> Braking to avoid hitting an obstacle (like that tree branch in the first example) is hardly "acting unexpectedly".

Depends on the size of the tree branch.

But also, being hit from behind at low speeds was a pretty common thing in early testing in Mountain View, when they were using the Google name on cars. That there are only a handful of incidents reported in this report means either the software has gotten better at communicating its intent to other drivers, or the driving public is aware that Waymo cars are way more cautious --- if they only make lane changes and unprotected turns by engraved invitation and everyone knows it, that's fine too.

In the early days, it seemed like it might be appropriate to install a 1979 regulation 5 mph rear bumper on these cars, because they'd likely get hit often enough.

>this report means either the software has gotten better at communicating its intent to other drivers, or the driving public is aware that Waymo cars are way more cautious

There's at least one other alternative: selection bias. Since there is no standard industry definition, companies are allowed to not report many incidents.

>"Waymo, on the other hand, ran complex computer simulations after each disengagement, and only reported to the DMV those where it believed the driver was correct to take charge, rather than being overly cautious."[1]

So it may not be reported unless it meets Waymo's (non-independent) selection criteria. I think most people can at least recognize there is a potential conflict of interest when objective reporting isn't required.

[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/have-selfdriving-cars-stopped-gett...

>Depends on the size of the tree branch.

Our thinking fast reflexes are to pretty much avoid any obstacle whether living or dead. Hopefully our thinking slow brain has time to do a proper evaluation before doing anything drastic.

Breaking for a tree branch of any size seems preferable to running into highway barriers[1] and fire trucks[2].

[1] https://www.kqed.org/news/11801138/apple-engineer-killed-in-...

[2] https://abc7news.com/tesla-autopilot-crash-driver-assist-cra...

Not for a branch that's 2 inches long and a fraction of an inch in diameter.

    Depends on the size of the tree branch.

I love these types of comments on HN: So vague as to be meaningless.

As a thought experiment: Let's put you in a driving simulator, and ask you re-drive the same scenario 10,000 times. In each scenario, we randomly change the size of the branch -- both weight and volume. Repeat the same test with 100 other drivers. Repeat the same test with 100 different AV algorithms. I am sure each driver would have their own definition of "branch too large to safely drive over".

What concrete point are you trying to make?

    being hit from behind at low speeds was a pretty common thing in early testing in Mountain View, when they were using the Google name on cars.

Really? Also, this editorialised phrase "pretty common thing in early testing". Again, to me, so vague as to be meaningless. Common? From what perspective. Early testing? From what perspective.

My recollection is during the early on road testing, Google was required to report on all collisions, regardless of severity (which another poster mentioned isn't the case here), and that in most of those collisions, the Google vehicle was hit from the rear at low speeds when the driver behind expected it to go through; without video or other imaging it's hard to judge the exact circumstances of course (and even with video it can be difficult). There may have been a couple inattentive drivers that ran into them with more speed. And the collision where the Google car tried to change lanes into a VTA bus that their algorithm predicted would move for them, being a professional driver and all.

From driving near the things, they're very cautious and sometimes start to move and don't (I saw one try to make a lane change for about a mile on el camino before it was able to, turning the blinker on and off the whole time).

>> in early testing in Mountain View, when they were using the Google name on cars.

> Early testing? From what perspective.

You know, before they switched the name to Waymo.

The implication is that drivers intentionally ram Google vehicles when they have a ghost of a reason to do so.

Nah, the implication is that many human drivers speed, tailgate, don't pay attention, etc. There's a reason rear end collision blame is usually applied to the car behind by default.

On the road, sometimes I feel like I'm the only one following the rules. :/

But this certainly could be construed as unexpected:

>"In August, a Waymo at an intersection “began to proceed forward” but then “slowed to a stop” and was hit from behind by an SUV."

>"Wat."

Are you saying you don't understand why unexpected behavior causes anxiety? It's a pretty well documented effect, from rats to humans.

It was:

> > "Acting unexpectedly" is one of the aspects that makes dealing with mentally ill people anxiety-producing.

> Wat.

The "Wat" probably refers to the fact that this seems unrelated. Dealing with mentally ill people is anxiety-inducing because they act unexpectedly... so what? Lots of things are unexpected. They shouldn't all be drawn into the analogy that says "well, that thing, plus a load of other things, can induce anxiety, therefore that thing should be tarnished with the same brush as all of those things."

People drive in unexpected ways all the time. Of all the criticisms to level at them, "the thing you're doing plus a load of other stuff can induce anxiety" probably isn't top of the list.

This makes me think of people that change two lanes very quickly to be able to turn at that next corner. We all see them, they piss us off through their bad planning but in the end I don't think an autonomous vehicle would ever try this, depending on programming of course.

Would also be nice to see all incidents, not just injury incidents to see what kind of unexpected "mistakes" these cars are making

It shouldn't, simply because it always knows where it's going well ahead of the lane change.

>Dealing with mentally ill people is anxiety-inducing because they act unexpectedly... so what? Lots of things are unexpected.

I think you're understating it.

Mentally ill people act far off the cuff. If I'm walking outside, people can behave unexpectedly (but within the parameters of behavior that doesn't make me anxious).

Imagine: stopping instantly to bend over and tie one's shoes or to look at a storefront. Taking up multiple spaces on the sidewalk. Dropping an item that causes a loud noise. All of these are unexpected movements that require a reaction.

However, if somebody screams about CIA conspiracies or has very erratic mannerisms, that would create more anxiety.

So, apparently their point is that AI behavior on the roads might be more jarring than normal jackass human behavior on the roads.

I am not painting them with the same brush, I'm drawing an analogy to help people understand the context better. In this case, public policy will dictate to what extent AVs are allowed on public roadways. That, in turn, is dictated by trust. I'm pointing out that "trust" may be incompatible with "unpredictability." I'm not sure what throughline you're drawing, but you seem overly hung up on the use of the word "anxiety," and it's causing you to miss the real point.

So to put a finer point on it, people need to acknowledge that public trust is necessary to wide-scale adoption of AV tech. Plenty of psychological research shows how we aren't intuitively wired to understand statistics. So all the bleating about statistics may be necessary, but not sufficient, to get wide-scale adoption of AVs on public roadways.

> seem overly hung up on the use of the word "anxiety,"

It wasn't just the word anxiety; that's a mischaracterisation, and another psychology-adjacent misstep with "hung up on". Your point wasn't great, or at least was very poorly articulated, and that's what caused me to "miss the real point". You seem to have clarified it with this comment, so my challenge to your original point seems to have helped.

Apologies if you think it was a mischaracterization. I was trying to figure out why you missed (what I consider) a pretty straightforward connection between theory-of-mind and predicting behavior. In retrospect, using a term like "mentally ill" is too loaded of term and distracts people from making that point because it can be triggering. I still think its a valid point, though, and plenty of people seemed to follow it just fine.

> Are you saying you don't understand why unexpected behavior causes anxiety? It's a pretty well documented effect, from rats to humans.

I'm saying that your leap from "the car in front is behaving unexpectedly because you don't have all the information it has" to "a bunch of mentally ill drivers" is such a complete non-sequitur that it's deserving of a Wat [1].

[1] https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat

I understand how you could miss it, but the sequiter is "unexpected behavior".

Why do mentally ill people cause some people anxiety? Because they may behave erratically.* In other words, we have a lot more difficulty ascertaining what they are thinking, and by extension, predicting their behavior. The same can be said for the general public sentiment towards AVs.

* I also understand "mental illness" is a blanket category and I'm not using it as a stigmatizing term. It may be stretching the analogy too much, but it's simply a proxy for "I have a hard time predicting what's going through this persons mind"

Sounds like SUV driver was on their phone at the junction, then continued to mess about with it as the cars pulled away.

I imagine the collision speed was quite low since they just left the junction. There's a reason things like following distance and looking in front of you while driving™ exist.