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

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#431

Post by dschuler »

sgc wrote: post #366
dschuler wrote: post #260

I've noticed that pedestrians in the US tend not to look at cars coming their way when they cross intersections - I'm not sure if it's an attitude of "you're supposed to stop for me" and and they're willing to bet on that happening every time, or if they're really unaware of the danger of a few tons of steel coming at them. This always struck me as very strange as someone from Europe - they teach kids in elementary s…

I'll bite! According to https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/... , there are 6000-6500 pedestrian deaths per year in the EU (the data is only in graph form). EDIT: here is the raw data: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/... As someone who has spent a fair amount of time in both places, I can say that the US pedestrian feels more entitled due to an almost universal pede…

The first link is very interesting - for example the UK was able to reduce pedestrian fatalities from ~1500 per year (absolute numbers) in 1991 to ~500 in 2014.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#432

Post by Figs »

foobarbazetc wrote: post #5
lolsal wrote: post #4

I knew the woman was coming up in the video and I didn't see her until it would have been too late. The driver definitely seemed distracted by a device of some kind.

That’s only because there’s no light on her until the end. The car hardware should have seen her. If it doesn’t work in the dark it shouldn’t be on the road imho.

> That’s only because there’s no light on her until the end.

It seems like the car is out driving its headlights. Assuming a road line is about 10 feet (as is typical), only about 20~30 feet of distance is illuminated... but at 30mph you need ~45ft for an average car to break, and at 40mph you need ~80ft. (According to [1] -- ignoring reaction time.) Is there something wrong with the headlights? Is the video just that bad? (And if so, is it even used for decision making by the car?)

[1] http://www.government-fleet.com/content/driver-care-know-you...

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#434

Post by IndrekR »

skywhopper wrote: post #256
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…

The video here is misleading. A human driver has a much wider field of view and better low-light vision than this video renders the situation. That's not to say that this would have been prevented by an attentive driver. But it's also clear that the safety driver was not paying attention, so it's even harder to know.

Humans have amazing low-light adoption, but not if the human is blinded by/staring at a bright cell phone screen as seen on this video.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#435

Post by lhorie »

fudged71 wrote: post #251

I do wonder if perhaps Uber made the video darker before releasing. Or used a camera that is not the main sensing camera. Because I would hope the cars are smart enough to increase ISO to get more detail at night time.

> I do wonder if perhaps Uber made the video darker before releasing

This video was released by the police department.

Are you suggesting someone from Uber drove down to the scene at 10pm, somehow managed to grab the SD card from the dashcam with all the police there, ran back to their car, uploaded it to their laptop, fired up Premiere, edited the brightness, downloaded the modified video back into the SD, ran back to the scene with the tampered evidence, and only then the police got to it?

Sorry, but if this isn't a conspiratory theory, I don't know what is.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#437

Post by mirimir »

rlpb wrote: post #229
mirimir wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed! To LIDAR, she was basically standing in the lane, with a bulky bicycle. To visible light, including the driver, who was apparently half asleep or watching the dashboard, she was in shadow until just before the collision. So yes, LIDAR should have caught this. Easily. So something was clearly misconfigured. And even if the driver had been carefully watching the road, he probably wouldn't have seen her in time.…

> who was apparently half asleep or watching the dashboard It is possible that a screen provided a clearer (somehow enhanced) view of the road, so I'm reserving judgment for now. Of course using that screen could be a grave error if the screen relied on sensors that missed the victim. But if it appeared to be better than looking out of the windshield then that points to a process problem and not necessarily a safety…

He startles just before the collision, so anything he was watching on the dashboard arguably showed no more than the video that was released. But maybe the video camera had poor sensitivity at low light, and the driver could have seen her sooner, looking out of the windshield.

Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

#439

Post by cozzyd »

nanis wrote: post #278

This is pure speculation, but it is my working theory: The car's so called "AI" thought the thing in front of it was a four legged animal (e.g., see " rel="nofollow">https://goo.gl/images/3qAmiM> ). In most states, braking for animals in a way that might endanger others on the road is illegal. So, it decided to go ahead and hit the thing in front of it on purpose. I am not sure if the people who program the firmware…

Was there anybody behind the car? Surely the car could know if it was safe to brake.
Post reply on HN