If the sensors available to AV builders weren’t more acute than this cam, there would be no attempts at building AVs in the first place.Īlso, the “driver” in this scenario is not driving. The fact that one specific, cheap or poorly calibrated, dashcam managed to not show a good image, means nothing more than that it’s possible to set up a dashcam shitty enough to show nothing. There is absolutely no excuse for this vehicle to not have been aware of the pedestrian crossing, and to take evasive action. Liable or not, Uber should not restart tests on public roads until they have positively determined the cause of the failure and corrected it. I also think their self-driving system failed unacceptably and in this case Uber got lucky. Since the pedestrian was jaywalking in the dark, I imagine Uber may not be liable for this accident. Also, even if the pedestrian had been in complete darkness before being illuminated by the vehicle, I agree with others that the pedestrian should have been clearly visible to the self-driving vehicle. There are many lights on this road and the area should be pretty well lit. I have had an animal run in front of my vehicle on an unlit highway at 50 MPH and I agree with our host that a collision is difficult to avoid in that situation, but that is not the case here. I do not think the video is a good indication of how visible the pedestrian would have been to an attentive human driver. The dash cam exposure appears to be set to control the glare from the streetlights, making the road and pedestrian appear darker than they likely were to the human eye.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |