4 ms·
These facts are only relevant if you disregard LIDAR and you believe that the camera showed what the human eye would see. Videos on youtube (https://www.youtube
by jadedhacker 9y ago
These facts are only relevant if you disregard LIDAR and you believe that the camera showed what the human eye would see. Videos on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRW0q8i3u6E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRW0q8i3u6E and also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0&feature=youtu.be) and ABC news footage (http://abc7.com/video-shows-self-driving-ubers-fatal-collision/3243922/ http://abc7.com/video-shows-self-driving-ubers-fatal-collisi...) at the scene of the crash paint a much brighter picture. The street lights in the footage appear to be distinct while the background is dark, indicating the gain of the sensor would appear to be reduced. Try taking a picture of streetlights at night, if the street is visible, they will appear as stars. Additionally, the safety driver was not paying attention.
EDIT: In my opinion, the more you think about this crash the worse Uber looks. The LIDAR should have worked, the lighting was likely brighter than the video shows, the weather was good, no obvious distractor objects, the road was straight, no parties were impaired. The pedestrian had a big bulky bike and crossed at right angles to the car. This is nearly the most basic test of self-driving cars and it failed. The only way Uber would look worse is if it had happened in day time.
On top of that, Uber disabled the Volvo auto-braking safety system. (https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Uber-Disabled-Volvo-SUV-s-Standard-Safety-System-12782878.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Uber-Disabled-Volvo-...)