3 ms·

I've long expected Waymo's approach to prevail simply because - aside from whether vision-only proves good enough to some standard - it will be easy to lobby fo

by aggie 8mo ago

I've long expected Waymo's approach to prevail simply because - aside from whether vision-only proves good enough to some standard - it will be easy to lobby for regulations that favor the more conservative approach. But I also don't think we can take anything from what Waymo claims about the feasibility of vision-only.

torginus 8mo ago
I think past experience shows that the US prefers a wait and see approach - owning in part I think to it federal structure, where states compete for companies good graces and money, so if State A bans something, State B will allow it and gain an advantage in that area.
ibejoeb 8mo ago
Moreover, why draw a hard line on vision only when there is existing technology is available to augment it? It's not like they have to develop 3 novel technologies.
agildehaus 8mo ago
Waymo has posted videos of accidents they've avoided purely because their lidar picked up on a pedestrian before their cameras saw anything. A favorite of mine: https://x.com/dmitri_dolgov/status/1900219562437861685 https://x.com/dmitri_dolgov/status/1900219562437861685
- autoexec 8mo ago
  They're very public about the data that makes them look good, but they went to court to keep their safety data from the public. (https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/22/waymo-to-keep-robotaxi-safety-details-secret-court-rules/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/22/waymo-to-keep-robotaxi-saf...)
  - thevillagechief 8mo ago
    That lawsuit was about trade secrets shared with DMV. And DMV advised them to file a restraining order against a third party seeking redacted info.
    - autoexec 8mo ago
      It was actually about all kinds of information about the safety of their cars, how the company handles collisions, how they decide to make human drivers take over, details of injuries caused by their cars, etc. The DMV required them to submit their safety data before allowing the vehicles on the road. Waymo claims that the data the DMV needed about the public safety of their cars, and the emails they exchanged about it with regulators, were entirely "trade secrets" to keep them hidden from the public who understandably felt like they should be able to access that information since those cars are going to be on their streets.

by aggie 8mo ago

torginus 8mo ago

I think past experience shows that the US prefers a wait and see approach - owning in part I think to it federal structure, where states compete for companies good graces and money, so if State A bans something, State B will allow it and gain an advantage in that area.

ibejoeb 8mo ago

Moreover, why draw a hard line on vision only when there is existing technology is available to augment it? It's not like they have to develop 3 novel technologies.

agildehaus 8mo ago

Waymo has posted videos of accidents they've avoided purely because their lidar picked up on a pedestrian before their cameras saw anything. A favorite of mine: https://x.com/dmitri_dolgov/status/1900219562437861685 https://x.com/dmitri_dolgov/status/1900219562437861685

autoexec 8mo ago
They're very public about the data that makes them look good, but they went to court to keep their safety data from the public. (https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/22/waymo-to-keep-robotaxi-safety-details-secret-court-rules/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/22/waymo-to-keep-robotaxi-saf...)
- thevillagechief 8mo ago
  That lawsuit was about trade secrets shared with DMV. And DMV advised them to file a restraining order against a third party seeking redacted info.
  - autoexec 8mo ago
    It was actually about all kinds of information about the safety of their cars, how the company handles collisions, how they decide to make human drivers take over, details of injuries caused by their cars, etc. The DMV required them to submit their safety data before allowing the vehicles on the road. Waymo claims that the data the DMV needed about the public safety of their cars, and the emails they exchanged about it with regulators, were entirely "trade secrets" to keep them hidden from the public who understandably felt like they should be able to access that information since those cars are going to be on their streets.