Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

Event description & immediate reactions

• Waymo’s blog says the child ran into the road from behind a tall/double‑parked SUV; the system detected them as they emerged, braked from ~17 mph to <6 mph, the child got up and walked away, and Waymo called 911 and stayed until cleared.
• Many commenters see this as a relatively good outcome in an almost impossible scenario, where a human might well have hit at much higher speed or killed the child.
• Others reject relying on a corporate blog, ask for video, and note carefully lawyered wording (“contact”, “young pedestrian”, omission of school‑zone details).

Speed, context, and defensive driving

• Long debate over whether 17 mph was reasonable “cautious progress” or reckless given: near an elementary school, during drop‑off, children present, crossing guard, double‑parked vehicles, occluded sight lines.
• Some argue a highly defensive human would have pre‑slowed to 10 mph or less, driven closer to the centerline, or avoided the street entirely. Others counter that in practice many drivers speed through school zones and ignore signs.
• Distinction drawn between reaction speed (where AVs win) and prevention via context and anticipation (where good humans may still be better).

Human vs AV safety and required standard

• Supporters claim Waymo’s aggregate crash and injury rates are already substantially better than humans in its geofenced domains, and emphasize no distraction, fatigue, or intoxication.
• Skeptics argue the mileage is tiny compared to human driving, excludes bad weather, and often compares against older “Level 0” cars. They demand orders‑of‑magnitude improvement and independent, not Waymo‑produced, studies.
• One analysis suggests, very roughly, that this incident could imply a higher child‑injury rate per mile than the US average, but others say a single event is statistically meaningless and the domains aren’t comparable.

Accountability and liability

• Concern that with AVs, victims face a deep‑pocketed corporation rather than an individual driver; fear of endless legal fights and weak criminal accountability.
• Others reply that today many dangerous human drivers face minimal consequences, lack insurance, or never see jail, and that corporate liability plus insurance might actually be more reliable in practice.

Infrastructure, vehicle design, and policy

• Strong theme that road design and giant SUVs are core problems: on‑street and double parking near schools, poor visibility, and US “car‑first” planning.
• References to European/Swedish traffic calming, Vision Zero, bans/limits on parking near schools, and even pedestrianizing school streets.
• Some argue AVs cannot solve fundamentally unsafe street design; at best they mitigate.

Waymo behavior and transparency

• Mixed anecdotes: some describe Waymos as extremely cautious and good at spotting occluded pedestrians and cyclists; others report recent increases in aggressiveness and strange edge‑case behavior.
• Multiple calls for Waymo to release annotated video and detailed data, and criticism that key safety information has previously been withheld or litigated over.