Why? This is only true if they weren't supposed to be on the road in the first place. Which is not true.
Indeed, it is, and that is exactly why Waymo will have to accept some responsibility. I can bet that internally Waymo's PR and Legal teams are working overtime to coordinate the details with NHTSA. We, the general public, may or may not know the details at all, if ever. However, Waymo's technical teams (Safety, etc) will also be working overtime to figure out what they could have done better.
As I mentioned, this is a standard test, and Waymo likely has 1000s of variations of this test in their simulation platforms; they will sweep across all possible parameters to make this test tighter, including the MER (minimum expected response from the AV) and perhaps raise the bar on MER (e.g. brake at max deceleration in some cases, trading off comfort metrics in those cases; etc.) and calculate the effects on local traffic (e.g. "did we endanger the rear vehicles by braking too hard? If so, by how much??" etc). All these are expected actions which the general public will never know (except, perhaps via some technical papers).
Regardless, the PR effects of this collision do not look good, especially as Waymo is expanding their service to other cities (Miami just announced; London by EOY2026). This PR coverage has potential to do more damage to the company than the actual physical damage to the poor traumatized kid and his family. THAT is the responsibility only the company will pay for.
To be sure, my intuition tells me this is not the last such collision. Expect to see some more, by other companies, as they commercialize their own services. It's a matter of statistics.
If I program a machine and it goes out into the world and hurts someone who did not voluntarily release my liability, that's on me.
I think there is an argument for incentivising the technology to be pushed to its absolute limits by making the machine 100% liable. It's not to say the accident rate has to be zero in practice, but it has to be so low that any remaining accidents can be economically covered by insurance.
> I would say that Waymo's response, per their blog post [2] has been textbook compliance.
Remember Tesla's blog posts? Of course Waymo knows textbook compliance just like you do, and of course that's what they would claim.
Most likely, yes, the NHTSA investigation will be credible source of info for this case. HOWEVER, Waymo will likely fight it tooth-and-nail from letting it be public. They will likely cite "proprietary algorithms / design", etc. to protect it from being released publicly. So, net-net, I dunno... Will have to wait and see :shrug.gif:
But meanwhile, personally I would read reports from experts like Phil Koopman [1] and Missy Cummings [2] to see their take.
> Remember Tesla's blog posts?
You, Sir, cite two companies that are diametrically opposite on the safety spectrum, as far as good behavior is concerned. Admittedly, one would have less confidence in Waymo's own public postings about this (and I'd be mighty surprised if they actually made public their investigation data, which would be a welcome and an pioneering move).
On the other hand, the other company you mentioned, the less said the better.
As I did suspect, legal scholars are already calling for "voluntary disclosure" from Waymo re: its annotated videos of the collision [2]. FWIW, my skepticism about Waymo actually releasing it remains...
[1] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26001-10005.pdf
[2] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/matthew-wansley-62b5b9126_a-w...
Cringe. Stop it. Simping for google has stopped being cool nearly 2 decades ago.
That's a difficult question to answer, and the devil really is in the details, as you may have guessed. What I can say that Waymo is, by far, the most prolific publisher of research on AV safety on public roads. (yes, those are my qualifiers...)
Here's their main stash [1] but notably, three papers talk about comparison of Waymo's rider-only (i.e. no safety driver) performance vis-a-vis human driver, at 7.1 million miles [2], 25 million miles [3], 56 million miles [4]. Waymo has also been a big contributor to various AV safety standards as one would expect (FWIW, I was also a contributor to 3 of the standards... the process is sausage-making at its finest, tbh).
I haven't read thru all their papers, but some notable ones talk about the difficulty of comparing AV vs human drivers [5], and various research on characterising uncertainty / risk of collision, comparing AVs to non-impaired, eyes-on human driver [6]
As one may expect, at least one of the challenges is that human-driven collisions are almost always very _lagging indicators_ of safety (i.e. collision happened: lost property, lost limbs, lost lives, etc.)
So, net-net, Waymo still has a VERY LONG WAY to go (obviously) to demonstrate better than human driving behavior, but they are showing that their AVs are better-than-humans on certain high-risk (potential) collisions.
As somebody remarked, the last 1% takes 90% of time/effort. That's where we are...
---
[1] https://waymo.com/safety/research
[2] https://waymo.com/research/comparison-of-waymo-rider-only-cr...
[3] https://waymo.com/research/do-autonomous-vehicles-outperform...
[4] https://waymo.com/research/comparison-of-waymo-rider-only-cr...
[5] https://waymo.com/research/comparative-safety-performance-of...
[6] https://waymo.com/blog/2022/09/benchmarking-av-safety/
[edit: reference]
“The event occurred when the pedestrian suddenly entered the roadway from behind a tall SUV, moving directly into our vehicle's path. Our technology immediately detected the individual as soon as they began to emerge from behind the stopped vehicle. The Waymo Driver braked hard, reducing speed from approximately 17 mph to under six mph before contact was made,” a statement from Waymo explains.
I wonder whether Waymo’s model notices that small children are present or likely to be present and that it should leave extra margin for error.
(My general impression observing Waymo vehicles is that they’ve gone from being obnoxiously cautious to often rather aggressive.)
Now you're asking interesting questions... Technically, in CA, the speed limit in school zones are 25 mph (which local authorities can change to 15 mph, as needed). In this case, that would be something the investigation would check, of course. But regardless of that, 17 mph per se is not a very fast speed (my gut check: turning around intersections at > 10-11 mph feels fast, but going straight at 15-20 mph doesnt feel fast; YMMV). But more generally, in the presence of child VRUs (vulnerable road users), it is prudent to drive slowly just because of the randomness factor (children being the most unaware of critters). Did the Waymo see the kids around in the area? If so, how many and where? and how/where were they running/moving to? All of that is investigation data...
My 2c is that Waymo already took all of that into account and concluded that 17 mph was indeed a good speed to move at...
...which leads to your observation below:
> (My general impression observing Waymo vehicles is that they’ve gone from being obnoxiously cautious to often rather aggressive.)
Yes, I have indeed made that same observation. The Waymos of 2 years ago were very cautious; now they seem much more assertive, even a bit aggressive (though that would be tough to define). That is a driving policy decision (cautious vs assertive vs aggressive).
One could argue if indeed 17 mph was the "right" decision. My gut feel is Waymo will argue that (but likely they might make the driving policy more cautious esp in presence of VRUs, and child VRUs particularly)
Legally a speed limit is a 'limit' on speed, not a suggested or safe speed. So it's never valid to argue legally that you were driving under the limit, the standard is that you slow down or give more room for places like a school drop-off while kids are being dropped off or picked up.
Well, people are doing a lot of what-about-ism in this situation. Some of that is warranted, but I'd posit that analyzing one "part" of this scenario in isolation is not helpful, nor is this the way Waymo will go about analyzing this scenario with their tech teams.
Let's consider, for argument's sake, if the Waymo bot had indeed slammed at the brakes with max decel, and had come to a complete (and sudden) stop barely 5cm in front of the kid. Would THAT be considered a safe response??
If I'm a regulator, I'd still ding the bot with an "unsafe response" ticket and send that report to Waymo. If YOU were that pedestrian, you'd feel unsafe too. (I definitely have seen such responses in my AV testing experience). One could argue, again, that that woulda been legally not-at-fault, but socially that would be completely unacceptable (as one would guess rightly).
And so it is.
The full behavior sequence is in question: When did Waymo see the kid(s), where+ how were they moving, how did it predict (or fail to) where they will move in the next 2s, etc. etc. The entire sequence -- from perception to motion prediction to planning to control -- will be evaluated to understand where the failure for a proper response may have occurred.
As I mentioned earlier, the proper response is, under ideal conditions, one that would have caused the vehicle to stop at a safe distance from the VRU (0.5m-1m, ideally). Failing which, to reduce the kinetic energy to a minimum possible ("min expected response")... which may still imply a "contact" (=collision) but at reduced momentum, to minimize the chance of damage.
I suspect (though I dont know for sure) that Waymo executed the minimum expected response, and that likely was due to the driving policy.
We won't know until we see the full sequence from inside the Waymo. Everything else is speculation.
[Disclaimer: I dont work for Waymo; no affiliation, etc etc]
Even people being all indignant on HN.
But that's not people being rational. That's people being dumb and impatient -- most of us will admit we've done impatient things in a car.
But shouldn't an AV drive like we wish we would drive on our best behavior?
Having performed this exact test on 3 dozen vehicles (L2/L3/L4) for several AV companies in the Bay Area [1], I would say that Waymo's response, per their blog post [2] has been textbook compliance. (I'm not defending their performance... just their response to the collision). This test / protocol is hard for any driver (including human driven vehicles), let alone ADAS/L3/L4 vehicles, for various reasons, including: pedestrian occlusion, late ped detection, late braking, slick roads, not enough braking, etc. etc.
Having said all that, full collision avoidance would have been best outcome, which, in this case, it wasn't. Wherever the legal fault may lie -- and there will be big debate here -- Waymo will still have to accept some responsibility, given how aggressively they are rolling out their commercial services.
This only puts more onus on their team to demonstrate a far higher standard of driving than human drivers. Sorry, that's just the way societal acceptance is. We expect more from our robots than from our fellow humans.
[1] Yes, I'm an AV safety expert
[2] https://waymo.com/blog/2026/01/a-commitment-to-transparency-...
(edit: verbiage)