Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoK
Both dashcams, both similar circumstances (no rain or snow whatever, just dark).
Sure the different headlights from the cars are the key difference... like lighting up that whole building in the back 
The first sensor clearly has far less dynamic range in dark spots.
And I'm sure that the eye will see it differently again. Personally I've never seen a dashcam that can match the eye, and I had quite a few, also with the sony 323 sensor which is currently one of the better sensors in current dashcams when it comes to resolution/dynamic range at night (its a commercialized version of the IMX323LQN). I currently have one with the sony 323 and the 291.
This is a little bit conspiracy theory, but the police was very fast in stating that a normal driver couldnt have prevented the accident either (or at least thats what I understood from all of it). Thats a bold claim.
Are they (the police and possibly the political establishment) trying to protect Uber?
I mean on the one hand you have a dead victim. But homeless, convicted, a nuisance to society?
And on the other hand a large corporation. That has a very extensive testing program. To engage such a testing program, a lot of talking with government, politicians, police, experts has to be done to implement the specifics. Takes a lot of man hours. All have to be paid one way or another. Uber putting a lot of cars on the road. All with a supervisior. All paid jobs for people in the area....
Food for thought. |
Can you show evidence that building was all lit up 10PM Sunday night (when most newer buildings turn off all lighting and AC over the weekend) as opposed to whatever night and time this dashcam video was made?
You assume a lot, and may be correct, but we know what they say about assuming.
I can 100% guarantee the conditions in that video are different than what happened on Sunday night.
How different is unknown, by you or me.
Funny you were willing to take LEOs statement of 35MPH zone as fact all day, but are unwilling to accept their statements human driver most likely would not have been able to avoid.
You show a complete bias in agreeing with LEO statements only when they agree with your opinion.