I would be curious to know what the car thought the situation was, something must have gone really wrong here. It ignored the double lines and crossed them to overtake and then stayed in the wrong lane for a really long time.
If the car understood the state of the world around this, this is kind of a huge mistake in behaviour. And if it didn't it is concerning as well as it would mean it can end up in the opposite lane without knowing it. I would suspect maybe a bit of both, that it misunderstood the world when it started to overtake, and then was unable to abort the process safely. In that case I probably would have expected it to stop driving forwards and put on hazard warning lights as long as it is in the wrong lane.
One possible explanation would be that it detected the unicyclists as pedestrians, assumed that it would be able to overtake them, and was unable to do but kept trying to overtake them.
Seems like a failure of their path planning in this case, the same way if someone were to try to overtake on a two lane road, one would have to abort the overtake if the vehicle one is trying to pass keeps on accelerating such that overtaking isn't safe anymore.
It’s kinda funny that the Waymo car is so impatient. I’m pretty sure in this situation I would have just waited until the group ride cleared out to ahead of me and then continued. I would not want to crowd or find my way around them. If I wanted to get past such a big group ride I would probably reroute onto another block since they would keep catching me at stop lights.
My guess is that the police car in the wrong lane confused the system. If a car is going in a direction, 99% of the time it's safe to follow the car and go in the same direction.
Everyone seems to be an expert on what to do in this situation. I would argue that it's not as trivial as it seems. Yes the waymo cars seems to be on the wrong side of the road for far too long but when surrounded with erratic uniwheeler, stopping is not necessarly the right thing to do either. As a human driver, i got into some strange situation where I had to play damage control because of an early bad decision. In a big city, not crossing the double yellow line mean you will probably end up stuck every block. I personally see this as a good example to learn from but not necessarly a reason to stop testing. I would also restrain from making any decision before seeing the actual data from the car cameras/lidar/radar system.
What I find revealing is it utter inability to reset to a safe position.
It stays in the wrong lane; is it because it can't rejoin because the lane is occupied by the unicyclist (looking at the video it does not appear to make efforts to go back) ? or because it has already forgotten the context and is now driving happily in a lane ...
Waymo told the Chronicle in a statement that the robotaxi “detected that there may be a risk of a person within that crowd who had fallen down, and decided to carefully initiate a passing maneuver when the opposing lane was clear to move around what could be an obstacle and a safety concern.”
“After starting that maneuver, out of an abundance of caution around these vulnerable road users, and to avoid getting too close or cutting them off, the Waymo remained in the oncoming lane for longer than necessary before returning to its original lane of travel,” the company said.
It is a really really really bad sign that these companies feel the obsessive need to lie and distort around what are safety-critical incidents. Where is the safety culture? If this is how it's going to be, why on earth should we trust them to deploy them on public streets?
That statement is PR bullshit, I expected better from Waymo. Nobody fell, so it misidentified the situation. And there was nothing careful about the overtake maneuver here, there was no safe place to end the maneuver in sight.
These kinds of mistakes will very likely happen with self-driving cars, the important part is to address them and improve the cars. I don't expect the cars to be flawless from the start (I do expect some fundamental safety mechanisms to work reliably from the start like the automatic braking before obstacles). Downplaying the issue here is a bad look for Waymo.
I'm not sure if it's entirely bullshit, but certainly the phrase "remained in the oncoming lane for longer than necessary" is doing some heavy lifting, feels like some key information has been omitted.
This has to be one of the most scifi videos I have ever seen... The lights, the people on uniwheels, the self-driving car that misbehaves followed by people on unicycles surrounding the car to coax it back to the correct lane...
"Waymo you're going the wrong way!" and the human uni-cyclist steers in front of Waymo, knowing that it will brake, in an attempt to force it back into the correct lane.
What if something was coded/learned to recognize the "people on the road surrounding the vehicle" situation, so that the car could try to get away or even ram them.
> the human uni-cyclist steers in front of Waymo, knowing that it will brake
That's a level of optimism I don't have....
...on the same level as a bloke I saw advertising a food blender on the shopping channel, sticking his fingers into the thing to prove the safety mechanism would stop the blades.
One really basic & important feature of (decent) autonomous systems might be called Situation Sanity Awareness. Human drivers are (overall) extremely good at that. And a car driving for any distance on the wrong side of a double yellow line is a very obvious SSA fail.
I've said it over and over: the American automobile transit system is inherently unsafe. That's why I've been a self driving skeptic. We have a system where there drivers must break the rules and/or drive in an unsafe manner regularly. This involves: excessive speed when others are driving too fast, entering the oncoming lane when needing to pass someone double parked, making blind turns because a big truck is blocking your view, not knowing when a pedestrian will enter a crosswalk and needing to slam on the brakes, having to yield when crossing a lane of traffic... the list goes on and on. There isn't an actual safe set of rules, and the rules we have are so commonly broken that a learning algorithm won't follow them.
I'd put this inherent danger at somewhere around 0.1% of the time. I'd say I'm forced to drive dangerously about once every 10 miles of driving, but the fact that people must drive dangerously occasionally to use the system means that a machine can't ever learn to use it safely.
Probably about the time that we realize 100% safety is an impossible goal, and better-than-human safety is achievable.
I fully admit to having done things in the car far dumber and more dangerous than this when I was young. I'm not excusing the Waymo, rather I'm putting it in perspective.
The point I was trying to make, clearly not very well, was that nobody would be surprised by a human making a mistake like this so why are we expecting perfection from a software controlled car? They will make mistakes but I'd also expect these mistakes to become less and less common. I'd only worry if the rate of change of performance isn't fairly positive...
I would not expect a human to drive two blocks while failing to go back to the correct lane; I would expect him to realize after 50m that there are too many and slow down and go back behind the uni cycle.
In the same way I do not expect a human driver to stop after hitting someone then start again and drag the body with it.
The problem is that it's easy to pump the statistic while driving miles without issue then it utterly fails when the situation is not well-defined anymore.
Machines don't make "mistakes". A mistake require intent. In case of autonomous driving, any problem is a defect in the system that the whole fleet share.
> I'd also expect these mistakes to become less and less common
So the people should just tolerate it in the mean time "for the greater good"? oh please, it's an enterprise.
There are a few more categories of people who often do stupid shit, many of which are fairly mundane and far less easy to disregard (such as: momentarily distracted / semi-permanently fiddling with their phone / dangerously incompetent).
I don't think it's unfair to point out that humans, quite often, also suck quite badly at driving.
In general, I don't think human sucks at driving, but there are many times when any driver can be extremely dangerous for many reasons.
Many of those reasons are illegal (alcohol, fiddling with your phone) so it's not a question of fairness an automated program was supposed to be better than that.
I don't see anything unfair in requiring that automated driving which is supposed to not be afflicted from our human failing to not perform illegal and dangerous driving ...
My take is that both have spectacular edge cases / failure modes that are essentially laughable from the other's point of view. It's hard to compare the two, when all we're doing is cherry picking scenarios.
I could point to a double pedestrian crossing near my place where cars routinely speed. Various people have told me that the drivers cannot see the pedestrians, for a variety of reasons (buildings, cars, and especially a large tree near one corner), yet the human drivers are confident to go 10-20 kph over the speed limit through the area, despite this lack of information. I can give many similar examples - people really do suck at driving, they just tend to get away with it most of the time because rare events are, well, rare.
AI sucks for a variety of other reasons. The only real question is whether on average, over all scenarios and ratios of humans to AIs populating the roads, one sucks more than the other. It's something I don't think we have the answer to.
I'd expect to be prosecuted if I was caught driving like this, and probably lose my license as a result
what is the threshold for permanently terminating Waymo's license?
- an example like this of dangerous driving?
- 1 death by dangerous driving?
- 10 deaths by dangerous driving? (say it veered right in this video into the other road users)
- 100 deaths by dangerous driving? (say it veers into a sidewalk full of pedestrians)
(Possibly also not using the indicator which is another point, but I don't think we can be 100% sure it wasn't used before the change started - California seems to require it only before not during lane change if I read it correctly)
I'd be very surprised if someone lost their license over doing this in the UK - you might get a fixed penalty notice but I suspect if you managed to explain to the police what you thought you were doing you might get away with a good telling off. Of course, if anyone got hurt you'd be in serious trouble...
The problem with these self-driving companies is that they drive a lot more miles than a human ever could. Even if their error rates were 1/10th of the most cautious human drivers, if we held them to the same standards as we hold humans, they'd lose their licenses in a week. This is due to the sheer number of cars they have and miles they drive.
This is a variation on the trolley problem. Would you rather have roads that are 10 times safer, with 10 times fewer accidents and 10 times fewer deaths, but where the accidents are completely unexplainable and where nobody can be held guilty, or would you rather have the world stay as it is?
If Waymo sold the software/hardware without onerous licensing costs I would rather live in world #2. If instead they become an incredibly wealthy lobbying engine based on extraction for a few rather than true wealth creation then I'd rather still live in world #1.
Negative publicity is reflected on their equity evaluation. They have great incentives. The system works.
I think with 100 deaths the company would get liquidated.
This incident alone probably caused more damage than a cost of one single driver's license suspension.
> I've seen many human drivers doing equally stupid things
Just yesterday I got yelled at by an Italian police officer who was directing traffic at a busy junction (I was in a rental car). [Full disclosure: I stopped, wound my window down, we had a polite conversation, everything turned out fine...]
The key difference is that if I screw up badly enough when driving, I risk a monetary fine and/or losing my licence and/or getting sent to prison. For most human drivers these represent clear incentives not to screw up when driving.
Questions:
Have we agreed on suitable penalties when an autonomous vehicle screws up, given there isn't a single human driver to sanction?
that's funny, because when I watched the video I've got the impression it was dangerously roaming around the roads of San Francisco with hundreds of non-consenting people in close proximity
We allow the barely coherent and error prone monkeys to control multiton vehicles around such roads for far worse reasons such as "I just felt like going for a drive".
The people surrounding the trial participant didn't give consent, if the drug causes a violent psychosis which in turn causes people to be injured by the participant, how does that differ?
I don't think I am, I think they are comparable, they are both regulated tests of new technology in real world situations where there is no practical alternative in order to determine if they are fit for purpose.
These companies should be fined hefty amounts and barred from beta testing out in public and putting people in danger. Governments should carry out comprehensive tests on a self-driving car's capabilities, same as cars without proven passenger safety (Euro NCAP) aren't allowed to be on roads carrying passengers.
And now this great AI company is also providing AI services to pariah states like Apartheid Israel to be used on people. That's scary.
Self driving is a very difficult (and expensive to develop) engineering challenge.. I think it might end up being cheaper (and thus more likely) that the "solution" will be a legal one rather than an engineering one: Self driving vehicles will have a light and/or klaxon on them, if you see or hear it, it will be your responsibility to get out of it's way.
Thats how the issues with automobiles vs other road users was resolved in the 1920's. The impetus is there, corporations want more and more robots for everything.
Next week when it does plow into a bunch of people or causes a pileup we'll have people saying "I did much worse when I was young, people do it all the time"
I now expect a new recaptcha challenge to be added by Google, identifying unicycles. We already have bicycles and mopeds, but it would appear that unicycles confuse their cars.
It's the humans fault for not being lawful and considerate to the AI murderbot:
> a former Baidu executive, Drive.AI board member, and one of the industry’s most prominent boosters — argues the problem is less about building a perfect driving system than training bystanders to anticipate self-driving behavior. In other words, we can make roads safe for the cars instead of the other way around. As an example of an unpredictable case, I asked him whether he thought modern systems could handle a pedestrian on a pogo stick, even if they had never seen one before. “I think many AV teams could handle a pogo stick user in pedestrian crosswalk,” he told me. “Having said that, bouncing on a pogo stick in the middle of a highway would be really dangerous.”
> “Rather than building AI to solve the pogo stick problem, we should partner with the government to ask people to be lawful and considerate,” he said. “Safety isn’t just about the quality of the AI technology.”
Reminds me of the jaywalking law in the US, brought about by the auto industry.
This law that sets the default of it being illegal to be in the road doesn't exist in much of the world. It's really up to the self driving cars to respect other road users at least as well as a human driver would, not expect to be able to mould the laws around the world to fit their limited capabilities.
I agree that the citation does sound cold and coercitive, but actually this is already kind of how streets and urban developments are designed. Human drivers are limited, so if you allow cars to go fast, you restrict or remove the right to be walking close to the road (highways). Conversely, if you want to give more room to pedestrians, you decrease the speed limit, reduce lane width, etc. such that they are able to react accordingly. Nothing wrong with that in principle.
Now, this does not say anything about the Waymo incident. In that case, the car performed an illegal maneuver, which cannot be blamed on other street users.
Making rods safe for cars sound like rails, put rails and isolate them for the other streets then have super fast carts that a computer can safely drive, you could have carts where you can load your car onto and it would move you closer to the destination.
If we need to design roads for Artificial Stupidity then we should design this roads from scratch and gain some extreme speeds and extreme safety from the work.
Yeah there was a PR big and legal campaign in the 20's from the auto industry to promulgate the idea of jaywalking and take the streets from the people.
You would expect a captcha that shows you two yellow lines, and asks you on which side of the yellow lines a car should be driving. Wether there are unicycles present is totally irrelevant.
Actually, by looking at the behaviour of the unicycles I could infer that this was a country where people drive on the right and therefore the car was probably doing something wrong?
No idea what the Waymo car was thinking, but what are these kids riding?
Maybe it thought they were on a bike lane? Where I'm from it's illegal to ride like that in a group outside of police-sanctioned events - you're supposed to ride one after the other and keep right.
> Maybe it thought they were on a bike lane? Where I'm from it's illegal to ride like that in a group outside of police-sanctioned events
I’m in Massachusetts where lane splitting is legal in some cases (single lane each direction, posted speed limit below some amount, probably something else). Some other states have similar rules, but in most it’s flatly illegal.
I believe California is an unusual outlier in that lane splitting is allowed with no additional restrictions.
> you're supposed to ride one after the other and keep right.
In many states bicycles are entitled to use the full lane. I often feel safer riding in the center of the lane for a few reasons:
1. The center of the lane is less likely to have small ride-ruining debris like glass, sticks, and nails
2. Cars surprisingly give me more space when passing if I’m not riding off to the side
3. It seems that potholes occur more often to the side of the rode than in the center, or at least get fixed more often when they’re toward the middle of the road
Note: I’m talking about the middle of the lane vs the side, not the middle of the lane vs the shoulder. The shoulder isn’t something you should travel in anyway, even on a bike.
FYI, lane splitting coventionally refers to driving a small vehicle between lanes of stopped or slow cars, rather than multiple small vehicles riding side by side within one lane [1]. The first is unconditionally illegal in Massachusetts, while the second is conditionally legal like you say.
Sure, but this article is about Waymo. We can create a new link about "unicycle rider with a camera driving on the opposite lane", but that's another topic
No-one is suggesting that that person should be duplicated a hundred million times and drive two tonne objects through every city in the world, you see. "Magic driving robot does stupid thing" is a much more interesting story than "arbitrary human does stupid thing", because the end goal is to have _a lot_ of the magic driving robot.
I suspect this is human error rather than a computer error. Waymo is a supervised system -- from what I've heard while there's little remote driving by humans, there is occasional real-time human labelling and confirmation. So the car likely phoned home to ask "what the heck is this?", and a human clicked on the "overtake" button or something.
Ok. So what are the consequences for this human operator and/or Waymo?
Human drivers make mistakes all the time, it’s true. But there are consequences for those mistakes. If a human drives into the opposite lane that’s a big problem, especially if they end up causing property damage or bodily injury. Why are the same standards not being applied here?
I've seen plenty of cars drive the wrong way down a one way street. I've done it myself by accident a couple of times. I've never seen any face any consequences other than being honked at. I've seen one pulled over, but they got away with just a warning since they were obviously just confused tourists.
OTOH, I doubt the operator still has a job, and Waymo is going to face significant consequences. Likely formal consequences, but if not, the punishment by the court of public opinion is going to be massive.
If this is actually what happened, then regardless of the consequences, it would challenge the notion that human supervisors provide adequate protection of the public while these cars are being tested.
If the car understood the state of the world around this, this is kind of a huge mistake in behaviour. And if it didn't it is concerning as well as it would mean it can end up in the opposite lane without knowing it. I would suspect maybe a bit of both, that it misunderstood the world when it started to overtake, and then was unable to abort the process safely. In that case I probably would have expected it to stop driving forwards and put on hazard warning lights as long as it is in the wrong lane.
Seems like a failure of their path planning in this case, the same way if someone were to try to overtake on a two lane road, one would have to abort the overtake if the vehicle one is trying to pass keeps on accelerating such that overtaking isn't safe anymore.
FWIW: The driving test (at least in Blighty) teaches you to look as far down the road as you can, never to just do what the bloke in front is doing.
It stays in the wrong lane; is it because it can't rejoin because the lane is occupied by the unicyclist (looking at the video it does not appear to make efforts to go back) ? or because it has already forgotten the context and is now driving happily in a lane ...
It only stopped when its path is blocked ...
“After starting that maneuver, out of an abundance of caution around these vulnerable road users, and to avoid getting too close or cutting them off, the Waymo remained in the oncoming lane for longer than necessary before returning to its original lane of travel,” the company said.
-- https://archive.ph/24IDK
> before returning to its original lane of travel
When it was only able to do so when someone started to block its path to force it to stop ...
These kinds of mistakes will very likely happen with self-driving cars, the important part is to address them and improve the cars. I don't expect the cars to be flawless from the start (I do expect some fundamental safety mechanisms to work reliably from the start like the automatic braking before obstacles). Downplaying the issue here is a bad look for Waymo.
"Waymo you're going the wrong way!" and the human uni-cyclist steers in front of Waymo, knowing that it will brake, in an attempt to force it back into the correct lane.
That's a level of optimism I don't have....
...on the same level as a bloke I saw advertising a food blender on the shopping channel, sticking his fingers into the thing to prove the safety mechanism would stop the blades.
I'd put this inherent danger at somewhere around 0.1% of the time. I'd say I'm forced to drive dangerously about once every 10 miles of driving, but the fact that people must drive dangerously occasionally to use the system means that a machine can't ever learn to use it safely.
I fully admit to having done things in the car far dumber and more dangerous than this when I was young. I'm not excusing the Waymo, rather I'm putting it in perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HoqFlDuuBI
But the goal is not exactly to have autonomous driving at their level ...
I would not expect a human to drive two blocks while failing to go back to the correct lane; I would expect him to realize after 50m that there are too many and slow down and go back behind the uni cycle. In the same way I do not expect a human driver to stop after hitting someone then start again and drag the body with it.
The problem is that it's easy to pump the statistic while driving miles without issue then it utterly fails when the situation is not well-defined anymore.
Machines don't make "mistakes". A mistake require intent. In case of autonomous driving, any problem is a defect in the system that the whole fleet share.
> I'd also expect these mistakes to become less and less common
So the people should just tolerate it in the mean time "for the greater good"? oh please, it's an enterprise.
I don't think it's unfair to point out that humans, quite often, also suck quite badly at driving.
Many of those reasons are illegal (alcohol, fiddling with your phone) so it's not a question of fairness an automated program was supposed to be better than that.
I don't see anything unfair in requiring that automated driving which is supposed to not be afflicted from our human failing to not perform illegal and dangerous driving ...
Especially since autonomous driving might bring more car not less (similar to Uber and Lift impact https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00678-z#Sec8 )
I could point to a double pedestrian crossing near my place where cars routinely speed. Various people have told me that the drivers cannot see the pedestrians, for a variety of reasons (buildings, cars, and especially a large tree near one corner), yet the human drivers are confident to go 10-20 kph over the speed limit through the area, despite this lack of information. I can give many similar examples - people really do suck at driving, they just tend to get away with it most of the time because rare events are, well, rare.
AI sucks for a variety of other reasons. The only real question is whether on average, over all scenarios and ratios of humans to AIs populating the roads, one sucks more than the other. It's something I don't think we have the answer to.
what is the threshold for permanently terminating Waymo's license?
(Possibly also not using the indicator which is another point, but I don't think we can be 100% sure it wasn't used before the change started - California seems to require it only before not during lane change if I read it correctly)
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/vehicle-code/21651b/
doing it for a second or two would likely be classed as "driving without due care and attention", resulting in a fine if convicted
however doing it for as long as in this video I suspect would be classed as "dangerous driving", with disqualification being the likely result
This is a variation on the trolley problem. Would you rather have roads that are 10 times safer, with 10 times fewer accidents and 10 times fewer deaths, but where the accidents are completely unexplainable and where nobody can be held guilty, or would you rather have the world stay as it is?
I think with 100 deaths the company would get liquidated. This incident alone probably caused more damage than a cost of one single driver's license suspension.
Just yesterday I got yelled at by an Italian police officer who was directing traffic at a busy junction (I was in a rental car). [Full disclosure: I stopped, wound my window down, we had a polite conversation, everything turned out fine...]
The key difference is that if I screw up badly enough when driving, I risk a monetary fine and/or losing my licence and/or getting sent to prison. For most human drivers these represent clear incentives not to screw up when driving.
Questions:
Have we agreed on suitable penalties when an autonomous vehicle screws up, given there isn't a single human driver to sanction?
Could the fleet get grounded?
Could the company get fined?
Could relevant executives go to prison?
Cruise's permit was suspended after their accident
https://youtu.be/zdKCQKBvH-A?t=742
These companies should be fined hefty amounts and barred from beta testing out in public and putting people in danger. Governments should carry out comprehensive tests on a self-driving car's capabilities, same as cars without proven passenger safety (Euro NCAP) aren't allowed to be on roads carrying passengers.
And now this great AI company is also providing AI services to pariah states like Apartheid Israel to be used on people. That's scary.
Thats how the issues with automobiles vs other road users was resolved in the 1920's. The impetus is there, corporations want more and more robots for everything.
> a former Baidu executive, Drive.AI board member, and one of the industry’s most prominent boosters — argues the problem is less about building a perfect driving system than training bystanders to anticipate self-driving behavior. In other words, we can make roads safe for the cars instead of the other way around. As an example of an unpredictable case, I asked him whether he thought modern systems could handle a pedestrian on a pogo stick, even if they had never seen one before. “I think many AV teams could handle a pogo stick user in pedestrian crosswalk,” he told me. “Having said that, bouncing on a pogo stick in the middle of a highway would be really dangerous.”
> “Rather than building AI to solve the pogo stick problem, we should partner with the government to ask people to be lawful and considerate,” he said. “Safety isn’t just about the quality of the AI technology.”
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/3/17530232/self-driving-ai-w...
This law that sets the default of it being illegal to be in the road doesn't exist in much of the world. It's really up to the self driving cars to respect other road users at least as well as a human driver would, not expect to be able to mould the laws around the world to fit their limited capabilities.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797
Now, this does not say anything about the Waymo incident. In that case, the car performed an illegal maneuver, which cannot be blamed on other street users.
If we need to design roads for Artificial Stupidity then we should design this roads from scratch and gain some extreme speeds and extreme safety from the work.
For real. Not /s.
Not in downtown Melbourne, but a definite possibility in suburban streets.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-68887800
They smashed up a bus and a regular taxi en route to Freedom!
Maybe it thought they were on a bike lane? Where I'm from it's illegal to ride like that in a group outside of police-sanctioned events - you're supposed to ride one after the other and keep right.
I’m in Massachusetts where lane splitting is legal in some cases (single lane each direction, posted speed limit below some amount, probably something else). Some other states have similar rules, but in most it’s flatly illegal.
I believe California is an unusual outlier in that lane splitting is allowed with no additional restrictions.
> you're supposed to ride one after the other and keep right.
In many states bicycles are entitled to use the full lane. I often feel safer riding in the center of the lane for a few reasons:
1. The center of the lane is less likely to have small ride-ruining debris like glass, sticks, and nails
2. Cars surprisingly give me more space when passing if I’m not riding off to the side
3. It seems that potholes occur more often to the side of the rode than in the center, or at least get fixed more often when they’re toward the middle of the road
Note: I’m talking about the middle of the lane vs the side, not the middle of the lane vs the shoulder. The shoulder isn’t something you should travel in anyway, even on a bike.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting
Ok. So what are the consequences for this human operator and/or Waymo?
Human drivers make mistakes all the time, it’s true. But there are consequences for those mistakes. If a human drives into the opposite lane that’s a big problem, especially if they end up causing property damage or bodily injury. Why are the same standards not being applied here?
OTOH, I doubt the operator still has a job, and Waymo is going to face significant consequences. Likely formal consequences, but if not, the punishment by the court of public opinion is going to be massive.
If you're Waymo apparently you can tell the car to run a red light, cause a moped to crash and not even need to report it to the state.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2024/03/26/waymo-...