[autoexec]

> Presumably they haven't had the chance to do a lot of flood training but now they have that chance.

They should have done that flood training when they weren't putting people's lives at risk. It's not as if this was a situation that no one could have anticipated would arise. Over half of all drownings in a flood happen because of people driving into them. They're just lucky that they stopped service before they had more blood on their hands, but the fact that they were willing to experiment on the public first is concerning.

[ashdksnndck]

“More blood” seems to imply that somebody has already been hurt or died from Waymo driving into floods, but I don’t think that is the case?

[autoexec]

As far as I know, nobody has been hurt from floods while in a Waymo. They hide their safety data from the public though (https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/28/22906513/waymo-lawsuit-ca...) so it's hard to say for sure. They've certainly been involved in crashes, killed pets (I actually give them a pass on the bodega cat), run over elementary school children, etc. Waymo has said it's only a matter of time until they kill someone and they've got plans for how to handle deaths caused by their cars, but they expect the public to accept those deaths.

[RealityVoid]

This feels disingenuous to the extreme. Yes, chances are that some people will die run over by a Waymo. Put enough miles in one and someone will die eventually. Compare the numbers to human drivers. Would you, if they had LESS fatality rates than human drivers, say that the difference is "lives saved"? - I don't think you would. In 5 years, after someone is eventually fatally injured you'll just jump up and say "AHA! Told you Waymos are unsafe!"

Especially your example with "run over elementary school children" is duplicitous. They showed how much less dangerous the impact from the Waymo was.

[autoexec]

> In 5 years, after someone is eventually fatally injured you'll just jump up and say "AHA! Told you Waymos are unsafe!"

That'll depend on the circumstances. If someone is killed because of a mistake a human wouldn't have made (like driving into oncoming traffic or down a light rail track) it'll be entirely their fault. Even if they do something humans sometimes do but never should like running a red light I'd argue that it makes them unsafe. To our knowledge they've only been involved in one human fatality so far but it wasn't their fault so I don't blame them for that.

[swisniewski]

But humans do make mistakes like that (driving into oncoming traffic or driving down a light rail track).

For example, here’s a case where a human did it to avoid an ambulance:

https://www.click2houston.com/news/2012/09/18/10-injured-in-...

This guy says he was blinded by the sun:

https://kutv.com/news/local/trax-train-hits-vehicle-in-sandy

Sometimes people are drunk:

https://komonews.com/news/local/police-suspected-drunk-drive...

[autoexec]

These people, even the drunk guy, weren't cruising down the tracks without a care in the world. They either stopped on tracks or were pushed onto them.

I was skeptical about the guy who claimed to be "blinded by the sun" and searched for more info only to find that people get hit by the light rail in Sandy Utah with alarming frequency. Not even just in cars. Pedestrians, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, I'm starting to think it's cursed.

[estearum]

It is honestly kind of funny how clearly your comments read like motivated reasoning, and then one just looks at your username.

[autoexec]

Probably not what you think unless you know what SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 T5 means