Waymo Robotaxi Hits a Child Near an Elementary School in Santa Monica (techcrunch.com)
- Reference: 0180686102
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/01/29/151223/waymo-robotaxi-hits-a-child-near-an-elementary-school-in-santa-monica
- Source link: https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/29/waymo-robotaxi-hits-a-child-near-an-elementary-school-in-santa-monica/
> The NHTSA has opened an investigation into the accident, and Waymo said in a blog post that it "will cooperate fully with them throughout the process."
>
> Waymo said its robotaxi struck the child at 6 miles per hour, after braking "hard" from around 17 miles per hour. The young pedestrian "suddenly entered the roadway from behind a tall SUV, moving directly into our vehicle's path," the company said in its blog post. Waymo said its vehicle "immediately detected the individual as soon as they began to emerge from behind the stopped vehicle."
>
> "Following contact, the pedestrian stood up immediately, walked to the sidewalk, and we called 911. The vehicle remained stopped, moved to the side of the road, and stayed there until law enforcement cleared the vehicle to leave the scene," Waymo wrote in the post.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/29/waymo-robotaxi-hits-a-child-near-an-elementary-school-in-santa-monica/
Ideal (Score:5, Insightful)
This is pretty much the ideal situation where a self-driving car can perform better than a human driver. The car was probably following the posted speed limit precisely. It's likely been designed to cope with this specific situation because it's relatively common. And it can detect and react to the pedestrian faster than a human reaction time.
Re: (Score:3)
The average human driver would have been texting while speeding and would have run the kid over.
Re: (Score:1)
You're right. The human driver probably would have hit the kid just as slowly, realized that it's a minor and hit the gas and leave the scene as soon as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Could I please see a reference demonstrating that the word "average' equates to claiming it applies to EVERY SINGLE ONE?
Re: (Score:2)
Could I please see a reference demonstrating a strawman EVERY SINGLE ONE is strawmaning while typing and that EVERY SINGLE ONE would have written a strawman? Has no poster ever strawmaned with non-strawmaners?
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt even a driver paying attention would have reacted as quickly. Sounds like the Waymo performed very well.
Re: (Score:2)
The posted speed limit is not a minimum, it's a maximum. And the driver is expected to choose a speed at or below it such that the car can stop or avert in time. Which was not the case here.
Re: (Score:2)
So the car should have come to an almost complete stop and creeped past every tall SUV that blocks its line of sight?
Re: (Score:2)
If the SUV is inches away then yes, the car should slow down. At greater distances to stopped/parked traffic, it's safe to go faster.
Re: Ideal (Score:2)
Yeah, so what you mean is, in theory the car should have driven 1 mph as that would have been the only speed this could have been averted. But in reality, the kid was lucky it was a robocar as if it was a human driver the kid would have been run over at a much higher speed as the human would not have reacted this fast, and would probably have driven even faster. These kind of situation should be compared on human vs robocar in a realistic practical situation, not pure theory. And the practical realistic sit
Re: (Score:2)
> This is pretty much the ideal situation where a self-driving car can perform better than a human driver. The car was probably following the posted speed limit precisely.
Mostly agree but there's one thing a human would do better, or at least some humans. You recognize that you're near a grade school around 3PM, understand there is limited visibility around crosswalks and buses etc., and understand how children behave. So you voluntarily slow down to *below* the posted speed limit. I know that's what I do, not so much because I'm an exemplary driver, but I certainly want to avoid being crucified by a jury for bumping a careless kid. No way a driver (or Waymo) gets a fair
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you!
Unfortunately, the world is not made up of just you, and plenty of assholes don't give a hoot about other people's kids. They're not even aware they're near a school because they're responding to a text message while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey look, the one person who mentioned that in-real-life "stopping time" and "stopping distance" is not time-/homogeneous! Instead, how about between 8am-9am, 3pm-4pm, don't route a self-driving car *anywhere* within two blocks of a school?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, according to the article:
> Waymo said in its blog post that its “peer-reviewed model” shows a “fully attentive human driver in this same situation would have made contact with the pedestrian at approximately 14 mph.” The company did not release a specific analysis of this crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. This is a resounding success. The engineers will be very happy with the performance of this thing they built.
Had a human been driving, this would not have gone so well. It would likely barely have made the local news though. And do you know what is the biggest danger for kids near a school? Parents driving their kids. They are tired, stressed, distracted, etc. Good luck.
Suspicious (Score:1)
It detected the kid as soon as it could. Also, it was going 17 MPH. I can't even name a car that can't stop basically instantly at 17 MPH. Remember, 10MPH -> 20MPH = 4x the inertial energy to dissipate so 17PMPH is VERY easy to brake from. I think they're playing with semantics and it "detected" but made the wrong interpretation and never intended to brake. That's why they didn't openly say that it failed to brake in time due to reaction time and speed and physics, because that's not true, but that's wha
Re: (Score:1)
The point is that AI should know how long it would take to stop and therefore the safe speed to drive in that situation. Isn't that a simple job for a computer? Isn't that the point of automated driving, to be safer? I have never been convinced that safety is at all being taken into consideration in the design of these things.
Re: (Score:2)
> I have never been convinced that safety is at all being taken into consideration in the design of these things.
That is because you have no clue how the research is done. Safety is the overriding factor in the design of self-driving tech (well, except at Tesla, but they are an exception and they have the problem that their big-ego owner mistakenly thinks he is an engineer), because the people working on it know that they will be held to much, much higher standards than human drivers. Oh, and look, that is happening.
In the case at hand, a human driver would likely have bad injured or killed that kid. That would not ha
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be seeing things that are not there. Probably because you are not looking at this rationally, you only look for factors that you can then hold against them. And you do not seem to mind stretching the truth to its breaking point.
That is the typical irrational behavior of somebody deep in fear. Get over it. Accept that self-driving is already much safer then than the average human driver. And remember that way below average human drivers are also allowed on the streets.
Re: Suspicious (Score:2)
In school zones, I drive like every object taller than 4 feet has a child behind it.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm glad that worked out for you, but it's not like humans have a [1]great safety record [childrenss...etwork.org] avoiding child pedestrians. You're talking about a pretty rare case where you can tell when something is about to happen due to clues, but let's face it, most accidents are going to happen because it's hard to see, or there was no warning, or the driver was distracted by a cell phone. If you just added auto-braking to all passenger cars, what do you think would happen to those pedestrian collision statistics?
[1] https://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/infographics/walking-safe-child-pedestrian-safety
Re: Robots vs people, child hit vs not (Score:2)
What he is talking about is the human ability to anticipate danger rather than the robot ability to react to it. That one second makes all the difference when we choose to employ it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you got lucky. There was a ton of warning signs and you saw and understood them. Let me know when that is the average case and the average performance of a human driver.
Also, if that kid had been killed or severely injured by a human driver, it would barely have made the local news.
Re: Robots vs people, child hit vs not (Score:2)
Most human drivers perform below their own capabilities. Luckily we can hold software to a higher standard without much pushback or whining or execuse making. Well plenty of people outside the industry are willing to white knight the self driving industry by inventing arguments and excuses for what is often a solvable problem.
Here we go (Score:2)
And here we go. Now Waymo can go convince the mother of that child that they are good for all of humanity.
First Hand Experience? (Score:2)
Would anyone here that has had first hand experience, riding in a Waymo, care to share what it's like? Speeds, distances, traffic, general feeling, comfort level..?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've only taken one ride, while on vacation in San Francisco, and went about 8 miles. I felt safer in the Waymo than *many* taxi/Uber/Lyft drivers I've ridden with. Screens are in the vehicle and you can see everything it is "seeing". There was a bicycle that darted in front of the car, which the Waymo saw before I did and slowed down properly. It was a nice day, so there were no weather factors. I wouldn't hesitate to ride in one again.
Re: First Hand Experience? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've ridden in one. It was just like riding in any car, but a little disconcerting to have the driver's seat empty while the car did its thing. Maybe a little smoother and more predictable than the average Uber.
Given how many Waymos there are on the road and how little trouble weâ(TM)ve heard about - despite breathless coverage of every incident, - Iâ(TM)d say they seem to be doing better than human drivers.
Re: First Hand Experience? (Score:2)
very conservative, defensive driving. surprisingly normal feeling
Re: (Score:1)
It was a nice ride but it wasn't allowed to go on the highway so the trip took longer.
Wrong headline (Score:2)
Shouldn't the headline actually read, "Waymo vehicle saves child from serious injury"? Because that's pretty much what happened.
A human driver probably would have hit that kid and knocked him 20 feet, or even run him over. Instead, the child gets up and walks away after doing something incredibly dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But the media is not after reporting accurately and sensibly. They want sensationalism.
Also, had that been a human driver, the dead or severely injured kid would barely have made the local news.
And if that had been a human driving... (Score:2)
The child would probably severely injured or dead now. But that would not make the news.
Face it: Regarding safety, most humans cannot compete with self-driving.
The best outcome of a tough situation (Score:3)
Sounds like the rules of the road were followed. This can happen and does happen daily.
Lucky kid!
Re: The best outcome of a tough situation (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, that rule is basically impossible to follow especially when there are stupid kids around.
assuming what you say is true (Score:2)
We can't stop habing children, so the next logical step is to stop having cars.
Re: (Score:2)
A human driver could have anticipated that there would be kids like that near a school. So I think "impossible" is a pretty strong word in this situation.
By the way, the law is called the "Basic Speed Law" and every state has one. Here is [1]California's [ca.gov].
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=22350.
Re:The best outcome of a tough situation (Score:5, Informative)
Every speed has a minimum stopping distance where, even assuming a reaction time of 0 (impossible), if something appears in that zone without warning, you will hit it no matter what . That's just physics. You can't bring a vehicle to a halt in an arbitrarily short distance.
Somebody stepping out from behind a tall obstacle with no warning right in front of you is one such case. All you can to is try to stop as quickly as possible and hit them with as little force as you can.
The only absolutely safe speed is 0, with the parking brake engaged, and chocks under the wheels.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it's wise not to drive faster than your visibility permits. If a brick wall suddenly enters the range of your headlights you should be able to stop in time.
Your rule of "never overdrive your ability to stop for something that may appear in front of you without warning" is much harder. Someone can hide (intentionally or not) in front of any parked car and jump out full speed without warning if they want to. To follow your rule, you'd have to drive 5 MPH or maybe even less, any time that there are cars
Re: (Score:2)
Someone, or something. Anyone who has spent any amount of time driving in areas where forest-lined highways are common has hit a deer, or directly knows someone who has. Unless you're driving 25mph down the highway there's not a lot you can do when a deer comes bounding out of the tree line 15 feet away.
Re: (Score:3)
Since you just made up a rule that is impossible to follow unless you always drive no faster than ten miles an hour, I can't say that I attach much importance to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you come to a complete stop every time you approach the corner of an object you can't see around?
Re: (Score:2)
That would explain why I've witnessed, on more than one occasion, someone come to a complete stop at the "merge" portion of a freeway onramp.
Re: (Score:2)
> What about the rule to never overdrive your ability to stop for something that may appear in front of you without warning?
What about the humans that basically follow this rule like "never"? The SAE-5 guidance system was careful and reacted fast. A human might not have been and would definitely have reacted slower.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it was obviously driving at a faster speed than what would've been necessary to fully stop the vehicle in time.
Meaning, the "driver" was not in control, considering its speed and the environment. It was reckless.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a situation that many drivers would have encountered early in their early driving careers and get trained to anticipate. Someone emerging suddenly from behind a stationary vehicle, such as a school bus, especially in a residential area. This scenario and other similar scenarios are also part of the EURO NCAP scenarios that self-driving cars have to pass, and all self-driving algorithms are tested for before getting certified.
Re: (Score:2)
It happens frequently, yes.
But usually, the kid gets seriously injured or killed and the whole thing barely makes the local news, if at all. This is a success story and a nice demonstration what SAE 5 can actually do and do it reliably (quite unlike a human).