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.

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.

Where did I say just "camera"? By visible I mean visible in any way to the systems.

"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?

That's what I wonder. Yes, it has LIDAR etc. But there was this comment yesterday by arbie:[0]

> Sensor Fusion typically merges LiDAR with stereoscopic camera feeds, the latter requiring ambient light.

So might LIDAR data get de-emphasized when there's too little light for the cameras?

0) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16619917

If there’s not enough light for the cameras, LIDAR would get emphasized, not de-emphasized.

Thanks. So in this case, how come the woman wasn't identified based on the LIDAR data?

No idea

I don't understand that comment. "Sensor fusion" is the integration of data from two or more different sensors. It doesn't matter what those sensors are. They don't even have to be different types of sensors.

It may well be that the Uber cars only have LIDAR and optical, but that doesn't have anything to do with sensor fusion.

I didn't mean just visible as in visible light visible - I mean detected in any way by the systems.

<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.

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?

"ped"?

pedestrian

Which you follow up with a vulgarity? Come on. Be better than that. If your goal is to improve online discourse, lead by example.

I don't see how "ped" is necessarily an offensive abbreviation (though it's one that normally isn't used), so I don't think you're justified in believing that the commenter is trying to dehumanize the victim.

There are "PED XING" signs in the US for pedestrian crossings. I don't think it's considered disparaging.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=ped+xing&source=lnms&tbm=...

As a non native speaker I'm reacting to the use of Ped as well, that paired with the obvious victim blaming that seems to be thrown around a lot, but to a much lesser extent here than in other forums discussing this issue.

Driving is a sensitive subject, people take it personal trying to do generalizations about drivers is just going to land you in a land of troubles, almost worse than profanity.

lol seems like your sense of humor is not being well received here

Well it's more sideways, perhaps even caustic, something like that, I'd say, rather than humorous per se.

Still... stiff upper lip. Though I can't believe I'm getting downvoted for reminding people not to kill anybody while behind the wheel :-o

You're upset for someone using the word "ped" for pedestrian while using a word that's got a dictionary definition of being vulgar and offensive for women? I have to say I'm rather confused. I feel I'm being trolled.

Actually, in UK slang, that refers to someone who's being stupid. And still, everyone knows what it means in the US, I believe.

Edit: Sorry about the ambiguity. I wan't referring to "ped". But rather to the slang that's offensive to women.

Upon reflection, I wonder where that British term comes from. Maybe it basically means "woman". Reflecting the slur that women are stupid. So it's still sexist, albeit not as vulgar as the US term.

Derived from pedant I believe.

noun a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

Sorry, I was ambiguous. I meant the other slang.

Bah... my intent was certainly to be vulgar, and I stand by that. But if it's going to be interpreted as specifically offensive towards women (an implication not present in UK English) then I'll certainly apologise to all that were thus offended, because that was not part of the plan.

Looks like it's too late to delete it, so we're stuck with it forever.

Please still do drive carefully!

I'm a male, but I do think it's an offensive term for women in the U.S., despite its more casual usage in the UK. The average female reader would be inclined to think that such slurs -- and their anti-female sentiment -- were considered OK here.

It's too late to delete but I think it's worth it (for future readers) to say that offense isn't intended, and that that word is frowned upon by most HN users and mods.

You should consider they might be downvoting you for other reasons other than a hard to believe one.

Arguably, you're getting downvoted for abrasiveness and name calling.

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.

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.