Slashdot Mirror
Volvo Self-Parking Car Hits People Because Owner Didn't Pay For Extra Feature
schwit1 writes: A video that recently went viral shows a demonstration of a Volvo XC60's self-parking feature. It reverses itself, waits, and then confidently drives into a group of people at a non-negligible speed. (Two were hit, and while both were bruised, they were otherwise OK.) The situation was presumed to have resulted from a malfunction with the car — but the car might not have had the ability to recognize a human at all. A Volvo representative said the car was not equipped with the "Pedestrian detection" feature. That feature is sold as a separate package.
For that incredibly funny video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Similar situation.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
the car was not equipped with the "Pedestrian detection" feature. That feature is sold as a separate package.
Release to market with minimum feature set, Microsoft would be proud.
Shouldn't a human without any major cognitive disabilities know not to trigger the auto-parking feature when there were people standing in the spot?
Volvo's comments in the Fusion article also suggest that the pedestrian detection feature would not have helped, given that the driver appears to be accelerating towards the people injured. If somebody is driving a car at you, follow your instincts and get out of the way.
A more appropriate title would be: "Idiot hits pedestrians after purposely setting up his vehicle to do so, hoping it wouldn't."
That didn't look like a parking attempt. How is "ramming speed" the first step of parking?
I don't quite the understand the situation. Even if the car is unable to recognize pedestrians, should it just drive into 'unknown' obstacles like that?
I'm a pedestrian, I have right of way.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Oh, you wanted brakes, too? I don't see anything on the invoice about brakes.
Sorry, in 2015 this isn't really considered much of an accomplishment anymore.
No matter how old it is, I still can't fathom the "extra" scheme applied to the automotive industry. It's not enough that most companies (especially luxury brands) already price their cars exorbitantly high, covering most R&D cost for technology it does not ship with as stock, yet they keep multiplying and over-complicating the extra packages in ways that if you want to add a single extra essential feature, you are pretty much forced to add 10 more (I guess Volvo guys forgot it this time but I bet they intended to do it). Why can't all cars be more like a Model S and ship with the most relevant technological developments "out of the box" (as there is no stand per se, it must come in a box). And I'm not even talking about the fact it's an electric car.
The car did not hit people because the owner didn't pay for an extra feature. The car hit people because the driver made an error, assuming the car had a feature the car did not have.
Get stuck while offroading? It's not the car's fault you didn't buy the 4WD version.
Damage the engine by filling up with diesel instead of regular gas? It's not the car's fault you didn't buy the model with the diesel engine.
Injured because your car didn't notify the manufacturer when it was in an accident? It's not the car's fault you didn't pay for the accident monitoring service.
This is a slippery slope. We must hold the driver accountable.
*All* cars today will confidently drive into a people. Most of them only do so by moving forward or backward in whatever direction they are pointed. The fact that this car has a button that backs up, does a little turn, then pulls forward does NOT change the chain of responsibility. Ex: Suppose my car has a button that drives forward 10 feet, honks, spins around, then drives backward 10 feet. Can I blame the manufacturer when I hit the button and run someone over? We can't let that become the standard.
Oh, did my drone just gun down a bunch of children? Blame Boeing, their bid for the child detection feature was too expensive! -- I DON'T THINK SO FOLKS!
Question: Does the brake still work in self-park mode?
There exist a system fÃr detection of hinders in all cars. It's called a driver.
The driver should never use a feature of a car that can make it move in a way that it can hit a human.
Its common sense.
Just saying it like it are.
No, it sounds like Volvo's lawyers told him to point the finger to limit damage when the pedestrians file a civil suit against the driver and also name Volvo. Typical PR spin. Nothing to see here, these aren't the droids you're looking for, etc etc.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
I disagree. The responsibility remains that of the driver. Sadly, these automated systems are making them dumber, so it seems.
IMO all of the reporting on this is ambiguous and expects us to know what stuff like "City-safe" means, without defining it.
Surely the vehicle already has to avoid obstacles to park?* Why does avoiding pedestrians cost extra?
It would be very helpful if someone who truly understand this could clear it up. Is the driver really a dumbass who should have known better, or is Volvo insanely treating "not plowing through human beings" as an optional extra?
* Or does it? I admit I have no experience with self-parking cars. How much preparation/setup (i.e. like "pre-washing" for a dishwasher) is required on the part of the driver? Is the driver expected to position the car in a certain way, and make sure certain obstacles aren't present?
I believe almost all of the self parking cars currently available to the public more accurately described as hands free more than completely automated. From what I gather, the driver is still required to operate the pedals (for liability purposes rather than technical reasons).
It was the driver's responsibility to operate it safely (ie not stamp on the accelerator and actually look at what's ahead), the fact that a premium feature could have compensated for the idiot behind the wheel is moot. It's akin to driving straight at a brick wall then complaining that the accident was caused by a car company not giving you "brick wall avoidance" as a feature in your model rather than you doing something stupid.
"The gasoline fume containment package is extra." --Volvo
I'd like to see how this car drives itself with the challenges presented on an episode of "Canada's Worst Driver".
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
This would be a very valid rant if the reporting here were correct. The car wasn't trying to park--it wasn't controlling itself. From T 2nd FA: "It seems they are trying to demonstrate pedestrian detection and auto-braking", which is what he didn't pay for. Even that feature is overridden if you keep pressing down on the gas. This is entirely driver error.
TFA said:
He said the car is not attempting to self-park. “It seems they are trying to demonstrate pedestrian detection and auto-braking"[while the car is under human control]
So not nearly as sinister as a self driving car that charges extra for a vital feature. It costs extra because it requires them to stick a radar in the car, and radars cost money; and it's fine that they charge extra as all of these cars should be equipped with a pedestrian avoidance system anyway, namely a driver.
That's only true if the capability is supposed to be used without supervision, which is never the case with current *assistive* driving or parking technologies. That's why they are called "assistive": they might help you but the ultimate responsibility of what the car does is still yours as a driver.
The car wasn't driving itself. The driver in the car stepped on the gas and drove into the people.
RTFA. The headline is outright WRONG. The driver intentionally accelerated towards pedestrians assuming the car would stop itself independent of any kind of self parking feature.
It wasn't doing any autonomous movement so your premise is garbage and thus the rest of the post meaningless.
The idiot in the car backed up and then accelerated towards a group of people. Surprise, surprise, the car didn't magically stop and the people were hit.
Now, the car company in question does sell something that might have caused the car to apply the brakes automatically in that situation but it costs a bunch of money. Are you seriously claiming they need to include that on every car they make?
You know what: Until there are no human controls at all, everything is entirely driver error.
Because that's where the legal liability will be.
So, "driver incompetently shows off technology he didn't pay for but which should have been mandatory" is, in my mind, no different than "idiot crams car into reverse and drives over pedestrians".
As I said "until such time as Google (or whoever makes it) takes legal and financial responsibility for everything its car does (which they never will) ... then people should either carry a lot of extra insurance, or simply not buy one of these things."
Make no mistake about it, your fancy car is still your car, and you are still legally responsible for it. So if it kills someone, you still get to keep the criminal charges and the liability.
In which case you might as well drive the damned car yourself.
The problem is that it's going to take multiple deaths before people realize that these things aren't magic, and still have corner cases where they break down. And, the driver will be on the hook for those, no matter what anybody says.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
While the people in this video are utter morons(even if you have actually verified the existence of a safety cut-off on a dangerous piece of hardware; Why would you test it on yourself?); Volvo's response seems...tactically unwise.
There may be good reasons for the 'pedestrian detection' feature to be an extra purchase(more sensors, more DSP, recouped development costs, etc.) or it may just be a single bit in the firmware waiting to be flipped in a magic screwdriver upgrade; but either way, "Yeah, we have a feature that would have prevented that accident; but it didn't because we prefer to charge more for it." seems like the sort of statement that is likely to attract the wrong sort of scrutiny.
If you admit to having the mature capability; how long before failing to include it is negligence? Will you be able to keep it as an add-on, rather than a standard feature like antilock braking? Are you absolutely sure that your sales people didn't misrepresent the capabilities of what they sold? and so on.
It seems as though they'd be much better off just issuing a flat 'don't do stupid irresponsible things' and quietly dropped the matter.
Second, there is the "pedestrian detection system". This is a radar-based long-range detection system used when driving in the city (for auto alerting the diver and/or auto-breaking if a child runs out in the street, for example).
In order to do self-parking, only the parking assistance hardware is involved. The parking assstance avoids all obstacles, and of course it would never automatically move the car if it detected an obstacle. The pedestrian radar is an optional package simply because the hardware is still quite expensive. Of course there will always be optional extras on cars. Volvo is probabl class leading when it comes to having the safety features made standard as soon as possible, but this piece of kit is just too expensive yet
So: 1) Volvo does not "charge extra" for enabling some feature on hardware already included. 2) There is no "pedestrian detection" that can be enabled or disabled that relates to parking .It's a city driving pedestrian safety option. 3) Other cars with parking assist or automatic parking have anything other than the sensors (cameras/ultrasound) that Volvo use.
Years ago Volvo invented and patented the three-point seat belt. But they found it to be such a boon to safety that they gave it away without royalties.
Today, "pedestrian detection" costs extra?
No matter how old it is, I still can't fathom the "extra" scheme applied to the automotive industry.
It's rather simple so let me break it down for you. 1) Not everybody wants, needs or can afford every feature. 2) Automakers can sell more cars if they offer them at a range of prices. 3) People like to customize their vehicles because having something a little unique is valued. 4) If people weren't willing to pay extra for options then they would quickly not be offered. 5) Bundling options keeps complexity down to a manageable level and if done right improves profits for the manufacturer.
Why can't all cars be more like a Model S and ship with the most relevant technological developments "out of the box"
If people start gravitating with their dollars towards that business model then that is what will happen. I think it is unlikely but stranger things have happened. However remember that you are talking about a $100,000 luxury car so the rules are quite a bit different than for the market for a minivan or pickup that costs 1/3 of the price of the Tesla.
So, you're saying the "self-parking" bit the headline, summary and article describe is a complete red herring and had nothing to do with what the car was actually doing at the time?
If you say so. It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote, it just might not be applicable to the situation that the headline, summary, and article all apparently failed to describe.
Log in or piss off.
The video does not show any auto-driving. It seems like they were trying to demonstrate an auto-brake accident avoidance feature.
Basically, the driver (appearing to be fully in control the whole time) reversed the car and then gunned it, aiming at the pedestrians. I'm guessing the expectation was that auto-brake would kick in before ploughing into the bystanders.
This was a boneheaded move on part of the driver and the idiots who agreed to basically be crash test dummies. Fifth Gear tested auto-braking with a sophisticated dummy car, and it didn't always work reliably (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?...).
Just to reiterate, this was not any kind of auto-driving failure.
I have no idea. I wouldn't use the feature as I actually can park a car properly. Whether the guy did override the system or not Volvo's lawyers will point that direction until there is definitive proof of an error. It's standard practice.
Regardless, "pedestrian detection" should never be an "additional" feature for a self-driving vehicle of any kind, no matter what mode of operation the vehicle is using.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Absolutely correct. "Self parking" and "Pedestrian detection" are two completely separate features using two separate sets of hardware. Here, the driver was manually driving towards people assuming that the radar in the front of the car would tell it to auto-brake. There was no radar in that car, though.
The driver should never use a feature of a car that can make it move in a way that it can hit a human.
Except for features of a car that are designed to function without a human. The entire point of moving to self-driving / self-parking cars is so you don't have to do it.
Now, we're not at that point yet, and I agree that in this instance it's the driver's responsibility. However, it's not defensible or ethical for Volvo to sell the pedestrian-detection feature separately from the self-parking feature anymore than it would be for them to sell seat-belts as an option. They know idiot drivers exist, they know the feature could save lives. If you don't offer a self-parking system with that capability, that's fine. However, if you have done the R&D to develop it, you better include it as a selling point of your improved self-parking system over other manufacturers, not as a separate feature. Doing otherwise is simply not ethical.
Hm. Legit point, but then you have to ask whether the driver reasonably understands how the assistive technology works well enough to be able to supervise it, and also how easily they can stop the process if things go wrong (i.e. if the assistive technology requires the driver to take their limbs off the wheel, brakes and accelerator in order to work reliably, then it's pretty much guaranteed that they won't be able to act quickly enough to prevent an accident).
Log in or piss off.
The guy hammering the accelerator would disable any automatic braking system, and that looks precisely what happened here. You have ventured over the border from scepticism to cynicism. And no-one cares if you can park or not, as it has no bearing on this discussion in the slightest :)
Yes. There was no self parking involved - the headline, summary, and article are making it up. That should be obvious from the video in which the car is clearly not parking.
You said " someone needs to get cracking with that recall" and "It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote". So what precisely do you expect to be recalled due to this case of a person accelerating a car towards a group of people?
The guy had pushed the "maximum overdrive" button. Simple mistake.
I am Audience.
Spotting a car is easy. Spotting people, or other random obstacles, not so much.
Cars tend to be large and made of hard reflective surfaces. 2 or 3 ultrasonic sensors at fixed locations in the bumper is enough to notice a car and avoid hitting it. Those sensors are cheap, and you can probably run them with an 8-bit PIC.
A system to detect random objects is much more involved. More and better sensors, vastly more complicated program and a real CPU to run it. In this case, radar and a camera, both of which require lots of processing to use. All quite expensive.
Even better, the car wasn't parking itself. From the two articles, it sounds like the driver hit the gas with the expectation that the car was going to prevent him from running into people. It wasn't capable of that, and wouldn't have overridden his explicit action even if it were.
See that "Preview" button?
It's not MY car. I own a Pontiac. I'm only licensing it.
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/0...
If you RTFA, it is the driver who plowed into the pedestrians. He assumed the car would detect the pedestrians and slam on the brakes for him, but it turns out the car did not have the feature or it was disabled. A stupid, dangerous stunt on the part of the people involved, and some seriously dishonest reporting.
Are you a fucking asshole on purpose, or does someone need to hit you with a Volvo? Because you're just a screeching monkey on the internet at the moment.
Look, put your bullshit away and try to be a grown up. If you can't, then fuck the hell off.
If you have auto-park, auto-park sure as hell better include the "don't run over pedestrians" as standard with that.
If you don't have auto-park, there is no problem.
But when auto park is an option, and "don't kill pedestrians" is another option, that's just moronic. The Volvo spokesperson straight up said that's an additional option. Which means there exist configurations of this vehicle which will auto-park and run over pedestrians.
Now, please, go be an asshole elsewhere and learn how to fucking read.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Either that, or TFA links to an article compketely misunderstanding what's actually going on in the video. Hint: no self driving going on, and pedestrian detection isn't related to parking at all. ignore TFA.
This is the same as if the pilot told a self flying plane to fly into the Alps. Do you sue the company who made the plane because it allowed the pilot to do this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They're just another kind of obstacle. Either the self-parking feature stops before running into obstacles ... or it doesn't and it's entirely up to the driver to prevent the car from doing so.
Of course there is no way of buying a Volvo that could somehow self drive but fail to detect humans while doing so because that would be an optional extra. TFA makes it sound like that is the case (it isn't) and I'm starting to think its deliberately misleading because no one could believe that honestly.
Idiots who get wounded or killed, testing a bulletproof vest.
This car had been purchased with the "Find and Acquire Parking Space" (FAPS) option which, upon activation, locates any open parking space nearby and seeks to claim it as quickly as possible. The car simply noticed a space a couple hundred feet away and dove for it.
In other unrelated news, Volvo lawyers are recommending to the marketing department that the FAPS option only be available in conjunction with the Pedestrian Detection option.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Summary from TFA:
(1) The car isn't self-parking, it's under driver control.
(2) Pedestrian detection wouldn't have helped because the driver was overriding the automatic features of the car.
Pedestrian detection costs extra money because it requires installing a radar and camera.
Oh wait - that's an "extra feature" too.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Absolutely correct. "Self parking" and "Pedestrian detection" are two completely separate features using two separate sets of hardware. Here, the driver was manually driving towards people assuming that the radar in the front of the car would tell it to auto-brake. There was no radar in that car, though.
In other words, it will drive over any pedestrians standing in your desired parking spot. I can see how some people would pay extra to be able to claim "it was an accident - the car did it!"
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
What I wrote stands for the situation described in the headline, summary and article. We'd obviously have to allow for physics (i.e. a car won't stop immediately at 70mph, and pedestrians wearing black radar-cloaking clothing at night are probably fucked), but otherwise get it right or get it off the road.
If the car wasn't actually operating autonomously, sure, what I wrote wouldn't be directly applicable to this situation. It's still the right way to handle the failure at it was described.
Log in or piss off.
This is what happens when you trust in technology, rather that your own God given senses."Psalm 20:7 (KJV) Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God."
Can I interest you in this blue button to get you back down? -Daffy the Duck
What is "autonomous movement"? If I put my car in first gear and release all the pedals, it'll start moving forward without me touching any part of the car.
In this particular case we're talking about "autonomous breaking"; a safety feature.
If you make an auto manufacturer 100% liable for any additional safety feature not working 100%, they simply won't implement any additional safety feature at all.
Also, my sig seems to apply to parent's comment.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
This is a video of a person driving into some other people. The car was not "trying to park itself" nor under any other sort of autonomous control. It is speculated in TFA that the driver mistakenly thought the car would automatically stop him from ramming the people he was intentionally accelerating towards. There is further speculation about why it didn't work, including that the car may not have had that functionality installed, and that maybe it did, but even if so the way he was driving (i.e. significant acceleration) would override the pedestrian-avoidance function. Sometimes it seems like there is a faction with an agenda against self-driving cars spreading as much misinformation as possible.
Oh how I wish the person could be recalled, though I don't think his mother would enjoy it.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Car parking speeds are so slow that you can easily slam the brake and stop the car instantly if you need to, even with your foot far off the brake. Actually when I park my foot is always far off the brake since I have to operate the clutch.
If you have auto-park, auto-park sure as hell better include the "don't run over pedestrians" as standard with that.
If you don't have auto-park, there is no problem.
But when auto park is an option, and "don't kill pedestrians" is another option, that's just moronic. The Volvo spokesperson straight up said that's an additional option. Which means there exist configurations of this vehicle which will auto-park and run over pedestrians.
Unfortunately, this is another case of /. finding a brain-dead article to base the thread around...
There were two demonstrations involved. One of the self-parking, one of the pedestrian avoidance.
The self-parking went without a hitch (because this option was present). Had any pedestrians been in the space while auto-parking was being demonstrated, the system would have detected them and avoided them, same as with any other obstacle. This system uses shorter-range sensors around the vehicle that will detect ANY objects with an aim to avoiding them.
The pedestrian avoidance demo (which was tested by MANUALLY driving at a group of pedestrians with auto-park disengaged and completely irrelevant as it was not a parking scenario) was supposed to show how the RADAR detects pedestrians in time to apply the brakes to prevent a collision. This is a forward-facing RADAR system, supplemented with cameras and software, designed to detect pedestrians in the road and to apply the brakes to prevent, or at least reduce the speed of, any collision with such. Unfortunately, the demonstrator neglected to check that this feature was present before trying to demonstrate it (and in any case, appeared to pump the accelerator, in spite of the fact that this would bypass the feature had it been present). Needless to say, without the feature present, the vehicle will do exactly what you expect when you press the accelerator (with a gear engaged, brakes off and engine running, before anyone makes any sarcastic comments!) and proceeded in the direction it was being steered.
In simple terms, the demonstrator is at fault here (although may be able to share responsibility if they had been advised that this option was present... still should have checked though!).
The Volvo spokespersons comments have been conflated here, as the pedestrian avoidance option IS an optional extra, but has NOTHING to do with auto-parking.
All this being said, however... the whole conversation is somewhat moot as these are considered "assistive" technologies. i.e. they are there to assist the driver, not replace the driver. Until these features can operate without a driver in the vehicle, they should never be considered to be in full control of the vehicle, so should not absolve a driver of blame. Any driver who is prepared to relinquish A PORTION OF their control of a vehicle, but expects in doing so to release themselves of ALL liability for any adverse consequences, should have their license revoked and undergo a prolonged period of re-education. Similarly, anyone marketing these technologies as anything other than assistive, and implying that they reduce or eliminate the need for a driver to remain alert, attentive and in control of their vehicle should be subject to some form of sanctions, although, not being a lawyer, I am not sure what statute that may fall under (possible false advertising?)...
Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
No, if there had been a Maximum Overdrive button, the car would have pushed it itself.
(Link is safe for work.)
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The prior owners of Volvo would not have done it that badly.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
They were just driving at pedestrians and expecting the car to stop on its own. Your car won't do it and the option isn't even available.
Wrong (although you, unlike many replying to this article, are right that auto-park was unrelated to this so-called failure).
The option IS available. It uses forward-facing RADAR and camera(s) to detect pedestrians (and, in later iterations, cyclists) and apply the brakes to avoid or lessen any impact. So far, reports indicate that this has been reliable.
As it requires (fairly expensive) additional hardware, it (understandably) costs extra (a friend of mine who works in the business mentioned it's around an extra £2k per vehicle in parts, so expect about double/triple that to factor in the software and for the manufacturer to make what they consider a "reasonable" profit!).
One key point to note, however, is that, once it detects a pedestrian/cyclist and starts to apply the brakes, if you continue to manually accelerate towards the obstacle, most such systems will disengage themselves (presumably under the assumption that a driver would not continue to accelerate unless the detection was a false-positive). As such, in this example, you are right that the vehicle won't stop on its own, as the driver appeared to be continuing to accelerate.
Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
My car is already full of partially autonomous functions, and it's absolutely fine. I understand where their responsibilities end and mine begin. Hasn't been a problem.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
In my experience, Volvos expect you to get out of their way. Not the other way round.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's open for debate, but my view is everybody DOES want every feature they can have.
Not really. If I've got a pickup I use for hauling dirt at work in sketchy neighborhoods I'm going to want a pretty minimal feature set. No point in having a fancy touch screen or satellite radio. If you are buying a car for your mom you might not want that 400HP turbocharged engine but you might want it for yourself along with that fancy rear spoiler wing. Different people have different needs and wants. Similarly many features cost significant cash and adding them can often put the cost of the vehicle out of reach for those of lesser means even if they desire.
Different ranges will cater to different markets (more revenue), but not necessarily more profit.
I think you may not fully understand the economics at work. My apologies if what I'm about to outline is already known to you. I'm a certified accountant and have done some of this work in my day job. This is an over-simplification but more features = more cost to the manufacturer = higher price to customer.
Margins are usually higher with more features but every vehicle has a minimum required profit margin which is typically called a hurdle rate by finance folks. As a general practice the auto maker won't make the car unless they can get at least the hurdle rate margin for it. (the exact rate is arbitrarily chosen but is indexed for the risk of the investment) They also have fixed costs (tooling, assembly lines, salaries, engineering costs, etc) that they need to recoup and which don't change whether they sell 1 vehicle or 1 million vehicles. If they only sell fully pimped out vehicles they are leaving profit on the table because they will have to amortize those fixed costs over fewer vehicles. Even though the might make less margin on the less optioned out vehicle, their unit costs will fall because they sell more of them and can spread their fixed costs over more vehicles.
It's more complex than this but companies maximize profit when when marginal revenue = marginal cost. That is the additional revenue gained from selling one more car just equals the additional cost of selling that one more car. By offering vehicles with fewer options at a lower price point they push out to the point where marginal cost hockey sticks up from over production and increases profit to the manufacturer. Wikipedia has a good article on what is going on.
No. Most cars aren't works of art, because art is one of the few "industries" where uniqueness is key. Save for some limited-edition, luxury cars, that point is moot. Extras rarely value a car, age and exclusivity do.
Has nothing to do with cars being (or not) works of art. People don't (usually) demand that their car be truly unique but they do demand that they be personalized to a significant degree. People choose different paint colors, different engines, different wheels, etc. Car customization is a multi-billion dollar industry both at the OEM and aftermarket levels. I work in the industry and I can assure you that people do not want exactly the same vehicle as the next guy and many are willing to pay to get it. Companies that do not accommodate this to some degree are leaving money on the table. The US manufacturers tend to offer more options and the Japanese less with the Europeans somewhere in between. Even Tesla offers several power trains, trim packages and other options - roughly on par with what you see from the Japanese automakers for certain vehicles.
There exist a system fÃr detection of hinders in all cars. It's called a driver.
The driver should never use a feature of a car that can make it move in a way that it can hit a human.
Its common sense.
This is true. That is why they shouldn't be installing autonomous parking and driving systems. They will never be a substitute for a human being. If people are going to blame the human when the feature didn't work correctly, then there is no point in having that feature. Manufacturers, please stop putting these outrageously expensive systems into our cars which do not work sufficiently, increase driver liability and drive up the cost of cars.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
“Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.” -- Terry Pratchett
I was speaking only regarding the position corporate lawyers will take until there is definitive proof one way or the other. I have no cynicism only realism.
Thanks for pointing out the irrelevance of my driving prowess in the grand scheme of things.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Of all the features to make optional, "pedestrian detection" is not one of them.
Either include that in the auto parking feature or do not include an auto parking feature.
Really... these auto driving features are premature in most cases. People need to take responsibility for what their own cars do and not fob it off on dubious auto pilot systems.
That said, I don't even like automatic transmissions... I'm convinced that they're responsible for stop and go traffic. People with manual transmissions do not accelerate and then jam on the breaks over and over and over again. Instead, the whole highway keeps a consistent speed.
it is why in such traffic I get behind the biggest semi I can find. That semi is NOT accelerating and stopping over and over again. That guy is going to go the average speed of traffic. I get behind him... and an otherwise stressful drive becomes quite peaceful.
When we have fully automated cars, I think it might get better just because I'm convinced that most issues on the roads are caused by fucktard drivers. And maybe the robots will be less stupid. But who knows.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If it controls itself, in any capacity, to include steering, braking, and accelerating as necessary to do an "auto park" then, by definition, it has a "self driving" capacity. Inertia should have already been accounted for in the design of the auto-park feature, so that argument is bullshit to say the least.
I can't view the video at work, I was only commenting on the PR statements made and why they would have been put out there to begin with, rather than discussing the actual video footage.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
The article seems to indicate that hammering the accelerator bypasses the pedestrian avoidance system.
In case you *want* to run someone over? Brilliant!
You can practically hear "'Murika!" out of your mouth.
Oh, and FYI, the site having a physical location in the United States doesn't mean what you're implying it means.
In short, stop being puerile and get a grip on the global Internet. You're an embarrassment to ACs everywhere.
A Faggot is a bunch of sticks. A Fag is a Cigarette.
Homosexual Ciggs everywhere, rejoice in your freedom.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Is this like, your new computerized prosthetic leg/hand/heart has been attached, but the software to regulate it so that it has no surges is extra?
Or is this "we hired new grads at ridiculously low wages, assuring that we got grads from the bottom half of the class, then gave them insanely short deadlines, so that they were writing the code in 60 or 70 hour weeks, and they'd never gotten the class they don't teach in school, error catching and handling, and that's what's running this, and they have to pay for the "extra", which was written by programmers (#insert nose_in_air.h; developers()) with some years of experience, who they had to pay a *lot* more for?
mark
Pedestrian detection is a whole other system that requires a front end camera, dashboard alterations, AND an expensive radar mounted under the front bumper. You believe, thus it must be true, that they are ethically mandated to include this several thousand dollar extra (and entirely different) system for free? You believe that the buyer should not be able to opt out of that additional, extra, expensive option and should be forced to purchase it if they only want the parking system which is just sonic and a rear facing camera?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The self parking feature is for parallel parking; it controls the wheel as you control the gas and brake pedals. It however, is not going to help one bit when you shift into drive and floor it to test the city driving feature that only detects cars unless you have the more expensive pedestrian detection system. Even then, when you floor it, that system would have only warned you, it doesn't stop despite your foot flooring the gas pedal.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The feature worked perfectly. In the video, you can see that it parallel parks flawlessly (where there is no spot to park...). When you then shift into drive and floor it, you should not expect the car to somehow become sentient and prevent you being an idiot.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
but then you have to ask whether the driver reasonably understands how the assistive technology works well enough to be able to supervise it
No, you dont have to ask that. You choose to ask that just like this driver chose to jump on the gas peddle with pedestrians in the way.
Both of you are idiots.
"His name was James Damore."
For a second there I thought you might have a good point. Then you kept typing and showed that you're just another asshole.
Log in or piss off.
If they had it then collision avoidance would function at that speed but NOT if the driver is mashing the accelerator pedal like they were. Pressing the gas hard disengages the automatic braking with pedestrian avoidance - it also does so when in self parking mode as a safety feature should you be getting carjacked.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
...you're just another asshole.
When your first shallow attempt to cast a bad light on the car manufacturer failed ("..defective, period."), you just went ahead and tried a different shallow method ("..then you have to ask.."), yet amazingly its not you thats the asshole, its other people.
Here is the thing. When you pick a theory first, and then just keep manufacturing more and more arguments in the hopes that one of them will stick, YOU are the asshole. You are the asshole because you are literally hoping that the car manufacturer did something wrong.
"His name was James Damore."
If you've got a safety feature you can include at trivial incremental cost, ethically, you have to include it.
If, on the other hand, you have a safety feature that costs the manufacturer 10% of the cost of building the car and is far from standard in the marketplace, you are under no such obligation.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
My dearest Volvo, As a proud owner of a '96 850R, I love you very much. That being said however, running over people is not an "option". Any questions, feel free to contact me. Best regards, -an owner.
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
It was just a natural reaction, a sort of self defense mechanism. Self driving cars tend to feel threatened by the presence people...
How is that optional?