erulabs 6 hours ago
While this is tragic, undeniably so, it’s worth knowing that a head on collision in Malibu two days ago killed a 50 year old man when a 20 year old crossed over the double yellow line. It was obvious seeing the car that the young person was racing and driving dangerously. It barely made the news. I only know it happened because I drove past the wreck.

Tragic about the cat - and Waymo must improve - but we cannot lose sight of the greater good.

altairprime 2 hours ago
In some countries, drivers are expected to prove their ability to operate heavy machinery safely, held that promise, and governments prioritize zero deaths in their spending and policy making.

In the U.S., billions of dollars that could be spent on proven ways of solving the problem are instead spend on speculative robotic car development.

Robotic cars are not the only solution. They may eventually be as effective as proven solutions that are offensive to U.S. car supremacists, but as of today, robotic cars have proven only to be better than untrained, inattentive U.S. drivers and the life-threatening domestic policies that enable them. Robotic cars aren’t trying to solve the problem; they’re trying to capture spending on the problem. If transportation policy magically changed overnight to force immediate, funded implementation of proven safety processes from other countries, the excuses given for Waymo and others to beta-test their “these fatalities are a necessary accident in service of zero deaths” robotic vehicles would no longer hold water.

butvacuum 5 hours ago
No, We should be fighting tooth and nail against these companies. They're not here to save us from ourselves. They're using public streets to Alpha (beta if you want to be generous) test autonomous lethal weapons, and then profit off of it when it works.

I can't find anything saying waymo has a thermal camera. They aren't expensive- certainly not compared to the LIDAR- and provide extremely discriminated input on "am I about to kill something?" They're not perfect as foul weather and fog are likely to blind thermal- but they shouldn't be driving in suboptimal conditions until they have a track record of safety in optimal ones.

AlotOfReading 4 hours ago
What criteria would you consider sufficient for deployment on public streets? My experience is that people opposed to AV technology usually aren't familiar with the level of validation that's been done and tend to have expectations that are either impossible or are already met.

Waymo has experimented with thermal imaging in the past. I've never seen experiments indicating it's a particularly valuable modality for AVs, and high resolution thermal cameras exceed the price of decent LIDAR these days. You can easily spend $10k+ on a FLIR sensor with a pixel count higher than 4 digits.

moralestapia 4 hours ago
It doesn't work like that.

You imply all human driving is like that one example which is the worse one can come up with, which is not true.

You imply Waymos on the street will take the 20 year old irrational driver out of the road, which is also not true.

And "I did bad but others do worse" is a terrible premise to live by.

lelanthran 4 hours ago
> but we cannot lose sight of the greater good.

The greater good is not served by allowing profit-making machines to use public infrastructure to test lethal machines in.

chfritz 6 hours ago
If that person had been a roboticist, they would have known what to do: stand in front of the car. It would have saved the cat's life. And most non-roboticists will immediately recognize this as a solution, too: these cars obviously detect humans right in front of them very well and will not move in that case. By the way, the same would have worked better for most human drivers as well. Even if you yelled at a human driver that there was a cat under the car, it would not be a reliable solution because they may not hear or understand you. But they, too, would almost certainly not run you over if you stood in front of the car.

To be clear, I don't blame the witness for not doing this in the moment. And she probably has figured this out by now, too. I'm mostly pointing out that, as more and more people learn about robot taxis, more people will known how to help in such a situation, which is clearly what she wanted to do.

astrange 5 hours ago
Waymos are capable of seeing cats - I was in one looking at the route view the other day, and it highlighted a cat that was a decent distance away sitting in a front yard as it passed it. Then it went through a roundabout seemingly just to show it could do it.

(It then proceeded to drop me off in a weird back corner spot in Santana Row by a loading dock. Can't have everything.)

I assume once you're close enough or actually under it there's a blind spot. It doesn't seem very good at evading potholes either.

lelanthran 4 hours ago
> Even if you yelled at a human driver that there was a cat under the car, it would not be a reliable solution because they may not hear or understand you.

Doesn't matter if shouting at the driver only works some of the time, that's still an infinite improvement over working 0% of the time when there's no driver.

The difference between actual zero and close-to-zero is infinity.

RealityVoid 2 hours ago
I see a lot of hate on Google in these comments and I feel it's unreasnoably unfair. It's a cat. It was under a car. Self driving vehicles existing would be a great thing. Google are taking a large gamble on this. Sorry, but for this thing, I think it's just stirring up outrage.
justinclift 3 hours ago
> The company said it does not have sensors under its vehicles, but noted that human-driven cars do not, either.

How incredibly fucking callous. :( :( :(

And their attempt to make out like people not having sensors under their vehicles is the same thing is even worse. People tend to have _awareness_ of WTF is around their vehicles because of stuff like this.

That can _sometimes_ not work out well, but it's completely different from Waymo (specifically here) not giving a fuck.

rl3 2 hours ago
I tend to agree with your take.

Surely an undercarriage sensor array can be done on the cheap (engineering and retrofits aside) due to the required sensing distance being quite short.

Off the top of my head, it sounds like an area where ultrasonics and cameras would actually excel at (as opposed to replacing LIDAR for core functionality, which doesn't work very well as we've found out).

End of the day it's way cheaper than lawsuits.