Hacker News Reader

Comment by bpodgursky | Hacker News Reader

A human driver would most likely have killed this child. That's what should be on the ledger.

That's pretty hyperbolic. At less than 20 mph, car vs pedestrial is unlikely to result in death. IIHS says [1] in an article about other things:

> As far as fatalities were concerned, pedestrians struck at 20 mph had only a 1% chance of dying from their injuries

Certainly, being struck at 6 mph rather than 17 mph is likely to result in a much better outcome for the pedestrian. And that should not be minimized; although it is valuable to consider the situation (when we have sufficient information) and validate Waymo's suggestion that the average human driver would also have struck the pedestrian and at greater speed. That may or may not be accurate, given the context of a busy school dropoff situation... many human drivers are extra cautious in that context and may not have reached that speed; depending on the end to end route, some human drivers would have avoided the street with the school all together based on the time, etc. It's certainly seems like a good result for the premise, child unexpectedly appears from between large parked vehicles, but maybe there should have been an expectation.

[1] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicle-height-compounds-da...

> To estimate injury risk at different impact speeds, IIHS researchers examined 202 crashes involving pedestrians ages 16 or older

A child is probably more likely to die in a collision of the same speed as an adult.

There's a 50/50 chance that a distracted driver wouldn't have slowed at all and run the child over.

How many human drivers do under 20mph, like ever?

Plenty. Have you ever driven on a freeway at rush hour? Have you driven in a pickup/dropoff line at a school or an airport? You may or may not want to go 100, but when there's a vehicle in front of you going 20mph or less, you're kind of stuck.

Yes, I have seen how people struggle to drive at low speed and can only do start/stop, accelerating to a way too high speed only to slam on brakes, repeating endlessly.

But really, did you seriously read my post as meaning people literally can't go slower than 20 so just plough into whatever is in the way? I'm obviously talking about an open road situation. Hardly any human drivers go under 20 by choice.

What does an open road situation have to do with the incident situation?

For me, the policy question I want answered is if this was a human driver we would have a clear person to sue for liability and damages. For a computer, who is ultimately responsible in a situation where suing for compensation happens? Is it the company? An officer in the company? This creates a situation where a company can afford to bury litigants in costs to even sue, whereas a private driver would lean on their insurance.

So you're worried that instead of facing off against an insurance agency, the plantiff would be facing off against a private company? Doesn't seem like a huge difference to me

Is there actually any difference? I'd have though that the self-driving car would need to be insured to be allowed on the road, so in both cases you're going up against the insurance company rather than the actual owner.

Personally I'm a lot more interested in kids not dying than in making income for injury lawyers. But that's just me.

Your comment implies that they are less interested in kids not dying. Nowhere do they say that.

I'm not interested in the policy question.

Then don't reply??

That still doesn't excuse trying to make them look bad.

It was a reply to my comment.

Waymo hits you -> you seek relief from Waymo's insurance company. Waymo's insurance premium go up. Waymo can weather a LOT of that. Business is still good. Thus, poor financial feedback loop. No real skin in the game.

John Smith hits you -> you seek relief from John's insurance company. John's insurance premium goes up. He can't afford that. Thus, effective financial feedback loop. Real skin in the game.

NOW ... add criminal fault due to driving decision or state of vehicle ... John goes to jail. Waymo? Still making money in the large. I'd like to see more skin in their game.

> John Smith hits you -> you seek relief from John's insurance company. John's insurance premium goes up. He can't afford that. Thus, effective financial feedback loop. Real skin in the game.

John probably (at least where I live) does not have insurance, maybe I could sue him, but he has no assets to speak of (especially if he is living out of his car), so I'm just going to pay a bunch of legal fees for nothing. He doesn't car, because he has no skin in the game. The state doesn't care, they aren't going to throw him in jail or even take away his license (if he has one), they aren't going to even impound his car.

Honestly, I'd much rather be hit by a Waymo than John.

> John probably (at least where I live) does not have insurance, maybe I could sue him, but he has no assets to speak of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_proof

I see. Thank you for sharing. Insurance here is mandatory here for all motorists.

If you are hit by an underinsured driver, the government steps in and additional underinsured motorist protection (e.g. hit by an out of province/country motorist) is available to all and not expensive.

Jail time for an at-fault driver here is very uncommon but can be applied if serious injury or death results from a driver's conduct. This is quite conceivable with humans or AI, IMO. Who will face jail time as a human driver would in the same scenario?

Hit and run, leaving the scene, is also a criminal offence with potential jail time that a human motorist faces. You would hope this is unlikely with AI, but if it happens a small percentage of the time, who at Waymo faces jail as a human driver would?

I'm talking about edge cases here, not the usual fender bender. But this thread was about policy/regs and that needs to consider crazy edge cases before there are tens of millions of AI drivers on the road.

Insurance here is also mandatory for all motorists. Doesn't matter if the rules aren't actually enforced.

Waymo has deep pockets, so everyone is going to try and sue them, even if they don't have a legitimate grievance. Where I live, the city/state would totally milk each incident from a BigCo for all it was worth. "Hit and run" by a drunk waymo? The state is just salivating thinking about the possibility.

I don't agree with you that BigCorp doesn't have any skin in the game. They are basically playing the game in a bikini.

> Insurance here is mandatory here for all motorists.

You do know that insurance being mandatory doesn't stop people from driving without insurance, right?

> If you are hit by an underinsured driver, the government steps in and additional underinsured motorist protection (e.g. hit by an out of province/country motorist) is available to all and not expensive.

Jolly good for you.

If I don't carry underinsured coverage, and someone totals my car or injures me with theirs, I'm basically fucked.

Even if you have uninsured coverage, you might still be dead.

>John Smith hits you -> you seek relief from John's insurance company. John's insurance premium goes up. He can't afford that. Thus, effective financial feedback loop. Real skin in the game.

Ah great, so there's a lower chance of that specific John Smith hitting me again in the future!

Yes, that is the specific deterrence effect.

The general deterrence effect we observe in society is that punishment of one person has an effect on others who observe it, making them more cautious and less likely to offend.

Would have. Could Have. Should have.

Most humans would be halfway into other lane after seeing kids near the street.

Apologist see something different than me.

Perception.

No, "the ledger" should record actual facts, and not whatever fictional alternatives we imagine.

Fact: This child's life was saved by the car being driven by a computer program instead of a human.

No, the fact is that the child sustained minor injuries. And, fact: no human driver made the decision to drive a vehicle in that exact position and velocity. Imagining a human-driven vehicle in the same place is certainly valid, but your imagination is not fact. I imagine that the kid would be better off if no vehicle was there. But that's not a fact, that's an interpretation -- perhaps the kid would have ended up dead under an entirely different tire if they hadn't been hit by the waymo!

This is a good point. Cars should be banned near schools. That is a logical conclusion given the facts.

Considering school buses kill children every year, do we ban them near schools as well?

That is not a logical conclusion given the facts.

Instead of a human who was driving exactly the same as the Waymo up until the instant the child ran out. Important distinction.

Disagree, most human drivers would notice they are near an elementary school with kids coming/going, crossing guard present, and been driving very carefully near blocked sight lines.

Better reporting would have asked real people the name of the elementary school, so we could see some pictures of the area. The link to NHTSA didn't point to the investigation, but it's under https://www.nhtsa.gov/search-safety-issues

"NHTSA is aware that the incident occurred within two blocks of a Santa Monica, CA elementary school during normal school drop off hours; that there were other children, a crossing guard, and several double-parked vehicles in the vicinity; and that the child ran across the street from behind a double parked SUV towards the school and was struck by the Waymo AV. Waymo reported that the child sustained minor injuries."

We're getting into hypotheticals but i will say in general i much much prefer being around Waymos/Zooxs/etc. than humans when riding a bicycle.

We're impatient emotional creatures. Sometimes when I'm on a bike the bike lane merges onto the road for a stretch, no choice but to take up a lane. I've had people accelerate behind me and screech the tyres, stopping just short of my back wheel in a threatening manner which they then did repeatedly as i ride the short distance in the lane before the bike lane re-opens.

To say "human drivers would notice they are near an elementary school" completely disregards the fuckwits that are out there on the road today. It disregards human nature. We've all seen people do shit like i describe above. It also disregards that every time i see an automated taxi it seems to drive on the cautious side already.

Give me the unemotional, infinite patience, drives very much on the cautious side automatic taxi over humans any day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com