[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

I don't find that acceptable in any way, no human driver is going to do that and by that I mean no human driver is going to drive into something just because it moved in a way they didn't expect. they're going to slam on the brakes and the only way that's going to happen is if momentum is too high.

I understand we have to have explanations or we can't fix them, but it's just as important to understand this should never have happened even WITH the described failure.

If I had to guess, there's code to avoid stopping at every little thing and that code took precedence (otherwise rides would not be enjoyable). And I get the competing interests here but there must be a comparison to humans when these incidents happen.

[duped]

> no human driver is going to drive into something just because it moved in a way they didn't expect

I would actually put money that this is the cause of most crashes involving multiple moving cars. Hell, a friend of mine got into an accident two weeks ago where they t-boned somebody that turned onto a median when they didn't expect it.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

which is dealt with the explanation about momentum.

If your friend saw them and never attempted to stop then your friend needs to lose their license.

[dmd]

> no human driver is going to drive into something just because it moved in a way they didn't expect.

This is literally the cause of almost every human accident.

Imagine you're driving. There's a car in front of you, also driving, at the same speed as you. Do you immediately slam on the brakes? No, because you EXPECT them to keep driving. That is how driving works.

If, suddenly, they do something unexpected - like slam on the brakes, that might cause an accident. Because ... they moved in an unexpected way.

I honestly can't even figure out what you meant to say.

[bcrl]

Eh? Distraction is the main cause of human accidents, not incorrect predicition of motion of objects.

https://injured.ca/5-top-causes-of-car-accidents-in-ontario/

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

here, let me complete that quote for you

> they're going to slam on the brakes and the only way that's [hitting the other vehicle] going to happen is if momentum is too high.

there's a difference between hitting something and driving into something.

[BHSPitMonkey]

> I don't find that acceptable in any way

Well obviously even Waymo agrees, given that they're recalling vehicles to mitigate the issue.

[peddling-brink]

If I have to choose between driving next to the nitwit texting or the software that might get tripped up in really unusual situations, I’m going with the software.

[piombisallow]

"no human driver"? Really? Ever? Are you willing to bet on that assertion? Even if the human driver downs a bottle of vodka before driving?

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

well if we're going to play that game, what if the human suffers a medical emergency!

or what if they're driving a bus and they have to keep above 60 mph!

---

I guess it's my fault, I didn't list every single contingency possible...

[piombisallow]

Well yeah, it is. This is an edge case in self-driving cars, same as it could be an edge case for humans.

[tacitusarc]

Probably the main point that the software should function at least as well as a non-impaired capable human still stands…