You didn't read the ArsTechnica article at all, did you? 18 actual collisions, and a further 27 simulated crashes that "would have occurred if the safety drivers hadn't intervened."
I read the actual multi-page report and its NOT saying what you are trying to imply.
Sure "18 actual collisions" but notice you didn't mention that every one of those was the other driver's fault.
Here's one just to paint you a visual picture.
"further 27 simulated crashes" Notice how you made it seem like these are all accidents that Waymo caused. Yet the report is literally saying the complete opposite.
- You make it sound like the Waymo car is going the opposite direction and the safety driver grabs the wheel and there would have been a head on crash if they didn't as we have seen with Tesla FSD.
- You make it sound like the Waymo car is making a left turn and mistimed the traffic coming and the safety driver had to take over to prevent from being T-bone, as we have seen with Tesla FSD.
- You make it sound like the Waymo car is barreling at very high speed straight into a stationary object, car, barrier, wall, metal, and the safety driver yanks the wheel and there would had been a crash as we have seen with Tesla FSD.
Even the article lets you how Waymo is defining "collisions":
"A pedestrian walked into the side of a stationary Waymo vehicle at 2.7 miles per hour (4.3km/h). "
If this was Tesla and news articles were written "Tesla FSD crashes into a pedestrian". You will be among the main ones screaming "FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD" and how the media are writing negative articles about Tesla. Yet here you are weaponizing this very incident
"Two simulated crashes involved a bike and a skate boarder rolling into the sides of stationary Waymo vehicles at speeds of 2.2 and 5.9 miles per hour, respectively."
Likewise if this was Tesla and news articles were written "Tesla FSD crashes into a cyclist and person on scooter".
You will be among the main ones screaming "FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD" and how the media are writing negative articles about Tesla.
Yet here you are weaponizing this very incident
I could go on and on...
How could a safety driver possibly intervene in a sideswipe like you've illustrated? A safety driver wouldn't see a vehicle approaching it directly from the side, and certainly wouldn't have time to intervene.
LMFAO what? This has happened to me like 50 times. Where someone tries to lane change into me and i swerve away and Honk and scream at them.
Haha you can't be serious right now...
This accident, just like with Waymo, was a sideswipe with enough time to intervene.
Again this accident was NOTHING like what Waymo described in ANY way.
The fact that you would bring Waymo into this situation (in this particular way) immediately makes me amazed at how emotionally invested you are in a company/person/software.
When the Cruise accident happened, notice how no one said "But Tesla has accidents too". People simply analyzed the accident. But somehow you feel so slighted that you painting a Waymo's safety document in an incorrect light, a type of document that TESLA will NEVER release. NEVER!
All to justify how great Tesla is. Lesson you should take from this is, next time someone posts a safety disengagement don't have an immediate reaction of "that's not even close to a safety disengagement." Because if the driver of this car was alert, not tired and adequately took over. If I had posted the video here. You would be the first to reply how "that's not even close to being a safety disengagement" and how the driver "over-reacted".