81–90 of 1001 posts
She crossed at a spot that was pitch black. Sneakers come into view maybe 40 feet away. Clearly visible at 20. Is that enough time to stop at that speed? Not sure I would have stopped in time.
Two obvious things from the footages: the pedestrian is invisible until the last moment, and the "driver" is focused on something else, probably a smartphone. Given of how little time there was between the hitted woman became visible and the impact, a driver action may not have been able to avoid it, but what will be interesting is how his responsability will be engaged or not. Anyway one advantage of automous car is…
In this crappy video, yes. Maybe it was scaled down massively before handing to the police or made darker, we don't know. It might have been visible for a normal person.
However bad the car was or wasn't at detecting the victim, it's nothing compared to how bad the human victim was at detecting the car (which presumably had its lights on coming down an empty street at night). Imagine if the victim was driving a car...
Two obvious things from the footages: the pedestrian is invisible until the last moment, and the "driver" is focused on something else, probably a smartphone. Given of how little time there was between the hitted woman became visible and the impact, a driver action may not have been able to avoid it, but what will be interesting is how his responsability will be engaged or not. Anyway one advantage of automous car is…
When I watch night videos from my dashcam, they look similar to this but in reality my night vision is much better.
I believe I would have had time to slow down significantly in this situation.
That car supposedly had LIDAR and whatever else, so WTF wasn't it able to at least slow down?
While I'm surprised the sensors on the car didn't catch the cyclist, I pretty sure if I had been driving and paying full attention I would have hit the bike too. Personally, given this video, I'd still be totally comfortable with a self driving car on the road with no safety driver (who clearly didn't make a difference here anyway, not that they could have).
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…
I'm curious how the visibility differs between what we see on this camera and what a human actually sees in person.
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…
This video also shows another point I made recently in a conversation. People need stimulus to keep them alert and focused. I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect someone to sit idly with almost no interaction or responsibility and expect them to stay alert. The human brain doesn't function that way.