> all of the video comparisons that have been put out are low-light cameras
If a self-driving car can't see 50 feet at night, maybe they should buy some low-light cameras?
> Also, noone seems to think it's a possibility that the agencies responsible for the lighting in this area to have made improvements immediately after the inicident before the public speculation started.
None of this matters. (I also find it pretty unlikely - the lights shown in Uber's video look plenty close together already to safely light the road. Even on an unlit road, the car's own headlights should've revealed the pedestrian far sooner.)
A self-driving car should be able to see (via the car's headlights, infrared, LIDAR, etc.) a safe distance ahead of the car at all times. The car should detect the unsafe condition and refuse to continue - not mow down pedestrians.
If it can't cope with a moonless, unlit road, it should not be on that road.
If a self-driving car can't see 50 feet at night, maybe they should buy some low-light cameras?
> Also, noone seems to think it's a possibility that the agencies responsible for the lighting in this area to have made improvements immediately after the inicident before the public speculation started.
None of this matters. (I also find it pretty unlikely - the lights shown in Uber's video look plenty close together already to safely light the road. Even on an unlit road, the car's own headlights should've revealed the pedestrian far sooner.)
A self-driving car should be able to see (via the car's headlights, infrared, LIDAR, etc.) a safe distance ahead of the car at all times. The car should detect the unsafe condition and refuse to continue - not mow down pedestrians.
If it can't cope with a moonless, unlit road, it should not be on that road.