Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

Post by alacombe » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:04 AM UTC

gok wrote: post #188

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…

In pitch darkness, IR cameras can only see more than a visual light camera if you somehow had IR headlights that were more powerful than the visual headlights (they probably don't; that would blind other AVs just like high beams blind other drivers). It doesn't grant you the ability to see in the dark with infinite range. Lidar can sense shapes with more range, but at the cost of dramatically worse resolution and lat…

Post by Twisell » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:05 AM UTC

jackpirate wrote: post #78

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…

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…

Post by manicdee » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:07 AM UTC

theclaw wrote: post #396

manicdee wrote: post #262

To all the armchair experts: try recreating this accident scene in the real world. Sodium Vapour (monochromatic) lamps, then a large darker area with a pedestrian in dark clothing with car’s headlights dipped. You will be alarmed at how much stuff you can put on the road and not see it because the road has a lighting pattern that makes it less safe than no lights at all. With no lights at all, and a hedge between car…

I dunno, I see a lot better than my dashcam sees stuff in similar conditions. Whether a human would've seen her or not is besides the point, really - the car is supposed to be fitted with sensors that don't rely on visible light, and this looks like the most basic test case you'd run on an AV - big empty road with an obstacle moving at constant speed into the path of the vehicle.

Post by manicdee » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:09 AM UTC

tachim wrote: post #316

manicdee wrote: post #262

To all the armchair experts: try recreating this accident scene in the real world. Sodium Vapour (monochromatic) lamps, then a large darker area with a pedestrian in dark clothing with car’s headlights dipped. You will be alarmed at how much stuff you can put on the road and not see it because the road has a lighting pattern that makes it less safe than no lights at all. With no lights at all, and a hedge between car…

Nope. That person + bike would have been completely trivial to detect with the LIDAR those cars have mounted on top.

Post by hcknwscommenter » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:13 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #590

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.

You can't increase ISO without washing out the areas in the street lights. One of the difficulties not being discussed here is that this is a terribly lit road, with large dark voids between the street lights. And the biker was crossing in the void.