Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#41

Post by ahelwer »

atonse wrote: post #25

How did LIDAR and IR not catch that? That seems like a pretty serious problem. It's clear from the video that a human driver actually would've had more trouble since the pedestrian showed up in the field of view right before the collision, yet that's in the visible spectrum. When I argue for automated driving (as a casual observer), I tell people about exactly this sort of stuff (a computer can look in 20 places at t…

It isn't at all clear from the video. Video cameras of this quality vastly underperform human vision in low-light conditions.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#42

Post by freehunter »

jonknee wrote: post #30
ChuckMcM wrote: post #24

This time it actually has the video. And it is a poignant reminder that there is no such thing as a too reflective vest for bicyclists.

> there is no such thing as a too reflective vest for bicyclists And to not jaywalk a bike across a street in the dark!

Since I've seen this be a very controversial statement here in the past, I'd just like to point out to everyone that American drivers on four lane roads are not expecting pedestrians to be in the middle of the road and not at a crosswalk. That is not a normal thing to happen in America, and no one expects it to happen. It is a very rare situation.

--edit: okay guys... no where did anyone argue that you shouldn't be watching for pedestrians crossing. Stop yelling "gotcha!" like you caught me in a trap. What I'm arguing against is the common refrain on these articles that there is no such thing as jaywalking and the pedestrian has the right to the road over the car. Maybe it's true in Europe judging by comments on previous articles, but it's not common in the US. It's illegal.

Congratulations on expertly knocking down your own strawman, though.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#43

Post by bobbles »

alva wrote: post #29

On the one hand, the cyclist became visible in the footage at a very late stage. If that is how the drivers eye saw it they would have very little time to react, however they may have been able to do a sharp swerve. On the other, the operator was clearly distracted regardless of if they would have been able to avoid this.

You're getting downvoted but the guy was obviously reading his phone the entire time...

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#45

Post by jonathanyc »

stefan_ wrote: post #31

If there is something that isn't going to help the public perception of autonomous cars at all, it's releasing a compressed to shit capture of another video showing a single camera angle from dozens. I would say it's a deliberate attempt to manipulate if I didn't also strongly believe ignorance on part of the police department has lead them to believe that autonomous cars could even exit a parking lot without data fr…

Yeah. Does the Uber car really capture video at 480p and 15fps? Also only releasing the video conveniently ignores the fact that these cars have IR and LIDAR. The pedestrian is hard to see in this video essentially because it is dark and they are wearing dark clothing. Neither of these are at all obstacles to LIDAR and IR, and the video at least shows us that the road is clear of obstructions.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#46

Post by arduinomancer »

atonse wrote: post #25

How did LIDAR and IR not catch that? That seems like a pretty serious problem. It's clear from the video that a human driver actually would've had more trouble since the pedestrian showed up in the field of view right before the collision, yet that's in the visible spectrum. When I argue for automated driving (as a casual observer), I tell people about exactly this sort of stuff (a computer can look in 20 places at t…

I would think the car would have been able to at least do something in this situation? It looks like it didn't react at all.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#47

Post by ryduh »

dogweather wrote: post #35
HankB99 wrote: post #27

This seems like a simple case. I would have expected the driver assist in my 2017 Subaru to have reacted to something in the road. I'm surprised that the much more sophisticated self driving system did not.

I didn't know that new Subaru's can come with driver assist. How does it work? What's your experience with it? I've got a 2013, and am thinking about trading in.

I love our 2017 Outback w/ EyeSight. Luckily, we haven't had to test the auto braking system at high speeds but the lane assist and assisted cruise control are wonderful.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#48

Post by cek »

"There is no such thing as an accident. Only negligence."

This was no accident. The jaywalker was negligent for crossing the street as she did.

Uber is negligent for not having autonomous vehicle standards that clearly exceed what humans can do (I don't think a human could have avoided her based on the video).

Not sure about the driver. Depends on his training/job etc...

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#50

Post by taneq »

jonknee wrote: post #30
ChuckMcM wrote: post #24

This time it actually has the video. And it is a poignant reminder that there is no such thing as a too reflective vest for bicyclists.

> there is no such thing as a too reflective vest for bicyclists And to not jaywalk a bike across a street in the dark!

Also maybe to look both ways before crossing the road?

Still, the bike and rider were in view front-and-center for plenty of time for an alert driver to brake (if not avoid).

Post reply on HN