Well one would assume that the vehicle's headlights were on which should have been a dead giveaway that a car was coming.

(March 24, 2018 at 3:56 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Viewability works both ways.  What was up with victim ??

(I'm not blaming victim, just curious what it looked like from her perspective)

Well the video clearly shows the cars headlights were on so there's that. But in this particular case, the answer to that question is absolutely irrelevant. The car was supposed to have been capable of recognizing the impending accident and avoiding it automatically. Figuring out why that failed so completely is big deal here. 

However if the true visibility was closer to what the subsequent youtube clips show, then there is likely a valid criminal negligence or homicide case to be built against the driver. And if so, that should absolutely happen. Make an example.

But again in the grand scheme, the bigger issue is figuring out why the technology failed so completely in this case. Hopefully this death, and the others that will inevitably follow won't have too much of a negative impact further development.

Quote:The car was supposed to have been capable of recognizing the impending accident and avoiding it automatically.

There was, of course, no way that the pedestrian would have known what type of vehicle was heading her way.  In Tempe, at that time of night, a drunk would have been the far more likely operator.

(March 24, 2018 at 7:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The car was supposed to have been capable of recognizing the impending accident and avoiding it automatically.

There was, of course, no way that the pedestrian would have known what type of vehicle was heading her way.  In Tempe, at that time of night, a drunk would have been the far more likely operator.

True. But again, if it had be anything other than a self-driving car in self-driving mode, neither you nor I would have ever known about this woman's death much less seen video of it. This story has absolutely nothing to do with what the pedestrian saw or did.

It’s entirely possible to assign blame to multiple sides here.

1) the pedestrian should not be crossing the road there, and should also be aware of cars at all times.

2) the sensor company claim she should have been detected, and are blaming the onboard computer which Uber made.

3) the human driver was clearly distracted and should have been paying attention.

(March 24, 2018 at 8:10 pm)johan Wrote:

(March 24, 2018 at 7:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: There was, of course, no way that the pedestrian would have known what type of vehicle was heading her way.  In Tempe, at that time of night, a drunk would have been the far more likely operator.

True. But again, if it had be anything other than a self-driving car in self-driving mode, neither you nor I would have ever known about this woman's death much less seen video of it. This story has absolutely nothing to do with what the pedestrian saw or did.

Oh, no.  Not so.  The first five minutes of every local news broadcast is either traffic accidents, someone shooting someone else and/or the cops shooting someone or a fire.  Then we hear about the weather.... which is always the same.... and then we hear about girl scouts holding a bake sale and a lot of similar shit until it is time to go to the weather again and then sports.

And our local sports teams suck too.

what kind of sensor suite does the car have?

radar?

Sonar?

lidar ?

According to the sensor company it was lidar, but the car should also have radar and a visual camera sensor to make decisions with too. Their lidar sensor can see in the dark.

Quote:Their lidar sensor can see in the dark.

Allegedly.

Lidar uses its own light source.  It’s function is totally indifferent to whether it is light or dark outside.   It is like a radar, but uses laser instead of radio waves.  The much shorter wave length allow it achieve much higher 3D resolution and imaging detail than possible with any radar.