Waymo

[Doggydogworld]

Here is statement from Waymo:

"On February 6th at 17th Street and Mississippi Street in San Francisco, one of our vehicles was involved in a collision with a bicyclist. The Waymo vehicle was at a complete stop at a four-way intersection. An oncoming large truck progressed through the intersection in our direction and then at our turn to proceed, we moved into the intersection. The cyclist was occluded by the truck and quickly followed behind it, turning left and crossing into the Waymo vehicle’s path. When they became fully visible, our vehicle applied heavy braking but was not able to avoid the collision. Waymo called police to the scene and the cyclist left on their own, to our knowledge reporting only minor scratches."

"Turning left" was not in other media reports that quoted Waymo, e.g. ABC News or Mission Local. I can't find the statement on their web page, just a bunch of feel-good articles and videos. The original language works for other scenarios. For example, all parties go straight (no turns) with Waymo heading north, truck heading south and bike heading east, crossing just behind the truck into Waymo's path. There's really no way to know without a clearer statement.

 

[flutas]

“The cyclist was occluded by the truck and quickly followed behind it, turning left and crossing into the Waymo vehicle’s path.”

Seems like scenario 1. I agree we can’t be 100% certain but I can’t read this and make it fit scenario 2. Following (behind!) has specific meaning (it is too sloppy to refer to following in sequence/temporally) - as does “fully visible.”


They were assertive here in their statement (“our turn to proceed”). I suspect they know with certainty they had right of way because they started moving before the truck had cleared the stop line on the other side of the intersection (in other words they were stopped before the truck had cleared the stop line).

This is all speculative on my part, but to me followed could mean what you're saying i.e. the bike followed the direction of the truck or it could mean followed "in sequence" i.e. the bike went after the truck at the stop sign, but not in the same direction. The behind part here being literal, as in the bike went behind the truck.

That's why I'm confused with their statement, they are extremely wishy-washy "followed behind it", "heavy braking", and my favorite line that everyone was taking at first to mean the bicyclist ran from the accident "the cyclist left on their own." Then they try to be pointedly very factual with other parts of the statement "at a complete stop", "our turn to proceed," and "fully visible".

If I'm going to take the statement as 100% facts and nothing else, another line sticks out to me that I feel hasn't been discussed here, and also leaves a lot of room for interpretation on the sequence.

"The Waymo vehicle was at a complete stop at a four-way intersection. An oncoming large truck progressed through the intersection in our direction and then at our turn to proceed, we moved into the intersection."

To me, the bolded parts mostly play for scenario 2 in my mind. The Waymo vehicle approached the stop sign while a large truck was already in the intersection, then stopped. Otherwise, how did the truck "progress[ed]" through the intersection before the Waymo vehicles turn.

The Waymo has right of way. Knowing that the truck was going straight, and not having any cars to its right, the Waymo was safe to proceed. Even if anyone was to the Waymo's left, the Waymo would have right of way. The biker, on the other hand, had to yield to traffic to his right. He couldn't see to his right, so he shouldn't have moved.

Again, in scenario 2 they may think they have the right of way, but not actually have the right of way.

CVC 21802 says that you only have to yield ROW to the right "to any vehicles which have approached from another highway" (aka already stopped cars) or "which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard" (aka cars that approach at the same time). After that it's your ROW ("A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.")

Sequence for that:

1. Truck enters intersection slowly as large trucks sometimes do (supported by the statement "progressed through the intersection [...] at our turn to proceed", i.e. truck had ROW)
2. Bicycle pulls up to the left side road planning to make a left hand turn on to the same street as the Waymo ("oncoming large truck [...] in our direction [...] The cyclist was occluded by the truck", would be behind the truck on the left as it's "progress[ing] through the intersection")
3. Waymo vehicle reaches stop sign, can't make out bicyclist. ("The cyclist was occluded by the truck")
4. Waymo vehicle, upon truck nearing their side of the intersection and determining it isn't turning into their path decides to go (out of order, as the bike has ROW).
5. Bicycle, upon the rear of the truck passing them, decides to go as it's their turn.
6. Collision

That's why I was wondering if we know more. Their statement is very factual in parts, then extremely wishy-washy in others.

 

[JB47394]

Sequence for that:

I'd almost bet money that a judge would still peg the cyclist as being at fault. The delay caused by the truck changes the dynamics at the intersection. If the truck took a week to get through that intersection, surely it falls to the cyclist at the end of that week to establish that their right is clear of vehicles.

 

[flutas]

I'd almost bet money that a judge would still peg the cyclist as being at fault. The delay caused by the truck changes the dynamics at the intersection. If the truck took a week to get through that intersection, surely it falls to the cyclist at the end of that week to establish that their right is clear of vehicles.

Not in that scenario according to the law.

21802.

(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

(c) This section does not apply where stop signs are erected upon all approaches to an intersection.
(Amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 623, Sec. 3.)

In that scenario, the Waymo would be found at fault as they had the duty to give ROW to the bike and give ROW to the bike until it was able to proceed "with reasonable safety." Which by nature of an accident occurring wouldn't have been safe, though fun fact AVs are exempt from tickets in CA.

Again though, this is all speculation based off the wording of the statement.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

This is all speculative on my part, but to me followed could mean what you're saying i.e. the bike followed the direction of the truck or it could mean followed "in sequence" i.e. the bike went after the truck at the stop sign, but not in the same direction. The behind part here being literal, as in the bike went behind the truck.

That's why I'm confused with their statement, they are extremely wishy-washy "followed behind it", "heavy braking", and my favorite line that everyone was taking at first to mean the bicyclist ran from the accident "the cyclist left on their own." Then they try to be pointedly very factual with other parts of the statement "at a complete stop", "our turn to proceed," and "fully visible".

If I'm going to take the statement as 100% facts and nothing else, another line sticks out to me that I feel hasn't been discussed here, and also leaves a lot of room for interpretation on the sequence.

"The Waymo vehicle was at a complete stop at a four-way intersection. An oncoming large truck progressed through the intersection in our direction and then at our turn to proceed, we moved into the intersection."

To me, the bolded parts mostly play for scenario 2 in my mind. The Waymo vehicle approached the stop sign while a large truck was already in the intersection, then stopped. Otherwise, how did the truck "progress[ed]" through the intersection before the Waymo vehicles turn.



Again, in scenario 2 they may think they have the right of way, but not actually have the right of way.

CVC 21802 says that you only have to yield ROW to the right "to any vehicles which have approached from another highway" (aka already stopped cars) or "which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard" (aka cars that approach at the same time). After that it's your ROW ("A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.")

Sequence for that:

1. Truck enters intersection slowly as large trucks sometimes do (supported by the statement "progressed through the intersection [...] at our turn to proceed", i.e. truck had ROW)
2. Bicycle pulls up to the left side road planning to make a left hand turn on to the same street as the Waymo ("oncoming large truck [...] in our direction [...] The cyclist was occluded by the truck", would be behind the truck on the left as it's "progress[ing] through the intersection")
3. Waymo vehicle reaches stop sign, can't make out bicyclist. ("The cyclist was occluded by the truck")
4. Waymo vehicle, upon truck nearing their side of the intersection and determining it isn't turning into their path decides to go (out of order, as the bike has ROW).
5. Bicycle, upon the rear of the truck passing them, decides to go as it's their turn.
6. Collision

That's why I was wondering if we know more. Their statement is very factual in parts, then extremely wishy-washy in others.

They’re not kidding when they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[JB47394]

Again though, this is all speculation based off the wording of the statement.

Which is the thing about the imprecision of the written word. I would argue that the bike didn't "continue to yield right of way to the truck until he could proceed with reasonable safety". What's reasonable safety? I assert that it would be making sure that there isn't a vehicle to the right. Or at least making sure that the vehicle is aware of the bike in the intersection. A judge may or may not interpret it that way.

 

[cwerdna]

SF couple describes feeling 'trapped' riding in Waymo driverless car that was being attacked

The San Francisco couple says someone was trying to cover the sensors of the Waymo vehicle as the light turned green. "We felt trapped in the sense that we didn't know what to do in that instance," said Moreno.

abc7news.com

ABC 7 news covered this:

Waymo driverless car vandalized, set on fire in San Francisco's Chinatown

Several social media videos showed a group of people vandalizing a self-driving car in San Francisco’s Chinatown Saturday night.

www.nbcbayarea.com

"The group tagged the car, broke the windows and Waymo told NBC Bay Area that someone set off a firework inside the driverless vehicle."

The car caught on fire and was a total loss.

 

[cwerdna]

I wonder if Waymo car vandalized & lit on fire - Feb 10, 2024 from Chinatown, San Francisco, CA will get merged into this thread.

 

[BrerBear]

The best part is that the Waymo is covered in cameras, while the punks only seem interested in hiding their faces from onlookers.
They probably have full LiDAR scans of them!

 

[flutas]

Which is the thing about the imprecision of the written word. I would argue that the bike didn't "continue to yield right of way to the truck until he could proceed with reasonable safety". What's reasonable safety? I assert that it would be making sure that there isn't a vehicle to the right. Or at least making sure that the vehicle is aware of the bike in the intersection. A judge may or may not interpret it that way.

I don't understand why you're ignoring subsection b.

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection

The bike in that case, would have fulfilled A, as everything was done and it was their turn to go.

For some reason you think running a stop sign wouldn't be a violation of A? I don't really get your argument. Bike would have ROW, Waymo would be the one failing subsection A. Bike would be correctly following subsection B after fulfilling A.

SF couple describes feeling 'trapped' riding in Waymo driverless car that was being attacked

The San Francisco couple says someone was trying to cover the sensors of the Waymo vehicle as the light turned green. "We felt trapped in the sense that we didn't know what to do in that instance," said Moreno.

abc7news.com

ABC 7 news covered this:

Waymo driverless car vandalized, set on fire in San Francisco's Chinatown

Several social media videos showed a group of people vandalizing a self-driving car in San Francisco’s Chinatown Saturday night.

www.nbcbayarea.com

"The group tagged the car, broke the windows and Waymo told NBC Bay Area that someone set off a firework inside the driverless vehicle."

The car caught on fire and was a total loss.

Those are different stories.

Your first one is from Feb 7th, and describing an incident that occurred on Feb 3rd.

Your second one is from Feb 10th, about an incident that occurred...on Feb 10th.

 

[JB47394]

I don't really get your argument.

That's okay. Our agreeing or disagreeing won't change anything.

 

[cwerdna]

Those are different stories.

Your first one is from Feb 7th, and describing an incident that occurred on Feb 3rd.

Your second one is from Feb 10th, about an incident that occurred...on Feb 10th.

I didn't say they were about the same incident.

 

[voyager]

Gizmodo mentioned the fire incident:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757010560301015431

"Looks like they have Waymo problems than they expected"

 

[diplomat33]

 

[diplomat33]

Anguelov mentions that Waymo wants to leverage the knowledge and reasoning capabilities of LLMs to give AVs better understanding of what it is seeing.

He gives examples of how LLMs can understand visual scenes:

He presents some open questions for using LLM/VLM for autonomous driving:

 

[Supcom]

Anguelov mentions that Waymo wants to leverage the knowledge and reasoning capabilities of LLMs to give AVs better understanding of what it is seeing.

He gives examples of how LLMs can understand visual scenes:

He presents some open questions for using LLM/VLM for autonomous driving:

Despite stating that there were firefighters on the scene, the LLM suggests calling 911?

 

[diplomat33]

Despite stating that there were firefighters on the scene, the LLM suggests calling 911?

Anguelov says that not everything the LLM suggests in that example is actionable. Clearly, calling 911 when there are already firefighters on the scene, does not make sense. But I do think it shows the potential of LLMs to help AI to understand scenes better. For example, if an AI driver can understand that it is approaching an accident and it should proceed with caution and obey instructions from first responder simply from seeing certain visual cues, that will be super helpful to make AVs handle more difficult cases and require less remote assistance. It will certainly be a more effective approach than trying to write heuristic code to handle every driving scenario.

But the example does illustrate that LLMs do not always produce good outputs (as anyone who has used ChatGPT can testify). They certainly need more work to be more reliable. It is one reason why I say that LLM for driving is promising and might produce exciting results but we probably don't want to rely on it alone for the entire driving tasks just yet.

 

[Supcom]

Anguelov says that not everything the LLM suggests in that example is actionable. Clearly, calling 911 when there are already firefighters on the scene, does not make sense. But I do think it shows the potential of LLMs to help AI to understand scenes better. For example, if an AI driver can understand that it is approaching an accident and it should proceed with caution and obey instructions from first responder simply from seeing certain visual cues, that will be super helpful to make AVs handle more difficult cases and require less remote assistance. It will certainly be a more effective approach than trying to write heuristic code to handle every driving scenario.

But the example does illustrate that LLMs do not always produce good outputs (as anyone who has used ChatGPT can testify). They certainly need more work to be more reliable. It is one reason why I say that LLM for driving is promising and might produce exciting results but we probably don't want to rely on it alone for the entire driving tasks just yet.

Very little was actually actionable for an AV in this example. An AV should always be looking out for surrounding vehicles and people. If it sees emergency vehicles, it should already know to slow down. Whether the disabled car is on its side as claimed (it wasn't), upside down, or right side up is not germane. It's an obstruction in the road that must be avoided. It could be an alien spaceship or a pile of bricks for that matter.

It's nice that an LLM can decipher a photograph. But, this wasn't all that good of an example of how an LLM might enhance an AVs capabilities.

 

[cwerdna]

A Mob Just Vandalized A Waymo Self-Driving Car And Set It On Fire. The Videos Are Nuts - The Autopian embedded

https://twitter.com/x/status/1756567716960539103

with footage of the fire department putting the fire out. Then the cops try to clear the area at the end.

Authorities work to identify people who set Waymo car on fire in San Francisco

Authorities on Monday were working to identify those responsible for setting an autonomous vehicle on fire in San Francisco over the weekend. Sergio Quintana reports.

www.nbcbayarea.com

 

[diplomat33]

On March 13, Waymo co-CEO will do a fire side chat on the topic of scaling safely to a multi-city service:

As Austin is set to become the next city to ride with Waymo, join the company’s co-CEO Tekedra Mawakana for a fireside conversation with Mostly Human's Laurie Segall about how Waymo has successfully built a multi-city service, how it navigated a breakout year for autonomous vehicles in 2023, and why the autonomous future of transportation is closer than ever before.

Featured Session: Scaling Safely: Waymo's Roadmap for a Multi-City AV Service

SXSW 2024 Schedule | Fully autonomous ride-hailing is here.In San Francisco, Metro Phoenix, and increasingly Los Angeles, it’s totally normal to hail a Waymo ride with no human driver. Waymo has already provided more than 700,000 rides to members of the public, without humans behind the wheel.As...

schedule.sxsw.com