Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident • Hacker News Board

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#121

Post by TillE » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:09 AM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #51

This is definitely not a case of someone jumping out in the road, as was previously reported. Sure, jaywalking at night is a bad idea, but this is exactly the type of thing an automated driving system should catch and avoid

Right. This really is the worst case scenario for Uber, the worst set of circumstances you could have deduced from the original report; the only excuse they have is that it was dark, and if you can only see about 20 feet in front of you, it's clearly insane to be driving 40mph.

And it doesn't seem like there's any braking at all, even once she's visible. Really really bad.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#122

Post by stefan_ » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:09 AM UTC

kodis wrote: post #33

I 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.

An autonomous vehicle obviously shouldn't exceed a speed where it's stopping distance exceeds it's vision capabilities, since next time it might as well be a tree trunk. That's sometimes difficult for humans to gauge, but then we want autonomous cars so they can make these calculations (and they are much better equipped to).

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#123

Post by freehunter » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:09 AM UTC

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 can't count the number of commercials I've seen for Fords and Nissans and Subarus and every kind of modern car that has this exact feature, and this is exactly how the advertising plays out. Someone sprints in front of the car, the car stops automatically, everyone is safe, pedestrian continues with their life. I've never used it in real life, but I assume it works how the ads show it.

If Uber can't match a $25,000 off-the-shelf floor model mass-market midsized sedan for collision avoidance, it's hardly a self-driving car.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#124

Post by jcranmer » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

lhorie wrote: post #10

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…

There are two caveats to interpreting the video:

1. Human eyes have a better dynamic range than cameras do. The camera is thus displaying a worse contrast than a human eye can see.

2. Motion is preattentive in the visual system. (When you think about it, panicking about subtle motion in the corner of your eye tends to be evolutionarily advantageous).

So the time we have to identify the pedestrian using the video is a minimum bound of the time, not necessarily an accurate reflection of the time. It is not clear how much extra time (if any) a reasonable driver would have in this incident.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#125

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

netsharc wrote: post #114

jackpirate wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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…

Which makes me wonder if the Uber autocar is just relying on camera vision to drive itself... If it is, and it's been lying to authorities (I don't know what they said to the authorities about their cars' capabilities), that could be big.

[deleted]

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#126

Post by tedd4u » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

A few people have commented along the lines of "I probably couldn't have stopped in time even if I had been driving." I think it's important as a driver to hit the brakes as hard as you can even if you don't think you'll be able to avoid collision, because the energy is reduced greatly even with a small amount of deceleration (F=ma). Probability of death in car/pedestrian collision is reduced from over 80% to under 10% by slowing from 40 mph to 20 mph. [1]

Also, I think it's likely the human eye would have been able to see the woman before the camera does. The camera needs her to be fully covered by the headlight beam. I know when I drive at night I focus my attention on the area between the road ahead and the fringe of the beam as I scan center, left and right. The area outside the beam coverage never looks fully black to me. I definitely can perceive obstacles outside the main beam coverage.

[1] http://www.humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#127

Post by jonknee » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

netsharc wrote: post #114

jackpirate wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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…

Which makes me wonder if the Uber autocar is just relying on camera vision to drive itself... If it is, and it's been lying to authorities (I don't know what they said to the authorities about their cars' capabilities), that could be big.

Far more likely is that this is a standard dash cam that the police know how to pop the SD card out of and access the video...

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#128

Post by _blz2 » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

Is the video slowed down? Also they need to release a better quality. If I was behind that wheel, I don't think I would've seen that lady to be quite honest. The place where the lady was crossing the road was under a shadow of nearby trees or buildings. If one is going to cross a road like this, they should at least use a well lit part of the road. Also, why did she have her back turned to the traffic if she is jaywalking on such a big road. Very poor decisions on her part. I am willing to bet Uber gets out scot-free with this one, and rightly so.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#129

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

bobbles wrote: post #43

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...

[deleted]

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#130

Post by gnicholas » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

titanix2 wrote: post #38

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…

Agree that the driver was clearly not paying attention.

I was surprised that the headlights did not illuminate further down the road. That is, drivers are cautioned not to “out-drive your headlights” — meaning that you shouldn’t drive so fast that by the time you see something, you don’t have time to react. Maybe a human driver couldn’t have avoided the accident given the speed the self-driving car was traveling, but perhaps a human driver would have (or should have) driven slower?