Volvo Engineer Calls Out Tesla For Dangerous 'Wannabe' Autopilot System (jalopnik.com)

An anonymous reader shares an article on Jalopnik: Tesla's semi-autonomous Autopilot system has been impressing everyone from consumers to journalists, and even other industry experts and executives. But now a Volvo engineer has called Tesla's system out, claiming it's a dangerous "wannabe" autonomous technology. Trent Victor, senior technical leader of crash avoidance for Volvo, had quite a few choice words to say about Tesla's Autopilot system in a recent interview with The Verge, claiming the electric automaker was touting what is essentially a rudimentary semi-autonomous technology as being far more capable than it actually is. Victor fears that Autopilot "gives you the impression that it's doing more than it is." He went on to call Tesla's system an "unsupervised wannabe."

Comments

Crying on the way out?

[Tablizer]

Tesla: "Thank You Volvo for the free publicity!"

Many will see this as market insecurity on the part of traditional car makers, and Tesla's stock will probably go up.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and if it really is dangerous it's not like the average person can afford Tesla's offerings anyway, so it'll be rich people who die.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, that's all this could possibly be.

I mean, it's not as if Volvo has a reputation for making durable, safe vehicles.

What the fuck could one of their engineers possibly know about it automobile safety?

Re:Crying on the way out?

[NatasRevol]

Finally, the trickle down economy will work.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Tablizer]

The 1% in red shirts for a change, Lovin' it!

Re:Crying on the way out?

[ShanghaiBill]

Tesla Autopilot is working in tens of thousands of vehicles, and has driven many millions of miles of public roads. That actual real-world track record should count for a lot more than a competitor's biased opinion.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially since they're Swedish.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla: "Thank You Volvo for the free publicity!"

Many will see this as market insecurity on the part of traditional car makers, and Tesla's stock will probably go up.

You sound like a Christian fundamentalist laughing off real science and arguing Intelligent Design because of "reasons"; you are a Tesla Fundamentalist.

Volvo has the longest track record of safety features for cars, they've been doing this for decades. They were focused on safety before safety become regulated. They invented three point seat belts, side impact protection systems, roll over protection systems, and consistently their cars have been rated the safest cars on the road. When a guy from Volvo makes a comment about safety features, you probably should take note.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Tablizer]

Yep, trickle-down blood

Re:Crying on the way out?

[AchilleTalon]

And just for the records, Volvo is also actively involved in autonomous car development as well. It is not like they don't know anything about it neither.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[lgw]

Finally, the trickle down economy will work.

It's working right now for Tesla's 13,000 or so full-time employees. Rich people buying bling is the most straightforward form of redistribution of wealth.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't matter. How many autonomous miles are under their belt?

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I have hundreds of billions of hours experience with jacking off. But how does that make me an expert on the life cycle of the monarch butterfly?

Re:Crying on the way out?

[lgw]

Especially since they're Swedish.

Volvos are made in China now. Or was that the joke?

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

And just for the records, Volvo is also actively involved in autonomous car development as well. It is not like they don't know anything about it neither.

Because it's right up their alley as a car manufacturer that focuses on safety; so what? My argument is Tesla brand worshipers are all hypocrites; if Elon Musk said the same thing about Volvo's system I sincerely doubt he would get the same criticism leveled at him that Volvo is getting. I mean hell, this is Slashdot; aren't we all technical people? Shouldn't we judge a system based on it's technical merits and design decisions and not on marketing and promotion and blind faith in the Church of Silicon Valley?

Re:Crying on the way out?

[afidel]

47M according to the press release the other day. Musk says autopilot controlled vehicles have half the rate of crashes (where a crash is defined as an event that triggers the airbag) versus those under human control.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

That ain't blood trickling down on us.

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the Volvo employee!

Re:Crying on the way out?

[NatasRevol]

13,000 employees doesn't *quite* constitute an economy.

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

No they are still designed and built in Sweden. The financial owners are Chinese though.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Grishnakh]

Musk says autopilot controlled vehicles have half the rate of crashes (where a crash is defined as an event that triggers the airbag) versus those under human control.

That sounds like a BS statistic. You wouldn't use Autopilot for all driving, only for certain highway driving. So a proper comparison would only be between Autopilot-driven miles versus human-driven miles in comparable conditions. And auto crashes on the highway are *already* much less frequent than on surface streets, for obvious reasons I hope.

So "half the rate of crashes" could actually be much worse than human piloting on the highway.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla Autopilot is working in tens of thousands of vehicles, and has driven many millions of miles of public roads. That actual real-world track record should count for a lot more than a competitor's biased opinion.

Volvo has hundreds of thousand of vehicles driven many billions of miles of public roads. That actual real world track record counts for a lot more than Tesla's pathetic track record.

No.
Volvo has zero vehicles driven zero miles on any sort of autopilot/self-guided system. Just because you can build a car which performs well in collisions doesn't mean you know jack shit about autopilot.
And more to the point, Tesla's vehicles actually out-perform Volvo's in both standard crash testing as well as real-world collisions.

The guy may have a valid point, but it has jack shit to do with him having worked for Volvo on 'car safety systems'.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Small towns all over the world would beg to differ.

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, then let's use the fact that the Tesla Model S had the highest score ever on US crash tests, and even broke the machine designed to break the car.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[lgw]

Neither does Tesla. But proportionally, for all Musk's puffery, he does employ a lot of people in a business that arguably only exists because of special tax breaks. (Not sure of that myself, maybe Tesla would be going strong regardless, but the cars do get a healthy tax subsidy.)

Re: Crying on the way out?

[lgw]

No they are still designed and built in Sweden. The financial owners are Chinese though.

Yeah, that didn't last long before manufacturing began moving to China as well. Are you surprised? It's been publically in the works for years.

From Jan 2015:

After years of promises by the industry followed by manufacturing delays, a major automaker is finally on the verge of starting sustained exports from China to the United States.

The Volvo Car Corporation announced at the Detroit auto show on Monday that it planned to begin shipping a midsize sedan from Chengdu in the next several months.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Tablizer]

Volvo has the longest track record of safety features for cars, they've been doing this for decades.

Fine. Safety is their niche. We get that already; it's not news.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is not a in single factual statement in your reply.

Re: Crying on the way out?

[WarJolt]

I'd be paying more attention to the road if I was letting that death trap drive me around. I think you'd find that the demographic that makes up Tesla owners are in general better drivers. These aren't young reckless individuals. I think if you gave these autonomous cars to 1000 16 year old drivers, you'd see very different results.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and if it really is dangerous it's not like the average person can afford Tesla's offerings anyway, so it'll be rich people who die.

Yeah, the (rich) Tesla owners will die and so will the people with whom the car collides.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[SeaFox]

Volvo has the longest track record of safety features for cars, they've been doing this for decades. They were focused on safety before safety become regulated. They invented three point seat belts, side impact protection systems, roll over protection systems, and consistently their cars have been rated the safest cars on the road.

Until Tesla came along.
Sounds like sour grapes from the former makers of the safest cars in the world.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your autopilot is doing its job, you don't need three point seat belts, side impact protection systems, or roll over protection systems.

Maybe that's what Volvo is worried about.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

And just for the records, Volvo is also actively involved in autonomous car development as well. It is not like they don't know anything about it neither.

Because it's right up their alley as a car manufacturer that focuses on safety; so what? My argument is Tesla brand worshipers are all hypocrites; if Elon Musk said the same thing about Volvo's system I sincerely doubt he would get the same criticism leveled at him that Volvo is getting. I mean hell, this is Slashdot; aren't we all technical people? Shouldn't we judge a system based on it's technical merits and design decisions and not on marketing and promotion and blind faith in the Church of Silicon Valley?

Amen to that.

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, then let's use the lie that the Tesla Model S had the highest score ever on US crash tests

Fixed that for you. The rating system doesn't work that way.

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the faggot with musk's dick in his mouth!

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only for export markets. All European market Volvo's are made in Europe (Sweden and Belgium).

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were true, they would probably have said something about the current makers of the safest cars in the world, not about Tesla.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Tesla came along.
Sounds like sour grapes from the former makers of the safest cars in the world.

Sounds like you're not up to date on the latest reliability reports. Consumer Reports changed their rating of the Model S to "Not Recommended" on reliability due to all sorts of problems like inoperable wipers, bad door handles, poor fitting sunroofs, leaky battery coolings, etc.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/news/a27094/consumer-reports-tesla-model-s-not-recommended-on-reliability/

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

and you sound like a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Musk

I'd put my life in the hands of Volvo's engineers over Teslas any day of the week (and I have an almost pathological hatred of Volvo cars)

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

I drove a new volvo v40 a couple of weeks ago that had a sort of auto pilot feature. It sensed the road lane markings and steered back if the car deviated from the lane. That feature was annoying as hell actually. I turned it off after an hour.. It also had automatic distance control with breaking.

Perhaps not to be compared with a 100% autopilot, but still more than nothing...

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Plus1Entropy]

Why would the autopilot system behave differently based on the age of the driver?

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Plus1Entropy]

Depends if that's your fetish.

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've probably never driven a Tesla with auto pilot. It stopped in the middle of a freeway because the map wasn't up to date with a new section. It wants to drive on the wrong side of the road if it detects tram tracks. It's not even beta quality. Given it relies on map data, it's not very autonomous.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean had. Now it is just another brand under the Zhejiang Geely Holding group.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our most affordable car yet, Model 3 achieves 215 miles of range per charge while starting at only $35,000 before incentives
Cheaper than what is in your driveway I would venture.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[GTRacer]

All the cars I've bought myself or with my wife (that I can recall):

1999 Nissan Quest (bought 2004?) - 16,000
2005 Mazda RX8 (bought 2008) - 15,300
1990 Chevy Lumina (new) - 15,200
2005 Mazda Minivan (bought 2009) - 11,400
1988 Honda Accord (bought 1992) - 6,650
2001 Honda Accord (bought 2015) - 1,900
1991 Honda Accord (bought 2005?) - 1,000

I'm not saying $35,000 is expensive or anything. Just that I don't know very many people who have bought more than one (maybe two) new cars in the years I've known them. And I know the incentives are pretty good on ZEVs but "starting at $x" usually winds up adding thousands in options, fees and taxes.

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Subsidies, unlike for gas, right?

Re:Crying on the way out?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Certified to work well in any vampire country.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Which major industry doesn't exist because of special tax breaks?

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Volvo has the longest track record of safety features for cars, they've been doing this for decades.[snip]

Until Tesla came along. [snip]

Tesla hasn't been around for decades so Volvo are still the leader. Not saying that Tesla won't overtake Volvo in the future.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your autopilot is doing its job, you don't need three point seat belts, side impact protection systems, or roll over protection systems.

Maybe that's what Volvo is worried about.

You can still be hit by another car that don't have an autopilot.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[lgw]

Heh, pretty much all of manufacturing gets amazing local tax breaks - worth it for smaller towns for all the jobs it brings. But at the federal level, not so much. The airlines get routine bailouts, and of course there's Government Motors, but most of the old school manufacturers aren't so lucky.

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, over 70% of petrol and diesel prices at the pump are taxes, as is about half of the price of a new car, unless it happens to be electric. Oh, and electric cars are road tax exempt and get free parking with free electricity in many places where tax-paying motorists have a hard time finding an expensive empty spot. Other countries will differ a bit, but not much.

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such subsidies do not exist in my country, in fact there are extra taxes on tesla vehicles as they are considered luxury vehicles. Despite this, they are everywhere!

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you interacted with anyone in the Beiber generation? The car would be protecting the rest of the world by crashing!

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Before that, Volvo Cars was owend by Ford Motor Company, so that is still an improvement.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Because rich people deserve to die. /s

Re:Crying on the way out?

[NatasRevol]

Small towns, even lots of them, do not an economy make.

Re:Crying on the way out?

[dl_sledding]

OK AC, "pathetic track record"?? Citation, asshole.

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great for Europe. Disaster for America.
BUT, the good news is that once Americans realize that Volvo is now junk, they will start buying even more Tesla, though to be fair, Tesla is destroying Volvo in the same class of car.

Re: Crying on the way out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to Boeing. Or any of the Ex-Im bank beneficiaries.

All that Tesla has to say back..

[aicrules]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes. "A Volvo vehicle screwed up once, so that means Tesla's systems are fine - stop crying."

Tremendously compelling logic.

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnPdZ57qyLs

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[aicrules]

So because Tesla doesn't have a fully autonomous car Volvo guy's argument is more compelling than a clear FAILURE of the autonomous crash avoidance?

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[zenith1111]

That was a car without the "pedestrian detection" option... The owner, a bit of a moron, for some reason thought it was a standard feature and decided to test it on a group of volunteer fellow morons...

Regardless of that Volvo spokeperson's intentions, they are right, hinting that you are using an "autopilot" will make idiots do stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I don't see a problem equipping cars with the current automatic collision avoidance systems and leaving it at that, but autopilots for cars should be "black and white", either completely self-driving or completely manual, no automatic steering input at all. Period. Tesla's system will make people like that Volvo guy in the previous post do very stupid things, like the Tesla driver in this post.

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just admit American engineering is better than Swedish "engineering".

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[GuB-42]

In fact replying with this video would strengthen Volvo's argument. Because beyond the branding, what it shows is that collision avoidance systems can fail and therefore, driver's attention is crucial. Tesla's autopilot is clearly sold as something that allows the driver not to pay attention, while the system demonstrated in the video is just a driving aid.

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[AmiMoJo]

Turns out that the collision avoidance was turned off when they tried. It actually works pretty well when you flip the switch to "on".

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[AmiMoJo]

Tesla is no better: https://youtu.be/Cwr6zh2450w

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you can turn off collision avoidance and have autopilot turned on?

When would a driver want to have autopilot on but not avoid collisions? Is that demolition derby mode?

Hey, that gives me an idea....

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[Anonymous Coward]

anecdotal evidence grow up troll

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, hold my beer for a minute....

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the video in question doesn't show that collision avoidance systems can fail, because the car shown in the video doesn't have one (and its driver is a moron):

http://fusion.net/story/139703...

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[PIBM]

Or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[aicrules]

Versus a whiny engineer's personal vendetta

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[aicrules]

I've got cruise control which is a stage of autopilot. I would be very annoyed if I didn't have it. Idiots will be idiots no matter how idiot proof you make things. There are over 17,000 crashes per day, 100 of which have fatalities. Will those numbers be notably impacted by a tesla level 2 self driving car?

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[zenith1111]

I agree, but our cruise controllers don't hold our steering wheels so we can check our phones, like many people are doing. It's also not just Tesla, BMW and Mercedes also have their own system, Citroen had enough sensors in their cars to do this since before 2010, that's why I think there should be no steering wheel control features unless the car was actually self-driving and didn't expect the user to be alert and take control, no level 2 vehicles, using the NHTSA classification. We are already easily distracted, if we add more automation they will relax even more, that's why I think there should be no middle ground, either the car actually drives itself or it needs your input at all times.

Re:All that Tesla has to say back..

[stoatwblr]

" that's why I think there should be no steering wheel control features unless the car was actually self-driving "

ITYM s/unless/while/

The Delphi test vehicle pulls the steering wheel forward a couple of inches when running autonomously. If you grab the wheel it hands control back and moves the thing back to manual position as confirmation.

This is still developing technology. Tesla is well positioned to deal with this via software changes vs traditional carmakers who love to charge silly money for such things. I'm surprised that slagging matches haven't been a regular feature already.

FUD

[harperska]

Just like ULA hating on SpaceX's rocket landing plans or Blackberry hating on the original iPhone, whenever a newcomer comes to market with a disruptive technology, the entrenched players do all they can to trash the newcomer in the media to cast doubt on the viability of the disruptive ideas, rather than pivoting to actually address the market shift that the disruption heralds.

Re:FUD

[OverlordQ]

> rather than pivoting to actually address the market shift that the disruption heralds.

Tesla fanboy detected. Volvo/VW/etc have had similar for a long time.

Re:FUD

[clonehappy]

I'm so sick of hearing this shit repeated ad nauseam. Usually, the "entrenched players" have good reason to be skeptical. In 2007, per your example, a Blackberry was orders of magnitude more functional than an iPhone and multiple times more useful to their core business market. iPhone didn't start to be a serious contender until around the 4-series and some would argue that it never actually caught up from a messaging standpoint to the Blackberry. I won't argue that the iPhone didn't revolutionize smartphones and that there were tons of other benefits once the product became mature.

The same goes for Uber and all the other "disruptive" services and products. When you don't have to play by any rules it's easy to make things better. I still won't take Uber because I don't trust "some guy" to come pick me up. I want a service that follows all the standards and regulations we've established for a reason. I have no doubts that Tesla's "autopilot" is probably hype. Look where it's coming from. When you have a niche product, it doesn't matter how well it works or doesn't work. Volvo, on the other hand, is legendary for the safety of their products. If a Volvo engineer says it's dangerous, it probably is.

I'm just so sick of hearing how since something is coming out of some VC hype machine or technological "upstart" or internet company that it must somehow going to change my life. The cell phone changed how we live, the rest has all been incremental. I'm not living any better since the iPhone came around, or Uber, nor will I because of a self-driving car. It's all smoke and mirrors. Really disruptive technologies, like electricity, the internet, refrigeration, splitting the atom, are few and far between and don't need some huckster shouting about how great they are.

Re:FUD

[Jason Levine]

Also see the cable companies' reaction to Netflix and streaming videos in general. "Why would you want to pay $10 a month to stream everything whenever and wherever you want when you have have 10,000 channels of great content like Inane Reality Show Channel #50 and Shopping Network You'll Never Watch #12 for the low, low price of $200 a month? By the way, did you know that Netflix is really super-expensive. Sure, it's only because we imposed caps and overages on your Internet connection to keep you from streaming, but it's true now. So ditch that horrible streaming with it's great user interface and come back to your cable company!"

Re:FUD

[clonehappy]

Netflix does not replace a television service, it is a supplement. The user interface of my TiVo is about 5 light-years ahead of any streaming service.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just so sick of hearing how since something is coming out of some VC hype machine or technological "upstart" or internet company that it must somehow going to change my life.

Me too.

And I'd like to point out is that we have a Volvo engineer criticizing Tesla marketing.From the verge:

Because the driver is theoretically freed up to work on email or watch a video while the car drives itself, the company believes it is unrealistic to expect the driver to be ready to take over at a moment's notice and still have the car operate itself safely.

That's all from Tesla's marketing.

Musk needs to stop managing Tesla like a silicon valley startup and like the automaker that it is. Actually, I think he should stop making cars and become a battery maker so WHEN the other luxury car makers come out with their electric cars, they can buy batteries from Tesla and have a sticker that says "Tesla inside."

Re:FUD

[Jason Levine]

We cut cable over a year ago. Instead of cable TV, we get our video content from a combination of Netflix, Amazon VOD/Prime, Hulu, Google Play, OTA, DVD purchases, and DVD rentals from our local library. It's just as good as cable TV and we're saving about $700 a year. Netflix might not be a cable TV replacement by itself for most, but combined with other streaming services as well as other video options, cable TV can easily be replaced.

Re:FUD

[bkr1_2k]

You do know that TiVo can stream netflix, right. Along with every other set-top DVR, "smart TV", game console and whatever else. It also doesn't have the same exact interface on any of those devices, which to my mind is a negative but if you like the device's default interface it may be a positive.

For the record, I cut cable ~15 years ago and started using netflix sometime around 2006, I think. I went to streaming-only when they upped the price on the DVD+streaming package in 2011. Obviously it depends heavily on what you like to watch (I don't watch sports, for example) but Netflix very much can replace television service for a large number of people. I don't think it will displace traditional cable until they figure out how to do live sports events but for folks that don't watch sports or don't mind going to the local pub/sports bar to watch said events, it's a pretty easy switch.

Re:FUD

[argStyopa]

Except that this "disruptive" tech has the potential to get people KILLED.

It's one of the hobgoblins that the computer-driving systems have had to overcome, and Tesla HASN'T DONE IT YET.

Tesla's system is designed to simply relinquish control back to the driver the moment it can't handle what's happening. Could you think of a MORE dangerous model? A car you can grow to a level of comfort trusting (and you know people will) until there's a catastrophically dangerous moment, then it says "whups, I'm out" and now you're supposed to be completely as in-control and aware as if you'd been driving yourself?

Seriously?

Look, I know Volvo is harshing on Tesla for commercial reasons, but it doesn't mean their technical complaints aren't valid.

Re:FUD

[DarkOx]

Uber might be one thing where it comes to flaunting the laws around livery services, but exactly which rules do Tesla and Apple not have to play by. Lets face it BB might have better technology in some areas but not all. It turned out the market cared more about spaces where Apple had an edge. Tesla is doing well as well. Is autopilot a fully autonomous system no, nor is it on most commercial air craft. It can do a lot but it still assumes an attentive pilot(driver), that does not make it useless. A lot people like driving, I would wager most current Tesla owners qualify as driving enthusiasts. A fully automatic system might not actually appeal all the much to them anyway.

Volvo really is just crying here about not being cool anymore. Their hipster customers are moving on and they can't deliver a product that will bring them back on the time scale they need. To frigging bad.

Re:FUD

[Trailer Trash]

The same goes for Uber and all the other "disruptive" services and products. When you don't have to play by any rules it's easy to make things better. I still won't take Uber because I don't trust "some guy" to come pick me up. I want a service that follows all the standards and regulations we've established for a reason.

You don't trust "some guy" to come pick you up, so you'll take a taxi? That makes no sense. The "standards and regulations" were established for a reason - to lock out competition. And it worked. Uber is 3 times the size of the traditional taxi industry in San Francisco, meaning the taxi cartel's legislation was having the effect of cutting the market to 1/4 of its actual size. Cronyism hurts everybody.

Re:FUD

[drew_kime]

The cell phone changed how we live, the rest has all been incremental. I'm not living any better since the iPhone came around, or Uber, nor will I because of a self-driving car.

The cell phone changed how we live, but those of us who grew up without it don't think it's all benefit. Used to be life and work were separate, now many of us are expected to be available 24/7.

Self-driving cars, on the other hand, I would love. I hate commuting. The years I lived near a train line were fantastic. My car didn't leave the garage for nearly a year and I liked it that way. Sure, I'd rather have ubiquitous high-quality public transportation, but a self-driving car would be a close second.

Note that the down side here is that as commuting becomes less tedious people will accept ever longer commute times, and we'll keep moving further out, driving down the value of public transportation even more. So yeah, there's that.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

"Volvo really is just crying here about not being cool anymore. Their hipster customers are moving on and they can't deliver a product that will bring them back on the time scale they need."

when has Volvo or reliability been cool to young people?
Volvo is purchased by adults.

Re:FUD

[WaffleMonster]

Just like ULA hating on SpaceX's rocket landing plans or Blackberry hating on the original iPhone, whenever a newcomer comes to market with a disruptive technology, the entrenched players do all they can to trash the newcomer in the media to cast doubt on the viability of the disruptive ideas, rather than pivoting to actually address the market shift that the disruption heralds.

Your comment is not falsifiable. What Tesla is doing could be proven to lead to unnecessary mayhem and your comment would still be no more or less valid.

Personally I agree with Volvo's philosophy of not being half assed with self driving features. Either have the computer fully in charge of everything or don't do self driving at all. This makes a lot of sense to me based on my read of human nature even though Tesla to its credit does take steps to minimize this.

Offloading driving in certain situations only encourages people to divest themselves from the act of driving which can very much be a problem if you expect them to retain enough situational awareness to take over in exceptional cases.

We must also not lose sight of the fact at least some of this shit is still very much beta. Several months back a number of people were complaining on Tesla forums about self driving firmware updates literally trying to get them killed.

Re: FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Shill detected.

How much did you get paid for this?

Re: FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit, that poster is a moron. I've been kicked out of a city yellow cab along the highway before by some shitbag Nigerian who got a phone call during the ride and didn't want to finish the drive.

With Uber I could have reviewed and warned any future riders.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like there's an adopters curve, where the entrenched players are ignoring a profitable underserved market, how dare the underserved market not chose the entrenched players!

Re:FUD

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, exactly. Volvo's core market has always been middle-aged soccer moms and older, people who valued safety above all else, especially people with children.

The hipsters go for cheaper and generally stupid vehicles like the Nissan Qube, vehicles with "edgy" (read: ugly and stupid) design that attempt to look highly functional but really aren't. Volvos aren't cheap cars by any means; they're not as expensive as Benzes and BMWs, but they're close, and probably on-par with Audis. You usually see lots of Volvos in areas that are very affluent and have upper-middle-class families with children. That's not the hipster market.

Re:FUD

[Grishnakh]

Just to add to this, the parent is partly right I think: their customers are moving on. Volvo no longer has a big lead on safety like they used to; cars overall are ridiculously safe these days, the governmental standards are very high (and rising), other carmakers push safety too and advertise their IIHS rankings, so you're probably not going to be any safer in a Volvo than in an Audi, for instance, or maybe even a mid-size Toyota.

Re:FUD

[harperska]

This is a fundamental misconception as to what a disruption really is. A disruptive technology doesn't necessary mean a fundamental change in how the world works like your examples of refrigeration and electricity. Disruption simply means a shift in the status quo that the market responds to. For all its faults in 2007, the original iPhone showed that the future of smartphones was a touchscreen device running apps, rather than a keyboard device running built in email and messaging functionality. Blackberry was foolish for not pivoting soon enough to address that reality, and the popularity of the iPhone and Android which did adopt the new reality wiped them out.

You are right, it doesn't matter whether peoples' lives are changed by having an iPhone or Android phone versus a Blackberry or Palm phone (though the recent story about Germany embedding traffic lights in the sidewalk suggests that for better or worse a fundamental behavior change has occurred). But it does matter a great deal to those companies that were depending on Blackberry and Palm style phones remaining the status quo.

Re:FUD

[DarkOx]

Hmm well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Its also true that just about every indie band in the northeast ever has crammed all their stuff into the back of Volvo wagon. Go to Portland the hipster crowed loves their Volvo's.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think he should stop making cars and become a battery maker so WHEN the other luxury car makers come out with their electric cars, they can buy batteries from Tesla and have a sticker that says "Tesla inside."

Ya, just FYI Musk is about 10 steps ahead of you on that idea, and has already built a factory and started production.

Re:FUD

[CrimsonAvenger]

I'm not living any better since the iPhone came around, or Uber, nor will I because of a self-driving car.

I will be, when they're available. Want to visit parents? Tell the car to head for Mom's place, and read/sleep/whatever till it beeps to tell me it's arrived. Heaven!

Even a not-terribly-long commute is MUCH nicer if I can read the news instead of watching the other lunatics on the road....

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Because (here in Canada at least) the Taxi driver had to pay for and pass a separate test which deals specifically with driving other people around commercially. Then there is the fact that the taxi company will have commercial insurance coverage, so that you as a passenger are protected if anything happens during your trip. And also add in the fact that vehicles used for commercial transport of people need to undergo commercial inspections to help ensure that the vehicles are at least meeting some baseline of safety standards before they can be used to transport people commercially.

All things that "some guy" from Uber isn't doing.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that this "disruptive" tech has the potential to get people KILLED.

So does almost every other disruptive technology. Texting-while-driving aside (which would be safer with autopilots), how many pedestrians have been killed because their attention was on their smartphone screen rather than on traffic, crossing signals, etc?

That said, no, you don't want a car autopilot that when it gets into a situation it can't handle yells "Allah has control!" and lets go of the stick. (Pilot training joke reference.) Maybe if it hits the brakes, deploys the airbags, and yells "Brace for impact!" for you before it does that...

Re:FUD

[cbhacking]

Offtopic, but I feel this needs to be said anyway: take some econ classes and some sociology classes before you start making statements like "Uber is 3 times the size of the traditional taxi industry in San Francisco, meaning the taxi cartel's legislation was having the effect of cutting the market to 1/4 of its actual size." For example, are you familiar with the concept of the tragedy of the commons? It's a very simple but somewhat unintuitive problem: left to their own devices, competitors will deplete a shared resource until the whole market is at least on the verge of collapse, because each individual is willing to extract a penny's worth of additional value for themselves even if it costs a dollar's worth of value in the market.

If you have an unlimited number of people providing rides, the value of the service will drop through the floor, because there are only so many fares out there and they can just switch to somebody else who'll take them there cheaper. If the rates fall, the number of fares will increase but the money gained per driver-hour of will still go down. If you fix the rates, then the number of fares each driver gets goes down, until your drivers can no longer pay their bills.

You might think that in either case the market will correct before you get there - the number of drivers will decrease, because it's not worth it when you can just get a better-paying job - but in practice a lot of people can't "just get a better-paying job", and to an unemployed person it's still better to be underpaid than to be not paid at all. The only actual break-even point is where it costs the *individual* more money to take fares than not - when the costs in fuel and maintenance and insurance (assuming you are actually required to pay more for insurance on account of taking fares, which absent legislation you would not be) exceed the value of the fare - and when *you* reach that point, so does the entire market.

Hypothetical numbers time: let's say you have 600 potential drivers each day, 5,000 potential fares each day, and mandatory metered rates (i.e. the drivers can't negotiate with people to take the ride for more or less money, so the number of people willing to pay those rates is pretty fixed) that average to $20/fare. Driving at all costs $200/day, so each driver needs 10 fares a day just to break even. Furthermore, suppose each driver can only take a maximum of 40 fares a day; there just aren't enough hours to take more. Costs of living means each driver needs $200/day profit to make a living, so if they take less than 20 fares per day they're in poverty.
* If you allow up to 100 drivers, then those 100 make bank ($600/day after expenses, $60,000 in total value added by taking fares) but the other 900 make nothing and only 4000 of the 5000 people who want rides can get them, and they probably have long wait times for pickup. 500 service providers and 1000 service consumers are left out in he cold. Obviously this is bad for everybody; nobody would argue that we should keep things like this.
* If you allow up to 125 drivers, then those 125 still make bank ($600/day each, $75,000/day total) and all the people who want fares can get them (though wait times still suck), but 475 potential drivers can't take this job. This is a good improvement over 100 drivers and is the minimum logical number of drivers.
* If you allow up to 200 drivers, then every potential fare gets picked up, those 200 drivers make good money taking 25 fares a day ($300/day profit, still only $60,000/day total profits), wait times aren't too bad, and you have 400 could-be drivers who have to keep the lights on some other way.
* If you allow up to 250 drivers, then you have 20 fares a day and are making $200 profit/day, for total profit of $50,000. Your drivers are right on the edge of making a living, and the taxi industry is actually contributing less to the economy than they would be with only 200, *or* with only 100 drivers. It's 50 fewer people looking for other employment, but

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Volvos are very popular as company cars for young people nowadays. They draw an entirely different audience than they did twenty years ago.

Re:FUD

[cbhacking]

Actually, the iPhone in 2007 showed that the future was a touchscreen that could browse the web and play music. Other smartphones of the day already had installable apps; the iPhone did not. It wasn't until the app store was launched in July of 2008 that the iPhone even came close in general-purpose usability to the devices that immediately predated it.

To Apple's credit, they managed to market a so-called smartphone that *couldn't* run apps quite well, and then successfully pivoted to "there's an app for that" once there was, and this has set the general trend of the industry ever since. It didn't start out like that, though.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, interface on cable boxes are more than 5 years behind

Re:FUD

[harperska]

The fact that since the beginning, the iPhone home screen consisted of nothing but a grid of icons for built in apps with obvious blank spots for more apps shows that the app concept was always the plan. And regardless of what the phone's actual functionality was, everything that the phone could do was accessible through a specific app for that functionality. Even making phone calls on the phone wasn't a special function, but rather done through the phone app which had no more of a special place than the email app, the browser app, or the notes app.

Also, the first iPhone did have user installable 3rd party apps since the beginning. But they were only HTML+CSS+JS web apps.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The unregulated taxi industry was the mob in larger cities. If a taxi from one company strayed into an area controlled by another taxi company they would be shot at by that company. Regulations were created to break up those mobs and to stop people from being killed in taxi shootouts. The regulations were created to lock out criminals.

Uber is not some holy underdog. They purposely and knowingly flaunt the laws. Instead of working to change those laws, they work at evading them. They gave burner phones to its 'employees' so they could call up similar 'taxi' services and place fake ride requests. They falsely advertise as a ride sharing service.

In many places taxis are required by law to take you where you need to go. That doesn't always happen, but it also sounds like no one follows up against them either. They just whine online about it. Uber is not required by law to take you anywhere. This is the basic FedEx vs USPS and ISP vs utility arguments. Why do so many people side with Uber which employs the same tactics as the big ISPs and private shippers: Only service where the profits area, ignore all the other areas. The taxi industry works ok across almost the entire country and has fixed pricing. You can get a ride and if they don't take you you can sue them. With Uber, there's no guarantee of anything and you have no recourse.

Re: FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla only pays people to say how great they are, not to spew criticism.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

As did Mercedes-Benz.

Re:FUD

[stoatwblr]

"Tesla's system is designed to simply relinquish control back to the driver the moment it can't handle what's happening."

All the systems I've seen in operation so far (including the rudimentary stuff on my 12 year old Nissan) give several seconds of warnings before handing control back or throwing out the anchors.

The reality is that in any situation where the car can't cope,
1: A human is unlikely to cope much better (most drivers don't look beyond the end of their nose. Looking 12-15 seconds ahead is an alien concept to them. Thinking 2-3 minutes ahead is unheard of.)

2: The situation was almost invariably caused by a human driver doing something spectacularly stupid and usually highly illegal.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the problems with electric car batteries is the cost. Another problem is limited supply. For his battery business to be a success he needs a bigger market that the other auto makers can currently provide. What Elon Musk has done is create a market for lots of electric car batteries, now he is building a factory to supply that market while bringing down the costs through economies of scale (and I guess improved production techniques, though I haven't checked that). Should he give up producing cars, then the market will shrink, his battery factory may go out of business due to lack of demand and there will be reduced competition in the electric car space, which will set back the electric car market some years as none of the other manufacturers are really committed to building electric cars.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Offloading driving in certain situations only encourages people to divest themselves from the act of driving which can very much be a problem if you expect them to retain enough situational awareness to take over in exceptional cases.

That really depends on the failure mode, so long as it is able to come to a safe stop if the human driver fails to take back control, then it is ok. Reverting control back to the human driver at 70mph if the human isn't ready to take back control would be very bad.

Awwh, I want to take a nap

[NotDrWho]

I'll just let autopilot drive for a while.

Probably so

[internerdj]

Humans do pay less and less to their primary task if their primary task involves little interaction. However, the spread of this technology is pretty narrow. Even if it turns out to be really bad, Tesla is probably not going to deal with more deaths than Toyota had to deal with from not nailing down their floor mats. Not to mention, even in autonomous mode current law puts the person in the driver's seat under responsibility. In the meantime, Tesla is learning all the things it needs to to become a leader in making the driver obsolete and in the end making ground transportation safer. Whoever the leader in this transition is going to have to eat the bad press when things go south the first time.

Re:Probably so

[Mr D from 63]

I don't believe the hype or the pessimism. I'll patiently wait for proven technology to roll out. From years of driving I've learned one thing, that is some crazy unbelievable shit happens out there. Having algorithms that deal with it all is a long road (pun intended). Sometimes its probably better to have automatic reaction and not the element of surprise, other times it might not be so good to have an algorithm that treats a situation its never seen before as one it has.

The biggest challenge to autonomous vehicle control is going to be interaction with human controlled vehicles. Just dropping my kids at school every morning, I get in a situation where there is a line of cars, and people will stop to let cars enter from side roads, but only when it makes sense. And then there is the traffic cops (tow of them) that direct traffic and look in your eyes to make sure you see them as they direct you. That stuff is simple for humans to handle, but I can imagine quite a challenge for automated systems.

Re:Probably so

[clonehappy]

What about people who don't want the "driver" to be obsolete? Who have worked with technology enough to know you can never rely on it when it really matters. What if I'm cool with taking the risk to drive a car and that I'm not so scared shitless that I'm seriously worried about making cars "safer" at the expense of removing the human experience from the operation of the vehicle.

I'm a humanist, I believe in humanity. Technology will fail us and so will all the other altars that the modern man worships to. Humanity will persevere, and technology is shit.

Re:Probably so

[Anonymous Coward]

From a recent example on a trip to Washington State, I took a auto ferry. As I was driving on, the traffic person was waving his red batton and pointing at the center of two lanes. I had no idea what he wanted me to do.

I've been in many similar circumstance and knew someone in college who got into BIG trouble by misunderstanding a police order about driving into a flooded area (they were told to turn around so drove his jeep ahead 20' to make a uturn rather than turn off the road and make a 20 point turn in place).

Re:Probably so

[Anonymous Coward]

What about people who don't want the "driver" to be obsolete? Who have worked with technology enough to know you can never rely on it when it really matters. What if I'm cool with taking the risk to drive a car and that I'm not so scared shitless that I'm seriously worried about making cars "safer" at the expense of removing the human experience from the operation of the vehicle.

I'm a humanist, I believe in humanity. Technology will fail us and so will all the other altars that the modern man worships to. Humanity will persevere, and technology is shit.

If you can find enough of you you can start your own little community and leave the rest of us alone like the Amish do.

Re:Probably so

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I'm cool with taking the risk to drive a car and that I'm not so scared shitless that I'm seriously worried about making cars "safer" at the expense of removing the human experience from the operation of the vehicle.

Tough shit. You can endanger yourself as much as you like, but when you get in a car with other people on the same road as you you are also risking their lives if you fuck up.

You want to drive a car yourself? Then go to a race track, or to some privately owned land where the landowner is happy to let you drive yourself on it.

Not News

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering several of Tesla's Autopilot project leads resigned in protest after complaining that Autopilot was dangerous and not ready for release, and we knew that several months ago, this isn't really news.

Re:Not News

[mspohr]

Tesla now has about 50 million miles of driving experience with AutoPilot.
Their initial analysis of the data they collect is that you are about 50% less likely to have an accident when AutoPilot is engaged.
This would seem to be proof of their "concept".
Elon reported this during an interview in Norway recently:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mus...

Re:Not News

[randallman]

Do you have a source for that AC? I follow Tesla news closely and that's the first I've heard.

Re:Not News

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla now has about 50 million miles of driving experience with AutoPilot.
Their initial analysis of the data they collect is that you are about 50% less likely to have an accident when AutoPilot is engaged.
This would seem to be proof of their "concept".
Elon reported this during an interview in Norway recently:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mus...

And I wonder how Elon calculated that statistic? He has his own conflicts of interest after all; he needs to sell more shares to get the Model 3 out to get his company profitable and this hype only makes that claim.

But no worries, I'm sure his "50% less likely" claim is based on tried and true safety statistics calculations.

Re:Not News

[rhazz]

And I wonder how Elon calculated that statistic? He has his own conflicts of interest after all; he needs to sell more shares to get the Model 3 out to get his company profitable and this hype only makes that claim.

A Volvo engineer building a competing product is just as biased. Perhaps we should ignore the ramblings of either and base it on the opinion of existing regulatory agencies instead?

Re:Not News

[afidel]

Every Tesla car reports back to HQ, so they know how many miles have been driven under autopilot and how many airbag deployments have happened when it was enabled, they also know how many miles have been driven by people and how many airbag deployments have happened over that period, it's not difficult math to calculate accidents per million miles driven and compare them.

Re:Not News

[Anonymous Coward]

more like in the simulator then on live road,

Re:Not News

[Anonymous Coward]

Every Tesla car reports back to HQ, so they know how many miles have been driven under autopilot and how many airbag deployments have happened when it was enabled, they also know how many miles have been driven by people and how many airbag deployments have happened over that period, it's not difficult math to calculate accidents per million miles driven and compare them.

True, but do they have the statistics to adjust for the obvious bias in conditions under which the autopilot was engaged? Of course not. And without that such numbers are entirely meaning less and very misleading in Tesla's favor.

Re:Not News

[afidel]

I'm sure they have the information to get those stats, whether they did the adjustment for driving conditions for Musk's comment I can't be sure since as far as I've seen he hasn't given that level of detail yet.

Re:Not News

[PIBM]

The car certainly has all that info available, and I would not be surprised at all if it was also all forwarded to Telsa. I would even think that the autopilot would be engaged more often in defavorable conditions to tesla, meaning situations were the driver is distracted or not as rested as one should be when driving.

Re:Not News

[Anonymous Coward]

And what's the margin for error of these numbers? You know, the details that give the figures meaning. Airbags only deploy in a fraction of traffic accidents (somewhere between 10 and 25 percent, current numbers aren't easy to find), so you've already lost a big chunk of the data. You also have dissimilar data sets due to the autopilot feature not being used in the same range of conditions as manual control, so you'll need to throw out some of the manual control data to get comparable data sets. And then there's the issue of accidents that happen shortly after manual control is restored - how do you assign the cause there? Comparing numbers is easy, getting valid conclusions from those numbers is hard.

Failure and Suspension data?

[TomR teh Pirate]

If he doesn't have statistical data to back up the assertion, then his assertions are meaningless.

Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's probably saying these things because Volvo's automation technology is much better, more, mature, and available.

He's completely right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of handling back the controls to the driver whenever the car encounters a situation it can't handle any more is patently absurd. Human reaction time and situational awareness cannot cope with this, and in reality the purpose of this "level 3" concept is to quickly shift the blame back to the human driver rather than the car maker.

Re:He's completely right, of course

[mark-t]

What more could it possibly do? If it does not relinquish control, then the manufacturer necessarily assumes all responsibility for the consequences, which may include loss of life, and it remains only conjecture that relinquishing control would not have made a difference. Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have... but the argument against the manufacturer after an accident that was outside of the software's ability to manage remains that because they never gave the human being a chance, nobody will ever know for sure, so the manufacturer is 100% liable.

Re:He's completely right, of course

[mpoulton]

The idea of handling back the controls to the driver whenever the car encounters a situation it can't handle any more is patently absurd.

That's how every autopilot system works. It's the only failure mode that aircraft engineers have deemed appropriate in decades of development. What better solution is there?

Re:He's completely right, of course

[quantaman]

The idea of handling back the controls to the driver whenever the car encounters a situation it can't handle any more is patently absurd.

That's how every autopilot system works. It's the only failure mode that aircraft engineers have deemed appropriate in decades of development. What better solution is there?

This is a very tricky situation for a pilot since after being completely disengaged from the act of flying they're not only asked to fly, but fly in an emergency.

That's one of the reason's Aeroflot Flight 593 crashed, the pilots were confused when they had to take over, acted inappropriately, and crashed.

For a car it's much worse. Not only does the driver have much less training but there's a much quicker reaction time required. Imagine you're on the highway relaxing with the autopilot when someone in the other direction drift into your lane, or a child wanders onto the road, and there's less than a second to react. Is the autopilot giving up and saying "your turn!" really the behaviour you want?

That's why I think self-driving cars are a lot further off than people realize, the car doesn't just need to do as well or better in most situations, it has to do better in all situations. Handing control back to the user is not an option.

Re:He's completely right, of course

[JonnyCalcutta]

Not giving it control in the first place?

Re:He's completely right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know, but pilots probably have orders of magnitude more time to figure it out. Rarely are there deadly obstacles a second away in any direction.

Re:He's completely right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Pilots generally have minutes to react. I've worked this exact problem for both Airbus and Boing.

See: Human Factors Engineering and related.

Re:He's completely right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Airplanes can't just stop. Cars can.

If the car AI can't handle it, it should come to a screeching stop. Humans are already expected to handle the car in front of them slamming on their breaks. If they can't, then they were illegally tailgating or shouldn't have been given a driver license. Cars can stop at any moment. Maybe something fell onto the street in front of them (from above, from the sides, from the car two cars ahead of you, etc...) or maybe their tire blew out. You're supposed to be on the look out for stopped objects on the road, including roads with minimum speed limits (no driving slower than ##).

Competitor slags rival. News at 11.

[sjbe]

Even if the Volvo people are entirely right (and they might be) it doesn't really carry much credibility since they have a clear conflict of interest.

Yes Tesla engages in some puffery. On the other hand they are really doing the most innovative things in the auto industry so it's not entirely without substance. (of course the auto industry is pretty stodgy so being innovative is kind of a low bar) The Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup so clearly Tesla is doing something customers appreciate more than Volvo. Makes it sound a lot like sour grapes on Volvo's part even if it really isn't.

what an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

rather than pivoting to actually address the market shift

tell us more about how Volvo is NOT "pivoting to actually address the market shift"

http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-innovation-brands/intellisafe/intellisafe-autopilot/drive-me/real-life

what a LOSER you are

Re:what an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

what a LOSER you are

He's worse - he's a Musk fanboy. And in their eyes, a financier is somehow an "innovator". They need to get a dictionary.

Re:what an idiot

[Grishnakh]

I'm not trying to be a Musk fanboy here, and I've looked up the Wiktionary definition of "innovator", but I wonder if the term isn't misused, or being defined incorrectly as compared to its actual popular usage. It seems to simply be a synonym for "inventor".

Obviously, Musk is not an inventor. He didn't invent any of the technologies he pushes.

However, he does popularize these technologies and help make them mature and sellable through both his financing and leadership. I don't know what the exact word is for that, but it's something. It's not that different from what Steve Jobs did; Apple didn't invent the smartphone (or the portable music player before that), but it certainly played a big role in making it as popular as it is now.

Uh huh.

[jpellino]

"If something goes wrong, the (Volvo) can safely stop itself at the side of the road." 'Cept if the wrong thing is the brakes fail, and I've got a few stretches of high country road I could introduce you to where you would definitely want human judgement involved concerning what you would generously term "the side of the road".

Re:Uh huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If something goes wrong, the (Volvo) can safely stop itself at the side of the road." 'Cept if the wrong thing is the brakes fail, and I've got a few stretches of high country road I could introduce you to where you would definitely want human judgement involved concerning what you would generously term "the side of the road".

If the brakes fail, neither a human nor a computer can use them. What is your point?

As far as places where there is no side of the rode, again, what is your point? Whether a human or computer is driving, pulling over safely to the side of the road will require the car to continue on the road until there is a safe place to pull over. Why would you assume that in this particular case "human judgement" is superior?

Bottom line: Either the computer is adequate to manage driving, or it isn't. If it isn't than it shouldn't pretend to be otherwise. Volvo guy's point is that a true "autopilot" should be a Level 4 system that is fully capable of handling all driving conditions. If such a system can be created (which I kind of doubt), then "human judgement" is never going to match.

The only advantage of "human judgement" is that humans are better at convincing themselves that they can get away with doing something unwise or illegal is "smart".

Re:Competitor slags rival. News at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Volvo has the tradition of over-engineering. Perhaps they just noticed how hard the problem is to solve perfectly, or at least near to their standards. Or they are making themselves the Nokia in the equation disparaging_comments(Nokia) = success(iPhone).

yeah, well...

[supernova87a]

Regardless of whether he's correct about the exact functional distinctions between Volvo's technology and Tesla's, of one thing I am sure:

Tesla will more actively continue to improve and push out improvements to drivers faster and more conscientiously than Volvo ever can or would. And will do it as part of serving drivers better, not lining the pockets of dealers charging for minimally useful services.

Look who's talking

[moofo]

A company who didn't have a car with anything else than a right angle and looked like a butter box until the end of the 90's.

Re:Look who's talking

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what you are saying is that unlike Tesla they prioritized functionality over looks?

Not exactly a disinterested observer, though...

[bbsguru]

Given that the news two days ago was about the new alliance of Tesla competitors, which includes both Ford and Volvo, I can't imagine why a Volvo engineer might be biased..

Cruise control anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine the same things were said when cruise control came out on vehicles, "people won't be paying enough attention to slow down for curves!" and "they won't brake quickly enough in emergency situations!". Today we don't give it a second thought. Teslas "autopilot" is far from perfect, but it does have its applications the same as cruse control does.

All 'autopilot' systems are

[kheldan]

All 'autopilot' / 'self-driving' systems will be 'wannabes' for at least the next 10 to 20 years or more. It'll take that long to perfect it -- and even then you'll be nuts to let yourself fall asleep at the wheel with it operating -- no matter what they tell you.

Re:All 'autopilot' systems are

[Anonymous Coward]

There was an accident years ago that a guy turned on cruise control of his campervan and went to make coffee in the back.

Re:All 'autopilot' systems are

[kheldan]

I remember that actually. It was some decades ago. He was a recent immigrant from outside the U.S., and actually thought the cruise control was a full-on autopilot. Remarkably no one in the RV was killed.

Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is the typical Slashdot way, let me summarize for you guys and have a real discussion.

Volvo consider's Tesla's system a Level 3 system, which they consider dangerous. The reason they consider this is not for technical reasons but for liability and user control protocol reasons. What he's saying Tesla's system does is that in the event of an emergency, the system relinquishes control of the car to the driver, meaning the driver is now responsible (and has associated liability) for any accident or damage caused from the emergency. However Tesla's promotional material about their system is not suggesting that; their promotions are all focused on technical ability but it's ignoring the fact that if you're in an emergency the system basically tosses control to you, so his argument is that Tesla's promotion of the technology gives drivers and users the wrong impression of what it's really doing. So what he's saying is that if you're driving down the road and you fall asleep at the wheel and start to drift, the system will not take over and park you safely, and if in this process you hit a pedestrian or another car, you are liable for the damage caused.

Volvo's system coming out this year is what they call a Level 4. What this means is that the car does not require the driver to be in control at any time, even during extreme conditions. If you fall asleep at the wheel and start to drift, the computer takes over, gets you back in your lane first, then finds a way to pull you to the side of the road and park the car safely. They are so confident in their system that Volvo itself is taking on the liability of their system; if it fails to get you to safety or causes damage, Volvo is responsible, not you. Tesla does not make that claim about their system.

So his argument that the Tesla system which will force control to the driver in extreme driving conditions is actually more dangerous, because the driver is under the mistaken impression that the autonomous system has control and will suddenly find himself thrown into a difficult situation with no autonomous supervision; that surprise will invariably find the driver unable to make rational decisions.

All you Tesla Fundamentalists should stop with your Musk-worship and brand loving and realize that one of the most experienced safety engineers in the world is making a technical and design process argument. Argue his technical merits or the arguments he makes about Tesla's system and it's design decisions; don't just drink the Elon-Aid and dismiss because of the Gee-Whiz factor.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly the concern with drones and autopilots in cars. The problem isn't in the 5x9's. The problem is in the edge cases. In the aerospace industry, we design and validate to E-7/hour safety levels. Musk adventures have completely blown that off, and then claim that they're better because they're cheaper. Level the playing field and spaceX costs will look like ULA costs, and Tesla's "autopilot" will not be insured.

The entrenched industries have a lot to lose and a lot of corporate knowledge about safety design. Disruptive innovators routinely throw away a decade or more of lessons learned and blame "entrenched interests" when they get called on unsafe designs.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

Volvo considers Tesla a Level 3 corporation, naively manufacturing all its cars in America, which they consider dangerous to profits. Volvo is what they call a Level 4 corporation. What this means is that the system can automatically detect that profits are in danger and shift manufacturing to China. This ensures safety of profits at any time, even during extreme economic conditions. (As a bonus, the sophisticated Volvo system automatically makes public claims that there will be no reduction in quality or safety as a result.)

See, this is exactly the BS I'm talking about; why are you throwing FUD around to support your religious belief in Tesla?

Volvo is a Swedish company. Why would they manufacture in America? Not only that, they were bought and now wholly owned by Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, a Chinese conglomerate that manufacturers multiple brands of cars. They have 3 plants in China for cars they, surprisingly, sell in China and Southeast Asia, but the cars they sell in Europe and America are built in Sweden.

So you're trying to make a point but your comment shows your ignorance. Your entire post makes no damned sense; why do you even bother posting?

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[mark-t]

They are so confident in their system that Volvo itself is taking on the liability of their system; if it fails to get you to safety or causes damage, Volvo is responsible, not you.

I realize that is effectively what they are implying, but the fact that they don't actually say this in as many words suggests that they don't genuinely mean that, or at the very least, are hoping that people don't actually realize that is what they are implying, because the possible costs to the company could be incalculable otherwise after the first accident occurs, especially if there is a fatality.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

Volvo is not a Swedish company, although it used to be. Today it is a Chinese company, and the strings are pulled by the Chinese private equity firm that owns them. This is not FUD. This is fact.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

They are so confident in their system that Volvo itself is taking on the liability of their system; if it fails to get you to safety or causes damage, Volvo is responsible, not you.

I realize that is effectively what they are implying, but the fact that they don't actually say this in as many words suggests that they don't genuinely mean that, or at the very least, are hoping that people don't actually realize that is what they are implying, because the possible costs to the company could be incalculable otherwise after the first accident occurs, especially if there is a fatality.

Do you read? Because the CEO of Volvo Hakan Samuelsson said it himself.

http://jalopnik.com/mercedes-google-volvo-to-accept-liability-when-their-1735170893

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

As realistic as the argument may be, it's hard to take them at their word in an interview where they are constantly plugging their own product as the answer to all of the failings they are claiming Tesla's product has . Also since they aren't actually selling that product yet, it's hard to verify the quality of their own offering.

Also they are being either a little dishonest. Tesla's product release for the auto-pilot clearly states

The driver is still responsible for, and ultimately in control of, the car.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like I'm stuck in a screaming metal death trap with this LEVEL 4 system if it gets a bug up its sensor array. Hopefully, they don't mass produce it due to the untold amount of deaths from people who double pump the brakes or jerk the wheel a bit fucking around (drivers are inherently stupid and suicidal). Large expanses of A1-A in the rain during rush hour people driving to some unknown bugged destination in Germany diving into the ocean, the blood the horror.

See, anyone can do it, Volvo. I want autonomous driving more than the next guy (I believe human drivers are inherently worse), but the technology just isn't there. Until then, the driver should have some say in things like lane drifting.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Baloroth]

However Tesla's promotional material about their system is not suggesting that; their promotions are all focused on technical ability but it's ignoring the fact that if you're in an emergency the system basically tosses control to you, so his argument is that Tesla's promotion of the technology gives drivers and users the wrong impression of what it's really doing.

So, when Tesla's presskit on Autopilot states that "Tesla requires drivers to remain engaged and aware when Autosteer is enabled. Drivers must keep their hands on the steering wheel.", what exactly do you think they're doing besides exactly what you claim they're not?

What the Volve engineer is doing is touting his own system's capabilities over and above the Tesla system. He's saying "look at how much more autonomous our system is!" It's advertising, and not much more. It's yet to be seen whether the Volvo system is actually safer or not in practice. In principle, fully autonomous driving is rather obviously safer than requiring manual intervention in the case of an emergency, but it remains to be seen if the Volvo system will realize that in practice.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[mark-t]

But that liability is only if the software is found to be "at fault". What if the software was not at fault? How do they know that falling back to human control could not have possibly made a difference? Humans can think outside of the box, and sometimes come up with solutions that no preprogrammed system ever could unless it was also designed to actually imitate every aspect of human intelligence. We are decades away from that level of AI.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

> Musk adventures have completely blown that off, and then claim that they're better because they're cheaper. Level the playing field and spaceX costs will look like ULA costs

And that's where you went wrong. You focus 100% on safety and have made yourself completely uncompetitive in the process. So enjoy being 100% safe while you stop actually flying to space. It's safest on the ground, better to stay there.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

and yesterday it was owned by GM so what does that prove? did GM bring manufacturing to US?

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that Volvo is not a Swedish company, it is a Chinese one. If one cannot even get these basic facts correct - facts which are easily available on the Internet for verification - how can we possibly trust them to have anything else right?

It's like walking into a room and saying "The moon is made of green cheese! Now, let me tell you a little something about astronomy." It's laughable.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

Volvo is a Swedish company.

No - it's a Chinese company. It used to be Swedish, but it was sold to a Chinese conglomerate 2010.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[4wdloop]

>> "Tesla requires drivers to remain engaged and aware when Autosteer is enabled. Drivers must keep their hands on the steering wheel.",

How do you stay "engaged" when the car is doing all the driving?

There were accidents where commercial pilots become "disengaged" while plains where auto-piloted.
Complete boredom would put anybody to sleep.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[lgw]

but the cars they sell in Europe and America are built in Sweden.

Not for a year now. Of course, that's just the first model line to switch, but the company promises further cost reduction.

Didn't realize there were so many Volvo fanboys with mod points. Heck of a reality distortion field for a Chinese company making cars in China, whatever it might once have been in a previous century.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/a-ride-in-volvos-autonomous-car-how-the-next-step-in-driver-safety-requires-replacing-the-driver/

says:

    Volvo's system is what's considered Level 3 autonomous driving.

and:

    Indeed, Volvo's Anders Eugensson is. That jump from Level 3 to 4 is "going to take a long time." How long? "Two decades" he says at first, then, after a few moments pondering, says it could perhaps come a bit sooner -- but certainly not in the next three years.

So, how does this square with you saying that they are going to have a Level 4 at the end of this year?

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, last time I was at the Volvo Factory in Torslanda (Gothenburg, Sweden) quite a lot of the cars were for US export. The ones in Sweden are all from Sweden or Gent (Belgium). I'm sure some cars in the US are form China, and that more will be in the future. But for all practical purposes I think you can consider Volvos in the US as to have been built in Europe for couple of years still.

Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements:

[capntao]

can you make this into a car analogy?

Re:Competitor slags rival. News at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup so clearly Tesla is doing something customers appreciate more than Volvo. Makes it sound a lot like sour grapes on Volvo's part even if it really isn't.

Uhh... ok. So I get you're a Tesla fan, but a comment like "the Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup" is not an opinion, it's fact that can be checked and in this case is a lie; Volvo had 3 models that outsold the Model S and their total car sales was 10 times Tesla's sales.

Model S sales, 2015 - 50,580
Volvo sales, 2015:
XC60 - 159,617
V40 - 83,357
V60 - 51,333

Total Volvo Sales of all models for 2015: 503,127

It's fine if you're a Tesla fan-boy, but please get your facts right and stop spreading FUD. It makes you sound like you're sour-grapes about a real car brand providing a real critique of your fab-boyishness and doesn't help your argument.

Shocking

[ThatsNotPudding]

I had no idea Volvo still existed.

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

They're owned by the Chinese now... $60,000 shitboxes...

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

they sell 10 times as many cars in the US than Tesla, so that just means you're stupid

I don't trust the Chinese any farther...

[Anonymous Coward]

... than I can throw them. When a Chinese automaker like Volvo comes out and blasts the most bleeding-edge innovator the world has seen in modern times, one has to wonder what gives. I personally don't trust the Chinese at all, with anything, especially not my life. Give me the Tesla any day.

Levels of Car Autonomy

[EmagGeek]

Just some basic information about what they mean when they talk about level of vehicular autonomy:

NHTSA defines vehicle automation as having five levels:

No-Automation (Level 0): The driver is in complete and sole control of the primary vehicle controls â" brake, steering, throttle, and motive power â" at all times.

Function-specific Automation (Level 1): Automation at this level involves one or more specific control functions. Examples include electronic stability control or pre-charged brakes, where the vehicle automatically assists with braking to enable the driver to regain control of the vehicle or stop faster than possible by acting alone.

Combined Function Automation (Level 2): This level involves automation of at least two primary control functions designed to work in unison to relieve the driver of control of those functions. An example of combined functions enabling a Level 2 system is adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering.

Limited Self-Driving Automation (Level 3): Vehicles at this level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition time. The Google car is an example of limited self-driving automation.

Full Self-Driving Automation (Level 4): The vehicle is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles.

Re:Levels of Car Autonomy

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd how they left out classic "cruise control" from their levels. They should have also covered automatic parallel parking, etc.

Re:Levels of Car Autonomy

[OverlordQ]

Pretty sure that fits the definition of Level 1.

Re:Levels of Car Autonomy

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe this post could be modded "Score:5, Informative" on Slashdot!

"Limited Self-Driving Automation (Level 3): Vehicles at this level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition time. The Google car is an example of limited self-driving automation."

Are you for real? Newer model Google self-driving cars doesn't even have a steering wheel, gas paddle, nor driver seat, how do you suppose "driver to cede full control" ?

Re:Levels of Car Autonomy

[EmagGeek]

Whatever your problem is, it is not with me. I suggest you take it up with the NHTSA.

Re:Levels of Car Autonomy

[toddestan]

Automatic parallel parking would be at least in Level 2, because you have to control multiple systems in together to do it, including throttle, brakes, transmission (forward/reverse), and steering. More likely Level 3.

Cruise control seems more like a Level 1, but I get the impression that they want the feature to have some "smarts" to be in Level 1 such as adaptive cruise control, as opposed to standard cruise control that simply maintains a speed and all adjustments are performed by the driver. Though as worded, I could argue that GM's "Autronic Eye" from the 1950's (a system that automates dimming your highbeams when another vehicle approaches and then turns them back on after it passes) would qualify as a "Level 1" autonomous vehicle.

Re:Levels of Car Autonomy

[Anonymous Coward]

The NHTSA site is woefully incomplete on that point.

That said, another ref:

Level 1: ADAPTIVE speed control
(not the bog standard cruise control I've been using 20+ years)

Level 2: ADAPTIVE speed control + lane centering

Given that, regular, non-adaptive (non speed-adjusting as opposed to speed-MAINTAING) cruise control is likely level 0.

Ref:
http://www.brookings.edu/resea...

"unsupervised wannabe"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so he's calling Tesla's autopilot a Volvo driver.

It is a real concern... proven by Tesla drivers

[Koreantoast]

The debate about "autopilot" versus "fully autonomous" is a very real concern, validated by Tesla drivers themselves. You have drivers that stop paying attention to the speed limit, abuse autodrive to violate traffic laws, take their hands off the steering wheel, or just climb into the back seat and let the car drive itself creates not just a danger for the Tesla driver but for every car on the road. This despite Tesla's insistence that people must still stay at the wheel and drive; the technology has advanced enough that people get a false sense of confidence to push the limits even if the technology is not truly ready for it. That's the point that the Volvo engineer is making.

Re:It is a real concern... proven by Tesla drivers

[Kjella]

This despite Tesla's insistence that people must still stay at the wheel and drive; the technology has advanced enough that people get a false sense of confidence to push the limits even if the technology is not truly ready for it. That's the point that the Volvo engineer is making.

There's no force in existence that can stop idiots from being idiots. When you consider the number of Teslas on the road and how many of them use autopilot and somehow not get into these accidents I'm inclined to believe that the idiots you see on YouTube are the kind of people who should never be behind the wheel of any vehicle ever. And in that sense, sure level 4 would be great. But I'm not sure level 3 is worse than level 0 or whatever you call ordinary cars with these guys behind the wheel.

Re:It is a real concern... proven by Tesla drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

So he basically points out that humans are stupid and lazy. Congratulations, what a revelation.
If a particular Tesla owner believes his car can fly, dive, cook pancakes, and respond to his mother-in-law appropriately, it's Tesla doing something WRONG WRONG WRONG.
I don't give a fuck for a Volvo, a Tesla, a Lambo or a Fiat, but when I buy a toaster, I don't expect a pizza grill.

Volvo engineer spreads FUD about a competitor - details at 11.

A brief history of autonomous vehicles

[Anonymous Coward]

Society didn't initially accept that nobody went to jail when a robot ran somebody over....

https://imgur.com/gallery/YtyxnwG

Re:Competitor slags rival. News at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

"how hard the problem is to solve perfectly"

And there in lies one of the problems with todays society, things have to be "perfect" or you risk the descending hordes (lawyers & politicians) ready to tear you limb from limb (lawsuits & red tape). No doubt significant efforts should be made to make products safe but the bar should be at "safer than we have" not "perfect". If you have an average 5% chance of a fatal accident for vehicles without autopilot and an average 4% chance of a fatal accident for vehicles with autopilot it should be considered a win.

Re:Competitor slags rival. News at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the Volvo people are entirely right (and they might be) it doesn't really carry much credibility since they have a clear conflict of interest.

So you think we should discard information that is actually correct because of conflict of interest? Ridiculous.

Opinions, sure, consider the source. Facts are facts.

Re:Competitor slags rival. News at 11.

[Kkloe]

let us try on you then, you can stand infront of the car for 1000 tries and see if you survive and hopefully when accident strikes we can make the system safer for next person

Re:Competitor slags rival. News at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. A problem with today's society is that it has learned from the problems witnessed by yesterday's society and is making an effort to avoid repeating them. I mean, who need improved outcomes when you could have new and shiny instead?

Stat abuse.

[westlake]

The Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup so clearly Tesla is doing something customers appreciate more than Volvo

Volvo's customers have fourteen models to chose from.

Volvo sold 52,279 cars in March alone, up 12% from last year. Volvo Car Group Retail Sales By Car Model - March 2016

Volvo is serious about autodrive, with full autonomy coming soon, possibly as early as 2018. But there is no question that Volvo is building some very good cars right now.

Crashworthiness:

Small overlap front G
Moderate overlap front G
Side G
Roof strength G
Head restraints & seats G

Crash avoidance & Mitigation

Front crash prevention Superior [6 Points]

Low speed autobrake 2 Points
High speed autobrake 3 Points

Child Seat Anchors (LATCH) ease of use A

2016 Top Safety Pick - 2016 Volvo XC90

Wannabe

[DriveDog]

Volvo... yeah, the company that makes wannabe SUVs and no longer leads the industry in ANYTHING but hype. Glass houses...

AI

[fluffernutter]

There seems to be a lot of disagreement lately about what constitutes 'AI' and what constitutes 'automatic'. For me, 'automatic' should mean hands-off, you-don't-even-have-to-be-there automatic. In any weather, on any surface, with zero liability. I have this same standard for self-driving cars. People want to cheer the oncoming of automation and don't seem to see the serious legal issues that lie ahead.

Not all "upstart" tech is equal.

[Brannon]

There are cases where the "upstart" tech just has it so figured out, and the entrenched players are so clueless, that it's an easy bet where things are heading.

It was pretty easy to figure out on day one that the iPhone was going to be fantastically successful, essentially launching a smartphone revolution. The first version wasn't perfect, but all the imperfections were pretty easily fixable (no native third party apps, slow Cell data, no native GPS, no support for push email, no way to access my work email, required connecting to iTunes to load content, etc.) and all the hard stuff was pretty much perfect (battery life, form factor, screen, music, video, web browsing, fit & finish, no locked down crapware, and just generally well-designed and targeted at a broad consumer audience). It was so overwhelming better than nearly every other phone that I would just laugh when people said "this thing's going to fail".

Now it's very hard to predict which competitors will catch up and pass the upstart tech, and a company can always stumble and screw up--but, come on, it was pretty clear the iPhone was going to be conquer the world for at least some period of time.

Fastforward to now, it's clear that electric cars are going to conquer the world. There are going to be winners and losers in that industry which means that some of the entrenched players are going to be tomorrow's Blackberry.

PS: SpaceX also has it figured out, the writing is on the wall for ULA.

Driving is inherently dangerous

[Brannon]

An autonomous driving system doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be safer than human driving, which is not terribly difficult as it turns out.

There are millions and millions of miles being put on Tesla with autopilot as we speak, and statistics works. If that system is actually less safe than human driving then the statistics will bear that out--thus far it is showing the opposite.

Re:Driving is inherently dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Highway miles. There are far few crashes on the highway than there are on other types of streets. As someone who took two into to AI and computer vision classes in college, I can make a highway autopilot system. Line following and slowing down when there's something in your way is near trivial when you have the right hardware sensors. It's all the edge cases that are difficult and Tesla's system doesn't handle those. However since we maintain our highways so well, most of those edge cases don't occur during the majority of highway driving.

Re:Driving is inherently dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

An autonomous driving system doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be safer than human driving, which is not terribly difficult as it turns out.

The way people around here talk, I expect human drivers to rarely make it out of their driveways. Human drivers have set the bar very high, we just expect humans to be fallible and machines to be infallible.

There are millions and millions of miles being put on Tesla with autopilot as we speak, and statistics works. If that system is actually less safe than human driving then the statistics will bear that out--thus far it is showing the opposite.

Americans drive 3 trillion vehicle miles per year. Accidents, depending on how you define "accident," occur once every 150,000-600,000 vehicle miles. "Millions and millions" is not statistically significant. You would be better off using testing and analysis to assess relative safety, with real-world data acting as a sanity check.

Volvo is a minor player with a narrow view

[sjbe]

Volvo's customers have fourteen models to chose from.

So what? The Model S out sells most of those models and most of them sell at price points far lower than the Model S. The Model 3 gives Tesla 3 models on the market and it seems pretty likely that the Model 3 will be a brisk seller as they have gobs of pre-orders (about 3/5 of the total annual volume of Volvo). Volvo has been around for decades and yet still is a minor player somehow. They've got some fine vehicles but they aren't doing anything that all the other major auto makers aren't working on too in some form or fashion. They've carved out a nice little niche in well made, safe, grocery-getters and they seem to have a hard time thinking much beyond that. Their efforts in automated driving seem aimed primarily at adding bolt on safety features, rather than actually replacing the driver. They are padding their niche rather than trying to develop something new and more advanced.

I was looking at some erroneous data earlier - there are a few Volvo models that worldwide outsell the Model S. The numbers I was looking at were year-to-date numbers rather than full year.

Re:GM is behind this

[Anonymous Coward]

It was owned by Ford and now it's owned by Geely.

Conservative engineering culture

[sjbe]

Volvo has the tradition of over-engineering. Perhaps they just noticed how hard the problem is to solve perfectly, or at least near to their standards.

Yes they do. Which is a big part of why they are still a minor player in the auto industry. They make over-engineered, somewhat dowdy looking cars that appeal to a relatively narrow niche. Volvo, very much like Saab, has a really hard time going outside their engineering focused comfort zone. The notion of doing something radically beyond what is currently possible I think is an interference fit with their corporate culture.

Re:Competitor slags rival. News at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

But "gas lol".

Too many will overestimate it's abilities

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in America we have too many drivers already relying to heavily on technology to save them. From traction controls, to stability and avoidance systems.
The theory is take the driver out of the equation and we will have safer roads. Yet we all know from early experience with this technology that it can be seriously flawed and not able to handle things as well as we had hoped. Volvo had a similar misstep in a demonstration where the Volvo did not stop properly for a person standing in its path. The problem with technology is that it is developed and programmed by humans. This on the surface means its never going to be perfect.
I guess my problem is that over the years we have added more safety and technology to cars to avoid having to better train and eliminate bad drivers.

Re:FUD - NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling Level 3 semi-autonomous control autopilot is dangerous, as drivers can be mislead into thinking they do not need to pay full time and attention just in case the level three returns control to the driver .

If this was an industrial machine control with safety implications, it would be considered unacceptable.
Automation must always fail to a "SAFE" state. Control transfer to the driver can be considered when in a "SAFE" state, or NORMAL not during a attempt to fail into a safe state. The operator workload is too high and the risk of control transfer related failure is just tooooo high.

Volvo eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same Volvo thats over 35 billion in debt and has recently been BEGGING other car manufacturers for handouts in exchange for IP rights?

The Best Thing About Tesla Is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the brand spanking new category of fanbois it has created.