3 ms·

The video has poor dynamic range and is likely highly misleading. If the safety driver were paying attention it's quite likely they could have avoided it (altho

by cozzyd 9y ago

The video has poor dynamic range and is likely highly misleading. If the safety driver were paying attention it's quite likely they could have avoided it (although I imagine disengagement would negatively affect reaction time).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
danso 9y ago
I wish this was brought up in all of the many news articles that have covered this story so far, if not from the police themselves. Even an argument from common sense seems clear: the visual range of the video is barely much better than what you see when driving down a rural highway. But the AZ road cuts through a public park where concerts are held, including the Marquee Theatre at the nearby intersection. The median from which the victim crossed even has a well-paved pedestrian path to get from a parking lot to ostensibly the park [0]. If the scene was as dark as the Uber dashcam portrayed, there would be many, many more victims than just the one from Uber's AV. But speaking as a sometime camera enthusiast and photographer, I don't believe there any digital camera yet that comes close to capturing the dynamic range of the human eye. Look at a still from the video. The exposure is such that the street lights are basically pinpoints that seem to illuminate little more than the patch of ground immediately beneath them. Anyone who has seen municipal street lights (or even the shitty ones on a country road) should be able to tell that that can't possibly be the actual amount of light at the scene [1] [0] https://goo.gl/maps/xr5U1yHML6B2 https://goo.gl/maps/xr5U1yHML6B2 [1] https://i.imgur.com/mP2jH6E.png https://i.imgur.com/mP2jH6E.png
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  Somebody posted a video on youtube where they drove past the scene of the accident with a less crap camera, at the same time a day later. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0 a screenshot directly comparing the two images, appologies for the dumb meme crap https://i.imgur.com/eSre3hL.png https://i.imgur.com/eSre3hL.png There is absolutely no way the uber video is an accurate potrayl.
  - cozzyd 9y ago
    Well, I must admit I laughed at the meme.
- tmd83 9y ago
  The police's quick defense of Uber and their completely inaccurate comment about the pedestrian jumping in front of the car out of the shadow doesn't make sense to me except for collusion. A cursory look at even Uber's dashcam video would make it clear that the pedestrian didn't jump out, that the vehicle didn't even slow. So either the police were completely negligent or willfully lying to protect Uber. Didn't hear anything much about that. But that was before I saw this thread and realized it wasn't even dark. If it couldn't even see a human in that lighting to even slow I don't know why this shouldn't be considered murder by negligence (whatever the legal term is) at every level from uber, engineers, the driver. And why the police chief is not being asked to explain his comment and defense of Uber.

by cozzyd 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

danso 9y ago

I wish this was brought up in all of the many news articles that have covered this story so far, if not from the police themselves. Even an argument from common sense seems clear: the visual range of the video is barely much better than what you see when driving down a rural highway. But the AZ road cuts through a public park where concerts are held, including the Marquee Theatre at the nearby intersection. The median from which the victim crossed even has a well-paved pedestrian path to get from a parking lot to ostensibly the park [0]. If the scene was as dark as the Uber dashcam portrayed, there would be many, many more victims than just the one from Uber's AV. But speaking as a sometime camera enthusiast and photographer, I don't believe there any digital camera yet that comes close to capturing the dynamic range of the human eye. Look at a still from the video. The exposure is such that the street lights are basically pinpoints that seem to illuminate little more than the patch of ground immediately beneath them. Anyone who has seen municipal street lights (or even the shitty ones on a country road) should be able to tell that that can't possibly be the actual amount of light at the scene [1] [0] https://goo.gl/maps/xr5U1yHML6B2 https://goo.gl/maps/xr5U1yHML6B2 [1] https://i.imgur.com/mP2jH6E.png https://i.imgur.com/mP2jH6E.png

throwaway2048 9y ago
Somebody posted a video on youtube where they drove past the scene of the accident with a less crap camera, at the same time a day later. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0 a screenshot directly comparing the two images, appologies for the dumb meme crap https://i.imgur.com/eSre3hL.png https://i.imgur.com/eSre3hL.png There is absolutely no way the uber video is an accurate potrayl.
- cozzyd 9y ago
  Well, I must admit I laughed at the meme.
tmd83 9y ago
The police's quick defense of Uber and their completely inaccurate comment about the pedestrian jumping in front of the car out of the shadow doesn't make sense to me except for collusion. A cursory look at even Uber's dashcam video would make it clear that the pedestrian didn't jump out, that the vehicle didn't even slow. So either the police were completely negligent or willfully lying to protect Uber. Didn't hear anything much about that. But that was before I saw this thread and realized it wasn't even dark. If it couldn't even see a human in that lighting to even slow I don't know why this shouldn't be considered murder by negligence (whatever the legal term is) at every level from uber, engineers, the driver. And why the police chief is not being asked to explain his comment and defense of Uber.