Self-parking car demonstration goes wrong...

[polishgenius]

because the owner didn't have 'pedestrian detection' installed.


I'm sorry, the fuck what? I'm presumably not the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly nutballs that such a system isn't just standard but obligatory, if you're going to have self-parking at all?

The whole self-parking/self-driving thing strikes me as a bit off in general. I can see the whole thing collapsing just because of how many lawsuits it would expose the manufacturers to when things inevitably go wrong.

[Arkhangel]

The original video, posted on Remolacha.net, suggests the car malfunctioned while trying to self-park.

However, Volvo tells MONEY the dealer in question was trying to demonstrate the XC60’s City Safety system, which helps avoid or mitigate rear end collisions with other vehicles at low speeds. This system is not able to detect pedestrians; the model in question lacked an optional $3,000 Pedestrian Detection system. But even if the vehicle had been equipped with a Pedestrian Detection system, the automaker says it still isn’t safe to deliberately drive into a group of people.

“In the video, the driver would anyway override any active safety system since he is actively accelerating towards to pedestrians,” explained Elfström in an email. “I would like to emphasize that Volvo Cars strongly recommends never to perform any tests towards real humans, only dummies or similar objects should be used.”

It wasn't the self park, it was a stupid dealer accelerating towards his clients. He got really lucky there that no one was seriously hurt.

[Jon AS]

It says that even with that system installed you're not supposed to drive into groups of people, which strikes me as going without saying, but apparently the driver thought the car would stop automatically if he did that. I think regardless of whether the instruction manual was unclear on the point, the guy has to face some kind of criminal charge for this?

[Loge]

The dealer wasn't demoing a self-parking feature but a diving aid that's supposed to prevent rear-ending other cars. So he deliberately drove the car into the crowd expecting the system to stop him. Driving aids won't make cars idiot proof. That dealer definitely should face criminal charges.

[Happy Ent]

I'm sorry, the fuck what? I'm presumably not the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly nutballs that such a system isn't just standard but obligatory, if you're going to have self-parking at all?

I don’t understand this opinion at all. You seem to suppose that the technological difficulties (in particular, in terms of sensors) for avoiding rear-ending and not driving into people are the same. Is that it? Otherwise I’m baffled.

[eyenon15]

I guess it depends on what the "pedestrian detection kit" actually does.

Are they really saying "For an extra 3,000 dollars we will try harder to make sure your car doesn't run over a person while it's parking itself." ?

[polishgenius]

I don’t understand this opinion at all. You seem to suppose that the technological difficulties (in particular, in terms of sensors) for avoiding rear-ending and not driving into people are the same. Is that it? Otherwise I’m baffled.

My bad, I misread the article (I read another one first that didn't refer to the rear-ending system but linked this one, coz reasons), but regardless: the system for detecting pedestrians exists. And my opinion is that if you're able to make a car safer, then you damn well should.

[DreamSongs]

The dealer wasn't demoing a self-parking feature but a diving aid that's supposed to prevent rear-ending other cars. So he deliberately drove the car into the crowd expecting the system to stop him. Driving aids won't make cars idiot proof. That dealer definitely should face criminal charges.

Criminal charges are a little extreme here. No one was injured. Most likely, it will make Volvo consider making the pedestrian detection feature standard rather than optional to prevent future lawsuits from owner idiocy.

[The_BlauerDragon]

because the owner didn't have 'pedestrian detection' installed.

I'm sorry, the fuck what? I'm presumably not the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly nutballs that such a system isn't just standard but obligatory, if you're going to have self-parking at all?

The whole self-parking/self-driving thing strikes me as a bit off in general. I can see the whole thing collapsing just because of how many lawsuits it would expose the manufacturers to when things inevitably go wrong.

I once read a short piece of fiction that centered around a man whose wife was killed when a train of linked automated drive cars glitched and collided with her own car at high speed. It resonated with me because I am of the belief that the more control we give over to automation, the grander the scale of our crashes will become. Not to mention the whole host of possible hacks for everything from pranks, to revenge, to making it look like an accident, and all the way to terrorism.

[polishgenius]

I once read a short piece of fiction that centered around a man whose wife was killed when a train of linked automated drive cars glitched and collided with her own car at high speed. It resonated with me because I am of the belief that the more control we give over to automation, the grander the scale of our crashes will become. Not to mention the whole host of possible hacks for everything from pranks, to revenge, to making it look like an accident, and all the way to terrorism.

Top Gear, of all people, did a little segment just before they got culled about the moral implications of fully self-driving cars - specifically that, at some point, chances are the software is going to be making a decision about whose well-being or life it should prioritise, the people in the car or people outside of it. You'd minimise that of course by not mixing self-driving and human controlled vehicles, but (1) that's a long, long way off (I'm fairly sure the infrastructure to make that idea possible is a lot further away than the actual cars are) and (2) even then you'd not stop the risk entirely.

[Spockydog]

My belief is that until we can make computers infallible and unhackable (likely never), putting driverless cars on the road will remain a pipe-dream. Also, people enjoy driving too much for them to really be embraced by the driving public.

[DreamSongs]

My belief is that until we can make computers infallible and unhackable (likely never), putting driverless cars on the road will remain a pipe-dream. Also, people enjoy driving too much for them to really be embraced by the driving public.

I agree. I don't think I would trust a vehicle on the road that I did not control. And dammit, I like my 5 speed going down the interstate.

[zelticgar]

I just watched this and my first thought was "what the hell is wrong with the two guys who got hit by the car?" At what point do you take your hands out of your pockets and get the hell out of the way? Their reactions were so unnatural that I'm inclined to think the whole thing was staged. They literally just sat there and did not even attempt to move out of the way. At minimum you should at least jump up on the hood and spread the impact out across the windshield.

[Liffguard]

I honestly place a lot more trust in computer-controlled cars than human-controlled. Humans are terrible fucking drivers.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I see a rash of William Tell incidents.

[Hayyoth]

My belief is that until we can make computers infallible and unhackable (likely never), putting driverless cars on the road will remain a pipe-dream. Also, people enjoy driving too much for them to really be embraced by the driving public.

I don't know, I hate commuting, it's boring and a waste of time. If I could get work done or even have a nap while being driven that would be a massive boon to my life. And as I can't afford to employ a cheuffeur a self drive car will do.

I honestly place a lot more trust in computer-controlled cars than human-controlled. Humans are terrible fucking drivers.

Yep me too. I was walking back to my car yesterday with my son and his friend, through a parking lot and an idiot reversed straight towards us as she was pulling out. I literally had to push the kids out of the way and kick her fender to make her stop. Also computers don't get drunk, high or tired. Saying that I don't think I'll be an early adopter, give em a couple of years to work out the glitches before I commit.

[lokisnow]

Top Gear, of all people, did a little segment just before they got culled about the moral implications of fully self-driving cars - specifically that, at some point, chances are the software is going to be making a decision about whose well-being or life it should prioritise, the people in the car or people outside of it. You'd minimise that of course by not mixing self-driving and human controlled vehicles, but (1) that's a long, long way off (I'm fairly sure the infrastructure to make that idea possible is a lot further away than the actual cars are) and (2) even then you'd not stop the risk entirely.

This is nonsense, you won't program a computer to make decisions like that, you program it to do what a human would do which is slam the brakes as soon and hard as possible and veer if possible. If a crash happens it happens, but every millisecond of hitting the brakes earlier probably reduces the chances of death even if it might result in a pile up that would be an acceptable outcome.

They won't be programmed to make fable choices, they will be programmed to stop the vehicle. As with perfectly sober and alert human drivers sometimes adverse outcomes can't be avoided, only minimized.

Cars with driver assist tech get lower insurance premiums than same model cars without, extrapolate trend out twenty years, and it indicates it will be less expensive to insure not more.

Or you could live in terror of driver assist tech like your automatic transmission! What if it fails and causes an accident! Same principle, no computer, and no one freaks out when the failure occurs.

Frankly, I'm terrified that people no longer think about one of the most massively important parts of driving that is extremely cognitively engaging. We wouldn't have such a massive epidemic of distracted driving with cellphones if we didn't have automatic transmissions taking peoples brains off the process of driving. Letting a machine do soulless calculations of when to change gears is far too terrifying to contemplate. Clearly the manufacturors open themselves up to massive liability by putting such death machines on the roads.

What if an automatic transmission fails and the car then kills someone! who is to BLAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Most Cars in the UK don't have automatic transmissions, but the lack of automatic transmissions doesn't seem to stop jerks trying to send texts on their mobile while also attempting to negotiate busy roundabouts.

I think driver less cars are a wonderful idea and I hope to have one one day. Especially when I'm older. If they are available and suitable within the next 10 20 years then I think we will get some for the parents and in-laws, I'm totally guessing but given their age that may be about the time we need to consider taking the keys away.

I also think they could be a great help in countries that don't allow women to drive. It could really give them a bit of extra freedom.

[Shryke]

My bad, I misread the article (I read another one first that didn't refer to the rear-ending system but linked this one, coz reasons), but regardless: the system for detecting pedestrians exists. And my opinion is that if you're able to make a car safer, then you damn well should.

1) Pedestrian Detection systems aren't fool-proof either.

2) Regardless of that the system is always designed so that the owner can override it for safety reasons. Which seems to be what happened in this case.

As someone said, no computer can fix human stupid.

[maarsen]

This is not just about cars. There was a guy here in Toronto, about 20 years or so ago, who wanted to demonstrate the strength of the heat-strengthened glass is in his office tower. In front of a room full of people, he took not one but three running jumps at a window. On the third attempt he shattered the glass and fell to his death. This is why the Darwin Awards exist.