This is such a horrible accident but to be completely honest I didn’t even see her until the headlights were right on her. AZ is already bad enough as far as peds vs vehicles with actual drivers. But a dark street, dark clothes, and not being able to stop in time is dangerous.
-
-
-
I’ve watched it a few times and agree. She seems to appear out of nowhere.
-
This is a video. Hold up your phone in a dark room, and see if the video matches what you can see with your own eyes. Your eyes are much more adaptable to low light conditions.
-
Not only that but the technology they're using shouldn't be limited by the available light.
-
100%, I'm addressing the people who think the video is an accurate depiction of what a human in the driver's seat would have seen.
-
My words were, “she seems to.” I am well aware this video is not an accurate representation of what a person would have seen from the front seat. I wasn’t driving, I wasn’t there. I can’t say how I would have reacted. Regardless, we can all agree this was tragic.
-
I completely understand what you meant. Just like me saying I didn’t see her is based on the video, I’m watching on my phone... I wasn’t there in that car, in that situation. AND it doesn’t mean I’m a horrible driver like one of the guys below assumes.

-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Why on Earth was she crossing a busy street in the dark in the middle of the road? Not even at an intersection, but the middle of the road?
-
Nearly 2 miles between crosswalks, that's why. Street was designed to kill pedestrians.
-
There is a cross walk 400 feet from that spot
-
Sure. Doesn't change that it's the only one for nearly 2 miles. Street was designed with peds as an afterthought and a fatal crash is the result.
-
I agree that the design is perhaps the greatest factor here. What are those sidewalks to nowhere in the middle of the median? But saying there was no crosswalk for 2 miles is a bit misleading when there was one within sight.
-
But surely the pedestrian also has a duty of care to themselves not to cross in front of a vehicle regardless of whether there is a crosswalk or not. The pedestrian clearly wasn't paying attention to what the vehicle was doing as much as the driver wasn't paying attention.
-
I don't know on what planet you live on that drivers have less duty of care than a pedestrian. Bigger, more dangerous transportation method = greater societal responsibility. And "jaywalking" is an invention of the auto industry, by the way:https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history …
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
(1) Driver clearly negligent, on cell phone, not paying attention, instead of supervising experimental system. (2) Tech is LIDAR-based, not light-limited, ergo saw her. Indicates serious problem in the algorithm; didn't even brake. (3) Pedestrian was... jaywalking on a highway.
-
(4) There were a solid 2 seconds, almost 3 seconds, between _visual_ notice of pedestrian and impact-- plus a bit of extra time from dark-adapted eyes vs. the poor dynamic range of the video. This is nearly as long as the recommended 4 seconds for following vehicles on highways.
-
This was clearly enough time for a computer system to hit brakes. For a human, typical reaction time is ~0.75 sec, but typical _braking_ latency is 2.3 sec, so even if driver had not been negligently texting, it is doubtful that a full stop could occur. Swerving could, though.
-
Apparently the vehicle was also equipped with a RADAR system, in addition to LIDAR, so there is absolutely no excuse for it not halting on this. These technologies do not rely on visible light illumination. They would have seen the pedestrian 4+ seconds in advance.
-
A friend just sent this write-up as well, which is essentially consistent with my analysis-- http://ideas.4brad.com/it-certainly-looks-bad-uber …pic.twitter.com/cl8aLAameN
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.