Tempe Police Release Video of Uber Accident

Post by mehrdadn » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 1:04 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #324

51Cards wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly it. I see people mentioning seeing the victim at the last second but these vehicles are supposed to be better. They scan in non visible spectrums with LIDAR. Lack of safety vest, lack of headlights, none of it is supposed to matter... or at least it shouldn't completely compromise the vehicle's systems. Camera's may not work as well but an obstacle directly in the path should still be detected. Especi…

I watched the video a bunch of times and I'm not 100% sure how the vehicle could have reacted at the upper maximum of time where she would have been visible to LIDAR, and maybe for Radar, to make a significant difference. At least given the two options where it could have slowed maybe 10km/hr at most (from the 40mph aka 64km/hr speed limit) but that's still an if and I'm not sure it would have ensure the survivabilit…

Post by sjg007 » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 1:04 AM UTC

jayess wrote: post #336

duiker101 wrote: post #102

Shouldn't the card have been driving with its brights on? I mean... she was already crossing so she didn't come out of a corner or something and I have a feeling that with brights on she could have been seen. Also, there doesn't seem to be other cars in the opposite direction or anything for which the car shouldn't have had its brights on.

No, this is an urban area just north of downtown Tempe: https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+Mill+Ave+%26+E+Curry+Rd,...

Post by donarb » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 1:05 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #310

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…

> Yet this crash proves that all the equipment in the world didn't catch a very obvious obstruction. It's a bit too early to make that conclusion. For all we know, the equipment was malfunctioning. Which I guess technically leads to your point, but we'll have to wait for the investigation to actually know what failed vs. what met expectations (I worry that expectations and tolerances, as set by the car companies, wil…

Post by lhorie » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 1:06 AM UTC

burger_moon wrote: post #89

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…

The speed limit is only 35 not 40 on that road unless we're looking at different roads? If the driver is paying attention they could turn the wheel a bit and split the left lane (there doesn't appear to be anyone else on the road) and avoid the person who was half way through the lane at time of impact. Might not clear the person but clipping the back of the bike would certainly be better than a direct impact. You wo…

Post by cozzyd » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 1:08 AM UTC

xvf22 wrote: post #299

It's very disingenuous to release this video. This is not the picture the car saw nor the human. That coupled with the fact that no radar or lidar data was released makes me wonder why the police seem to be bending over backwards to absolve Uber.