When I cross-reference the lane lines at 0:03 with google maps[1], I get an estimate of the car being about 60ft-70ft away from the victim when I was first able to spot her shoe in the video. Some googling[2] says human reaction at 40mph would've taken 59ft, with an additional 80ft of actual stopping time. This seems in line with the police report that "it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind…
Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
71–80 of 1001 posts
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#72I sure couldn't have reacted quickly enough to have prevented this collision. I'd expect the car to have better reflexes then I do, but given the little time from when the pedestrian first showed up on camera and the time when the collision occurred, I doubt that there was anything that the car could have done, regardless of the sophistication of its software.
Still... IR should have seen this.
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#73Why is the FPS so low?
Why don't we see the IR/LIDAR footage?
Was the brightness adjusted after the fact to look favourably?
Why didn't the vehicle issue a full stop once the woman was clearly visible?
I feel PR handled.
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#74The interior view tells you everything you need to know about why anything except perfection in self driving cars will lead to more accidents.
The driver specially selected and trained for exactly this job, does not look at the road! If someone specially trained for that won't do it, the general public certainly will not.
Also, in the video you can not see the bicycle till it's almost too late. But I have better night vision than this camera, I feel as a human I would have seen the bike. (For example the sides are pitch black in the video, but in similar lighting I can see stuff to the side.)
But the real issue is that self driving cars should have better vision than a human, not worse!
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#75I sure couldn't have reacted quickly enough to have prevented this collision. I'd expect the car to have better reflexes then I do, but given the little time from when the pedestrian first showed up on camera and the time when the collision occurred, I doubt that there was anything that the car could have done, regardless of the sophistication of its software.
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#76The description given before the video was released painted a picture in my mind that the woman was on the median and "suddenly" entered the roadway in front of the vehicle. I pictured someone darting across the road directly in front of the car, with no way to stop in time. This video shows a completely different scenario. The woman started on the median, but the vehicle was in the #2 lane. She wasn't visible to the…
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#77This 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!
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#78How 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…
That's not at all clear to me. I don't know too much about cameras, but it looks to me like the camera is making the scene appear much darker than it actually is.
In the video, you can see many street lights projecting down onto the ground, and the person was walking the the gap between two streetlights. The gap between street lights (and hence the person) was in the field of view of the camera the entire time; they just weren't "visible" in the camera because of the low lighting. I'm confident my eyes are good enough that I would have been able to see this person at night in these lighting conditions. (Whether I could have reacted in time is another question.) It seems to me like the camera just doesn't have the dynamic range needed for driving in these low light conditions, which is a major problem.
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#79This 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.
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#80The description given before the video was released painted a picture in my mind that the woman was on the median and "suddenly" entered the roadway in front of the vehicle. I pictured someone darting across the road directly in front of the car, with no way to stop in time. This video shows a completely different scenario. The woman started on the median, but the vehicle was in the #2 lane. She wasn't visible to the…