●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byddtmm ( 549094 ) writes:
"The whole point of this is because Waymo isn't supposed to make those mistakes," the person wrote on Reddit.
I don't think any system can ever be expected to never make a mistake. As long as they make way less mistakes than humans, I'm all for it. The expectation of perfection is unrealistic.
byCalgaryD ( 9235067 ) writes:
Right, but what about the mistake that is affecting you? If a person makes a mistake they will be held responsible. So, same should go for companies as well.
Good for them if they make less mistakes, they are going to save money and pay less.
byddtmm ( 549094 ) writes:
Who says the company isn't held responsible?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byrsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes:
Last I checked the local government said so. They have indemnified waymo in every market they have launched their taxi service. I don't think that would hold up if they killed a human being, at least not one that isn't homeless, but so far it's held up for the more minor stuff that's happened.
Basically waymo cannot be cited for traffic violations and killing a pet is just a traffic violation. The most they could be held responsible for would be the value of the pet which is usually under $100.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bydjinn6 ( 1868030 ) writes:
The most they could be held responsible for would be the value of the pet which is usually under $100.
That's the same for a human driver too. And you have to prove they were negligent, i.e. speeding, running a stop sign etc.
byrsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes:
as it stands Waymo won't even be held responsible for that. Those sorts of penalties are waived for self driving cars in the cities they operate.
They have to be because they commit traffic infractions so often that the cops would be pulling them over and ticketing them constantly.
Rules for thee but not for me.
byfluffernutter ( 1411889 ) writes:
That's not true. If there was intent then they are responsible for the medical bills of the dog. And "we don't know what it will do" is not a defence Designing a car to drive itself and then not knowing what will happen is criminal negligence.
byrsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes:
but if you kill the dog it's just $100 bucks. Unless it's some kind of special dog.
If the dog lives I think you're right, they might be able to sue google in small claims court to recover damages and would probably win. Though it can be hard to collect on judgements like that.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes.
-- Mickey Mouse
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...