Replies

I captured that video with "Screenflow" so that I could "time-stretch" and analyze it frame-by-frame.

The video's frame rate was 30 frames per second (33.3 milliseconds per frame).

From the time the woman's white sneakers were first barely detectable, (illuminated by the car's headlights) to the impact, there are 35 frames.

That's only 1.166 seconds. Even with vision equal to that of the camera, I seriously doubt that a human would have perceived a threat until much of the woman's legs were illuminated -- giving only a fraction of a second to respond.

The real kicker is that the car was in a well-iluminated area, and the woman was well outside that area. That would have compounded the difficulty of making the dark-to-light visual adjustment in time to perceive danger and to react effectively.

Here's a thorough article on the components of reaction time -- showing that the "standard" 1.5 second reaction time is, often, insufficient...

I recommend that you read it...

~~~~~~~~~~~~

In this instance, I suspect that I would not have outperformed the computer. YMMV...

That's only 1.166 seconds. Even with vision equal to that of the camera, I seriously doubt that a human would have perceived a threat until much of the woman's legs were illuminated -- giving only a fraction of a second to respond.

I'm thinking a human would not only have had their brights on, they would have also been watching the road. They might not have stopped in time, but at least they would have hit the brakes.

Sorry Charlie,

1) arguing its was dark and difficult to see is case against the driver for driving too fast for the conditions. Recall drivers ed where they taught you NEVER to drive faster than your headlights illuminate.

2) As all of us know, the camera image is ALWAYS darker than what the human eye sees. Added that this is a classic low res. camera, Elaine the victim was able to be seen at least 300 feet away. More than enough time to prevent killing her.

3) Finally, the onus is always on the person operating a deadly weapon in the public space. Its not on the victim to prove she behaved correctly.

I assume I would have hit her just like the stupid car did. And when I say stupid, I mean stupid, because it didn't even try to do anything.

The issue is not reaction time however, since the woman was doomed. The issue is whether we can recognize a human pushing a bicycle. We can. The computer cannot / could not. That is painfully obvious.

Only on FR would you get this kind of analysis. In the tradition of Buckhead.

I have another question about this incident. Does the camera lens gather as much light as the human eye? In other words, are the night vision abilities of the camera equal to that of the human eye?

That's only 1.166 seconds. Even with vision equal to that of the camera, I seriously doubt that a human would have perceived a threat until much of the woman's legs were illuminated

Ya mean when the victim stepped out of the black, ink like darkness? Btw, any defensive alert driver would have been standing on the brakes at point of impact.

Did the Uber vehicle brake before point of impact? And why would they not tell you this? What happened post impact? What did the vehicle do, what did the occupant do? After impact, did the Uber driverless car run over the victim?

They have all the data. Have you seen it?