Two Passengers Report Feeling Trapped in Waymo Car During Sensor Obstruction

During a nighttime Waymo ride in San Francisco, an individual reportedly blocked the sensors of an autonomous vehicle, leaving passengers Robert Moreno and his husband feeling trapped and unsure how to proceed. Waymo's support team reportedly advised the riders to stay inside the vehicle for safety. The individual reportedly left after a few minutes without further escalation.

Risk classification

• Primary risk domain: 7 AI system safety, failures, & limitations
• Primary risk subdomain: 7.3 Lack of capability or robustness

The Waymo vehicle failed to avoid a collision with a cyclist due to occlusion and stopped completely when its sensors were blocked, demonstrating a lack of capability or robustness in complex urban environments.

Causal factors

• Entity: AI
• Intent: Unintentional
• Timing: Post-deployment

The incidents occurred post-deployment due to the unintentional actions and decisions of the Waymo autonomous driving system during real-world operations.

EU AI Act risk tier

• Risk tier: 2 High Risk

High Risk: The system is an autonomous vehicle operating in critical transport infrastructure. According to the definitions, AI in critical infrastructure (such as traffic management or autonomous transport) is classified as High Risk.

AI system and alleged parties

• AI system: Waymo autonomous vehicle (Waymo)
• AI purpose: Autonomous Driving; Navigation Assistant
• Behaviour type: Autonomous
• Alleged developer: Waymo
• Alleged deployer: Waymo
• Alleged harmed parties: Robert Moreno's husband, Robert Moreno

Harm severity

Severity ratings are based on this scale.

Highest direct severity in any category: Negligible. Severity is scored from Negligible to Catastrophic in each harm category, for harm the reports describe as caused directly or indirectly by the AI system.

• Physical: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Infrastructure: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Property: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Financial: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Environmental: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Malicious content: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Differential treatment: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Civil rights: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Democracy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Privacy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Psychological: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Epistemic: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Child sexual exploitation and abuse: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible

People affected

• Occurrences reported: 2
• People reportedly harmed: 3
• People reportedly exposed: 3

Potential causes

Technology

• Sensor Occlusion by Large Vehicles: The AV could not detect the cyclist hidden behind a large truck.
• Vulnerability to Sensor Blocking: Pedestrian covering sensors blinded the vehicle, causing it to stop.
• Lack of Human-Like Anticipation: System failed to assume hidden hazards behind moving trucks.

Data Inputs

• Incomplete Environmental Data: Occluded line of sight prevented real-time tracking of the cyclist.
• Loss of Sensor Perception: Physical obstruction of sensors cut off critical environmental inputs.

Human Factors

• Passenger Panic and Helplessness: Riders felt trapped and lacked control when the vehicle was immobilized.
• Unpredictable Pedestrian Behavior: Pedestrian intentionally blocked sensors, exploiting AV vulnerability.
• Cyclist Riding Behind Truck: Cyclist crossed path quickly while occluded by a larger vehicle.

Process and Methods

• Defensive Driving Limitations: The AV's driving logic did not proactively stop for potential occlusion.
• Inadequate Emergency Guidance: Passengers lacked clear, immediate instructions during a sensor attack.

Information quality

• Classification confidence: High
• Reason for confidence: The report provides clear, firsthand accounts of two distinct incidents involving Waymo vehicles, including statements from the passengers, the company, and an academic expert. The details of the events are consistent and sufficient to classify the risks and harms.
• Ambiguities identified: The exact extent of the cyclist's injuries is described only as 'minor scratches' by Waymo, and the cyclist's own perspective is not directly quoted.
• Alternative interpretations: The sensor-blocking incident could be interpreted primarily as a human harassment/vandalism issue rather than an AI safety failure, though the vehicle's resulting state of trapping passengers represents an AI safety concern.

Two localized incidents involving Waymo autonomous vehicles in San Francisco highlight ongoing safety and robustness challenges in fully autonomous driving systems. While demonstrating physical safety risks to road users and passenger distress, the national security impact remains negligible to minor, with no systemic threat to critical infrastructure or state sovereignty.

• Overall national security impact: Minor
• Scope: Single nation
• Primary target: United States
• Alleged perpetrator: Unknown

Threat characteristics

• Imminence: Long-term. These incidents represent ongoing, long-term technological development and safety challenges rather than an active national security crisis.
• Autonomy: Full autonomy. The autonomous vehicles were operating in fully driverless mode, making real-time navigation and safety decisions without human intervention.
• Novelty: Established threat. Collisions involving autonomous vehicles and sensor obstruction issues are established challenges that have occurred previously in testing and deployment.

Impact by dimension

• Physical security: Minor. The incidents involved autonomous vehicles on public transport infrastructure, resulting in minor physical injury to a cyclist and temporary immobilization of a passenger vehicle. These represent localized safety failures rather than systemic threats to critical infrastructure.
• Information security: Negligible. No information warfare, intelligence compromise, or systematic information manipulation was associated with these commercial autonomous vehicle incidents.
• Sovereignty: Negligible. The incidents do not impact state authority, territorial control, or core government decision-making processes.
• Economic security: Negligible. While demonstrating current limitations in US autonomous vehicle technology, these localized incidents do not threaten strategic economic stability or technological competitive advantage.
• Societal stability: Negligible. No implications for mass surveillance, systemic discrimination, or large-scale societal stability were observed in these isolated traffic and sensor-blocking incidents.