5 ms·

There was almost a second where the woman was clearly visible and yet the car did not attempt to emergency break. I would not expect the vehicle to safely stop,

There was almost a second where the woman was clearly visible and yet the car did not attempt to emergency break. I would not expect the vehicle to safely stop, but it could have definitely slowed down and reduce the energy of the collision. This is not criticism against self-driving tech, I would not expect alert human driver to avoid collision either due to limited reaction time. With technology however, we should be able to do better than humans, particularly when it comes to reaction times. Clearly, there is still a some work to do.

ajross 9y ago
Do we know the vehicle didn't brake? There's no audio to tell us anything, and a car takes "almost a second" to rock forward on its suspension when reacting to brake input too. FWIW, I think I might see the nose bobbing a bit just before the collision, but honestly can't tell. I certainly don't think you can say "did not attempt to brake" based on the evidence at hand, basically.
- dsg42 9y ago
  Yes, that was in the original announcement
  - ebikelaw 9y ago
    Literally every other statement of fact in the original police announcement was proven false by this video.
    - topspin 9y ago
      Indeed. Uber was clearly able to spin the early reports about this incident; there is little correspondence between those descriptions and this video. Corruption in Tempe. The victim had absolutely no business crossing that road like that, but the notion that the fatality was somehow unavoidable is pure bunk.
      - InclinedPlane 9y ago
        Individual actors all working within the same values system and responding to the same inputs will produce similar actions. There's no conspiracy or "quid pro quo" corruption here, most likely, merely a corrupt values system. In a place like tempe pedestrians and bicyclists are treated as second class citizens, especially in the case of crashes involving automobiles. In this particular case there is a walkway on the median strip which is purely decorative and marked with signs indicating not to use it, which should tell you how pedestrian hostile the area is. Here's where the crash took place: https://goo.gl/maps/j6PwGkvJwF52 https://goo.gl/maps/j6PwGkvJwF52
        davidgould 9y ago
        Yeah, I noticed that too, it's about the most asinine bit of roadway design imaginable other than some sort of chute leading to the rotating knives.
- ars 9y ago
  > Do we know the vehicle didn't brake? Because the nose of the car doesn't go down. Especially in an emergency braking situation the nose of the car will go significantly down, and you would see that in the video.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    The video is cut before the impact. I don't think we can judge of what will happen in the last second that is missing.
    - shock-value 9y ago
      There definitely isn't a full second missing before impact. Maybe a tenth of a second.
    - smcl 9y ago
      The video is cut as the person is a few feet from being struck by the car. That's not "the last second" that's basically at the point of impact and already much too late
- zerostar07 9y ago
  from the interior view it doesnt look like the car braked abrubtly
osrec 9y ago
I think it could have stopped safely. Assuming it has quicker reactions than a human, stopping distance should be around 18 meters. I think it just completely missed her. Edit: critical typo
- chki 9y ago
  that is a bold statement to make from the video information we got, at least in my opinion. I would estimate the speed to be at least 50 km/h which gives 25 m as a very rough estimate for the stopping distance without reaction time. It's probably better than that but not 8 m. But I do agree that the car doesn't seem to have stopped at all and missed the victim completely.
  - vkou 9y ago
    In 8m, though, it may have been able to brake enough to make the collision survivable.
- nickez 9y ago
  8m ?! That sounds completely unreasonable to me. The first google hit says it is more like 33m.. http://www.brakingdistances.com/38Mph http://www.brakingdistances.com/38Mph
  - osrec 9y ago
    Apologies, meant to type 18 meters. That's just for the braking - not including reaction time. But the point is, she was well within the field of detection at that range.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - romwell 9y ago
    Sure, what's the swerving distance? The road was empty, I'd bet most drivers would steer away from a pedestrian on the road if only by sheer reflex.
  - 9y ago

ajross 9y ago

Do we know the vehicle didn't brake? There's no audio to tell us anything, and a car takes "almost a second" to rock forward on its suspension when reacting to brake input too. FWIW, I think I might see the nose bobbing a bit just before the collision, but honestly can't tell. I certainly don't think you can say "did not attempt to brake" based on the evidence at hand, basically.

dsg42 9y ago
Yes, that was in the original announcement
- ebikelaw 9y ago
  Literally every other statement of fact in the original police announcement was proven false by this video.
  - topspin 9y ago
    Indeed. Uber was clearly able to spin the early reports about this incident; there is little correspondence between those descriptions and this video. Corruption in Tempe. The victim had absolutely no business crossing that road like that, but the notion that the fatality was somehow unavoidable is pure bunk.
    - InclinedPlane 9y ago
      Individual actors all working within the same values system and responding to the same inputs will produce similar actions. There's no conspiracy or "quid pro quo" corruption here, most likely, merely a corrupt values system. In a place like tempe pedestrians and bicyclists are treated as second class citizens, especially in the case of crashes involving automobiles. In this particular case there is a walkway on the median strip which is purely decorative and marked with signs indicating not to use it, which should tell you how pedestrian hostile the area is. Here's where the crash took place: https://goo.gl/maps/j6PwGkvJwF52 https://goo.gl/maps/j6PwGkvJwF52
      - davidgould 9y ago
        Yeah, I noticed that too, it's about the most asinine bit of roadway design imaginable other than some sort of chute leading to the rotating knives.
ars 9y ago
> Do we know the vehicle didn't brake? Because the nose of the car doesn't go down. Especially in an emergency braking situation the nose of the car will go significantly down, and you would see that in the video.
- user5994461 9y ago
  The video is cut before the impact. I don't think we can judge of what will happen in the last second that is missing.
  - shock-value 9y ago
    There definitely isn't a full second missing before impact. Maybe a tenth of a second.
  - smcl 9y ago
    The video is cut as the person is a few feet from being struck by the car. That's not "the last second" that's basically at the point of impact and already much too late
zerostar07 9y ago
from the interior view it doesnt look like the car braked abrubtly

osrec 9y ago

I think it could have stopped safely. Assuming it has quicker reactions than a human, stopping distance should be around 18 meters. I think it just completely missed her. Edit: critical typo

chki 9y ago
that is a bold statement to make from the video information we got, at least in my opinion. I would estimate the speed to be at least 50 km/h which gives 25 m as a very rough estimate for the stopping distance without reaction time. It's probably better than that but not 8 m. But I do agree that the car doesn't seem to have stopped at all and missed the victim completely.
- vkou 9y ago
  In 8m, though, it may have been able to brake enough to make the collision survivable.
nickez 9y ago
8m ?! That sounds completely unreasonable to me. The first google hit says it is more like 33m.. http://www.brakingdistances.com/38Mph http://www.brakingdistances.com/38Mph
- osrec 9y ago
  Apologies, meant to type 18 meters. That's just for the braking - not including reaction time. But the point is, she was well within the field of detection at that range.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- romwell 9y ago
  Sure, what's the swerving distance? The road was empty, I'd bet most drivers would steer away from a pedestrian on the road if only by sheer reflex.
- 9y ago