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

[Trik'Stari]

"Valvo"

 

-snip

 

Not once but twice, that's a paddlin'

You get an internet cookie for that one.

 

 

And am I the only person who thinks that a lot of these safety features are going to begin detracting from people's ability to drive? Seriously, I've never had any of the features that are apparently common now, and I've yet to kill anyone on the road.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

This is not Volvo's fault in anyway. If you need your fucking car to prevent YOU from hitting a pedestrian then you should have your license stripped from you and never drive a motor vehicle again.

 

It is not Volvo's responsibility to prevent YOU from being a dumb ass.

 

Edit: Jesus so much stupidity on display in this thread. Auto assisting features are NOT there to make up for driver incompetence. If you cannot maintain 100% control of a motor vehicle, regardless of what auto assist/self-driving features it has or doesn't have, you should NOT be driving. Period.

based on the assumption that it was an completely self driving cars, if google plans to go ahead and remove the steering and make it completely self driving, surely they wouldn't make 2 versions of it. 

[Trik'Stari]

based on the assumption that it was an completely self driving cars, if google plans to go ahead and remove the steering and make it completely self driving, surely they wouldn't make 2 versions of it. 

Yes but who in their right mind is going to buy one of those? With other non self driving cars on the road, I wouldn't. I would want the option to take over for the car in a split second without hitting any buttons.

[UnknownEngineer]

the rest of your argument is invalid because this quote is a fallacy.

the man in question wouldn't hit the gas. his job is to hit the brakes. auto-parking will do the gas peddlin for you.

 

if auto-park is hitting the gas and can't tell the difference between a fire hydrant and a pedestrian, then it shouldn't be hitting the gas at all; should it?

You seem to have taken that line completely wrong.

And to make matters worse you ignore the rest of my comment, the idea behind the rest of my comment was to make my initial quotes purpose redundantly clear. Incase I couldn't make a perfect quote you could use the rest of my comment as a reference to help you understand my point.

In addition I was talking about the auto braking feature, you would have noticed this, had you read the rest, it never was about the parking assis.

 

Also, parking assis doesn't move the car on it's own, the driver is REQUIRED to be using the gas. If the car does steer the car into something then yes, I could see that being pinned on volvo, but even then the assist tells you to look around, and it doesn't move the car without your right foot on the gas. But the point was that parking assist wasn't even on.

 

Let's assume that in the original topic video, the driver enabled the parking assist feature , and the car the hit a person. The driver accelerated the car in an UNUSUAL way for parking, the assis may have turned itself off, as it isn't normal for those kinds of accelerations to happen while parking. Second, the car isn't intended to move or stop on it's own, the driver handles acceleration and deceleration, the car handles steering when parking.

This is what the parking assist looks like, LOOK, it scans a spot (doesn't seem to be done in the OT), also it tells you to look around, it also doesn't seem to be in control of either stopping or moving.

[MageTank]

I see a few people (including OP) are heavily misinformed as to how this feature works, and how Volvo as a company operates. I will start by cutting @Village idiot off at the pass, and saying his argument about this being a "moral practice" is a dead point to make. Volvo has had the best safety record of any auto manufacturer in the history of automotives, and have the most open patents for safety. They improved upon seat-belt design, delivering the 3 point seat belt to us, and allowed others to use it freely. Saying it is an immoral business practice to charge more for something that costs them more to make is a stupid point. Not only that, Auto-parking is not even a safety feature. Your safety is not at risk when you are parking a car, seeing as you park cars very slowly in the first place, you are expected to know how to do so without support of radar detection. I do not know if it is true for every country in the world, but here in the states, we have to demonstrate our ability to park before we can even get a drivers license. 

 

@Rohith_Kumar_Sp: You really do not expect Volvo to lose money to sell a feature that is not a necessity, right? Surely you understand that parking a vehicle is would only cause harm to a pedestrian if the driver is not being mindful of their surroundings, and are doing so incorrectly. With your logic, all monitors should be G-Sync monitors because it makes no sense to sell two of the same monitors but have one lack a feature. And before you use the terrible argument that "its a safety feature, it should be free" look at the paragraph above, and then look at this next satirical response: G-Sync is a safety feature too as it keeps my blood pressure down by preventing me from raging at input delay and terrible frame tears. 

 

TL:DR? This is not a safety feature for sell. This is a luxury feature that has a price premium. It is not an immoral business practice, but just a plain and simple business practice. It costs more money to make, so we pass the costs on to the consumer. 

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

I see a few people (including OP) are heavily misinformed as to how this feature works, and how Volvo as a company operates. I will start by cutting @Village idiot off at the pass, and saying his argument about this being a "moral practice" is a dead point to make. Volvo has had the best safety record of any auto manufacturer in the history of automotives, and have the most open patents for safety. They improved upon seat-belt design, delivering the 3 point seat belt to us, and allowed others to use it freely. Saying it is an immoral business practice to charge more for something that costs them more to make is a stupid point. Not only that, Auto-parking is not even a safety feature. Your safety is not at risk when you are parking a car, seeing as you park cars very slowly in the first place, you are expected to know how to do so without support of radar detection. I do not know if it is true for every country in the world, but here in the states, we have to demonstrate our ability to park before we can even get a drivers license. 

 

@Rohith_Kumar_Sp: You really do not expect Volvo to lose money to sell a feature that is not a necessity, right? Surely you understand that parking a vehicle is would only cause harm to a pedestrian if the driver is not being mindful of their surroundings, and are doing so incorrectly. With your logic, all monitors should be G-Sync monitors because it makes no sense to sell two of the same monitors but have one lack a feature. And before you use the terrible argument that "its a safety feature, it should be free" look at the paragraph above, and then look at this next satirical response: G-Sync is a safety feature too as it keeps my blood pressure down by preventing me from raging at input delay and terrible frame tears. 

 

TL:DR? This is not a safety feature for sell. This is a luxury feature that has a price premium. It is not an immoral business practice, but just a plain and simple business practice. It costs more money to make, so we pass the costs on to the consumer. 

i updated my OT, and still say the same, its not a fancy lighting we are talking about here, the argument people make when they say tesla is selling their costly at higher price, people who have money will buy it, i've been over this, someone who was uninformed did try to run over someone without the knowledge that it was not gonna happen, surely someone else is gonna try that without their knowledge, making a comparison with Gsync i less than stupid, we are not talking about fancy mertails here, we are talking about safety, it's ok that they made 2 versions as it's just a auto parking car,  but the fact there's a car that stops when people come in front of it and there's a car that runs over and not everyone is informed, and this is just a auto park feature, now don't come here telling me that valvo is not planning to do 2 variation of self driving car, one that runs over people and one that does not, so it's better that this is not encouraged at this level .

[RH00D]

i updated my OT, and still say the same, its not a fancy lighting we are talking about here, the argument people make when they say tesla is selling their costly at higher price, people who have money will buy it, i've been over this, someone who was uninformed did try to run over someone without the knowledge that it was not gonna happen, surely someone else is gonna try that without their knowledge, making a comparison with Gsync i less than stupid, we are not talking about fancy mertails here, we are talking about safety, it's ok that they made 2 versions as it's just a auto parking car,  but the fact there's a car that stops when people come in front of it and there's a car that runs over and not everyone is informed, and this is just a auto park feature, now don't come here telling me that valvo is not planning to do 2 variation of self driving car, one that runs over people and one that does not, so it's better that this is not encouraged at this level .

 

Cars don't run people over, people who don't know how to drive do. What you're saying is akin to "Volvo didn't prevent me from being stupid, so its their fault!" If you cannot operate a car safely, 100% unassisted, then you shouldn't be operating one.

 

@MageTank is 100% right. Volvo has pretty much the best safety track records in the entire industry.

 

Edit: By the way OP your title is title is clickbait as Volvo never stated what's in the quote, the author of one of the source articles did.

[MageTank]

i updated my OT, and still say the same, its not a fancy lighting we are talking about here, the argument people make when they say tesla is selling their costly at higher price, people who have money will buy it, i've been over this, someone who was uninformed did try to run over someone without the knowledge that it was not gonna happen, surely someone else is gonna try that without their knowledge, making a comparison with Gsync i less than stupid, we are not talking about fancy mertails here, we are talking about safety, it's ok that they made 2 versions as it's just a auto parking car,  but the fact there's a car that stops when people come in front of it and there's a car that runs over and not everyone is informed, and this is just a auto park feature, now don't come here telling me that valvo is not planning to do 2 variation of self driving car, one that runs over people and one that does not, so it's better that this is not encouraged at this level .

 

You are walking into a burning building when you talk to me about something you know nothing about. You showed your ignorance to this matter when you yourself did not know this was not a self driving car. Auto-parking is NOT a safety feature. You, the driver, are not at harm when parking your vehicle unless you are trying to park it at the bottom of a lake, or are doing so at very excessive speeds. Even with this "feature" you still need to be mindful of your surroundings. Are you going to ignore the people around you, and let this new technology attempt to park with tons of people around your car? It was shown several posts ago that human interaction is still very much required, even with this feature. Why you cannot understand that simple concept is unknown to me at this point.

 

I will reaffirm my original statement. This is not a safety feature. It is a luxury feature people that want to pay less attention to parking than what they already do. It might be helpful for the elderly whose nerves are making it difficult to judge their surroundings, or for the teenager that is too busy checking out the girls at the other side of the parking lot, but for the average intelligent driver, it will offer no added benefit over what we already do.

 

This concept is exactly the same as when they charged extra for Rear Camera's on your vehicle, and serves the same purpose.

 

Edit: @RH00D already said this, but you really should change your title. It is very sensationalized and incorrect. It should read " If you don't want to hit a person in the street, then learn how to operate your vehicle properly". 

[ShadowCaptain]

r and not everyone is informed, and this is just a auto park feature, now don't come here telling me that valvo is not planning to do 2 variation of self driving car, 

 

There is no way a car could be self driving and not stop for pedestrians and other vehicles that would be a requirement for a car to be sold as self driving

 

Since this is a completely different feature it makes perfect sense for Volvo to sell it seperately

 

Its like

 

1 - Normal Car manual driving Only

2 - Car with manual parking assist

3 - Car with automatic Parking and brake assist

4 - Self Driving car

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

There is no way a car could be self driving and not stop for pedestrians and other vehicles that would be a requirement for a car to be sold as self driving

 

Since this is a completely different feature it makes perfect sense for Volvo to sell it seperately

 

Its like

 

1 - Normal Car manual driving Only

2 - Car with manual parking assist

3 - Car with automatic Parking and brake assist

4 - Self Driving car

hence i said i can understand since this is just a parking feature. but people are making too many analogies here i didn't wasn't even trying to say in the first place. 

[MageTank]

There is no way a car could be self driving and not stop for pedestrians and other vehicles that would be a requirement for a car to be sold as self driving

 

Since this is a completely different feature it makes perfect sense for Volvo to sell it seperately

 

Its like

 

1 - Normal Car manual driving Only

2 - Car with manual parking assist

3 - Car with automatic Parking and brake assist

4 - Self Driving car

 

I say we explore his logic even further. Time to make a list of things that should be free, because of safety:

 

1. Condoms

2. Body Armor

3. Band-Aids

4. Medical Care

5. Macho Man Randy Savage Sunglasses (they protect your eyes from the harmful effects of the sun)

 

Just because something offers safety, does not make it a necessity. Volvo could have kept the 3 point seat-belt patent to themselves, and charge people to use it just to make a fortune, but they did not. They gave that feature to everyone to promote safety in vehicles. Now we have people throwing stones at them for charging extra for a very technical assist feature that undoubtedly costs them quite a fair bit of money to produce? Come on people. This is not hard to understand. If you do not feel its worth $2000 for you to use less of your brain when parking, then don't pay it. Park like everyone else.

[Victorious Secret]

I'm just gonna step in and say it doesn't cost Volvo to turn it from self parking to self driving. The self parking still has all the GPS, sonar and radar (or even laser based) sensors in either trim. It's just artificial segmentation to earn more money.

That being said, in either scenario, these are not mulligans for your shitty driving. One day, they'll be robust enough that the governments will force all the idiots who just can't drive into self driving cars. I'd rather have people who are uninterested in cars entirely to use such cars. Leave real driving to people like me who actually care.

But that's beyond every other issue in that buying a Volvo these days is letting people know you don't know how to spend your money. Overpriced, no prestige, weak interiors. Do yourselves a favour and just buy the Benz, at least you get something nice to sit in for your money.

[Guest Kloaked]

You guys are way over thinking what Rohith said.

[kuddlesworth9419]

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

I think the point is that self driving cars need to be safe and if you can buy a version that hits pedestrians then it's not safe at all. The detection system should be standard. 

[MageTank]

I'm just gonna step in and say it doesn't cost Volvo to turn it from self parking to self driving. The self parking still has all the GPS, sonar and radar (or even laser based) sensors in either trim. It's just artificial segmentation to earn more money.

But that's beyond every other issue in that buying a Volvo these days is letting people know you don't know how to spend your money. Overpriced, no prestige, weak interiors. Do yourselves a favour and just buy the Benz, at least you get something nice to sit in for your money.

 

For the first part, i ask where you get that information. I would understand that cutting an entirely self driving car down to this feature would save them money, but it would still cost them more money to produce this feature than what it would to cut it out entirely, no? If you know otherwise, could i see the source of your information? If they can take a car without self parking, and add it to any vehicle without it costing them a dime, i would be mighty impressed with their alchemy powers and demand they show me their philosophers stone.

 

The last part seems to be a bit opinionated. I don't know about newer volvo's, but we have a 1999 volvo V70 wagon that has lasted us over 7 years now, and only had one problem during that entire duration, which ended up being a wheel speed sensor (it would engage the ABS system, causing the car to go into what we call "Limp Mode" where you lose acceleration and your speedometer). I would agree if you said Volvo parts are much more expensive due to import costs, and that most backyard mechanics have absolutely no idea how to fix them, but calling them overpriced and "low-prestige" would be opinionated. Worth is subjective, and prestige is too.

 

 

You guys are way over thinking what Rohith said.

 

Probably. Looking back, it appears he means that two variations of the same product should not exist, to which i guess i could agree. He just went about explaining that stance the wrong way.

 

 

I think the point is that self driving cars need to be safe and if you can buy a version that hits pedestrians then it's not safe at all. The detection system should be standard. 

 

If the detection system is standard, then its price will reflect that feature. Again, this is not a self driving car, so the first part of that sentence is not applicable here. The car also does not hit pedestrians. The car is capable of steering itself, the gas and break are still a result of the drivers input. The car is not hitting pedestrians, its the driver. The gun is not killing people, its the human that wields it. It is probably safe to say that features such as these will become standardized in a few years in not only Volvo's, but every other manufacturer. Just give them time and it will happen. 

[No Nrg]

The machines have become sentient and hostile, humanity is lost.

[Maslofski]

i only read the title, but we got a deal then!

[Victorious Secret]

For the first part, i ask where you get that information. I would understand that cutting an entirely self driving car down to this feature would save them money, but it would still cost them more money to produce this feature than what it would to cut it out entirely, no? If you know otherwise, could i see the source of your information? If they can take a car without self parking, and add it to any vehicle without it costing them a dime, i would be mighty impressed with their alchemy powers and demand they show me their philosophers stone.

The last part seems to be a bit opinionated. I don't know about newer volvo's, but we have a 1999 volvo V70 wagon that has lasted us over 7 years now, and only had one problem during that entire duration, which ended up being a wheel speed sensor (it would engage the ABS system, causing the car to go into what we call "Limp Mode" where you lose acceleration and your speedometer). I would agree if you said Volvo parts are much more expensive due to import costs, and that most backyard mechanics have absolutely no idea how to fix them, but calling them overpriced and "low-prestige" would be opinionated. Worth is subjective, and prestige is too.

Probably. Looking back, it appears he means that two variations of the same product should not exist, to which i guess i could agree. He just went about explaining that stance the wrong way.

If the detection system is standard, then its price will reflect that feature. Again, this is not a self driving car, so the first part of that sentence is not applicable here. The car also does not hit pedestrians. The car is capable of steering itself, the gas and break are still a result of the drivers input. The car is not hitting pedestrians, its the driver. The gun is not killing people, its the human that wields it. It is probably safe to say that features such as these will become standardized in a few years in not only Volvo's, but every other manufacturer. Just give them time and it will happen.

To have "auto stop" abilities you NEED the entire sensor suite already. Radar, sonar, visual. You can't not have it.

It's wholly software based. Mercedes Benz could OTA self driving to their S class if the regulations in North America allowed it, as it stands all those can do is the same auto stop, lane departure and adaptive cruise.

[MageTank]

The machines have become sentient and hostile, humanity is lost.

 

Not yet. Arnold is still alive. If we send him back in time, we can prevent judgement day from happening! Or, maybe something else will happen. Who knows? Let's just do it.

[MrRavens]

 

Oh wow, I laughed way too hard when that guy made contact. Hope he's ok. 

 

But man, tooo funny

[MageTank]

To have "auto stop" abilities you NEED the entire sensor suite already. Radar, sonar, visual. You can't not have it.

It's wholly software based. Mercedes Benz could OTA self driving to their S class if the regulations in North America allowed it, as it stands all those can do is the same auto stop, lane departure and adaptive cruise.

 

I see. Thanks for the clarification. But i am still confused as to how it makes any difference to this topic. Neither car is self driving. That would mean that the sensors available in self driving cars originally did not exist in these two. That would mean they added those sensors to one car, and charged a premium for doing so, right? Is that not understandable to charge more for something that costs more to produce? Or am i confusing something?

[Altecice]

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

 

Usual Clickbait titles that the internet has become im afraid.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

Usual Clickbait titles that the internet has become im afraid.

tell me if the car already have all the sensors to auto park it, why does it cost 3000$ more to stop when a person's steps in front of it ? 

[AHaskin14]

That was amusing to watch

[dalekphalm]

tell me if the car already have all the sensors to auto park it, why does it cost 3000$ more to stop when a person's steps in front of it ? 

Easy - software is not free.

 

The same reason why Notepad is free, yet Microsoft Word is not. Sure, you might already own the computer. Sure, you might already own all the necessary sensors and input devices (Keyboard, mouse, monitor), and sure, it doesn't cost Microsoft any additional hardware to implement these features.

 

But it sure as hell costs them in Programming, Research, and Development.

 

They invested a large amount of money into developing this feature. They can choose whether to give it away for free or whether to charge for it. If they gave it away for "free", all that would mean is the car would cost more anyway.

 

This entire thread is ridiculous. There are some that understand, like @RH00D, @Blade of Grass, and @ShadowCaptain, but many of you are definitely misunderstanding the situation, or simply don't understand the economics of producing and pricing a car.

 

The simple fact is that this is not a self-driving car. This feature is not required, and anyone who needs it to drive safe, should not have a license to begin with.