4 ms·

Based on the video shown there is no way a human driver could have avoided that collision.

by foobar1962 9y ago

Anxuiz 9y ago
If only looking at the posted dash cam video, yes it does look difficult to avoid. But that video is incredibly dark and not at all what the environment looks like to the naked eye. Here's a video posted by a local on Reddit showing better how the street looks at night: https://youtu.be/1XOVxSCG8u0?t=31 https://youtu.be/1XOVxSCG8u0?t=31
umanwizard 9y ago
Such a human shouldn’t be fucking driving. If I’m driving fast enough that I can’t see pedestrians with enough time to react, I slow down. Yes, this means in near-total darkness, slowing to a crawl if you can’t turn on your high beams.
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  This is exactly what so many people are missing about this story. Posted speed limits are the fastest you can go, not the recommended speed.
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    This is a huge problem in the Czech Republic - speed limits are overused so much that people stopped thinking about road conditions and instead just go 10-20 over the limit. It leads to nasty situations. :-(
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Someone pointed out elsewhere that human eyes are better in low light conditions than cameras. It's a lot less likely a human couldn't see her than that camera, but the human wasn't looking at the time.
buvanshak 9y ago
Human eyes have much better dynamic range than most of the cameras out there. Yes even in differently illuminated areas. If the vehicle was on High beam, (which you would be on if you have trouble seeing stuff in distance), then A human should have spotted her from a very good distance..
jon_richards 9y ago
The video is extremely misleading because the camera is overcompensating for the bright lights illuminating the road. A human driver could have seen the person and/or bike from a long way off. Our eyes are extremely good at adapting to high, non-linear contrast. That's why "pictures" of total solar eclipses have to be composite images to really capture what people see when they look at one.
- Pilfer 9y ago
  >A human driver could have seen the person and/or bike from a long way off. Not true at all, the person was not standing under lit streetlights and was in the shadows. Humans have problems detecting objects in the shadows, especially at night. 3M made a video illustrating how difficult it is to see people at night. In this video, people wearing bright-colored clothing don't even show up until 250 feet away. According to the national safety council, a human driver traveling at 30mph at night, may take up 500 feet to react to and stop when there is an object in the road. I reccomend watching this video as it strongly changed my views about night driving. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMvM7-9lgeg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMvM7-9lgeg
  - askvictor 9y ago
    Perhaps it would be cleared if OP had written "A human driver _might_ have seen the person"
  - buvanshak 9y ago
    >Not true at all, the person was not standing under lit streetlights and was in the shadows... The 'shadow' is appearing completely dark due to the poor dynamic range of the camera. It won't appear so to a normal human eye..Also, people use high beams in this situations which enables seeing stuff really far away, which would also should have saved the day in this case..
    - Pilfer 9y ago
      The pedestrian is 1) wearing black 2) not wearing any sort of safety reflectors 3) crossing in darkness not under street lights. In the safety video I linked, it's clear that such a pedestrian in the road would be very tough spot and react to. The safety video says there is a very real possibly that a human driver would hit such a pedestrian. Citing the camera's poor dynamic range, does not imply a human in the same situation would have enough dynamic range to spot a pedestrian in the same circumstance. High beams would have saved a life here, however in many situations they are illegal to use.
jbkrule 9y ago
Did you read the writeup? He directly addresses the points of when a human would be able to detect the person as well as the fact that the Uber was driving at the upper speed of safety for the situation which a human driver may not have done.
viburnum 9y ago
Bullshit. Do not overdrive your headlights.
newnewpdro 9y ago
The video is misrepresenting what's visible vs. invisible. There was no human driver in that car. There was a person in the driver seat focused on something other than the road.

Based on the video shown there is no way a human driver could have avoided that collision.

If only looking at the posted dash cam video, yes it does look difficult to avoid. But that video is incredibly dark and not at all what the environment looks like to the naked eye. Here's a video posted by a local on Reddit showing better how the street looks at night: https://youtu.be/1XOVxSCG8u0?t=31 https://youtu.be/1XOVxSCG8u0?t=31

umanwizard 9y ago

Such a human shouldn’t be fucking driving. If I’m driving fast enough that I can’t see pedestrians with enough time to react, I slow down. Yes, this means in near-total darkness, slowing to a crawl if you can’t turn on your high beams.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago
This is exactly what so many people are missing about this story. Posted speed limits are the fastest you can go, not the recommended speed.
- TomMarius 9y ago
  This is a huge problem in the Czech Republic - speed limits are overused so much that people stopped thinking about road conditions and instead just go 10-20 over the limit. It leads to nasty situations. :-(

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Someone pointed out elsewhere that human eyes are better in low light conditions than cameras. It's a lot less likely a human couldn't see her than that camera, but the human wasn't looking at the time.

buvanshak 9y ago

Human eyes have much better dynamic range than most of the cameras out there. Yes even in differently illuminated areas. If the vehicle was on High beam, (which you would be on if you have trouble seeing stuff in distance), then A human should have spotted her from a very good distance..

jon_richards 9y ago

The video is extremely misleading because the camera is overcompensating for the bright lights illuminating the road. A human driver could have seen the person and/or bike from a long way off. Our eyes are extremely good at adapting to high, non-linear contrast. That's why "pictures" of total solar eclipses have to be composite images to really capture what people see when they look at one.

Pilfer 9y ago
>A human driver could have seen the person and/or bike from a long way off. Not true at all, the person was not standing under lit streetlights and was in the shadows. Humans have problems detecting objects in the shadows, especially at night. 3M made a video illustrating how difficult it is to see people at night. In this video, people wearing bright-colored clothing don't even show up until 250 feet away. According to the national safety council, a human driver traveling at 30mph at night, may take up 500 feet to react to and stop when there is an object in the road. I reccomend watching this video as it strongly changed my views about night driving. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMvM7-9lgeg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMvM7-9lgeg
- askvictor 9y ago
  Perhaps it would be cleared if OP had written "A human driver _might_ have seen the person"
- buvanshak 9y ago
  >Not true at all, the person was not standing under lit streetlights and was in the shadows... The 'shadow' is appearing completely dark due to the poor dynamic range of the camera. It won't appear so to a normal human eye..Also, people use high beams in this situations which enables seeing stuff really far away, which would also should have saved the day in this case..
  - Pilfer 9y ago
    The pedestrian is 1) wearing black 2) not wearing any sort of safety reflectors 3) crossing in darkness not under street lights. In the safety video I linked, it's clear that such a pedestrian in the road would be very tough spot and react to. The safety video says there is a very real possibly that a human driver would hit such a pedestrian. Citing the camera's poor dynamic range, does not imply a human in the same situation would have enough dynamic range to spot a pedestrian in the same circumstance. High beams would have saved a life here, however in many situations they are illegal to use.

jbkrule 9y ago

Did you read the writeup? He directly addresses the points of when a human would be able to detect the person as well as the fact that the Uber was driving at the upper speed of safety for the situation which a human driver may not have done.

viburnum 9y ago

Bullshit. Do not overdrive your headlights.

newnewpdro 9y ago

The video is misrepresenting what's visible vs. invisible. There was no human driver in that car. There was a person in the driver seat focused on something other than the road.