

There was a Honda concept car years back that had LCDs in front of the headlights. They used them to make eye expressions to signal things

I really like the idea, maybe eyes and gaze come across as a bit creepy though.

The cars could see you at one moment, and then not see you the next. They lack any good object permanence unlike humans, so I'm not sure surfacing this information would help.

even without eye contact i'll take a waymo over a sf driver every time when biking in the city...

Yeah, I agree there is opportunity for improvement here.

Maybe they should take a note from the Apple Vision Pro and display a pair of eyes on the windshield looking at you? (/s ?) :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com