undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdanso8y ago0 comments

> That's a pretty clear fail.

And yet the police were so quick to say that camera footage indicates that Uber was likely not at fault. It was so quick that it makes me inclined to think it's pretty obvious. However, after the SF Chronicle published its exclusive interview with the Tempe's chief of police, the Tempe Police PR person had to issue a statement that, "Tempe Police Department does not determine fault in vehicular collisions."

I'm not one to believe in conspiracies or to automatically suspect shadowy influence, so I want to believe that the the camera footage seems to argue that this was an unavoidable accident. But the evidence released so far argues against that, regardless of whether the victim's crossing was illegal or not. And why are the police making a judgment on this so soon in the first place, especially when the decision will be made by county law officials, and ostensibly after referring to Uber's full suite of sensor data?

https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/20/uber-fault-pedestrian-fa...

0 comments

16 comments · 4 top-level

sdrothrock8y ago· 8 in thread

> And yet the police were so quick to say that camera footage indicates that Uber was likely not at fault.

I was surprised at that -- it doesn't seem to me that the police would have the technical knowledge of Uber's hardware and algorithms to categorically state that, let alone so quickly.

sushisource8y ago

Well, if you saw that video and it really did show a < 1 second time between the pedestrian becoming visible and being hit, then the autonomous systems don't matter at all. That accident is physically impossible to prevent in that car.

So whether or not the police understand self-driving systems is not relevant to the fundamental physics problem. The key question is how long was the ped visible.

stefan_8y ago

By the time that pedestrian has even traversed a single lane, the LIDAR on top has generated gigabytes of point cloud data showing her moving, assuming constant velocity of both car and ped, on a straightforward collision path.

I don't see how from a single forward-looking camera you want to deduce this crash was "physically impossible". That isn't even half of what we expect from human drivers. We expect them to swivel their head.

1 more reply

cesarb8y ago

"The pedestrian becoming visible" would be to the video cameras. If the vehicle has other sensors (LIDAR, RADAR, etc), how sooner/later would the pedestrian be visible to these sensors? Would it be possible to judge that by looking solely at the dashcam? Would the sensors ignore the pedestrian as a false positive in these circumstances?

2 more replies

dwighttk8y ago

<1 second between becoming visible (on the left side of the vehicle) and being hit by the right side of the vehicle doesn't seem likely.

dansoOP8y ago

An accident may be physically impossible to prevent, but that's not the only standard. Initial reports (from the police) say that Uber AV did not even brake. Is not braking at all within a 1 second window the performance touted by AV's detection and braking system?

to3m8y ago

"ped"?

1 more reply

lsaferite8y ago

I fall more into the "AZ wants the SDC companies in state and having a death due to a SDC would hamper that with the public" camp. Better to find the SDC not at fault and save face.

giobox8y ago

If it falls to a question of stopping distances, self driving vehicles are not really practically different from any other car, save perhaps for the ability to reduce the reaction time phase of stopping. I can certainly imagine there will be scenarios in which experienced traffic cops can make a reasonable determination, especially if the speed, distances, locations etc of the car and pedestrian are known.

phyzome8y ago· 3 in thread

I mean... the police just make shit up all the time. And Arizona was very happy to attract Uber with their regulation-free state law.

The fact that they came out with a statement instead of saying "we don't comment on ongoing investigations" makes it even more shady.

dansoOP8y ago

I don't agree with the sentiment that it happens all the time (but don't disagree that it's happened more than a few times), but I do think police are much less likely to make something up if they know (and have seen) the camera evidence. No point in saying something (the day after the incident) that can so easily be contradicted later.

stevenwoo8y ago

The first bombing victim in Austin was one of the first suspects of the police in his own bombing.

stevenwoo8y ago

http://foxsanantonio.com/news/local/first-bombing-victims-fa...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/police-treated-first-austin-bo...

The police in Georgetown about half an hour north of Austin went with his gut in one murder case - "it has to be someone the victim knew" and ignored physical evidence at the scene and the eyewitness testimony of the murder victim's son. Then the prosecutor kept working against the accused for the next 25 years and suppressed evidence. https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-innocent-man-part-...

djsumdog8y ago· 1 in thread

It's all speculation until we get a release of the actual video footage from the car. This is ridiculous. The NTSB/police need to release the actual footage to dispel speculation. We have actual evidence of exactly what happened and yet no one outside of the investigators and Uber can see it.

dansoOP8y ago

NTSB investigation has begun and it make take a few weeks:

https://twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroom/status/976215176323194880

I do think discussion is warranted because the Tempe Police have gone out of their way to share details and preliminary judgments about the case. Some of these details have been inaccurate, both for and against Uber's favor. But Tempe police officials are already going out of their way to downplay what their chief claimed:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/federal-agencies-investi...

> Glover downplayed Moir's statements, saying some were taken "out of context" by the Chronicle. The chief disagrees with the Chronicle's headline, "Tempe police chief says early probe shows no fault by Uber," Glover said.

mirimir8y ago

It's probably just PR.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

16 comments · 4 top-level

sdrothrock8y ago· 8 in thread

> And yet the police were so quick to say that camera footage indicates that Uber was likely not at fault.

I was surprised at that -- it doesn't seem to me that the police would have the technical knowledge of Uber's hardware and algorithms to categorically state that, let alone so quickly.

sushisource8y ago

So whether or not the police understand self-driving systems is not relevant to the fundamental physics problem. The key question is how long was the ped visible.

stefan_8y ago

1 more reply

cesarb8y ago

2 more replies

dwighttk8y ago

<1 second between becoming visible (on the left side of the vehicle) and being hit by the right side of the vehicle doesn't seem likely.

dansoOP8y ago

to3m8y ago

"ped"?

1 more reply

lsaferite8y ago

I fall more into the "AZ wants the SDC companies in state and having a death due to a SDC would hamper that with the public" camp. Better to find the SDC not at fault and save face.

giobox8y ago

phyzome8y ago· 3 in thread

I mean... the police just make shit up all the time. And Arizona was very happy to attract Uber with their regulation-free state law.

The fact that they came out with a statement instead of saying "we don't comment on ongoing investigations" makes it even more shady.

dansoOP8y ago

stevenwoo8y ago

The first bombing victim in Austin was one of the first suspects of the police in his own bombing.

stevenwoo8y ago

http://foxsanantonio.com/news/local/first-bombing-victims-fa...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/police-treated-first-austin-bo...

djsumdog8y ago· 1 in thread

dansoOP8y ago

NTSB investigation has begun and it make take a few weeks:

https://twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroom/status/976215176323194880

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/federal-agencies-investi...

mirimir8y ago

It's probably just PR.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse