441–450 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A theory that occurred to me last night is that if she was homeless, she may also have had an untreated eye condition such as myopia.
Articles claim she’s from Mesa, AZ. There’s nothing that suggests she’s homeless.
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.
That would be criminal. Nobody at Uber would risk that.
This shit happens and it's more common than you'd think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> anything except perfection in self driving cars will lead to more accidents. Only if perfection is defined as "statistically better than humans". I do agree that these "assistive" technologies have the potential to do more harm than good, but the bar is actually far lower than "perfection".
There have been studies that indicate that these sorts of technology (lane keeping/departure warning, auto-brake, blind spot detection) help reduce collisions. Personally, I don't think that it's right to dismiss these systems entirely if they provide some level of safety benefit, are cheaper and easier than level 5 autonomous vehicles to develop and / or deploy. > http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/stay-withi…
"My car will jump in if I fuck up"(current driver aides) seems a lot different than "I have to jump in if my car fucks up".
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.
1) It does NOT show what the LIDAR sees. 2) They should be using a dark adapted / night vision camera and probably are, the video feed presented is just that, the best one that "presents". 3) They should be using thermal infrared to spot living things 4) They were severely over driving their headlights if what we are seeing is "reality" as seen by the onboard computer. I want to know how much access to the hardware U…
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'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…
I've personally driven down country roads without any lighting except my headlights and saw deer poking their head out of the woods a ways away for which I slowed down in case they darted across the street. Someone slowly walking their bike would be trivial.
Reminds me of this video of a Rally driver racing with malfunctioning lamps https://youtu.be/HwyRS_6Uqn0?t=2m36s
The video makes it seem impossible but afterwards in the interviews the driver said it wasn't too bad after his eyes adjusted. He did have some issues with his own lamp blinding him which lead to errors. (He actually won this stage.)
As far as I'm concerned Uber's software/hardware is completely at fault and not ready for public testing. I'm uncertain how much better everyone else's tech is but Uber's typical carefree approach has ruined it for everyone.
There are consumer level dashcam that can shift up to 12800 ISO which can create a fairly distringuishable picture with ambient moonlight.[1]
Canon builds sensors with ISO's in the millions which should be able to see distinguishable shapes without ANY light. [2]
[1] https://youtu.be/hHU-hWG5DDk?t=5m48s [2] https://petapixel.com/2015/09/13/this-is-iso-4560000-with-ca...
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…
I have to agree. Just like a normal camera has issues in low-light, it is clear that this camera is diminishing exactly how light the road ahead was. While I can't say confidently that I would have been able to stop to prevent hitting them, watching the video in full screen does lead me to believe that I would have seen them and been able to apply the brakes at least enough to reduce the impact. Also, watching the vi…
Why is the resolution so low? Why 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.
Personally, I'm more annoyed at the blurring of the telemetry data at the bottom of the video. What was blurred probably included the dashcam model, date/time, GPS coordinates, calculated speed, and so on.
The output from the other sensors might take more work to extract and convert into an understandable form, if they are even available after the fact; they might be immediately used in the control loop and then discarded, instead of being stored.
"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...