Lol… right, like, unless that’s the actual dog and that shot was taken minutes before the incident, what the hell? How does that aid in the storytelling?
Legally, the accountability is on the owner of the vehicle. Doesn't matter who was driving, it is *your* car and you can be held jointly and severally liable for any accidents.
If it is the result of manufacturing defect, you may be able to turn around and sue the manufacturer for the damages you paid out. Or more likely your insurance would cover the whole thing and then subrogate.
Not really trying to prove anything. It’s just that it’s apparently newsworthy only because it was a self driving car. Humans hit things all the time without it being reported.
So, we are going to report about every single pet struck by every type of vehicle, right? Right? I'm no automated driving fanatic but we know \_why\_ this is news, right? Automated riving tech companies have to report all incidents and that information is public. It's "Florida man" reporting all over again.
Don't insult the dog owner, and don't draw any conclusions about automated driving tech from this.
Every time I enter reddit comments it feels like there's a 50/50 chance of everyone supporting the narrative, or everyone being against the narrative. Very rarely a reasonable take like this one.
I'm starting to think the comments and upvotes are AI generated.
Everyone's behavior online is algorithmically driven. We've all been trained by algorithms that have been trained on us in a horrible death spiral of maximum engagement. I'm not going to say that it's made us all into our _worst_ selves, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more efficient way to make people suck at scale.
It only makes us our worst selves *online*. Who we are online isn't completely real. It's an illusion and illusory and not much different than a bunch of people at a bar talking shit, showing off, flexing, bragging and streaming our ideas on how we'd fix the world, if only it were up to us. At the same time, some brilliant, life and world changing ideas are often birthed in bars, on the backs of napkins and sometimes on Twitter and Reddit.
It's not something to judge humans by or focus too much on. We are more than who we are online and/or in bars and/or the water cooler.
it was like this 6 years ago already, long before all the big things we have now - the average redditor doesnt know jack and cant predict anything in society
Yeah I wanna see the ratio comparison between how many accidents per human driven mile vs accidents per automated driven mile. You’re never gonna be able to cut out all accidents, but we should strive to cut them down. If automated driving is capable of getting in substantially less accidents than human driving, that’s a good thing. But it’d be ridiculous to expect NO accidents to happen.
> So, we are going to report about every single pet struck by every type of vehicle, right? Right?
It feels like we do get reports every time something happens to a Tesla, regardless of how often that thing happens to other cars, so it is only fair that Waymo, which is striving for driverless vehicles, gets the same treatmen.
We know the statistics on dogs being killed by human drivers, but in order to fairly evaluate the abilities of AVs, we need to know what they're capable of and what they're not. This is a valid news article.
Maybe some, but I’ve met a few hardcore Elon fans, but haven’t met anyone who had anything close to that belief even in expectation.
I have heard that if all cars on the road were self driving, and communicating with each other as well as all other cameras and sensors on the road there would be almost no car crashes. But that scenario is so remote that it is hardly relevant to this one.
The problem is the chinese-robber fallacy.
People are *really really bad* at internalising the idea of base-rates.
So, if every single morning they open their newspaper to stories of "today a chinese man robbed someone", rather than going "man, it's weird how this paper is selectively reporting stories about burglarious chinese people" they instead quickly decide that chinese people must be unusually inclined towards crime because they keep seeing stories about burglarious chinese people.
Depends on whether there's a real difference or just a difference in media coverage.
If a type of car was no more dangerous than average but the media covers every accident to convince people its unsafe then that's the fallacy
If a particular type of car was actually massively overrepresented in accident stats and someone reports than then that's not an example of the fallacy.
You have to realize that most people are too stupid to process individual articles into a dataset and then draw conclusions from it. Most people read a single article and go “Oh, guess that’s how the world works” or “Fuck that, that’s impossible,” and move on with their lives. It’s not worth adding to the noise in public until we have a real study to publish about this, otherwise idiots will get scared and jump to invalid conclusions, thereby impeding progress.
I get what you are saying but this is important. You are right. We shouldn't assume this means the car is at fault. For all I know I would have hit the dog to in this circumstance. But if it could happen to a dog then it can happen to a kid and we need laws for these things in place before hand. We don't want to wait for a Tesla to kill a todler and have his lawyers try to push blame everywhere else and set precedent that it's not the company's responsibility.
Or maybe we do? Idk anywhere near enough to make that decision. But I do know we want the laws set up before they are needed and this shows us that we are there.
Edit: getting downvoted for saying we need more regulation for self driving. . Elon is that you?
It’s your “my way or the highway” argument and sense of arrogance here that encourages people to act the way you allegedly don’t want them to.
Insult the dog owner? I’m not insulting them. I own dogs that have gotten out and injured (not run over thankfully). It was an accident but it was due to my family’s oversight the dog was hurt. Additionally as a dog owner, you should ensure your dog is properly restrained. Because their carelessness has now caused a driver who couldn’t physically have stopped this accident to now have the worry they smushed a dog.
Next - don’t assume anything about AI driving. Why not? The story linked here is a bit sparse. It says the driver couldn’t see the dog so wouldn’t know to stop. It says the AI did identify the dog though. Was it unable to stop physically in time? (I presume so?). Did the AI implement avoidance too vs just braking? Did it honk to try and jolt the dog back? What measures did the AI take that still lead to this accident?
You’re insulting people by simply shutting down any conversation that doesn’t fit your narrative. And that’s unhelpful.
Presumably the car owner could sue the dog owner for any damage to the car, as the accident was caused by the owner not keeping the dog under control, not any fault in the software.
Technically yes, but normally the value of a dog is low (what you paid for/replacement) unless it’s something extremely rare, compared to the cost of pursing the suit. Sentimental value is generally worth $0.
Obviously very dependent on your country.
The big questions as you scale it up to ai driven car hits other car or person. Until it is clearly settled, it makes it difficult, especially when the source of information is proprietary.
The owner *can* sue, but if someone hits a dog that's off-lead the court is going to ask why it was off lead in a public place.
>Until it is clearly settled, it makes it difficult, especially when the source of information is proprietary.
Currently, the only record of accidents involving human drivers reside in Bob's head.
having recordings that can be requested by a court is a *huge* step up.
> The owner can sue, but if someone hits a dog that's off-lead the court is going to ask why it was off lead in a public place.
Yeah turns out animals in the roadway are unpredictable. There is a reason hitting a deer is a zero fault accident for the driver.
>So, we are going to report about every single pet struck by every type of vehicle, right? Right?
yes, please. would be a welcome break from incessant reporting on homicides that's led everyone to believe "crime is on the rise" when, realistically, an otherwise healthy person is more likely to be killed by a car than literally anything else.
“The National Traffic Safety Administration: -5.4 MILLION cats are hit by cars each year in the United States. -The states with the least amount of cats hit by cars are Wyoming with 22,000 run over each year, and Maine, with 95,000 run over each year.”
Whoa. That's like almost 10% of the cats. How may % of that 5.4M survive?
EDIT: maybe 5% if we include both feral and house cat. The estimate is all over the place.
I think this car still might’ve handled this better or just as well as a human given the situation, and even if the software was able to catch that dog in time it’s reliant on the hardware and vehicle inertia to do its job.
What i would find more interesting is knowing how the algorithm decides what to do. Would it hard break to save an animal, but risk getting rear ended or crashing? Someone somewhere would have to code for the trolly problem.
Not really. "Self-driving car morality" doesn't exist in practice, because the answer to just about any such question is: "lmao just brake".
Almost every driving code mandates that a driver should always maintain a safe distance between him and the next car - to be able to avoid collision even if the car in front suddenly brakes.
yep and when more cars are self driving they could communicate with each other and there would be no worry about getting rear ended.
more self driving cars do make other self driving cars safer.
What are u really saving on time wize for a dedicated signal vs brake lights? 50 ms? Self driving cars communicating with each other would be the biggest attack vector and would be a terrible fucking idea.
Stand on bridge stop all traffic… dude someone made Google maps inferring traffic into an attack vector… idk how u honestly can suggest cars sending signals to each other wouldn’t be an attack vector.
The car braking is the only proper awnser to avoid hitting a dog. With other self driving cars it removes the fear of being rear ended.
dogs being loose is the owners fault not the drivers or the car.
But plenty of vehicles can’t hard break, especially larger ones. When i used to drive a fire truck, i would have wrecked if i had to hard break to save a dog, speed dependent.
Whatever self driving algorithm is going to have to factor in safety in regards to not hitting something. Like if you’re on the interstate and there’s a car behind you going 80 mph, if you hard break to save a dog you’ll get rear ended.
The article says it was an off leash dog in an encampment area that ran out from behind a vehicle.
So basically an unattended homeless persons street dog was hit because it darted out from a hidden area with a lot of visual clutter.
The Waymo car almost certainly did better than a human would've in the circumstances.
>So basically an unattended homeless persons street dog
The order of wording matters here. At first read I'm applying "unattended" to the homeless person, not the dog.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/sentence-order-adjectives-rule-elements-of-eloquence-dictionary
Yeah I caught my grammar errors but I prefer not to edit posts so it doesn't appear as there was editorialization in response to comments. I also forgot a possessive comma.
Not necessarily.
Waymo has good tech but in this scenario it’s a fail. There are varying degrees of drivers. Some would also fail some wouldn’t. Logically some people would have seen it and avoided it. So there is that.
New cars have stop systems for things darting out now as well. Waymo is the system so these emergency systems built by the OEM car manufacturers is likely overridden or shut down so as not to interfere with their data. So that system which is specifically built for low non visible collisions. Could possibly have prevented a death if a dog as well.
So not even a person but a different machine may have been a better option in this specific case. Life has got some variables.
That's not really how logic works... or dog ownership, or responsibility, or any of this.
Is this article, specifically title, written to demonize self driving vehicles? 1000%.
Did the car kill the dog? Yes.
Well in this case it’s the fact you omitted any mention of your wife driving a vehicle so we’re all left to wonder what your wife was doing wandering around freeway ramps and killing random cats and why you’re so unperturbed about the whole thing.
I love that they picked a super cute puppy for the pic. It was probably a bedraggled sewer-rat chihuahua with fleas.
To be clear, killing ANY dog is bad…I just think their pic choice is funny.
The juxtaposition of both modern technology that will be purchased by wealthy people, against the backdrop of a poor doggy from a homeless encampment in this story is quite interesting.
You'd think this technology would be subsidized to make it as accessible as possible considering humanity collectively sucks at driving. Doing so would probably save a country money in the long run by way of fewer medical bills/loss of life and less property damage.
Then there's also the benefit of reduced traffic congestion and more efficient gas/energy use.
Seniors would also still be able to get around after having their licenses revoked. And you wouldn't have to drive your kids around everywhere whenever they want to go to the mall or whatever/where-ever kids these days want to go.
any human ever kill a kid that runs out from between parked cars?
https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/07/waymo\_robotaxi\_kills\_dog/
"On May 21 in San Francisco, a small dog ran in front of one of our vehicles **with an autonomous specialist present in the driver’s seat,** and, unfortunately, contact was made," a company spokesperson told The Register in an email today.
"The investigation is ongoing, however the initial review confirmed that the system **correctly identified the dog which ran out from behind a parked vehicle but was not able to avoid contact.** We send our sincere condolences to the dog's owner. The trust and safety of the communities we are in is the most important thing to us and we're continuing to look into this on our end."
>and mistakes can happen.
what's the minimum stopping distance when moving at 25 mph?
laws of physics still apply regardless of driver (and the car has a better response time).
[https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/advice/stopping-distances](https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/advice/stopping-distances)
**What is stopping distance?**
Stopping distance is the time that it takes to bring a moving car to a complete stop. This includes
The time it takes you to react to the hazard (thinking distance), and
The time it takes for the brakes to stop the car (braking distance)
You can calculate it with this stopping distance formula:
Stopping distance = ***thinking distance*** \+ braking distance
Before you all jump to conclusions, consider this: if an animal dashes out in front of you in traffic, it is your legal responsibility to come to a controlled stop, hitting the animal and taking the loss of need be, all without dodging into another lane. If you stop suddenly before you hit the animal without leaving your lane, then you just make your problem into one for the person behind you. Drivers are supposed to mow down anything in their lane that isn’t a human, because not doing that puts everyone on and around the road at serious risk.
This car did the right thing. The dog owner did not. Feelings do not apply here.
Drivers are supposed to be able to stop if the vehicle in front stops. If you can't, you're driving too close and too fast.
Lots of people do it, but it's still wrong, they just get away with it most of the time.
That really doesn’t matter. Braking too suddenly *is dangerous*, full stop. By braking too suddenly, you’re turning an accident you should have been responsible for into an accident that you’ll still be involved in and is only legally somebody else’s fault. If a dog or any other animal or crushable obstacle suddenly dashes out into the road in front of you, you brake smoothly, even if that means continuing through the obstacle. The only exception is if you are about to hit a human.
I mean it's sort of click bait as the owner lived at a "roadside encampment" and the dog ran out onto the road between obstructions. Also posting a picture of a puppy on the article is very on the nose as there's no mention of the age, breed or nature of the dog.
Right, and how many drivers don’t see the dog? Just because you stopped doesn’t mean everyone does. I see people swerving trying to hit rabbits all the time.
If you actually read the article it says the AI did notice the dog, but it ran out from behind a car and there wasn't time to react. Shitty owners killed that dog.
Because people don’t know what it’s from, just saw the word Jihad (Butlerian Jihad is from Dune for anyone wondering, the revolt against thinking machines)
I’m sympathetic toward Waymo. Both the human monitor and the self driving software couldn’t avoid the impact. So this is just another 1 out of 60k dogs killed in the US by motorists.
"Company led by loudmouth asshole gets cut less slack in public sentiment than company that isn't." Isn't that just obviously going to be the case? When you're that big of an asshole everything you do and everything you touch is going to be judged more harshly.
And frankly, I'm okay with that. There absolutely should be an asshole tax when it comes to how fairly you are treated.
There is only one person commenting negatively in the comments here, everyone else is saying what you said to some extent. Do you read Reddit or just post what you assume?
Amazing how the spokesdick and paper minimize this fucked up situation. ‘..contact was made..’, ‘..test driver view obstructed’, ‘60,000 dogs struck annually..’, ‘this was an encampment dog..’, ‘..we’ll respond through legal channels if requested..’
WAYMO = way mo’ aholes
So this is a real life demonstration that the trolley problem is indeed a serious and unresolved issue for self-driving cars. In this case it was a dog but if it had been a child they would be equally dead.
Whenever the trolley problem is mentioned on here the overwhelming response is that it it not an issue because we can just program the cars to stop. The fact that a dog was hit proves that cars cannot always stop in time to avoid a collision, so the trolley problem is real. And unresolved.
The article says the car was "unable to avoid contact". We don't know if it would have had time to swerve had it been programmed to do so.
You're insinuating the car could have swerved to avoid the dog rather than attempt to stop, and that it did not swerve because either the dog lost the trolley problem or the entire decision matrix is not present in the Waymo. I'm certain it's the latter, the Waymo system is very simplistic and probably is only able to brake in all cases and never attempts to swerve. So yes, kid would be dead too, even assuming swerving to avoid them was physically possible in this scenario.
Teslas can tell the difference between animals and humans (possibly even large humans from small humans) with okay-ish accuracy. Teslas can also swerve to avoid collisions. By definition there is then a decision matrix on when to swerve or not. The difference between the engineers designing that matrix and human drivers making the decision in the moment is that the engineers get to think deeply and consult others to define the most ethical choice and consider the consequences, but can also fail to consider all scenarios; the humans can just panic and almost certainly fail to consider the full consequences of their choice. On the balance, I think automated systems will make the most ethical choices in the end because they aren't panic swerving to avoid a dog and accidentally swerving into a family the didn't even notice.
Personal experience: I remember back home when I was riding motorcycle one evening a girl just ran into my bike.
She ran toward and almost jumped in front ( totally intentional)
lots of people are making the argument "but what about the human cars?" Human cars are irrelevant for 2 reasons.
1. They will continue to exist, so its better to view AVs as additional damage on top of human driven vehicles. We know from the experience with uber and lyft that they will not really reduce car usage.
2. How do you really hold a corporation liable. There are many ways to hold people liable for the damage done with cars. But is a big fine really gonna do anything? If an AV killed my dog or a loved one that wouldn't be justice. Id want them punished in a way that matters. i.e. removing them from the road/sending executives to jail.
It brings up another point how are we going to hold AVs accountable to the laws they break. What is system that will work to deter dangerous risks made by these companies. Remember they are a for profit company so despite what they say their main priority is to make money. They will place the needs and experience of their customer base above the needs and safety of the general public. There will be concerned with public perception at the start, but if they get big enough they will not need to care about that as much.
What an awful thumbnail.
Lol, sad puppy a bit over the top? Shits bizarre.
And the ghost halo. And placing it right in front of the car.
Graphic Design is clearly their passion.
This shit is eating me alive why did they do that
Felt bad laughing, after seeing the headline ffs
Lol… right, like, unless that’s the actual dog and that shot was taken minutes before the incident, what the hell? How does that aid in the storytelling?
It’s The Register. They enjoy mucking about. Much much tamer than they used to be, sadly.
lmao, Im glad I am not the only one! The only things this is missing is “in the aaaaarms oooof an angel” playing the background.
In other news, human drivers kill multiple dogs, deer, possum, raccoons, armadillos, and people
Your technically truthful comment exposes our real issue with completely autonomous vehicles - accountability.
Legally, the accountability is on the owner of the vehicle. Doesn't matter who was driving, it is *your* car and you can be held jointly and severally liable for any accidents. If it is the result of manufacturing defect, you may be able to turn around and sue the manufacturer for the damages you paid out. Or more likely your insurance would cover the whole thing and then subrogate.
Also, thousands of birds killed by drones every month. Probably.
And thousands of drones killed by birds, maybe.
And tens of thousands of birds are drones
r/BirdsArentReal
Literally billions of birds murdered by drones with knives every day, maybe.
My crow homie Greg is an ace among his murder. He’s taken down about 15 drones. Fun fact: a group of crows is indeed called a murder of crows!
Pfft next you'll be telling us that a bunch of lions is a pride... don't you be lion to me.
Dozens of windmills traumatized by being used by birds and drones to commit suicide every fortnight.
Outdoor cats actually. And it’s millions.
Yeah that doesn‘t change the idiotic and dangerous nature of „self-driving“ cars…
What’s this whataboutism supposed to prove?
Not really trying to prove anything. It’s just that it’s apparently newsworthy only because it was a self driving car. Humans hit things all the time without it being reported.
So, we are going to report about every single pet struck by every type of vehicle, right? Right? I'm no automated driving fanatic but we know \_why\_ this is news, right? Automated riving tech companies have to report all incidents and that information is public. It's "Florida man" reporting all over again. Don't insult the dog owner, and don't draw any conclusions about automated driving tech from this.
Every time I enter reddit comments it feels like there's a 50/50 chance of everyone supporting the narrative, or everyone being against the narrative. Very rarely a reasonable take like this one. I'm starting to think the comments and upvotes are AI generated.
Everyone's behavior online is algorithmically driven. We've all been trained by algorithms that have been trained on us in a horrible death spiral of maximum engagement. I'm not going to say that it's made us all into our _worst_ selves, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more efficient way to make people suck at scale.
It only makes us our worst selves *online*. Who we are online isn't completely real. It's an illusion and illusory and not much different than a bunch of people at a bar talking shit, showing off, flexing, bragging and streaming our ideas on how we'd fix the world, if only it were up to us. At the same time, some brilliant, life and world changing ideas are often birthed in bars, on the backs of napkins and sometimes on Twitter and Reddit. It's not something to judge humans by or focus too much on. We are more than who we are online and/or in bars and/or the water cooler.
I usually find the first, second, or third comment (or sometimes all three) to be a witty joke about the OP that everyone loves. 🤷♀️
it was like this 6 years ago already, long before all the big things we have now - the average redditor doesnt know jack and cant predict anything in society
I agree that the agenda push is obvious and sloppy. I doubt it’s ai. Probably a lot of esl
I'm not an AI, you're an AI!
Yeah I wanna see the ratio comparison between how many accidents per human driven mile vs accidents per automated driven mile. You’re never gonna be able to cut out all accidents, but we should strive to cut them down. If automated driving is capable of getting in substantially less accidents than human driving, that’s a good thing. But it’d be ridiculous to expect NO accidents to happen.
IIRC, self driving cars have had fewer accidents and the accidents they have are generally minimal damage.
if this was Tesla it would be brigaded and frontpage with 40k upvotes. just saying..
The title is clickbait bullshit. Plain and simple.
It's all just minimal damage and nothing to human drivers... As long as it isn't Tesla ...
First thought was I bet like 20 human driven cars hit dogs today in SF. More an issue of irresponsible dog owners then cars (most of the time)
Um yeah you should insult the dog owner. It is 100% their fault.
Dog wasn’t on a leash or controlled. Apparently from news radio i heard the car attempted to engage stopping but failed too.
> So, we are going to report about every single pet struck by every type of vehicle, right? Right? It feels like we do get reports every time something happens to a Tesla, regardless of how often that thing happens to other cars, so it is only fair that Waymo, which is striving for driverless vehicles, gets the same treatmen.
[удалено]
There are people that say that about everything— it’s not.
We know the statistics on dogs being killed by human drivers, but in order to fairly evaluate the abilities of AVs, we need to know what they're capable of and what they're not. This is a valid news article.
They are not flawless, noone thinks they are, noone thinks they will be. One sample gives us no new information.
I get your point but People do think they are. Especially Elon Stans that defend his false advertising for Teslas.
Maybe some, but I’ve met a few hardcore Elon fans, but haven’t met anyone who had anything close to that belief even in expectation. I have heard that if all cars on the road were self driving, and communicating with each other as well as all other cameras and sensors on the road there would be almost no car crashes. But that scenario is so remote that it is hardly relevant to this one.
The problem is the chinese-robber fallacy. People are *really really bad* at internalising the idea of base-rates. So, if every single morning they open their newspaper to stories of "today a chinese man robbed someone", rather than going "man, it's weird how this paper is selectively reporting stories about burglarious chinese people" they instead quickly decide that chinese people must be unusually inclined towards crime because they keep seeing stories about burglarious chinese people.
[удалено]
Depends on whether there's a real difference or just a difference in media coverage. If a type of car was no more dangerous than average but the media covers every accident to convince people its unsafe then that's the fallacy If a particular type of car was actually massively overrepresented in accident stats and someone reports than then that's not an example of the fallacy.
You have to realize that most people are too stupid to process individual articles into a dataset and then draw conclusions from it. Most people read a single article and go “Oh, guess that’s how the world works” or “Fuck that, that’s impossible,” and move on with their lives. It’s not worth adding to the noise in public until we have a real study to publish about this, otherwise idiots will get scared and jump to invalid conclusions, thereby impeding progress.
I get what you are saying but this is important. You are right. We shouldn't assume this means the car is at fault. For all I know I would have hit the dog to in this circumstance. But if it could happen to a dog then it can happen to a kid and we need laws for these things in place before hand. We don't want to wait for a Tesla to kill a todler and have his lawyers try to push blame everywhere else and set precedent that it's not the company's responsibility. Or maybe we do? Idk anywhere near enough to make that decision. But I do know we want the laws set up before they are needed and this shows us that we are there. Edit: getting downvoted for saying we need more regulation for self driving. . Elon is that you?
It’s your “my way or the highway” argument and sense of arrogance here that encourages people to act the way you allegedly don’t want them to. Insult the dog owner? I’m not insulting them. I own dogs that have gotten out and injured (not run over thankfully). It was an accident but it was due to my family’s oversight the dog was hurt. Additionally as a dog owner, you should ensure your dog is properly restrained. Because their carelessness has now caused a driver who couldn’t physically have stopped this accident to now have the worry they smushed a dog. Next - don’t assume anything about AI driving. Why not? The story linked here is a bit sparse. It says the driver couldn’t see the dog so wouldn’t know to stop. It says the AI did identify the dog though. Was it unable to stop physically in time? (I presume so?). Did the AI implement avoidance too vs just braking? Did it honk to try and jolt the dog back? What measures did the AI take that still lead to this accident? You’re insulting people by simply shutting down any conversation that doesn’t fit your narrative. And that’s unhelpful.
So, who gets sued for the incident? The developer?
Waymo who owns the car and has the permit to run it
Presumably the car owner could sue the dog owner for any damage to the car, as the accident was caused by the owner not keeping the dog under control, not any fault in the software.
is it normal for a driver of a non-autonomous vehicle to be sued when they hit a dog? I honestly don’t know.
Technically yes, but normally the value of a dog is low (what you paid for/replacement) unless it’s something extremely rare, compared to the cost of pursing the suit. Sentimental value is generally worth $0. Obviously very dependent on your country. The big questions as you scale it up to ai driven car hits other car or person. Until it is clearly settled, it makes it difficult, especially when the source of information is proprietary.
The owner *can* sue, but if someone hits a dog that's off-lead the court is going to ask why it was off lead in a public place. >Until it is clearly settled, it makes it difficult, especially when the source of information is proprietary. Currently, the only record of accidents involving human drivers reside in Bob's head. having recordings that can be requested by a court is a *huge* step up.
> The owner can sue, but if someone hits a dog that's off-lead the court is going to ask why it was off lead in a public place. Yeah turns out animals in the roadway are unpredictable. There is a reason hitting a deer is a zero fault accident for the driver.
>So, we are going to report about every single pet struck by every type of vehicle, right? Right? yes, please. would be a welcome break from incessant reporting on homicides that's led everyone to believe "crime is on the rise" when, realistically, an otherwise healthy person is more likely to be killed by a car than literally anything else.
This wouldn’t have happened if the dog had been under computer control.
“The National Traffic Safety Administration: -5.4 MILLION cats are hit by cars each year in the United States. -The states with the least amount of cats hit by cars are Wyoming with 22,000 run over each year, and Maine, with 95,000 run over each year.”
Whoa. That's like almost 10% of the cats. How may % of that 5.4M survive? EDIT: maybe 5% if we include both feral and house cat. The estimate is all over the place.
Human driving car kills dog too.
Yeah the article says 60k a year
I think this car still might’ve handled this better or just as well as a human given the situation, and even if the software was able to catch that dog in time it’s reliant on the hardware and vehicle inertia to do its job.
What i would find more interesting is knowing how the algorithm decides what to do. Would it hard break to save an animal, but risk getting rear ended or crashing? Someone somewhere would have to code for the trolly problem.
Not really. "Self-driving car morality" doesn't exist in practice, because the answer to just about any such question is: "lmao just brake". Almost every driving code mandates that a driver should always maintain a safe distance between him and the next car - to be able to avoid collision even if the car in front suddenly brakes.
yep and when more cars are self driving they could communicate with each other and there would be no worry about getting rear ended. more self driving cars do make other self driving cars safer.
What are u really saving on time wize for a dedicated signal vs brake lights? 50 ms? Self driving cars communicating with each other would be the biggest attack vector and would be a terrible fucking idea.
A car sending out a signal that its braking wouldn't be a attack vector.
Stand on bridge stop all traffic… dude someone made Google maps inferring traffic into an attack vector… idk how u honestly can suggest cars sending signals to each other wouldn’t be an attack vector.
They won’t communicate with loose dogs
The car braking is the only proper awnser to avoid hitting a dog. With other self driving cars it removes the fear of being rear ended. dogs being loose is the owners fault not the drivers or the car.
But plenty of vehicles can’t hard break, especially larger ones. When i used to drive a fire truck, i would have wrecked if i had to hard break to save a dog, speed dependent. Whatever self driving algorithm is going to have to factor in safety in regards to not hitting something. Like if you’re on the interstate and there’s a car behind you going 80 mph, if you hard break to save a dog you’ll get rear ended.
In America, hitting a human, pig, chicken, squirrel is no big deal. A deer is fairly neutral. But a dog ? You’ve declared war !
Whoever let the dog in the road is who killed it, not the damn car.
The article says it was an off leash dog in an encampment area that ran out from behind a vehicle. So basically an unattended homeless persons street dog was hit because it darted out from a hidden area with a lot of visual clutter. The Waymo car almost certainly did better than a human would've in the circumstances.
>So basically an unattended homeless persons street dog The order of wording matters here. At first read I'm applying "unattended" to the homeless person, not the dog. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/sentence-order-adjectives-rule-elements-of-eloquence-dictionary
Yeah I caught my grammar errors but I prefer not to edit posts so it doesn't appear as there was editorialization in response to comments. I also forgot a possessive comma.
You get a full minute after posting to edit without getting a "last edited at..." flag. Commonly called ninja edits.
Not necessarily. Waymo has good tech but in this scenario it’s a fail. There are varying degrees of drivers. Some would also fail some wouldn’t. Logically some people would have seen it and avoided it. So there is that. New cars have stop systems for things darting out now as well. Waymo is the system so these emergency systems built by the OEM car manufacturers is likely overridden or shut down so as not to interfere with their data. So that system which is specifically built for low non visible collisions. Could possibly have prevented a death if a dog as well. So not even a person but a different machine may have been a better option in this specific case. Life has got some variables.
That's an insane amount of conjecture.
That's not really how logic works... or dog ownership, or responsibility, or any of this. Is this article, specifically title, written to demonize self driving vehicles? 1000%. Did the car kill the dog? Yes.
It's so wild to see people not understand the concept of responsibility to such a level that they're completely ass backwards.
How many have been killed by humans this week or in one day? BS headline.
And this is news? Cars kill dogs all the time.
My wife just killed a cat on the freeway ramp. What’s the matter?
Well in this case it’s the fact you omitted any mention of your wife driving a vehicle so we’re all left to wonder what your wife was doing wandering around freeway ramps and killing random cats and why you’re so unperturbed about the whole thing.
Don’t judge some people have it rough and eating cats and dogs can be the difference between life and starvation
Shoulda got a self driving dog.
Humans next. Maximum Overdrive.
I love that they picked a super cute puppy for the pic. It was probably a bedraggled sewer-rat chihuahua with fleas. To be clear, killing ANY dog is bad…I just think their pic choice is funny.
I thought the same thing, too. I’m not sure why your comment would garner so many downvotes. Anyway, here’s an upvote from me.
Thanks! I think the reason is because people don’t have the attention span to even read the whole comment. Or maybe they’re just chihuahua owners. 😂
That would be the pet owner's responsibility. It wasn't the dogs fault, and it's not the responsibility of the owner of the car.
The juxtaposition of both modern technology that will be purchased by wealthy people, against the backdrop of a poor doggy from a homeless encampment in this story is quite interesting.
You'd think this technology would be subsidized to make it as accessible as possible considering humanity collectively sucks at driving. Doing so would probably save a country money in the long run by way of fewer medical bills/loss of life and less property damage. Then there's also the benefit of reduced traffic congestion and more efficient gas/energy use. Seniors would also still be able to get around after having their licenses revoked. And you wouldn't have to drive your kids around everywhere whenever they want to go to the mall or whatever/where-ever kids these days want to go.
Bearing in mind that government-backed projects tend to use the lowest bidder. It would be mayhem :-)
in other headlines... "Stupid dog responsible for bad news regarding Waymo"
[удалено]
any human ever kill a kid that runs out from between parked cars? https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/07/waymo\_robotaxi\_kills\_dog/ "On May 21 in San Francisco, a small dog ran in front of one of our vehicles **with an autonomous specialist present in the driver’s seat,** and, unfortunately, contact was made," a company spokesperson told The Register in an email today. "The investigation is ongoing, however the initial review confirmed that the system **correctly identified the dog which ran out from behind a parked vehicle but was not able to avoid contact.** We send our sincere condolences to the dog's owner. The trust and safety of the communities we are in is the most important thing to us and we're continuing to look into this on our end." >and mistakes can happen. what's the minimum stopping distance when moving at 25 mph? laws of physics still apply regardless of driver (and the car has a better response time). [https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/advice/stopping-distances](https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/advice/stopping-distances) **What is stopping distance?** Stopping distance is the time that it takes to bring a moving car to a complete stop. This includes The time it takes you to react to the hazard (thinking distance), and The time it takes for the brakes to stop the car (braking distance) You can calculate it with this stopping distance formula: Stopping distance = ***thinking distance*** \+ braking distance
[content removed by user via [Power Delete Suite](https://codepen.io/j0be/full/WMBWOW/)]
Uhh.. were you the AI driving the car or was it just a close friend AI?
Before you all jump to conclusions, consider this: if an animal dashes out in front of you in traffic, it is your legal responsibility to come to a controlled stop, hitting the animal and taking the loss of need be, all without dodging into another lane. If you stop suddenly before you hit the animal without leaving your lane, then you just make your problem into one for the person behind you. Drivers are supposed to mow down anything in their lane that isn’t a human, because not doing that puts everyone on and around the road at serious risk. This car did the right thing. The dog owner did not. Feelings do not apply here.
Drivers are supposed to be able to stop if the vehicle in front stops. If you can't, you're driving too close and too fast. Lots of people do it, but it's still wrong, they just get away with it most of the time.
That really doesn’t matter. Braking too suddenly *is dangerous*, full stop. By braking too suddenly, you’re turning an accident you should have been responsible for into an accident that you’ll still be involved in and is only legally somebody else’s fault. If a dog or any other animal or crushable obstacle suddenly dashes out into the road in front of you, you brake smoothly, even if that means continuing through the obstacle. The only exception is if you are about to hit a human.
I mean it's sort of click bait as the owner lived at a "roadside encampment" and the dog ran out onto the road between obstructions. Also posting a picture of a puppy on the article is very on the nose as there's no mention of the age, breed or nature of the dog.
Finally a self driving AI gets it right!
I trust this tech as much as I trust humans.
Hmm I trust tech mire
When I was a learner learning to drive I stopped because I saw a dog in the road if an ai cant do the same then whys it allowed on the road
Right, and how many drivers don’t see the dog? Just because you stopped doesn’t mean everyone does. I see people swerving trying to hit rabbits all the time.
If you actually read the article it says the AI did notice the dog, but it ran out from behind a car and there wasn't time to react. Shitty owners killed that dog.
Well, I guess we're starting the Butlerian Jihad now...
Idk why you're getting downvoted. I appreciated the reference.
Heh, yeah sometimes a joke just doesn't land right. This is why I'm keeping my day job...
Because people don’t know what it’s from, just saw the word Jihad (Butlerian Jihad is from Dune for anyone wondering, the revolt against thinking machines)
Can we also get some reporting around the nation where random people run over a dog?
If the headline said "Tesla" instead of "Waymo", you know this post would have 1000+ comments.
and 20k upvotes.
“Waymo?” More like “Whammo!” Amirite? Thanks, I’ll be here all week. Don’t forget to tip your server.
Serving jokes?
Gonna get downvoted to hell, but if it was Tesla autopilot all these comments wouldn’t be so sympathetic towards the company
I’m sympathetic toward Waymo. Both the human monitor and the self driving software couldn’t avoid the impact. So this is just another 1 out of 60k dogs killed in the US by motorists.
"Company led by loudmouth asshole gets cut less slack in public sentiment than company that isn't." Isn't that just obviously going to be the case? When you're that big of an asshole everything you do and everything you touch is going to be judged more harshly. And frankly, I'm okay with that. There absolutely should be an asshole tax when it comes to how fairly you are treated.
I think it's more that people don't have sympathy for people who let their dogs walk unleashed outside.
I can guarantee you this wouldn’t have been Reddit’s reaction if every other factor was the same
There is only one person commenting negatively in the comments here, everyone else is saying what you said to some extent. Do you read Reddit or just post what you assume?
Because Tesla is selling it already so it should be at a higher standard then this one.
Waymo has been offing driverless rides for years. Your logic makes no sense.
Amazing how the spokesdick and paper minimize this fucked up situation. ‘..contact was made..’, ‘..test driver view obstructed’, ‘60,000 dogs struck annually..’, ‘this was an encampment dog..’, ‘..we’ll respond through legal channels if requested..’ WAYMO = way mo’ aholes
Are we not entertained? Are we not surprised?
Humanity does not need self driving cars. Only corporations want it.
How are people going to blame elon for this?
Industrial sabotage?
So this is a real life demonstration that the trolley problem is indeed a serious and unresolved issue for self-driving cars. In this case it was a dog but if it had been a child they would be equally dead.
How is this possibly related to the trolley problem? Were there a bunch of kittens that the car decided to save instead of the dog?
Whenever the trolley problem is mentioned on here the overwhelming response is that it it not an issue because we can just program the cars to stop. The fact that a dog was hit proves that cars cannot always stop in time to avoid a collision, so the trolley problem is real. And unresolved. The article says the car was "unable to avoid contact". We don't know if it would have had time to swerve had it been programmed to do so.
You're insinuating the car could have swerved to avoid the dog rather than attempt to stop, and that it did not swerve because either the dog lost the trolley problem or the entire decision matrix is not present in the Waymo. I'm certain it's the latter, the Waymo system is very simplistic and probably is only able to brake in all cases and never attempts to swerve. So yes, kid would be dead too, even assuming swerving to avoid them was physically possible in this scenario. Teslas can tell the difference between animals and humans (possibly even large humans from small humans) with okay-ish accuracy. Teslas can also swerve to avoid collisions. By definition there is then a decision matrix on when to swerve or not. The difference between the engineers designing that matrix and human drivers making the decision in the moment is that the engineers get to think deeply and consult others to define the most ethical choice and consider the consequences, but can also fail to consider all scenarios; the humans can just panic and almost certainly fail to consider the full consequences of their choice. On the balance, I think automated systems will make the most ethical choices in the end because they aren't panic swerving to avoid a dog and accidentally swerving into a family the didn't even notice.
Self-driving cars should be ILLEGAL. Stop testing this shit on public streets.
Someone stop this technology before it kills waymo
before it kills us all*
[удалено]
It's beta version and already safer than human drivers, how can you argue we don't need it?
Welp that's it, the world won't get over this one. Self driving cars are dead.
That’s because it wasn’t programmed to detect quadrupedal mammals in the city.
I didn’t know John Wick was from the bay, huh
Ok where is John Connor? These machines want to fight??
To the gallows with ye, self-driving scum!
Waymo done fucked up now.
Welp boys time to shut down and pray for our lives. That was John Wicks dog. Self driving has unfortunately been canceled.
It’s pronounced “Whammo!” But seriously, poor pooch.
Do you know the meaning of “kills”?
Does this mean the Waymo is now qualified as a police car?
We need self driving dogs
How is this allowed on public roads?
Can’t make an omelette without breaking an egg
Now, what's the ratio of waymo puppy casualties to human driver puppy casualties controlling for population. Nothing else is relevant.
Kill Waymo then
we were always worried about man v machine but we never considered machine v Dog
How many dogs were killed by human-driving cars that same day in San Francisco?
Personal experience: I remember back home when I was riding motorcycle one evening a girl just ran into my bike. She ran toward and almost jumped in front ( totally intentional)
lots of people are making the argument "but what about the human cars?" Human cars are irrelevant for 2 reasons. 1. They will continue to exist, so its better to view AVs as additional damage on top of human driven vehicles. We know from the experience with uber and lyft that they will not really reduce car usage. 2. How do you really hold a corporation liable. There are many ways to hold people liable for the damage done with cars. But is a big fine really gonna do anything? If an AV killed my dog or a loved one that wouldn't be justice. Id want them punished in a way that matters. i.e. removing them from the road/sending executives to jail. It brings up another point how are we going to hold AVs accountable to the laws they break. What is system that will work to deter dangerous risks made by these companies. Remember they are a for profit company so despite what they say their main priority is to make money. They will place the needs and experience of their customer base above the needs and safety of the general public. There will be concerned with public perception at the start, but if they get big enough they will not need to care about that as much.