3 ms·

Certainly, I'm not against constructive criticism of Waymo. I just think it's important to consider the counterfactual. You're right too that an especially prud

Certainly, I'm not against constructive criticism of Waymo. I just think it's important to consider the counterfactual. You're right too that an especially prudent human driver may have avoided the scenario altogether, and Waymo should strive to be that defensive.

themafia 9mo ago
> I'm not against constructive criticism of Waymo. I feel like you have to say this out loud because many people in these discussions don't share this view. Billion dollar corporate experiments conducted in public are sacrosanct for some reason. > I just think it's important to consider the counterfactual More than 50% of roadway fatalities involve drugs or alcohol. If you want to spend your efforts improving safety _anywhere_ it's right here. Self driving cars do not stand a chance of improving outcomes as much as sensible policy does. Europe leads the US here by a wide margin.
- jobs_throwaway 9mo ago
  > I feel like you have to say this out loud because many people in these discussions don't share this view. Billion dollar corporate experiments conducted in public are sacrosanct for some reason. Yes, and I find it annoying that some people do seem to think Waymo should never be criticized. That said, we already have an astounding amount of data, and that data clearly shows that the experiment is successful in reducing crashes. Waymos are absolutely, without question already making streets safer than if humans were driving those cars. > If you want to spend your efforts improving safety _anywhere_ it's right here. We can and should do both. And as your comment seems to imply but does not explicitly state, we should also improve road design to be safer, which Europe absolutely kicks America's ass on.
  - themafia 9mo ago
    > and that data clearly shows that the experiment is successful in reducing crashes I disagree. You need way more data, like orders of magnitude more. There are trillions of miles driven in the US every year. Those miles often include driving in inclement weather which is something Waymo hasn't even scraped the surface of yet. > without question There are _tons_ of questions. This is not even a simple problem. I cannot understand this prerogative. It's far too eager or hopeful. > We can and should do both Well Google is operating Waymo and "we" control road policy. One of these things we can act on today and the other relies on huge amounts of investments paying off in scenarios that haven't even been tested successfully yet. I see an environment forming where we ignore the hard problems and pray these corporate overlords solve the problem on their own. It's madness.
    - decimalenough 9mo ago
      You're moving the goalposts. The claim is that Waymos are safer than human drivers in the areas and under the conditions where they currently operate. Yeah, I'm sure Waymos would struggle in a blizzard in Duluth, but a) so would a human and b) Waymos aren't driving there. (Yet.)
      - themafia 9mo ago
        > You're moving the goalposts No. I'm not. I'm being realistic about the technology. You're artificially limiting the scope. > so would a human This is goalpost moving 101. The question isn't would a human driver also struggle but _would it be better_? You have zero data.
        jobs_throwaway 9mo ago
        > This is goalpost moving 101. The question isn't would a human driver also struggle but _would it be better_? You have zero data. It is not moving the goalpost to say "so would a human". Comparison to human drivers is exactly the stated goalpost (and it should be). > You have zero data. Outrageously uninformed take. We have mountains of data that show Waymos in aggregate are safer drivers than humans.
    - jobs_throwaway 9mo ago
      > You need way more data, like orders of magnitude more. There are trillions of miles driven in the US every year. Absurd, reductive, and non-empirical. Waymos crash and cause injury/fatality far less frequently than human drivers, full stop. You are simply out of your mind if you believe otherwise, and you should re-evaluate the data. > Those miles often include driving in inclement weather which is something Waymo hasn't even scraped the surface of yet. Yes. No one is claiming that Waymos are better drivers than humans in inclement weather, because they don't operate in those conditions. That does not mean Waymos are not able to outperform human drivers in the conditions in which they do operate. > I see an environment forming where we ignore the hard problems and pray these corporate overlords solve the problem on their own. It's madness. What's madness is your attitude that Waymos' track record does not show they are effective are reducing crashes. And again, working on policy does not prevent us from also improving technology as you seem to believe it does.
  - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
    >data clearly shows that the experiment is successful in reducing crashes. That's fine. But crashes are relatively rare and what matters is accountability. Will Waymo be accountable for hitting this kid the way a human would? Or will they fight in court to somehow blame the pedestrian? Those are my big concerns when it comes to self driving vehicles, and history with tech suggests that they love playing hot potato instead of being held accountable. And yes, better walkable infrastructure is a win for all. The minor concern I have is the notion that self driving is perfect and we end up creating even more car centric infrastructure. I'm not sure who to blame on that one.
    - BurningFrog 9mo ago
      Waymo is driving the car and should be held accountable like any other driver. I assume that's how it works already.
      - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
        I hope so too. I'll be keeping a close eye on how they handle this, though. My benefit of the doubt for tech was already long drained, and is especially critical for safety critical industries.
        BurningFrog 9mo ago
        I think this is more about the legal system than tech credibility. That is, I expect that Waymo will be required to pay for accidents they cause, whether they want to or not.
        johnnyanmac 9mo ago
        I believe how they navigate the legal system through this will indeed affect their credibility. It's the one channel where you need to be the most honest (if you aren't the government itself), so I hold a lot more weight on that than on PR statements.
- ufmace 9mo ago
  > More than 50% of roadway fatalities involve drugs or alcohol. If you want to spend your efforts improving safety _anywhere_ it's right here. Self driving cars do not stand a chance of improving outcomes as much as sensible policy does. Europe leads the US here by a wide margin. Could you spell out exactly what "sensible" policy changes you were thinking of? Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is already illegal in every state. Are you advocating for drastically more severe enforcement, regardless of which race the person driving is, or what it does to the national prison population? Or perhaps for "improved transit access", which is a nice idea, but will take many decades to make a real difference?
  - bragr 9mo ago
    >Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is already illegal in every state. FWIW, your first OWI in Wisconsin, with no aggravating factors, is a civil offense, not a crime, and in most states it is rare to do any time or completely lose your license for the first offense. I'm not sure exactly what OP is getting at, but DUI/OWI limits and enforcement are pretty lax in the US compared to other countries. Our standard .08 BAC limit is a lot higher than many other countries.
    - ufmace 9mo ago
      That's true, but note that getting much more severe on enforcement and punishment for DUI/OWI will result in an even higher prison population, more serious life consequences for poor and minorities, etc, when the US is constantly getting trashed for how bad those things are already. To be a bit snarkier, and not directed at you, but I wish these supposedly superior Europeans would tell us what they actually want us to do. Should we enforce OWI laws more strictly, or lower the prison population? We can't do both!
      - Marsymars 9mo ago
        I suspect you could step up enforcement in ways that don’t involve prison time simply by taking away people’s licenses, and then having a fast feedback loop to catch people driving without a license.

themafia 9mo ago

> I'm not against constructive criticism of Waymo. I feel like you have to say this out loud because many people in these discussions don't share this view. Billion dollar corporate experiments conducted in public are sacrosanct for some reason. > I just think it's important to consider the counterfactual More than 50% of roadway fatalities involve drugs or alcohol. If you want to spend your efforts improving safety _anywhere_ it's right here. Self driving cars do not stand a chance of improving outcomes as much as sensible policy does. Europe leads the US here by a wide margin.

jobs_throwaway 9mo ago
> I feel like you have to say this out loud because many people in these discussions don't share this view. Billion dollar corporate experiments conducted in public are sacrosanct for some reason. Yes, and I find it annoying that some people do seem to think Waymo should never be criticized. That said, we already have an astounding amount of data, and that data clearly shows that the experiment is successful in reducing crashes. Waymos are absolutely, without question already making streets safer than if humans were driving those cars. > If you want to spend your efforts improving safety _anywhere_ it's right here. We can and should do both. And as your comment seems to imply but does not explicitly state, we should also improve road design to be safer, which Europe absolutely kicks America's ass on.
- themafia 9mo ago
  > and that data clearly shows that the experiment is successful in reducing crashes I disagree. You need way more data, like orders of magnitude more. There are trillions of miles driven in the US every year. Those miles often include driving in inclement weather which is something Waymo hasn't even scraped the surface of yet. > without question There are _tons_ of questions. This is not even a simple problem. I cannot understand this prerogative. It's far too eager or hopeful. > We can and should do both Well Google is operating Waymo and "we" control road policy. One of these things we can act on today and the other relies on huge amounts of investments paying off in scenarios that haven't even been tested successfully yet. I see an environment forming where we ignore the hard problems and pray these corporate overlords solve the problem on their own. It's madness.
  - decimalenough 9mo ago
    You're moving the goalposts. The claim is that Waymos are safer than human drivers in the areas and under the conditions where they currently operate. Yeah, I'm sure Waymos would struggle in a blizzard in Duluth, but a) so would a human and b) Waymos aren't driving there. (Yet.)
    - themafia 9mo ago
      > You're moving the goalposts No. I'm not. I'm being realistic about the technology. You're artificially limiting the scope. > so would a human This is goalpost moving 101. The question isn't would a human driver also struggle but _would it be better_? You have zero data.
      - jobs_throwaway 9mo ago
        > This is goalpost moving 101. The question isn't would a human driver also struggle but _would it be better_? You have zero data. It is not moving the goalpost to say "so would a human". Comparison to human drivers is exactly the stated goalpost (and it should be). > You have zero data. Outrageously uninformed take. We have mountains of data that show Waymos in aggregate are safer drivers than humans.
  - jobs_throwaway 9mo ago
    > You need way more data, like orders of magnitude more. There are trillions of miles driven in the US every year. Absurd, reductive, and non-empirical. Waymos crash and cause injury/fatality far less frequently than human drivers, full stop. You are simply out of your mind if you believe otherwise, and you should re-evaluate the data. > Those miles often include driving in inclement weather which is something Waymo hasn't even scraped the surface of yet. Yes. No one is claiming that Waymos are better drivers than humans in inclement weather, because they don't operate in those conditions. That does not mean Waymos are not able to outperform human drivers in the conditions in which they do operate. > I see an environment forming where we ignore the hard problems and pray these corporate overlords solve the problem on their own. It's madness. What's madness is your attitude that Waymos' track record does not show they are effective are reducing crashes. And again, working on policy does not prevent us from also improving technology as you seem to believe it does.
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  >data clearly shows that the experiment is successful in reducing crashes. That's fine. But crashes are relatively rare and what matters is accountability. Will Waymo be accountable for hitting this kid the way a human would? Or will they fight in court to somehow blame the pedestrian? Those are my big concerns when it comes to self driving vehicles, and history with tech suggests that they love playing hot potato instead of being held accountable. And yes, better walkable infrastructure is a win for all. The minor concern I have is the notion that self driving is perfect and we end up creating even more car centric infrastructure. I'm not sure who to blame on that one.
  - BurningFrog 9mo ago
    Waymo is driving the car and should be held accountable like any other driver. I assume that's how it works already.
    - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
      I hope so too. I'll be keeping a close eye on how they handle this, though. My benefit of the doubt for tech was already long drained, and is especially critical for safety critical industries.
      - BurningFrog 9mo ago
        I think this is more about the legal system than tech credibility. That is, I expect that Waymo will be required to pay for accidents they cause, whether they want to or not.
        johnnyanmac 9mo ago
        I believe how they navigate the legal system through this will indeed affect their credibility. It's the one channel where you need to be the most honest (if you aren't the government itself), so I hold a lot more weight on that than on PR statements.
ufmace 9mo ago
> More than 50% of roadway fatalities involve drugs or alcohol. If you want to spend your efforts improving safety _anywhere_ it's right here. Self driving cars do not stand a chance of improving outcomes as much as sensible policy does. Europe leads the US here by a wide margin. Could you spell out exactly what "sensible" policy changes you were thinking of? Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is already illegal in every state. Are you advocating for drastically more severe enforcement, regardless of which race the person driving is, or what it does to the national prison population? Or perhaps for "improved transit access", which is a nice idea, but will take many decades to make a real difference?
- bragr 9mo ago
  >Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is already illegal in every state. FWIW, your first OWI in Wisconsin, with no aggravating factors, is a civil offense, not a crime, and in most states it is rare to do any time or completely lose your license for the first offense. I'm not sure exactly what OP is getting at, but DUI/OWI limits and enforcement are pretty lax in the US compared to other countries. Our standard .08 BAC limit is a lot higher than many other countries.
  - ufmace 9mo ago
    That's true, but note that getting much more severe on enforcement and punishment for DUI/OWI will result in an even higher prison population, more serious life consequences for poor and minorities, etc, when the US is constantly getting trashed for how bad those things are already. To be a bit snarkier, and not directed at you, but I wish these supposedly superior Europeans would tell us what they actually want us to do. Should we enforce OWI laws more strictly, or lower the prison population? We can't do both!
    - Marsymars 9mo ago
      I suspect you could step up enforcement in ways that don’t involve prison time simply by taking away people’s licenses, and then having a fast feedback loop to catch people driving without a license.