Then why did Uber submit video to the PD that obviously was from an extremely cheezy camera if they in fact had high quality low light cameras everywhere on the car?
I have a guess.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Any details on headline - Arizona pedestrian is killed by Uber self-driving car
- Thread starter brkaus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Autonomous Vehicles
Then why did Uber submit video to the PD that obviously was from an extremely cheezy camera if they in fact had high quality low light cameras everywhere on the car?
I have a guess.
Tam
Well-Known Member
For driverless feature, their cameras might be expensive but as you can see below, its dash cam looks cylindrical and those could come in anywhere from cheap to expensive brands:
Last edited:
Article about the legal concerns:
What went wrong with Uber's Volvo in fatal crash? Experts shocked by technology failure
What went wrong with Uber's Volvo in fatal crash? Experts shocked by technology failure
I wouldn't make anything sinister of this video footage. I remember reading early on the Uber had a front and back camera inside. I took this to be a third party dashcam that is not low-light based on the darkness of the night on street lit roads. I also think the footage of the driver (which would have included passengers if there were any), would be from a IR dashcam that gets installed in vehicles like cabs and service vehicles for fleet operators to observe their driver/passengers for example. This type of camera set up, sometimes with a video screen built in, allows quick access when something happens. The police were able to quickly view it based on early reports and say it might have not been avoidable. They also indicated she was traveling at 38mph. Our older Blackvue 650S is not that great in low light and I'd say the videos would be similar as far as the darkness of the night. I noticed the police blotted out the info at the bottom of the video footage screen which usually on our camera footage would contain the type of camera equipment, date, time, and mph if so set. Newer dashcams have larger sensors and better optics so have improved greatly in nightime use.
I'm sure the video files from the actual self-driving Uber equipment will get released to investigators along with the data logs interpreting it.
Actually looking at the photo in the above post, it does look like it could be a Blackvue dashcam (distinctive barrel design) although the mounting hardware looks different than ours. Something no doubt designed for fleet vehicles.
Last edited:
Tam
Well-Known Member
It's easy to blame a jaywalker this time but what if it's a deer, bear, dog, chicken... crossing the road?
No one goes to jail in a non-human case but the driverless reputation would be very much damaged!
Like I said before, there is no doubt that in a fatal jaywalker incidence, most likely the fault belongs to the dead jaywalker because the dead can't speak to defense themselves.
It's very disturbing that police and news have been biased against a jaywalker by painting a picture that she came from nowhere suddenly, she darted out at the last second, she jumped out of the dark shadows...
She was traveling like 1 mile per hour as if she's a tortoise and the car was traveling at 40 MPH as if it's a runaway hippopotamus race and the hippopotamus would say the telephone pole just suddenly darted out from the dark, the tree just jumped out from nowhere suddenly.
It's very unethical to trick the public with the very dark video as if the streetlights were not bright enough while other Youtubers were able to prove otherwise.
The bias against jaywalker may be explained by the following clip: Cars that killed have successfully blamed their victims:
In a lawsuit, jurors will have to assign negligence and thanks to records,
1) The jaywalker didn't use crosswalk so that's negligence.
2) Human driver was intentionally distracted, that's also negligence
3) The driverless system didn't protect the jaywalker, that too is negligence.
4) The State that allows the system that does not respect jaywalkers' lives is also negligence!
No one goes to jail in a non-human case but the driverless reputation would be very much damaged!
Like I said before, there is no doubt that in a fatal jaywalker incidence, most likely the fault belongs to the dead jaywalker because the dead can't speak to defense themselves.
It's very disturbing that police and news have been biased against a jaywalker by painting a picture that she came from nowhere suddenly, she darted out at the last second, she jumped out of the dark shadows...
She was traveling like 1 mile per hour as if she's a tortoise and the car was traveling at 40 MPH as if it's a runaway hippopotamus race and the hippopotamus would say the telephone pole just suddenly darted out from the dark, the tree just jumped out from nowhere suddenly.
It's very unethical to trick the public with the very dark video as if the streetlights were not bright enough while other Youtubers were able to prove otherwise.
The bias against jaywalker may be explained by the following clip: Cars that killed have successfully blamed their victims:
In a lawsuit, jurors will have to assign negligence and thanks to records,
1) The jaywalker didn't use crosswalk so that's negligence.
2) Human driver was intentionally distracted, that's also negligence
3) The driverless system didn't protect the jaywalker, that too is negligence.
4) The State that allows the system that does not respect jaywalkers' lives is also negligence!
I don’t fully agree with the youtubers. It really depends on the car.
I had a rental car last week, a 2018 Nissan Armada. It had such a sharp cutoff on the lights I was constantly feeling like I was overdriving the lights. Almost hit a wild boar once and a raccoon once. I was driving 40-45 on back roads in West Texas.
Did hit a rabbit that spooked from way to go the toad and ran the wrong way at the last minute.
The light patterns on the YouTube videos look more like the Tesla and less like the Armada I had just last week.
I had a rental car last week, a 2018 Nissan Armada. It had such a sharp cutoff on the lights I was constantly feeling like I was overdriving the lights. Almost hit a wild boar once and a raccoon once. I was driving 40-45 on back roads in West Texas.
Did hit a rabbit that spooked from way to go the toad and ran the wrong way at the last minute.
The light patterns on the YouTube videos look more like the Tesla and less like the Armada I had just last week.
Lauren Reimer on Twitter
looks like the jig is up..anyone else who disagrees is a uber plant at this point!
looks like the jig is up..anyone else who disagrees is a uber plant at this point!
Here's the news article generated from the investigative braking/visibilty test videos on her tweet: Investigators recreate fatal crash involving self-driving Uber car
At least that's good news for Volvo in that without Uber's self-driving system, a driver behind the wheel could see and stop before hitting the bike in the lane. So guess it's 1 for human driving and 0 for Uber's self-driving system (although to be fair we still don't know what systems they had active at the time, but this leads me to believe that using the actual car, if the safety driver had been watching the road they likely could have stopped before impact as well). Also the investigative driver did know there was going to be something in the road so there is that (no element of surprise which goes to attentiveness behind the wheel) but it shows the car could be brought to an abrupt stop in time. I'll be interested to see what they say about visibility at that time of night using the same car.
I'm glad to see Elaine's sister has hired an attorney. He should be present to see all of the testing. I'm not saying that she wasn't in the wrong having crossed where she did, but both pedestrians and car drivers have a responsibility on the roads. Serves as a reminder life could all be gone in seconds unexpectedly. While the pedestrian died and the safety driver lived, I still wouldn't want to be in her situation right now.
Comments from Velodyne Lidar Inc. : Sensor Supplier to Self-Driving Uber Defends Tech After Fatality
Last edited:
ℬête Noire
Active Member
Why would the PD, which we can reasonably assume knows this area and it's lighting conditions well (if not before, surely now), not push back and try get all the video Uber has? Instead choosing to release publicly this video that can best be described as misleading on the lighting conditions on that section of road?
I have a guess.
Here's to hoping the NTSB isn't as easily greased, er persuaded.
ron8853
Member
ℬête Noire
Active Member
Tesla AP used to have this issue, right? When pulling up along side a semi trailer they'd get "lusty" after the trailer and edge in close to it? That's a pretty bad sign that they were still having issues like that. Tesla is trying to solve those problems using vision only, which is even tougher than using the LIDAR shortcut. That Uber can't build and react correctly to an inventory of very basic, common objects around it like that is really bad.
Last edited:
Don't think I have seen this possibility mentioned in this thread, but I'll just throw it out there since stranger things have happened...
What if the new meme turns out to be: "Throw yourself in front of a self driving car and win the lottery if you get injured".
Kids are swallowing Tide detergent pods, and they don't get to sue anyone when they get sick.
I don't want to see this happen, I just see it as a possibility due to the litigious nature of our society.
RT
What if the new meme turns out to be: "Throw yourself in front of a self driving car and win the lottery if you get injured".
Kids are swallowing Tide detergent pods, and they don't get to sue anyone when they get sick.
I don't want to see this happen, I just see it as a possibility due to the litigious nature of our society.
RT
Why would the PD, which we can reasonably assume knows this area and it's lighting conditions well (if not before, surely now), not push back and try get all the video Uber has? Instead choosing to release publicly this video that can best be described as misleading on the lighting conditions on that section of road?
I have a guess.
Here's to hoping the NTSB isn't as easily greased, er persuaded.
To be fair, the Sheriff might have released the video as a warning to jaywalkers.
There is no doubt the pedestrian failed to yield, that is pretty obvious. Whether the driver will be cited remains to be seen. I will be VERY discouraged if a Texter kills a pedestrian and doesn't even get a ticket.
Uber is going to have to answer some very serious accusations in the future. I don't think their Lidar was turned on.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
Whether turned on or not might not matter. It's quite likely their Lidar code is freshly written, total crap after their theft of Waymo Lidar code/IP hit a rough patch and court proceedings went from bad to worse, forcing them to settle last month.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
Attempting a flop on a properly functioning AV is probably not going to work that well, since you're near guaranteed there's going to be video record. You'll only get hit if you are doing something blatantly wrong and in the wrong.
If Uber decides to, and is allowed to, put their vehicles back on the road then maybe? Still, trying a flop on a human driver seems a lot better odds. I mean at least then you've got a chance of the vehicle braking a bit to soften the blow so you survive to collect.
Tam
Well-Known Member
She was walking too slowly and she was already in the Uber's lane. It's doubtful if she could get out of Uber's lane at her tortoise speed while the Uber was charging at her at 40 MPH.
Remember there were 5 lanes and she almost finished the last lane and almost escaped death if she was young, nimble and as fast as a wonder woman character in the comic.
I think the only appropriate accusation for this lady is: She did not use a crosswalk.
In a battle between a charging ahead 40 MPH SUV versus a pedestrian tortoise speed of may be less than 1 mile per hour, the tortoise would lose unless the tortoise was transformed to a very fast jumping rabbit.
Most likely, when she started the walk, the street was empty because at 40 MPH, the Uber was most likely still at the bridge and she could not see the Uber when it's hidden because of the curve at the bridge.
I think she did her job in yielding all cars because there were no cars when she started the crossing:
But slapping her with other accusatory language is inappropriate.
Similar threads
- Article