Human drivers keep rear-ending Waymos
Human-driven cars are responsible for most serious collisions involving Waymo’s self-driving vehicles, often by rear-ending them when the robotaxis brake cautiously or obey traffic laws more strictly than nearby drivers expect. Commenters debate whether this reflects unsafe human habits like tailgating and rolling stops, or shortcomings in autonomous driving behavior that confuses other road users despite being statistically safer overall. The conversation expands to fault and insurance, ethical braking decisions, how to test and regulate autonomous systems, and whether road rules or infrastructure should change to better accommodate robotaxis.
Rear-end collision patterns
- Many commenters note that serious Waymo crashes are typically human drivers rear-ending the AV.
- Common scenario described: AV cautiously noses into a partially occluded intersection, then stops quickly when detecting cross traffic; tailgating human then hits it.
- Some suspect strict stopping at stop signs, yellows, and crosswalks (vs “rolling stops”) causes surprises, especially in California.
- It’s unclear from the thread whether Waymos are rear-ended more often than comparable human-driven cars.
Braking behavior, predictability, and fault
- Debate over whether “erratic” or conservative braking contributes: AVs may brake faster/earlier or in situations humans would ride through.
- One side: safest choice is always to brake for potential hazards; rear driver is at fault for not maintaining distance.
- Other side: you can legally be “not at fault” yet still contribute to crashes by being unpredictable or over-reactive.
- Ethical tradeoff raised: is it better to risk more low-speed rear-ends or fewer high-severity crashes with pedestrians/cross-traffic?
- Some argue AVs might not account enough for what’s behind them; others note humans also can’t realistically monitor all directions at once.
Human driver behavior and infrastructure
- Strong criticism of human habits: chronic tailgating, speeding, “California rolls,” and post-COVID aggressiveness.
- Discussion of how drivers build mental models of “normal” behavior; AVs break those expectations by strictly following law and conservative rules.
- Traffic engineering concepts appear (e.g., 85th percentile rule, speed variance) and how mismatched speed limits and design encourage rule-breaking.
Testing, regulation, and system design
- Some call public-road testing of heavy AVs “insane”; others counter that Waymo did years of low-speed and closed-course testing and is already safer than humans.
- Proposal for a uniform federal AV test across varied conditions, including sensor failures; skepticism that standardized tests can’t be gamed.
- Ideas for mitigating rear-ends: special AV lights (e.g., blue), advance brake-light warnings, automated tailgating detection and potential enforcement.
Social dynamics and user experiences
- Reports that some pedestrians and drivers “hate” Waymos, block them, or act aggressively around them; others enjoy driving near them because they’re predictable and non-aggressive.
- Several riders describe Waymo trips as feeling markedly safer and “futuristic,” though some note odd low-speed maneuvers and poor parking choices.