4 ms·

The truck is more visible in the non-compressed video. https://twitter.com/haenschengross/status/1473326136755118085?s=20 https://twitter.com/haenschengross/st

The truck is more visible in the non-compressed video. https://twitter.com/haenschengross/status/1473326136755118085?s=20 https://twitter.com/haenschengross/status/147332613675511808...

hindsightbias 5y ago
Panel truck driving in the other lane didn't see it either, only braked after passing the wreck.
- pengaru 5y ago
  As if their braking is a reliable indicator of precisely when they see what...
  - bitshiftfaced 5y ago
    I think it can be, but for me it's more a question of whether the right-lane truck braked for the stopped truck or for some other reason.
    - pengaru 5y ago
      Not only are they unpredictable humans in general, but truckers are often the most sleep-deprived inattentive drivers on the road. Having been personally involved in a collision with one where my vehicle ended up under their trailer at highway speeds, when the trucker abruptly swerved into my lane to avoid rear-ending another truck they were tail-gating without paying enough attention to brake in time, I find this thread of discussion patently absurd.
      - seoulmetro 5y ago
        People don't realise how much "swerving to get out of the way of your own mistakes" costs the person you're swerving into. It's so sad to see it, but then they claim "oh but it was empty". People use it as their resort when following too closely, I wish they'd just accept their mistake and crash into the back of the car in front of them. But that would be too clean and logical.
  - hindsightbias 5y ago
    If only he’d been in the left lane, we wouldn’t be bashing Elon.
- pandaman 5y ago
  The truck probably was braking as the cars that merged to the right from the lanes with the wreck slowed the right lane.
jandrese 5y ago
Watching the video I'm not sure I would have been able to stop in time. There's like a quarter second between first seeing the truck and slamming into it.
- chemeng 5y ago
  There’s little way to tell from the video. Human eyes have much higher dynamic range than typical video cameras. What the video shows is not likely representative of what your eyes would have seen.
  - cryptonector 5y ago
    Watching the video a few times and knowing after the fact the first frame in which you can see something there, there's 4+ seconds to react. From the first indication of something being wrong (oncoming traffic headlamp occlusion) there's even more time (at least 7s). A sober, awake driver would have had "much higher dynamic range" as you put it, not only in their eyesight, but also in their acuity, and would have been able to come to a full stop without hitting the truck at all, much less hitting it at high speed.
    - labcomputer 5y ago
      With respect, while I broadly agree that a good driver could significantly mitigate the impact, I think you're looking at this with too much hindsight. 1. Even a sober, awake driver glances down to confirm their speedometer and scan their fuel gauge, check engine light, tire pressure, etc. 2. A sober, awake driver should be scanning the road along and beside the projected vehicle path. But they doesn't necessarily mean the would be looking in the direction of the occluded headlights at the very first instant they tell of a crashed car. 3. A sober, awake driver has to process what they see. 4. A sober, awake driver still has a good 0.2 to 0.25 second reaction time. 5. I actually do look for occluded lights when driving at night, but my experience talking about this with others in person is that this is a totally foreign concept. In other words, you know where and how and when to look for the obstruction because you've watched the video a few times. This is sort of like the Air France 447 flight or the Boeing 737 Max trim problem. If someone tells you exactly what kind of scenario you're going to face, how to handle it and approximately when you'll face it: you can win every time. 100% of pilots who were briefed on the specifics of AF447 avoided crashing the sim. Same for the 737 Max. Yet, hundreds of people are dead because pilots in actual cockpits, who were not given prior notification failed to act correctly.
simonbarker87 5y ago
I’m reasonably sure I would have avoided that based on the uncompressed, from pretty early on you can see “somethings not right”. Wife works in automotive engineering and I asked her why FCW and AEB didn’t detect it and her only thought is that because the truck is on the same angle as the central reservation and already in a bit of state it might not have detected it, although she thinks that more likely something just went wrong
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  If I'm being honest with myself, I would have hit the truck going just as fast and not noticed until it was far too late. The first sign of a problem was the skid marks, but but then the collision was unavoidable. I tried going back and looking to see if the oncoming headlights were obscured by the body of the truck, but I wasn't able to discern that. I also thought I might have been able to take the 18 wheeler's reaction as a clue, but it passed the wreck in the other lane and only starting braking right as it passed it.
  - simonbarker87 5y ago
    I think the issue with watching it like this is that you’re not currently driving so not attuned to what you’re looking for. I guess the issue with autopilot is that the driver likewise isn’t attunded to driving as they are on autopilot. With that in mind, in this exact scenario, I would have hit it also. Only with full manual control of the car do I think I could have avoided it.
  - labcomputer 5y ago
    > The first sign of a problem was the skid marks, but but then the collision was unavoidable. I'm pretty sure I would have hit the truck too[1], but there actually was an earlier clue: Headlights from oncoming traffic are occluded by the two crashed vehicles ahead. When rewatching the video (so I know both that I should be looking for something and approximately where that something is), the occluded headlights are pretty obvious. An attentive driver may have noticed the vehicles, but I think most people saying the truck was obvious are deluding themselves. [1] The first time I watched the video, my reaction was "Where is this tru-OHSHIT".
pavon 5y ago
Thanks for posting that. That is a big difference - around 4-5 seconds of time to react in this video vs less than 2 in the compressed video.
- fblp 5y ago
  Agreed, the silhouette fo the truck is clearly visible 2 seconds before impact which is actually quite a lot of time to react. I'm reminder of this multi-vehicle accident where you can see some drivers clearly reacting 1-2 seconds before impact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9yqXzZ16ns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9yqXzZ16ns
dxhdr 5y ago
Thanks for posting! Having watched this version there's no way any human driver paying attention would hit that truck. It would have been more visible in actuality as the dynamic range of video doesn't compare to eyesight.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
And I’d bet the difference between video and in-person would be even greater than the difference between compressed and non-compressed video.
silicon2401 5y ago
Not saying I wouldn't have crashed, but it's way more visible in this video. It's not even close. Definitely would have at least tried to brake, whereas in the compressed video the truck seems to just pop into existence out of the darkness.
strikelaserclaw 5y ago
big big difference, the first video i thought to myself "yea i probably would have hit it too", this video shows me that i could have definitely slammed the brakes to have minimal impact or maybe even stop entirely.
mecha_ghidorah 5y ago
Wow that is a huge difference, thank you for sharing. I am fucking against this auto pilot stuff a good deal and even I was looking at the video in the original link thinking "Fuck I dunno if a human would do any better". In the uncompressed video it seems very obvious that there is an obstacle in the road much earlier

The truck is more visible in the non-compressed video. https://twitter.com/haenschengross/status/1473326136755118085?s=20 https://twitter.com/haenschengross/status/147332613675511808...

hindsightbias 5y ago

Panel truck driving in the other lane didn't see it either, only braked after passing the wreck.

pengaru 5y ago
As if their braking is a reliable indicator of precisely when they see what...
- bitshiftfaced 5y ago
  I think it can be, but for me it's more a question of whether the right-lane truck braked for the stopped truck or for some other reason.
  - pengaru 5y ago
    Not only are they unpredictable humans in general, but truckers are often the most sleep-deprived inattentive drivers on the road. Having been personally involved in a collision with one where my vehicle ended up under their trailer at highway speeds, when the trucker abruptly swerved into my lane to avoid rear-ending another truck they were tail-gating without paying enough attention to brake in time, I find this thread of discussion patently absurd.
    - seoulmetro 5y ago
      People don't realise how much "swerving to get out of the way of your own mistakes" costs the person you're swerving into. It's so sad to see it, but then they claim "oh but it was empty". People use it as their resort when following too closely, I wish they'd just accept their mistake and crash into the back of the car in front of them. But that would be too clean and logical.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  If only he’d been in the left lane, we wouldn’t be bashing Elon.
pandaman 5y ago
The truck probably was braking as the cars that merged to the right from the lanes with the wreck slowed the right lane.

jandrese 5y ago

Watching the video I'm not sure I would have been able to stop in time. There's like a quarter second between first seeing the truck and slamming into it.

chemeng 5y ago
There’s little way to tell from the video. Human eyes have much higher dynamic range than typical video cameras. What the video shows is not likely representative of what your eyes would have seen.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  Watching the video a few times and knowing after the fact the first frame in which you can see something there, there's 4+ seconds to react. From the first indication of something being wrong (oncoming traffic headlamp occlusion) there's even more time (at least 7s). A sober, awake driver would have had "much higher dynamic range" as you put it, not only in their eyesight, but also in their acuity, and would have been able to come to a full stop without hitting the truck at all, much less hitting it at high speed.
  - labcomputer 5y ago
    With respect, while I broadly agree that a good driver could significantly mitigate the impact, I think you're looking at this with too much hindsight. 1. Even a sober, awake driver glances down to confirm their speedometer and scan their fuel gauge, check engine light, tire pressure, etc. 2. A sober, awake driver should be scanning the road along and beside the projected vehicle path. But they doesn't necessarily mean the would be looking in the direction of the occluded headlights at the very first instant they tell of a crashed car. 3. A sober, awake driver has to process what they see. 4. A sober, awake driver still has a good 0.2 to 0.25 second reaction time. 5. I actually do look for occluded lights when driving at night, but my experience talking about this with others in person is that this is a totally foreign concept. In other words, you know where and how and when to look for the obstruction because you've watched the video a few times. This is sort of like the Air France 447 flight or the Boeing 737 Max trim problem. If someone tells you exactly what kind of scenario you're going to face, how to handle it and approximately when you'll face it: you can win every time. 100% of pilots who were briefed on the specifics of AF447 avoided crashing the sim. Same for the 737 Max. Yet, hundreds of people are dead because pilots in actual cockpits, who were not given prior notification failed to act correctly.

simonbarker87 5y ago

I’m reasonably sure I would have avoided that based on the uncompressed, from pretty early on you can see “somethings not right”. Wife works in automotive engineering and I asked her why FCW and AEB didn’t detect it and her only thought is that because the truck is on the same angle as the central reservation and already in a bit of state it might not have detected it, although she thinks that more likely something just went wrong

BitwiseFool 5y ago
If I'm being honest with myself, I would have hit the truck going just as fast and not noticed until it was far too late. The first sign of a problem was the skid marks, but but then the collision was unavoidable. I tried going back and looking to see if the oncoming headlights were obscured by the body of the truck, but I wasn't able to discern that. I also thought I might have been able to take the 18 wheeler's reaction as a clue, but it passed the wreck in the other lane and only starting braking right as it passed it.
- simonbarker87 5y ago
  I think the issue with watching it like this is that you’re not currently driving so not attuned to what you’re looking for. I guess the issue with autopilot is that the driver likewise isn’t attunded to driving as they are on autopilot. With that in mind, in this exact scenario, I would have hit it also. Only with full manual control of the car do I think I could have avoided it.
- labcomputer 5y ago
  > The first sign of a problem was the skid marks, but but then the collision was unavoidable. I'm pretty sure I would have hit the truck too[1], but there actually was an earlier clue: Headlights from oncoming traffic are occluded by the two crashed vehicles ahead. When rewatching the video (so I know both that I should be looking for something and approximately where that something is), the occluded headlights are pretty obvious. An attentive driver may have noticed the vehicles, but I think most people saying the truck was obvious are deluding themselves. [1] The first time I watched the video, my reaction was "Where is this tru-OHSHIT".

pavon 5y ago

Thanks for posting that. That is a big difference - around 4-5 seconds of time to react in this video vs less than 2 in the compressed video.

fblp 5y ago
Agreed, the silhouette fo the truck is clearly visible 2 seconds before impact which is actually quite a lot of time to react. I'm reminder of this multi-vehicle accident where you can see some drivers clearly reacting 1-2 seconds before impact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9yqXzZ16ns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9yqXzZ16ns

dxhdr 5y ago

Thanks for posting! Having watched this version there's no way any human driver paying attention would hit that truck. It would have been more visible in actuality as the dynamic range of video doesn't compare to eyesight.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

And I’d bet the difference between video and in-person would be even greater than the difference between compressed and non-compressed video.

silicon2401 5y ago

Not saying I wouldn't have crashed, but it's way more visible in this video. It's not even close. Definitely would have at least tried to brake, whereas in the compressed video the truck seems to just pop into existence out of the darkness.

strikelaserclaw 5y ago

big big difference, the first video i thought to myself "yea i probably would have hit it too", this video shows me that i could have definitely slammed the brakes to have minimal impact or maybe even stop entirely.

mecha_ghidorah 5y ago

Wow that is a huge difference, thank you for sharing. I am fucking against this auto pilot stuff a good deal and even I was looking at the video in the original link thinking "Fuck I dunno if a human would do any better". In the uncompressed video it seems very obvious that there is an obstacle in the road much earlier