if it bleeds it leads
Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
891–900 of 1001 posts
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#892How 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…
Speculating: IR interference might have jammed this vehicle's LIDAR for an instant as it sampled the vicinity of the hazard. Any power in the passband of the detector might have been sufficient to saturate it and make it less sensitive to the returning LIDAR signal. This could come from another LIDAR unit in the vicinity. Other possible jammers might include IR laser pointers, TV remotes, or IR camera illuminators.
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#893Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, this really paints a different picture. If Uber cars have video quality like the one in the Tweet they should not be on public roads at all. Edit: I'm not asserting that this is the only video that car "sees", but if it's not, it seems a bit disingenuous for Uber to share only this crappy low quality video with the police.
Maybe uber made the quality of the image worse? I just don't trust uber.
Uber are a totally ethical company who would never do anything as underhanded as that!!! /s
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#894Someone on Reddit posted a comparison of the same spot at night but with a good camera: https://m.imgur.com/a/PM7uu from a video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0 That paints the whole accident in a very different light from the video from Twitter. Would any human not notice someone crossing in the good camera screenshot?
Despite the fact that the driver was clearly playing with his mobile (which makes him indefensible), I have some sympathy for the driver not reacting early enough. Even if the driver spotted the obstacle, the car is only going to apply the brakes when it gets closer to the obstacle, not half a kilometer before. So how much time would the driver have had to 1. assess that there is a danger, 2. realise that the self dr…
Your point 2. is actually very important and I haven't seen it discussed before. We don't know what instructions the drivers have been given, but there will be first a question in the drivers mind about if the car will react.
The driver has to consider if they will be reprimanded by Uber for breaking before the car had a chance to.
So this might stop any kind of reflex action - which I assume is what the standard 0.5s reaction time is based on.
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#895How 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 lady can be seen fairly clearly (even in this poor quality video) at 0.03 and impact occurs at 0.04. That's 1s, which means a distance of approx 17m. If the guy was watching (sort of the point of him being there really) he could have slowed the car significantly and probably even stopped it. These are test vehicles being treated like prod vehicles. They should probably not be on streets with pedestrians quite so…
No. 1 second isn't enough. From the time you see something till you start moving your muscle is at least 250ms, and that's a very good reaction time, it's much slower for most people. When it comes to breaking, your foot is not on the break, so you have to move it there, and push it. Then the car will start slowing down.
Download one of those reaction time apps for your smartphone, see how well you do when you actually expect something to happen.
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#896How 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 lady was walking the bike at the edge of a light cone. The inner cam was actually filming in IR. Uber cars have IR cameras, LIDAR and an also multiple radar sensors. My guess is that the algorithms have never met a person crossing the street with a bicycle during night time so they just ignored it or considered it to be a glitch. You can have to approaches regarding labeling driving situations. Either you label w…
Which is exactly the reason this is nowhere near production: "kinda works, sort of, in trivial cases" is not quite the SDV promise I keep hearing: "my car will also go reasonably straight when I let go of the wheel on a wide, straight stretch of the road, and won't even run over anyone if there is nobody on the road. Therefore, autonomous driving!"
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#897How 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 car also had headlights on and I think they should give enough light to see the pedestrian in 20-30 meters ahead even without street lights.
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#898Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> it is clear that this camera is diminishing exactly how light the road ahead was Someone else thought the same thing and went to get their own footage of the road. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0
Even if there were no street lights, the car's headlights should give enough light to see the pedestrian on an empty road.
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#899How 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…
>> How did LIDAR and IR not catch that?
The LIDAR can catch anything it wants. If the car's AI doesn't know how to deal with it, it won't.
Re: Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident
#900Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't understand is why the pedestrian didn't see or hear the car. She seems totally oblivious. Surely she would have seen the headlights. It is possible she had some sensory impairment, either visual or auditory.
This happens all the time at night where I live. People cross the road and you don't see them until you're quite close. Cars are highly visible to pedestrians (due to headlights). I think pedestrians assume that they themselves are equally as visible to the car driver too - "I can see them, so they must be able to see me." is the subconscious line of thought I think. Often though pedestrians get "lost" in the lights…
What if she was stationary in the middle, but was stationary in the middle, in the left lane?
I mean, she began to cross fron the center (left) to the right, walked a bit, saw the car light, stopped, and then decided to cross again? The sensor would have seen her as a stationary object in a lane the car wasn't drving into. And then she begans to walk, and this movement is disregarded as noise in the beggining, and then it's too late because she walked ? It just takes few steps to cross a lane, about 5 or 6...