Re:Uber will not re-apply for self-driving car permit in Cal...
by tzs on Wednesday March 28, 2018 @05:08PM
(#16701950)
> The police reported that the pedestrian, wearing black, entered the roadway randomly and unexpectedly, directly in front of a moving vehicle, and concluded that a human driver would not have reacted in time either
She did not enter the roadway directly in front of the Uber. She entered the road from the left and had to cross multiple lanes to get in front of the Uber, which was in the right lane. There were no obstructions between her and the Uber during all of this, and even if the road had not been well lit by streetlights, she would have been in range of the Uber's headlights for over 4 seconds before the collision (the low beams on that model car have a range of 250 ft, and the car was traveling 55 ft/second).
> The police reported the accident as "unavoidable", and showed that there was a crosswalk very close
The nearest crosswalk was 300 ft away, which I would not count as "very close".
She did not enter the roadway directly in front of the Uber. She entered the road from the left and had to cross multiple lanes to get in front of the Uber, which was in the right lane. There were no obstructions between her and the Uber during all of this, and even if the road had not been well lit by streetlights, she would have been in range of the Uber's headlights for over 4 seconds before the collision (the low beams on that model car have a range of 250 ft, and the car was traveling 55 ft/second).
> The police reported the accident as "unavoidable", and showed that there was a crosswalk very close
The nearest crosswalk was 300 ft away, which I would not count as "very close".