> "person getting closer to vehicle" should hold sway for most situations?!?
I think the big thing is that not all of these 'persons' move in the same way. A person in the exact same location could both be a 'hazard' and 'not a hazard' based solely on their velocity, and their ability to change direction quickly (and are they chasing after something which isn't a hazard, but which is intercepting your driving path). They don't just have to identify the person, they have to be capable of forecasting that person's movement.
IOW, someone walking and someone on a skateboard are different risks, because the skateboard could move into your path of travel before your pass them, whereas someone walking would not.
Yes, but the skateboard is irrelevant is the predicted trajectory. I can see how it's useful to analyse the mode of movement to try to improve predictions but the human moving towards you at X speed should be the principle analysis; it seems, naively, to me; rather than worrying if they're on a skateboard or a snakeboard, etc..
The skateboard is relevant because it could theoretically make a neural network fail to identify a person that needs to be avoided
>human moving towards you at X speed
Lidar systems will work this way. Camera+AI not necessarily, it will still need a way to sense relative speed otherwise you are banking on an AI to identify an obstacle in an image.
I think the big thing is that not all of these 'persons' move in the same way. A person in the exact same location could both be a 'hazard' and 'not a hazard' based solely on their velocity, and their ability to change direction quickly (and are they chasing after something which isn't a hazard, but which is intercepting your driving path). They don't just have to identify the person, they have to be capable of forecasting that person's movement.
IOW, someone walking and someone on a skateboard are different risks, because the skateboard could move into your path of travel before your pass them, whereas someone walking would not.