" if you don't want to hit a person in the street, that will cost $3,000 extra" says Volvo's "spokesperson" ?

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

EDIT : Volvo XC60 seems to be a self parking car and not a self driving car, the self driving car that would be released in 2017 is XC90 SUV.
i still stand by my original opinion to make 2 variants of f self parking car with a auto brake and non auto brake is not the the right way to go.

I don't know what disturbs me here, the fact people intentionally drove into a pedestrian to test the auto brake feature or the fact that they didn't know their car didn't have the functionality or the fact Volvo actually fucking charges extra for safety features that's suppose to save people from harm . 

In this disturbing video of what it said was a “self-parking car accident.” A group of people stand in a garage watching and filming a grey Volvo XC60 that backs up, stops, and then accelerates toward the group. It smashes into two people, and causes the person filming the video with his phone to drop it and run. It is terrifying.

Volvo spokesperson Johan Larsson explained that the video is mislabeled. He said the car is not attempting to self-park.
 

“It seems they are trying to demonstrate pedestrian detection and auto-braking, Unfortunately, there were some issues in the way the test was conducted"

The main issue, said Larsson, is that it appears that the people who bought this Volvo did not pay for the “Pedestrian detection functionality,” which is a feature that costs more money.
 

“The Volvo XC60 comes with City Safety as a standard feature however this does not include the Pedestrian detection functionality,The “City Safety system” kicks in when someone is in stop-and-go traffic, helping the driver avoid rear ending another car while driving slowly, or under 30 mph." - Larsson

Keeping the car safe is included as a standard feature, but keeping pedestrians safe isn’t.
 

It appears as if the car in this video is not equipped with Pedestrian detection. “This is sold as a separate package.”  But if you don't want to hit a person in the street, that will cost $3,000 extra.

- Larsson

The pedestrian detection feature, which works using a radar in the car’s grill and a camera located behind the windshield. has been around since the mid 2000s, and even started detecting cyclists in 2011, but it costs approximately $3,000, according to IEEE.

But even if it did have the feature, Larsson says the driver would have interfered with it by the way they were driving 
 

Even if you have paid for your car to detect and avoid hitting pedestrians, Volvo Cars strongly recommends to never perform tests towards real humans.

- Larsson

According to the Dominican blog:

Meanwhile, the people in the video seem to ignore their instincts and trust that the car assumed to be endowed with artificial intelligence knows not to hurt them. It is a sign of our incredible faith in the power of technology, but also, it’s a reminder that companies making AI-assisted vehicles need to make safety features standard and communicate clearly when they aren’t., the “two men hit were bruised but are ok.”


Source : http://time.com/money/3896931/volvo-self-parking-accident/

http://happyplace.someecards.com/cars/selfdriving-volvo-drives-self-into-onlookers-since-it-lacked-the-pedestrian-detection/

[Tim Drake]

Well they have to charge more as it costs more to manufacter?? How do you not get that?

[gollum99]

Its volvo

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

Well they have to charge more as it costs more to manufacter?? How do you not get that?

you can't build a self driving cars and make 2 versions of it, one that's not safe and one that is, no, that's not gonna go well. imaging if google made a car that is less safe and more safe and released it to public and charge higher for the safer. that's just not right.

EDIT: it's human lives we are talking about, you don't get to take advantage of it.

[cesrai]

Its volvo

It's common sense.

[gabbdogg]

If I never read the article, I was thinking of Valve

 

Pardon my brain being an idiot

 

[Ertman]

I don't know what disturbs me here, the fact people intentionally drove into a pedestrian to test the auto brake feature or the fact that they didn't know their car didn't have the functionality or the fact Valvo actually fucking charges extra for safety features that's suppose to save people from harm . 

 

-snip-

 

The main issue, said Larsson, is that it appears that the people who bought this Volvo did not pay for the “Pedestrian detection functionality,” which is a feature that costs more money.

 

Keeping the car safe is included as a standard feature, but keeping pedestrians safe isn’t.

 

The pedestrian detection feature, which works using a radar in the car’s grill and a camera located behind the windshield. has been around since the mid 2000s, and even started detecting cyclists in 2011, but it costs approximately $3,000, according to IEEE.

 

-snip-

 Don't know why you think that extra features wouldn't/shouldn't cost extra? It doesn't really matter how long the tech has been around for.

[Tim Drake]

you can't build a self driving cars and make 2 versions of it, one that's not safe and one that is, no, that's not gonna go well. imaging if google made a car that is less safe and more safe and released it to public and charge higher for the safer. that's just not right.

EDIT: it's human lives we are talking about, you don't get to take advantage of it.

So you expect them to make a product and have losses to the company?

 

So what have people been doing all these years? You are taught how to drive and know how to stop infront of a human.

 

The safer version is literally just for people who are too uncomfortable to drive.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

 Don't know why you think that extra features wouldn't/shouldn't cost extra? It doesn't really matter how long the tech has been around for.

it's a security feature of a self driving car, it's not an extra it' necessary, especially for an self driving cars. 

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

So you expect them to make a product and have losses to the company?

 

So what have people been doing all these years? You are taught how to drive and know how to stop infront of a human.

 

The safer version is literally just for people who are too uncomfortable to drive.

loss? what are you talking about, people who can afford self driving cars will afford it, it's not a common mans utility yet. 

[Scionyde]

you can't build a self driving cars and make 2 versions of it, one that's not safe and one that is, no, that's not gonna go well. imaging if google made a car that is less safe and more safe and released it to public and charge higher for the safer. that's just not right.

EDIT: it's human lives we are talking about, you don't get to take advantage of it.

 

It's a car with a self-parking option, not a self-driving car. And whenever using a self-parking feature, you're really supposed to have your foot on the brake in case you need to stop quickly. And you're definitely supposed to be paying attention.

[Tim Drake]

loss? what are you talking about, people who can afford self driving cars will afford it, it's not a common mans utility yet. 

Would you rather buy this car for say £10,000 or £12,000?

 

You lose a lot of potential sales because you have no option for a cheaper version which provides good marketing for the car.

 

How do you not understand how this business needs to make money?

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

It's normal to pay fire more lol...

[That Norwegian Guy]

"Valvo"

 

 

Not once but twice, that's a paddlin'

[ShadowCaptain]

it's a security feature of a self driving car, it's not an extra it' necessary, especially for an self driving cars. 

 

you can't build a self driving cars and make 2 versions of it, one that's not safe and one that is, no, that's not gonna go well. imaging if google made a car that is less safe and more safe and released it to public and charge higher for the safer. that's just not right.

 

 

its not a self driving car....its a car with an assisted automatic parking feature!! You are meant to be sat inside the car with your foot over the brake in case of any issues -  its not designed to drive on its own!!

 

And the radar braking feature is only for when driving normally along the road to avoid an accident-  its not self driving just automatic braking 

[Zeke]

So much hate going on

[UnknownEngineer]

you can't build a self driving cars and make 2 versions of it, one that's not safe and one that is, no, that's not gonna go well. imaging if google made a car that is less safe and more safe and released it to public and charge higher for the safer. that's just not right.

EDIT: it's human lives we are talking about, you don't get to take advantage of it.

The car isn't fully self driving, there is a human driver inside for a reason. The driver is supposed to be in control of the car, and he wouldn't have a license if he wasn't able to maintain that control without the automatic braking feature.

 

I simply cannot see ANY reason for blaming the manufacturer, they most likely advertized the feature as a separate addition, otherwise none would know to buy it. Even with the feature the driver is still responsible.

[lutewan]

Well they have to charge more as it costs more to manufacter?? How do you not get that?

well it has to do with safety so it should be free /s

[TroubleKlef]

I'm confused... the op says "But even if it did have the feature, Larsson says the driver would have interfered with it by the way they were driving " but then goes on to say that it's a self-driving car? Which one is it?

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

 

its not a self driving car....its a car with an assisted automatic parking feature!! You are meant to be sat inside the car with your foot over the brake in case of any issues -  its not designed to drive on its own!!

 

And the radar braking feature is only for when driving normally along the road to avoid an accident-  its not self driving just automatic braking 

 

wait , it isn't a self driving car ? 

[FakezZ]

I'm probably a big dick for saying that, but... MAN DID THAT GUY GET FUCKED hahahahahaha

Seriously though I hope he's fine now...

[Zeke]

wait , it isn't a self driving car ? 

[Tim Drake]

I'm probably a big dick for saying that, but... MAN DID THAT GUY GET FUCKED hahahahahaha

Seriously though I hope he's fine now...

It was pretty funny

[Blade of Grass]

Keep in mind though, Volvo is not the only company that do this. Most, if not all of them, do (BMW, Mercedes Benz etc).

EDIT: To clarify my point, it's normal to make additional features cost money, and, until this feature is going to become required by law I expect people will have to pay extra for it.

[Village idiot]

Would you rather buy this car for say £10,000 or £12,000?

 

You lose a lot of potential sales because you have no option for a cheaper version which provides good marketing for the car.

 

How do you not understand how this business needs to make money?

it's not a business argument. it is a moral argument. you're confusing the two.

in business we throw morals out of the window and say "lives? buahah, what is that?.. profits? oh I know that word!"

when we discuss morals 85% of business', although "people" in the courts, have none. because they are being run by immoral people.

 

"we need to cut cost"

"fine, cut safety measure"

- immoral business practice.