Humongous Volvo self-parking fail!!!

[masraum]

Wow, they forgot to put it in city mode. Based on what I saw, they need to rethink things. Maybe it should default to city mode if that's not the only mode. Yowza, seems like their system isn't quite ready for prime time.

[M.D. Holloway]

Of all companies ! The one that prides itself on safety.

[URY914]

Don't they know to move out of the way of a car coming at you?

[widgeon13]

That is not pretty!

[pete3799]

Who designed that Tim the tool man Taylor?

[VaSteve]

Every time I hear about how "in the fu-cha" car will drive themselves I should repost this video.... That and how all my devices randomly crash.

I just don't see how self driving cars can account for the 8 million variations of things you'll find on the road. It's a solution in need of a problem.

[mreid]

All of our research says they are 15 years out. That said, imagine what happens if a hacker takes control! It is a brave new world.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by VaSteve

Every time I hear about how "in the fu-cha" car will drive themselves I should repost this video.... That and how all my devices randomly crash.

I just don't see how self driving cars can account for the 8 million variations of things you'll find on the road. It's a solution in need of a problem.

Yup. I struggle to think of any electronic device that is 100% reliable. But if my laptop crashes, it doesn't mow down a group of kids waiting on the school bus.

If you asked the engineers before hand, what happened in the video was probably something that could "never" happen. Yet it did, probably because of an electronic failure or unforeseen variable. Short of true AI, that is the problem with the entire concept. You can never conceive of every possible variable or combination of variables that vehicles encounter on the road. Toss in the inherently unreliable nature of electronic systems and I have a hard time seeing self-driving cars as ever being safe, especially when mass produced by the lowest bidder.

[sugarwood]

It's interesting that the car did stop almost immediately.
The pink shirted man didn't even flinch. Hands still in pockets.
I think the car almost did what it was supposed to do, which was to stop right before the pink shirted guy.

It seems to have parked itself correctly.
The guy should not have gotten in the way.
I mean who stands in the middle of a road like that?

[Noah930]

I think it's just Darwinianly cautious to not be so casual as to stand right there with hands-in-pockets, particularly for a demonstration of new technology.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

If you asked the engineers before hand, what happened in the video was probably something that could "never" happen. Yet it did, probably because of an electronic failure or unforeseen variable.

According to the article, they forgot to put the car in city mode. Apparently, in the country you are supposed to plow through folks too stupid to move. It teaches them a lesson.

[Steve Carlton]

All sorts of things wrong with this article.
- the XC60 does not have the park assist pilot option and it doesn't look like they were testing for that feature, anyway.
- City Safety does not stop for pedestrians, only cars and large reflective objects.
- It looks like they were testing for Pedestrian Detection, but were using an XC60 without that feature, which is part of the Technology pkg (which also includes Bicycle Detection). From the outside, you can tell if the XC60 has the Technology pkg by the radar unit in the grille. None on this car.




This is what a Volvo looks like with the radar unit:





Here's a video demonstrating Pedestrian Detection with real people:





BTW- that demonstration of City Safety with the Volvo crashing into the back of a truck was done with a car that had a dead battery that had been jumped. The feature works well.

[911SauCy]

Originally Posted by mreid

That said, imagine what happens if a hacker takes control!

It's not a matter of if, it's when a hacker decided to take control.

If the technology garbage being put in cars continues, there will be nothing stopping "hackers" from taking full control and driving cars as remote control, with people in them.

Now, I wonder how that Malaysian plane...nevermind

[Noah930]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

BTW- that demonstration of City Safety with the Volvo crashing into the back of a truck was done with a car that had a dead battery that had been jumped. The feature works well.

Thank goodness that never happens in real life. Phew.

[Steve Carlton]

Just make sure when you're not paying attention when you drive that the battery was good in your car before you left!

[intakexhaust]

There's a Ford Focus TV commercial showing new drivers, park assist and BS. What a bad signal of young drivers to come.

I'm beginning to think Elon Musk concept of sticking people in a tube and blasting them around is a good idea. LOL

[TheMentat]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Yup. I struggle to think of any electronic device that is 100% reliable. But if my laptop crashes, it doesn't mow down a group of kids waiting on the school bus.

If you asked the engineers before hand, what happened in the video was probably something that could "never" happen. Yet it did, probably because of an electronic failure or unforeseen variable. Short of true AI, that is the problem with the entire concept. You can never conceive of every possible variable or combination of variables that vehicles encounter on the road. Toss in the inherently unreliable nature of electronic systems and I have a hard time seeing self-driving cars as ever being safe, especially when mass produced by the lowest bidder.

Why is 100% reliability the threshold for adopting the technology? Shouldn't "more reliable than humans" be good enough?

Admittedly, that video is a huge fail, and I'm pretty sure that even the best driverless cars aren't there yet. Granted, the liability implications of theses sorts of accidents will certainly have to be sorted out, but when they get to a point where they are statistically safer than humans, isn't that good enough?

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by TheMentat

Admittedly, that video is a huge fail...

Seriously? Did you read the comments in the video link itself or the ones I posted? It appears you're just going with the flow, assuming the video title is valid (and even Wayne's thread title). Weak.

Originally Posted by TheMentat

...Granted, the liability implications of theses sorts of accidents will certainly have to be sorted out, but when they get to a point where they are statistically safer than humans, isn't that good enough?

I don't want to insult your intelligence, but try thinking about this a bit.

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by TheMentat

but when they get to a point where they are statistically safer than humans, isn't that good enough?

A human ran into my 944 a few weeks ago, tried to pass a middle lane car on the right, no signal, just moved over on top of me.(It was totally clear to his left, I thought his right lane move was just an aberration from his lane at first, it was a fast lane change on his part, so I pretty much reacted at point of contact.)

Lots of people are killed by human controlled automobiles each year.

[KNS]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

A human ran into my 944 a few weeks ago, tried to pass a middle lane car on the right, no signal, just moved over on top of me.(It was totally clear to his left, I thought his right lane move was just an aberration from his lane at first, it was a fast lane change on his part, so I pretty much reacted at point of contact.)

Lots of people are killed by human controlled automobiles each year.

And that will continue to happen whether a human is at the controls or a computer. Today you go after the driver at fault and hope he's insured. Tomorrow the lawyers will go after the deep pockets of the automakers.