# Waymo self-driving minivan involved in crash in Arizona



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

A self-driving vehicle operated by Waymo was involved in a crash in Chandler, Arizona, on Friday afternoon, according to local news stations. Images of the crash scene showed a Waymo minivan with its side caved in and another vehicle with a smashed front end. There were minor injuries reported at the scene.

Chandler police said the *Waymo van was in autonomous mode *with an occupant behind the wheel at the time of the crash, but it was not the "violator vehicle," according to ABC 15 News. A spokesperson for the Chandler Police Department and Waymo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In March, a self-driving Uber vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian, the first known victim of a crash involving a self-driving car. In the wake of the crash, Uber has halted its self-driving tests nationwide, and the industry has faced renewed scrutiny. Waymo CEO John Krafcik said publicly that his tech would have avoided the crash.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

how the hell would he already be so sure that it's not at fault without specifically detailing how he knows it's not at fault ? what a joke

he acting as waymos public relations director

we've seen these things blatantly run red lights but getting lucky that it didn't get hit, maybe it wasn't so lucky this time


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> how the hell would he already be so sure that it's not at fault without specifically detailing how he knows it's not at fault ? what a joke
> 
> he acting as waymos public relations director
> 
> we've seen these things blatantly run red lights but getting lucky that it didn't get hit, maybe it wasn't so lucky this time


"According to police, a Honda sedan traveling eastbound on Chandler Boulevard had to swerve to avoid striking a vehicle traveling northbound on Los Feliz Drive. As the Honda swerved, it continued eastbound into the westbound lanes of Chandler Boulevard and hit the Waymo van."


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> "According to police, a Honda sedan traveling eastbound on Chandler Boulevard had to swerve to avoid striking a vehicle traveling northbound on Los Feliz Drive. As the Honda swerved, it continued eastbound into the westbound lanes of Chandler Boulevard and hit the Waymo van."


he shouldnt state that it isnt at fault unless he states why

and we dont know if the waymo vehicle woulda avoided the accident with a human driver driving


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> he shoulda state that it isnt at fault unless he states why
> 
> and we dont know if the waymo vehicle woulda avoided the accident with a human driver driving


Bcause the Waymo vehicle wasn't at fault. The Honda left its lane and crossed into the Waymos lane, causing the accident.

We also don't know if a human driver WOULD have avoided the accident.

Either way it doesn't matter, the Waymo vehicle was in its lane and the Honda hit the Waymo vehicle.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

observer said:


> Bcause the Waymo vehicle wasn't at fault. The Honda left its lane and crossed into the Waymos lane, causing the accident.
> 
> We also don't know if a human driver WOULD have avoided the accident.
> 
> Either way it doesn't matter, the Waymo vehicle was in its lane and the Honda hit the Waymo vehicle.


Even if no human driver would have been able to avoid a collision, this is NOT what we have here. We are speaking about a robot designed to process trillions of calculations in a trillion of a second and find a solution to SUCCESSFULLY avoid a crash.

I bet you $1000, if they release the dash cam footage, there was enough time for the robot to AT LEAST change course and show intent to avoid collision, but did nothing.

And the geeks hearts stopped for a second. They need master Yoda to save their stupid robots....


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> Even if no human driver would have been able to avoid a collision, this is NOT what we have here. We are speaking about a robot designed to process trillions of calculations in a trillion of a second and find a solution to SUCCESSFULLY avoid a crash.
> 
> I bet you $1000, if they release the dash cam footage, there was enough time for the robot to AT LEAST change course and show intent to avoid collision, but did nothing.
> 
> And the geeks hearts stopped for a second. They need master Yoda to save their stupid robots....


Neither you nor I know what happened here, we are making assumptions based on the news reports and our own biases.

Did the Waymo attempt to avoid the collision? Maybe it did.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

observer said:


> Neither you nor I know what happened here, we are making assumptions based on the news reports and our own biases.
> 
> Did the Waymo attempt to avoid the collision? Maybe it did.


No it did not.

Watch the video and look for tire marks on the pavement close to the cars. There are NONE.






Looking at the damage I don't think it even slowed down while the other car was approaching head on towards the robot.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> No it did not.
> 
> Watch the video and look for tire marks on the pavement close to the cars. There are NONE.
> 
> ...


Skidmarks or their lack, don't prove anything. It could have swerved to try and avoid the Honda.

Regardless, of wether the Waymo attempted to avoid the collision, you can see from your video that the Honda was clearly at fault.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

observer said:


> Skidmarks or their lack, don't prove anything. It could have swerved to try and avoid the Honda.
> 
> Regardless, of wether the Waymo attempted to avoid the collision, you can see from your video that the Honda was clearly at fault.


A human would've probably slammed on the brakes resulting in skid marks on the pavement very close to the impact spot, or pulled the steering wheel to change direction. Considering the very few seconds before the impact, that pull would have been abrupt causing skid marks on the asphalt and probably, depending on how many cars were around and their location on the road, another collision. Or not.

Edit - *the robot, which supposed to do extremely better than a human, did nothing!*


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> Neither you nor I know what happened here, we are making assumptions based on the news reports and our own biases.
> 
> Did the Waymo attempt to avoid the collision? Maybe it did.


Post the video. Let's see it or are you simply stating what they want us to initially believe ?



observer said:


> Skidmarks or their lack, don't prove anything. It could have swerved to try and avoid the Honda.
> 
> Regardless, of wether the Waymo attempted to avoid the collision, you can see from your video that the Honda was clearly at fault.


there is NOTHING in that video that indicates the Honda is at fault, that waymo deathtrap could very easily have pulled in front of the other car


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

observer said:


> Skidmarks or their lack, don't prove anything. It could have swerved to try and avoid the Honda.
> 
> Regardless, of wether the Waymo attempted to avoid the collision, you can see from your video that the Honda was clearly at fault.


As I said - The robot DID NOTHING TO TRY TO AVOID THE COLLISION.

Here is the video from Waymo

https://j.gifs.com/vorK35.gif

and the youtube version of it









__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10156544003189015



*NO* change of direction, *NO* brakes, *NO* cars around!

The robot in chilling in the center lane at the speed limit, didn't even knew what it hit it! The sensors around the minivan should have detected the other car and triggered a reaction. But there, as we can see, is none.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> As I said - The robot DID NOTHING TO TRY TO AVOID THE COLLISION.
> 
> Here is the video from Waymo
> 
> ...


AS I SAID. IT WAS NOT THE WAYMO VEHICLES FAULT.

Who cares if it did nothing to avoid the accident (besides you), we have NO proof a person would have avoided it either.

Fact is, THE HONDA HIT THE WAYMO.



uberdriverfornow said:


> Post the video. Let's see it or are you simply stating what they want us to initially believe ?
> 
> there is NOTHING in that video that indicates the Honda is at fault, that waymo deathtrap could very easily have pulled in front of the other car


Really? You can't be serious.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> AS I SAID. IT WAS NOT THE WAYMO VEHICLES FAULT.
> 
> Who cares if it did nothing to avoid the accident (besides you), we have NO proof a person would have avoided it either.
> 
> ...


it does matter!! a human like myself would've swerved to the right where there clearly are no cars and would have avoided this accident easily !!

as i said before, even if not at fault, a human driver has the brains to try to avoid an accident using common sense

what kind of idiots risk their lives in these sdc death traps that would never know to instinctively try to avoid getting hit ?

that stupid ass car made no attempt to move at all !!

and you're trying to act like we're the morons ?? GIVE US A BREAK !!


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

L


observer said:


> AS I SAID. IT WAS NOT THE WAYMO VEHICLES FAULT.
> 
> Who cares if it did nothing to avoid the accident (besides you), we have NO proof a person would have avoided it either.
> 
> ...


If I was the driver I would have tried to avoid that Honda heading into my path and I'm confident you would make the same attempt. This is a very bad look for Waymo.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> it does matter!! a human like myself would've swerved to the right where there clearly are no cars and would have avoided this accident easily !!
> 
> as i said before, even if not at fault, a human driver has the brains to try to avoid an accident using common sense
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to act like you're morons.

Did you see how fast that car crossed over the median and hit the Waymo?

You are assuming a person would have the time to react. You have no way of knowing how a person would react, if at all.

There are thousands of accidents every day with people driving. If people were as reactive as you assume, there would be NO accidents.

Like I said earlier, regardless of if the Waymo reacted or not, the accident WAS CAUSED BY THE HONDA.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

observer said:


> AS I SAID. IT WAS NOT THE WAYMO VEHICLES FAULT.


Problem is, I never said Waymo car was at fault. Please check my above comments and see for yourself. (This is like I am saying the minivan was/is white and you keep repeating it was no cloud on the sky)



observer said:


> Who cares if it did nothing to avoid the accident (besides you), we have NO proof a person would have avoided it either.


Who cares? I don't think you are serious when asking such question. I know you would like to make everything as simplistic as possible, but driving in traffic (when it comes to collisions) has 2 components - 1. Don't collide with any cars around you, and 2. Avoid any collision as much as possible in case other drivers start behaving erratically.

As you can see from my comments, I already mentioned how this is fundamentally different because the Waymo minivan is not driven by a human, but by a software (supposedly much better than ANY human), and that changes everything and makes it so important to report, analyze and understand. I am not even saying the collision was avoidable, but is immensely important the robot never reacted and stood there like a sitting duck in the middle of the road. Why? Because the developers say this technology will.... pay attention here.... SAVE LIVES.

Don't think that by trying to keep your head in the sand, everybody will do the same and as long as the Waymo car was not at fault of causing the collision, people will ignore the fact that the same robot did NOTHING to avoid it.

Let me put it this way for you - if you have children or grandchildren, take them to Chandler and put them inside of a Waymo robot and if something bad happens (God forbid) ask me again Who cares, will you?



observer said:


> Fact is, THE HONDA HIT THE WAYMO.


Fact is, the robot did nothing (with plenty of room around) to TRY to avoid that collision.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> As I said - The robot DID NOTHING TO TRY TO AVOID THE COLLISION.
> 
> Here is the video from Waymo
> 
> ...


This sure looks to me like you are blaming the Waymo.



jocker12 said:


> Problem is, I never said Waymo car was at fault. Please check my above comments and see for yourself. (This is like I am saying the minivan was/is white and you keep repeating it was no cloud on the sky)
> 
> Who cares? I don't think you are serious when asking such question. I know you would like to make everything as simplistic as possible, but driving in traffic (when it comes to collisions) has 2 components - 1. Don't collide with any cars around you, and 2. Avoid any collision as much as possible in case other drivers start behaving erratically.
> 
> ...


By "who cares" I meant it made no difference if it swerved or braked or jumped 10 feet in the air, or if there was a human driver, it was likely neither could have done anything because it happened so fast. Like I said, there are Thousands of accidents every day involving human drivers. If humans were so good at driving, like you claim, there would be zero accidents.

"I bet you $1000, if they release the dash cam footage, there was enough time for the robot to AT LEAST change course and show intent to avoid collision, but did nothing."

It took about 2 seconds from the time the Honda jumped the center divider till the time it hit the Waymo.

2 seconds.

I doubt a human would have reacted any different.

Have you seen my kids drive? 

I absolutely would rather a Waymo drove them around.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> This sure looks to me like you are blaming the waymo


yes, blaming the Waymo car for not trying to swerve to avoid the accident

as everyone other than you knows, it's better to try to avoid an accident than to just let it happen


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> yes, blaming the Waymo car for not trying to swerve to avoid the accident
> 
> as everyone other than you knows, it's better to try to avoid an accident than to just let it happen


Again, we don't know that a human driver would have had enough time to react either.

Of course it's better to try and avoid an accident. I just don't think there was enough time.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

observer said:


> This sure looks to me like you are blaming the Waymo.


You really need to pay attention to my words you are quoting right there - The robot DID NOTHING *TO TRY TO AVOID* THE COLLISION.
Do you understand that is not the same as saying "the robot caused the collision"?



observer said:


> Like I said, there are Thousands of accidents every day involving human drivers.


The more you repeat that, the more IRRELEVANT it becomes, because the Waymo van was NOT driven by an inferior human, but by (as advertised and promised) a vastly superior robot. In those conditions, when the developers promise consumers their product will save lives, I expect the robot to overperform any human in both situations - 1. not causing collisions and 2. avoiding collisions.

This robot and all the other robots like it (because they run the same software) did NOTHING to avoid the collision.



observer said:


> It took about 2 seconds from the time the Honda jumped the center divider till the time it hit the Waymo.
> 
> 2 seconds.


That will be the argument in case we will be commenting here about human drivers, but that is NOT the case. The Waymo car was controlled by a software, meant to save lives and react way more faster and better than a human. Do you understand that?

This collision proves, if you, the SDC enthusiasts and the developers, keep comparing the robot with a human, that the robot is no better than a human at all, and consequently, is NO reason to have self driving cars at all.



observer said:


> Have you seen my kids drive?


Waymo robots, as self driving, are meant to have only passengers. If one of these robots will fail to avoid a possible collision like this one did, and your children will be inside as passengers, I am sure you'll regret it.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> how the hell would he already be so sure that it's not at fault without specifically detailing how he knows it's not at fault ? what a joke
> 
> he acting as waymos public relations director
> 
> we've seen these things blatantly run red lights but getting lucky that it didn't get hit, maybe it wasn't so lucky this time


that's the propaganda machine in full swing.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

jocker12 said:


> You really need to pay attention to my words you are quoting right there - The robot DID NOTHING *TO TRY TO AVOID* THE COLLISION.
> Do you understand that is not the same as saying "the robot caused the collision"?
> 
> The more you repeat that, the more IRRELEVANT it becomes, because the Waymo van was NOT driven by an inferior human, but by (as advertised and promised) a vastly superior robot. In those conditions, when the developers promise consumers their product will save lives, I expect the robot to overperform any human in both situations - 1. not causing collisions and 2. avoiding collisions.
> ...


Great points that only sdc sympathizers will just ignore until they are in one of these death traps and instead of moving out of the way when a car is heading towards them the sdc just sits there, they get seriously hurt, then start to realize they were being dumb about these cars.

Things will be easier for them to see only AFTER their kids get hurt in them.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

observer said:


> Again, we don't know that a human driver would have had enough time to react either.
> 
> Of course it's better to try and avoid an accident. I just don't think there was enough time.


You could be right about the time factor but I doubt it. I can react within two seconds and I bet you can too.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> You could be right about the time factor but I doubt it. I can react within two seconds and I bet you can too.


Later reports say the Waymo van was driven by the human driver. Now let me explain why this is a bad-bad (lose-lose) situation for Waymo.

1. If the human was driving, shows they still do not trust their software to go by itself, with no human intervention. Waymo says they are testing an entirely driver-less system (and brag about launching a fully commercial service sometime this year), but still rely on a human sitting in the driver seat to take control if their imperfect and unreliable software fails at driving.

2. Despite the fact that Waymo and the cops just changed the story by saying there was a human driving the Waymo car, the company *still has to release a VIDEO showing that driver controlling the car before and at the time of the collision*. Why? Because Waymo makes official statements blaming their drivers (like this situation when their car run a red light but later they've "officially" blamed the driver for it) but never post a dash cam interior video (like Uber showed for the Elaine Herzberg fatal accident), clearly showing their drivers doing what Waymo says they were doing (driving the cars). My personal suspicion comes from the fact that initially, Chandler police said the car was in self driving mode, probably because the first question they've asked the human monitor from inside the car about what happened, the first thing she said was that the car was in "autonomous mode". It is impossible for that human to make such a fundamental mistake and say the car was in autonomous mode, while she actually was driving it. In addition to that, without that essential information, probably the police would have said nothing, choosing to let people know they are still investigating the accident.

3. If the human was driving the car, out of self preservation and because the other car clearly is in human's monitor visual field, even if that collision was not avoidable, that human would have reacted, trying to get away from the incoming car by moving the steering wheel to the right. I agree the reaction time would have been insufficient to SAVE it, but the driver would have had plenty of time to TRY to move away from the other car's collision path.

4. If the car was in autonomous mode, the robot simply FAILED to properly react and try to save it.


----------

