8 ms·

You really can't control the behavior of the driver behind you, you just have to trust that they're going to do their job of not hitting things in front of them

You really can't control the behavior of the driver behind you, you just have to trust that they're going to do their job of not hitting things in front of them, just as you are. If humans are hitting things in front of them more often because they're concerned that the person behind them might not stop, that's probably indicative of a flaw in human driving behavior. The rules surrounding accident fault exist because of the individual responsibility assigned to driving behavior. If someone would have rear-ended a hesitant waymo, they would have rear-ended an equally hesitant human.

dmurray 2y ago
It obviously wouldn't be ethical for Waymo to brake aggressively just to catch out humans tailgating them too closely (at no risk to Waymo, after all, since the insurance of the car behind them will pay for damage and let's say they do this only when there are no human occupants). Even though it's a "flaw" in the tailgater's behaviour and even though he will have the responsibility assigned to him. So is it ethical to brake aggressively to avoid a 1% chance of an accident up ahead? 5%? 0.1%? This is a real life trolley problem, and the answer can't be as simple as "always brake, feel no remorse because it's the other driver's problem" even if that might be a good heuristic for a human to teach in driver's education.
- kube-system 2y ago
  That isn't just unethical, it is illegal. You can't intentionally cause an accident. The waymo would have the responsibility assigned to them if it was determined that was programmed that way intentionally.
  - crote 2y ago
    It doesn't need to be intentionally programmed to cause an accident. The far more likely scenario is that it simply doesn't take into account what's behind them. It causes accidents by unintentional negligence, simply because nobody bothered to add a check. Human drivers are taught to avoid scenarios like that. During drivers' lessons you will be taught to check your mirror before braking, and you will be taught to activate your alarm lights when there's a sudden stop on a highway to alert the drivers after you. Basic self-preservation makes it pretty clear that you don't want a car crashing into your rear. Waymo doesn't need to care. If the other vehicle is considered at fault, their insurance is going to pay for your damages. It's at worst a minor inconvenience, so why bother spending engineering time on writing code to avoid it?
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Human drivers are taught to avoid scenarios like that. During drivers' lessons you will be taught to check your mirror before braking If I'm going to crash into something I'm going to be slamming the brakes without checking my mirrors first.
      - toast0 2y ago
        Priorities. You should brake immediately to avoid an impending collision, of course. OTOH, if you're driving and the light changes to yellow and you have room to stop, you should check your mirrors to see if there's a vehicle behind you that's unlikely to stop. Additionally, in the impending collision decision, once you've taken initial action, you'll want to check on traffic to see if you have an option to evade the obstacle. And if you don't have an out, if there's a vehicle behind you and try to maintain space ahead and behind if possible.
        gruez 2y ago
        >OTOH, if you're driving and the light changes to yellow and you have room to stop, you should check your mirrors to see if there's a vehicle behind you that's unlikely to stop. If there's room to stop, then I'll still be braking immediately because braking immediately gives me the most time to brake, which makes the deceleration as gradual as possible and gives the person behind me the most time to react. I'm not sure what the alternative is supposed to be. Delay braking but having brake harder later? Gun it and try to run the yellow?
        happymellon 2y ago
        No, you should brake. It sounds like people defending their terrible driving.
        mlazos 2y ago
        I had to retake a driver’s test recently and I’ve never heard of checking your mirrors before a yellow. What’s “a vehicle unlikely to stop” even mean? Like I can ascertain that in a second? The driver behind you is supposed to be traveling a minimum safe distance behind you for their reaction time. If they aren’t it’s 100% their problem.
  - hoseja 2y ago
    Good luck extracting intention from the driving AI.
- tstrimple 2y ago
  > (at no risk to Waymo, after all, since the insurance of the car behind them will pay for damage and let's say they do this only when there are no human occupants That vehicle will still be taken out of rotation for repairs. In situations like that, does the insurance typically cover lost revenue as well? Otherwise there's still a ton of risk for Waymo if it's a typical deductible + repair costs. I genuinely know nothing about insuring a business like Waymo.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Depends on state law: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/LOSS-OF-USE-CHART.pdf https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/LOSS-OF-U... But generally, yes, loss of use is generally something that courts recognize as a valid claim.
clort 2y ago
> you just have to trust that they're going to do their job of not hitting things in front of them, just as you are. Thats a very human-centric viewpoint, understandably. A human driver can only see in one direction, and should be looking in the direction where things are happening the vast majority of the time. A self-driving car can see in all directions and in fact is looking in all directions at all times. Perhaps the rules will be updated at some point.
- kube-system 2y ago
  No, it's not a human-centric viewpoint. It's a physics centric viewpoint. When one vehicle follows another, the rear vehicle is on a collision course. Human drivers are required to be aware of vehicles in all directions at all times.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    You only need to train one person to drive to realize there's a really huge gulf between the bare minimum you're legally mandated to do when driving and what you should do to make driving less dangerous and less frequently displeasurable.
- throwup238 2y ago
  > A human driver can only see in one direction And it's usually in the direction of their phone. Even while driving.
- crote 2y ago
  > A human driver can only see in one direction Cars have mirrors. Any halfway-decent drivers' education will teach you to regularly check them, especially when you're about to brake.
  - bitnasty 2y ago
    How can you simultaneously check all the mirrors at the same time while also not looking away from the front?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
83 2y ago
You might not be able to control the behavior of the driver behind you, but you can certainly influence it. When there's someone close behind me and I know I'm approaching a situation that might require me to make a sudden stop, I often hold the brakes just enough to trigger the brake lights. This lets the person behind know to back off, or at least be ready. I'm curious if Waymo does any sort of warning brake lights like that if chance of panic braking > 15% or something.

dmurray 2y ago

It obviously wouldn't be ethical for Waymo to brake aggressively just to catch out humans tailgating them too closely (at no risk to Waymo, after all, since the insurance of the car behind them will pay for damage and let's say they do this only when there are no human occupants). Even though it's a "flaw" in the tailgater's behaviour and even though he will have the responsibility assigned to him. So is it ethical to brake aggressively to avoid a 1% chance of an accident up ahead? 5%? 0.1%? This is a real life trolley problem, and the answer can't be as simple as "always brake, feel no remorse because it's the other driver's problem" even if that might be a good heuristic for a human to teach in driver's education.

kube-system 2y ago
That isn't just unethical, it is illegal. You can't intentionally cause an accident. The waymo would have the responsibility assigned to them if it was determined that was programmed that way intentionally.
- crote 2y ago
  It doesn't need to be intentionally programmed to cause an accident. The far more likely scenario is that it simply doesn't take into account what's behind them. It causes accidents by unintentional negligence, simply because nobody bothered to add a check. Human drivers are taught to avoid scenarios like that. During drivers' lessons you will be taught to check your mirror before braking, and you will be taught to activate your alarm lights when there's a sudden stop on a highway to alert the drivers after you. Basic self-preservation makes it pretty clear that you don't want a car crashing into your rear. Waymo doesn't need to care. If the other vehicle is considered at fault, their insurance is going to pay for your damages. It's at worst a minor inconvenience, so why bother spending engineering time on writing code to avoid it?
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Human drivers are taught to avoid scenarios like that. During drivers' lessons you will be taught to check your mirror before braking If I'm going to crash into something I'm going to be slamming the brakes without checking my mirrors first.
    - toast0 2y ago
      Priorities. You should brake immediately to avoid an impending collision, of course. OTOH, if you're driving and the light changes to yellow and you have room to stop, you should check your mirrors to see if there's a vehicle behind you that's unlikely to stop. Additionally, in the impending collision decision, once you've taken initial action, you'll want to check on traffic to see if you have an option to evade the obstacle. And if you don't have an out, if there's a vehicle behind you and try to maintain space ahead and behind if possible.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >OTOH, if you're driving and the light changes to yellow and you have room to stop, you should check your mirrors to see if there's a vehicle behind you that's unlikely to stop. If there's room to stop, then I'll still be braking immediately because braking immediately gives me the most time to brake, which makes the deceleration as gradual as possible and gives the person behind me the most time to react. I'm not sure what the alternative is supposed to be. Delay braking but having brake harder later? Gun it and try to run the yellow?
        happymellon 2y ago
        No, you should brake. It sounds like people defending their terrible driving.
      - mlazos 2y ago
        I had to retake a driver’s test recently and I’ve never heard of checking your mirrors before a yellow. What’s “a vehicle unlikely to stop” even mean? Like I can ascertain that in a second? The driver behind you is supposed to be traveling a minimum safe distance behind you for their reaction time. If they aren’t it’s 100% their problem.
- hoseja 2y ago
  Good luck extracting intention from the driving AI.
tstrimple 2y ago
> (at no risk to Waymo, after all, since the insurance of the car behind them will pay for damage and let's say they do this only when there are no human occupants That vehicle will still be taken out of rotation for repairs. In situations like that, does the insurance typically cover lost revenue as well? Otherwise there's still a ton of risk for Waymo if it's a typical deductible + repair costs. I genuinely know nothing about insuring a business like Waymo.
- kube-system 2y ago
  Depends on state law: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/LOSS-OF-USE-CHART.pdf https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/LOSS-OF-U... But generally, yes, loss of use is generally something that courts recognize as a valid claim.

clort 2y ago

> you just have to trust that they're going to do their job of not hitting things in front of them, just as you are. Thats a very human-centric viewpoint, understandably. A human driver can only see in one direction, and should be looking in the direction where things are happening the vast majority of the time. A self-driving car can see in all directions and in fact is looking in all directions at all times. Perhaps the rules will be updated at some point.

kube-system 2y ago
No, it's not a human-centric viewpoint. It's a physics centric viewpoint. When one vehicle follows another, the rear vehicle is on a collision course. Human drivers are required to be aware of vehicles in all directions at all times.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  You only need to train one person to drive to realize there's a really huge gulf between the bare minimum you're legally mandated to do when driving and what you should do to make driving less dangerous and less frequently displeasurable.
throwup238 2y ago
> A human driver can only see in one direction And it's usually in the direction of their phone. Even while driving.
crote 2y ago
> A human driver can only see in one direction Cars have mirrors. Any halfway-decent drivers' education will teach you to regularly check them, especially when you're about to brake.
- bitnasty 2y ago
  How can you simultaneously check all the mirrors at the same time while also not looking away from the front?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

83 2y ago

You might not be able to control the behavior of the driver behind you, but you can certainly influence it. When there's someone close behind me and I know I'm approaching a situation that might require me to make a sudden stop, I often hold the brakes just enough to trigger the brake lights. This lets the person behind know to back off, or at least be ready. I'm curious if Waymo does any sort of warning brake lights like that if chance of panic braking > 15% or something.