I'm saying that the evidence as it stands doesn't remotely support the idea that this accident was avoidable for either the driver or the automation, and that I'm shocked at the irrationality with which people are trying to pretend it does.

If you want to make a point about cameras or eyes with evidence, do so. The evidence in the linked video supports there opposite of what you claim.

Here's what the video helps understand. The pedestrian wasn't hiding behind, say, a bush and leaped out. It seems like the pedestrian was unoccluded for the whole time they were on the street.

"Seems like", that is, because the pedestrian is not actually visible! This is the irrationality part. You are literally saying that she must have been visible because you can't see her on camera.

I give up.

No, she must have been visible because she can't teleport and road are typically clear.

Gah, but she was in the dark. You literally can't see her. You're asserting stuff about human vision being better without evidence[1], and then using an inference from the video that clearly shows this woman was invisible to "prove" your point. Which is insane.

[1] Again, this is just not true. Cameras sensors have HIGHER dynamic range and ISO bandwith than eyes. What is true is that people have better AI behind the scaling decisions and can search better across wide-dynamic-range environments than typical cameras. But again, that presupposes that the driver would have been looking for the black-clothed biker walking a bike without reflectors in the dark shadows between street lights. Which, wait for it, NEEDS EVIDENCE.

By visible I meant visible to active sensors like radar and lidar. This is the second part of my original response to you, and why I then said the pedestrian was unoccluded. Sorry that was unclear. Also sorry you're so frustrated.