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

[MageTank]

Snip

 

If i could like something more than once, this comment would be the first.

 

@Victorious Secret, i now understand what you said earlier. Both cars are self parking, but one lacks the pedestrian sensor. Sorry for misunderstanding that earlier. That being said, @dalekphalm has explained that quite perfectly. The software to modify input based on pedestrians in the area cost them money to develop it. It is a luxury feature at best anyways, and you yourself said it best when you said it should not be used to supplement peoples inability to drive properly. 

[Zeke]

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.

I think I've "caught" a bird once, at roughly 100 km/h... does that count? Should I have paid for ChirpSafe™ System?

[Trik'Stari]

I think I've "caught" a bird once, at roughly 100 km/h... does that count? Should I have paid for ChirpSafe™ System?

Well, the hippies would call you a murdering monster.

[LAwLz]

Wow this thread is stupidity overload.
 
The car is self parking, not self driving. There is a HUGE difference.
Self parking means that the car marks a spot, you get a warning that you should look around so that nothing is in the way, then you are in full control over the break and throttle while the car automatically turns for you. The car only drives forward when you push the pedal. The idiot in the video literally aimed the car at the guy filming, and then pushed the accelerator pedal.
 
Since a lot of people don't seem to understand how the park assist feature works, or how it is different from self driving think of it kind of like cruise control. What the idiot in the video did would be like me enabling cruise control and then just let the car drive into someone and go "wow the car should have stopped! How was I suppose to know I should break when the car is heading straight towards a human being!? Volvo are so bad!".
 
By the way OP, your title is flat out a lie. Adam Bozarth from SomeEcards.com said "if you don't want to hit a person in the street, that will cost $3,000 extra", not Volvo.
 

 

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.

Fantastic argument! I will now use this against you lots of times from now on and completely disregard development and marketing cost.
Why does Windows cost money? "Artificial segmentation to earn more money".
Why does Battlefield Hardline cost money? "Artificial segmentation to earn more money".
 
I mean, of course they try to make money, they wouldn't exist as a company otherwise. Some people in this thread seem to think Volvo will just take control over your car and go "pay us 3000 or we will run over your grandma!". What is actually happening is Volvo is going "if you pay us 3000 we can make the car automatically break in case you fuck up and would hit a person".

[dalekphalm]

Wow this thread is stupidity overload.

 

The car is self parking, not self driving. There is a HUGE difference.

Self parking means that the car marks a spot, you get a warning that you should look around so that nothing is in the way, then you are in full control over the break and throttle while the car automatically turns for you. The car only drives forward when you push the pedal. The idiot in the video literally aimed the car at the guy filming, and then pushed the accelerator pedal.

 

Since a lot of people don't seem to understand how the park assist feature works, or how it is different from self driving think of it kind of like cruise control. What the idiot in the video did would be like me enabling cruise control and then just let the car drive into someone and go "wow the car should have stopped! How was I suppose to know I should break when the car is heading straight towards a human being!? Volvo are so bad!".

 

By the way OP, your title is flat out a lie. Adam Bozarth from SomeEcards.com said "if you don't want to hit a person in the street, that will cost $3,000 extra", not Volvo.

 

 

Fantastic argument! I will now use this against you lots of times from now on and completely disregard development and marketing cost.

Why does Windows cost money? "Artificial segmentation to earn more money".

Why does Battlefield Hardline cost money? "Artificial segmentation to earn more money".

 

I mean, of course they try to make money, they wouldn't exist as a company otherwise. Some people in this thread seem to think Volvo will just take control over your car and go "pay us 3000 or we will run over your grandma!". What is actually happening is Volvo is going "if you pay us 3000 we can make the car automatically break in case you fuck up and would hit a person".

Quite succinct analysis. The reactions here are dumbfounding to be honest. But at least there are some users who are posting logical and well thought out responses.

[Victorious Secret]

 

 

Fantastic argument! I will now use this against you lots of times from now on and completely disregard development and marketing cost.

Why does Windows cost money? "Artificial segmentation to earn more money".

Why does Battlefield Hardline cost money? "Artificial segmentation to earn more money".

 

I mean, of course they try to make money, they wouldn't exist as a company otherwise. Some people in this thread seem to think Volvo will just take control over your car and go "pay us 3000 or we will run over your grandma!". What is actually happening is Volvo is going "if you pay us 3000 we can make the car automatically break in case you fuck up and would hit a person".

 

Sigh. Your condescension and contrarian stance against me is fucking tiresome, what the fuck is wrong with you that you consistently need to pick fights with me over the most mundane shit? Is your life so lacking that you see one of my posts and say "oh look, lets argue some pedantic bulllshit". Don't you fucking dare put words in my fucking mouth again. Are we clear? 

 

I will repeat, both versions of the car have ALL THE HARDWARE already in place. You are paying 3,000 dollars for software that any other carmakers can OTA to their car to enable functionality. THAT IS IT. That is what people are making a stink about. By not paying 3k you still get all the hardware required, you are just arbitrarily locked out of the functionality. 

 

Its the same thing Ford does on their navigation systems. If you don't pay the 750 dollars, you still get every last piece of tech that the navigation system requires (including the SD card slot that holds the maps), that slot is just bricked and requires a factory update to enable. It is a arbitrary lockout in the guise of increasing profits. That is all I am saying. 

[dalekphalm]

By the way OP, your title is flat out a lie. Adam Bozarth from SomeEcards.com said "if you don't want to hit a person in the street, that will cost $3,000 extra", not Volvo.

@Rohith_Kumar_Sp I agree with @LAwLz, can you please update the title to give users a more accurate representation of the article contents? Unless you can provide a source that confirms Volvo actually said this? As far as we can tell, Volvo never said that at all.

[Snadzies]

Is there a lesser version of the Darwin award for people who do something incredibly stupid but live?

If there is those people willingly standing in front of that car should get it.

[Swndlr]

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...

LOL

[othertomperson]

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

 

This kind of thing is what's going to stop self-driving cars from getting legal recognition. It doesn't matter that this isn't even a self-driving car, people are going to look at this and the phrases "self-driving" and "self-parking" are going to make lawyers and politicians irrationally combatant.

 

That will cost Volvo a lot more than losing money on one feature.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

@Rohith_Kumar_Sp I agree with @LAwLz, can you please update the title to give users a more accurate representation of the article contents? Unless you can provide a source that confirms Volvo actually said this? As far as we can tell, Volvo never said that at all.

volvo's spokesperson 

 

 

A reporter from the multi-platform network Fusion reached out to Volvo to ask how a sophisticated, street-ready self-driving car could plow into innocent bystanders so easily. Volvo spokesperson Johan Larsson responded that the self-driving capabilities are not as robust as we might expect. The standard package will only be active in stop-and-go city driving to help protect against sudden stops and fender-benders. But if you don't want to hit a person in the street, that will cost $3,000 extra. Larsson explains, “[Pedestrian detection functionality] is sold as a separate package."

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

[UnknownEngineer]

SNIP

Look at it this way, Volvo makes a great car with all of these features they put money into.

Next they think of how much the car is going to need to cost, so they can make the required amount of money to please their partners.

 

They see the the car is quite expensive, not everyone will want to pay that price, so in order to make the car more appealing to those on a budget they need to make it cheaper.

How can they do this? Do they need to remove hardware? Something like the brakes maybe, yeah, that seems like a good idea....

 

No, the lock out the software they used money developing, that way they can take the developments portion out of the price. The best part is, you still have the same car, and if you decide to later on get the feature, YOU CAN, and before that you can still drive your car, just as safely.

 

My point is that once Volvo has the car done there are only so many things they can remove, the can't make new production queues for different variants of the car, that don't have the hardware required for automatic braking. That would drive the price of all variants up you see.

[dalekphalm]

Sigh. Your condescension and contrarian stance against me is fucking tiresome, what the fuck is wrong with you that you consistently need to pick fights with me over the most mundane shit? Is your life so lacking that you see one of my posts and say "oh look, lets argue some pedantic bulllshit". Don't you fucking dare put words in my fucking mouth again. Are we clear? 

 

I will repeat, both versions of the car have ALL THE HARDWARE already in place. You are paying 3,000 dollars for software that any other carmakers can OTA to their car to enable functionality. THAT IS IT. That is what people are making a stink about. By not paying 3k you still get all the hardware required, you are just arbitrarily locked out of the functionality. 

 

Its the same thing Ford does on their navigation systems. If you don't pay the 750 dollars, you still get every last piece of tech that the navigation system requires (including the SD card slot that holds the maps), that slot is just bricked and requires a factory update to enable. It is a arbitrary lockout in the guise of increasing profits. That is all I am saying. 

I get what you're saying - the hardware may very well be exactly the same in both configurations. However, software costs money to make, just like hardware costs money to design and manufacture.

 

They're arbitrarily locking you out of that feature because it's worth extra - and cost extra in R&D and programming/software engineering to create.

 

So what if Volvo decides this feature, which is software only, should cost extra? They spent the resources making it. If people decide it's not worth the extra fee, they won't buy the upgrade.

[LAwLz]

I will repeat, both versions of the car have ALL THE HARDWARE already in place. You are paying 3,000 dollars for software that any other carmakers can OTA to their car to enable functionality. THAT IS IT. That is what people are making a stink about. By not paying 3k you still get all the hardware required, you are just arbitrarily locked out of the functionality. 

 

Its the same thing Ford does on their navigation systems. If you don't pay the 750 dollars, you still get every last piece of tech that the navigation system requires (including the SD card slot that holds the maps), that slot is just bricked and requires a factory update to enable. It is a arbitrary lockout in the guise of increasing profits. That is all I am saying. 

Well of course it is to make more money, I already said that in my post. You pay more and get more features. I just don't think that's a good argument against Volvo. Should I get Microsoft Office for free just because I already have the hardware capable of running it, and it doesn't cost Microsoft anything to make another copy of it (if it's a digital copy)? I don't think I should. It would be great if Microsoft gave it to me for free but I don't expect it of them since they are a for-profit company.

 

What I am trying to say is that giving you premium features for a fee is a pretty neutral thing to do. It's neither good nor bad in my eyes.

[MageTank]

volvo's spokesperson 

 

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

 

 Except the Volvo rep did not say "if you don't want to hit a person, pay $3000". Even in your own quote, the guy said its a separate package to get that feature. Here is what he said exactly: 

 “It appears as if the car in this video is not equipped with Pedestrian detection,” said Larsson. “This is sold as a separate package.” 

 

 

Notice that nowhere did volvo say what your title says. Your own source even went as far to say

"But even if it did have the feature, Larsson says the driver would have interfered with it by the way they were driving and “accelerating heavily towards the people in the video.” “The pedestrian detection would likely have been inactivated due to the driver inactivating it by intentionally and actively accelerating,” said Larsson. “Hence, the auto braking function is overrided by the driver and deactivated.”

 

 

Change the title. You know Volvo never said that, and we do too.

[dalekphalm]

volvo's spokesperson 

 

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

Interesting. Do you have that quote in the OP? If not, I'd suggest adding it.

 

Furthermore, is the journalist paraphrasing him? There's no exact quotation marks around that statement. Generally speaking, if the person said that exact thing, the article author would have put quotations around the statement to say this is an "exact quote".

 

Not to split hairs, but that could mean the journalist "rewrote" what the Volvo spokesperson said to make it sound different.

 

Regardless, I will concede the title, despite it still being extremely sensationalist and clickbait, and taken out of context.

[MageTank]

Interesting. Do you have that quote in the OP? If not, I'd suggest adding it.

 

Furthermore, is the journalist paraphrasing him? There's no exact quotation marks around that statement. Generally speaking, if the person said that exact thing, the article author would have put quotations around the statement to say this is an "exact quote".

 

Not to split hairs, but that could mean the journalist "rewrote" what the Volvo spokesperson said to make it sound different.

 

Regardless, I will concede the title, despite it still being extremely sensationalist and clickbait, and taken out of context.

 

I've viewed his source, as well as several other sites, and nowhere did the Volvo rep say what the title says. He specifically said, and i quote:

 

"The Volvo XC60 comes with City Safety as a standard feature, however, this does not include the Pedestrian detection functionality," said Larsson. 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.

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," said Larsson. "This is sold as a separate package."

 

No discussion of price was mentioned between the journalist or representative. They merely checked the price difference between the two vehicles, and concluded that the $3000 difference in price was entirely due to the pedestrian detection system. The following article pretty much sums what went down:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a15736/volvo-self-parking-car-accident-video-dont-worry/

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

Interesting. Do you have that quote in the OP? If not, I'd suggest adding it.

 

Furthermore, is the journalist paraphrasing him? There's no exact quotation marks around that statement. Generally speaking, if the person said that exact thing, the article author would have put quotations around the statement to say this is an "exact quote".

 

Not to split hairs, but that could mean the journalist "rewrote" what the Volvo spokesperson said to make it sound different.

 

Regardless, I will concede the title, despite it still being extremely sensationalist and clickbait, and taken out of context.

my comments in the OT was based on the knowledge that i was misinformed that it was a self driving car, but someone corrected me on that, its just a self parking one, my point on this still stands the same if it were a self driving car, you can't different variation of safer cars , especially when it comes to a self driving one. if in case that car hits someone, will you blame the owner for buying a less safer car ? or the company for making it, that was my concern not to encourage this division at the earliest stages. 

[Unhelpful]

my comments in the OT was based on the knowledge that i was misinformed that it was a self driving car, but someone corrected me on that, its just a self parking one, my point on this still stands the same if it were a self driving car, you can't different variation of safer cars , especially when it comes to a self driving one. if in case that car hits someone, will you blame the owner for buying a less safer car ? or the company for making it, that was my concern not to encourage this division at the earliest stages. 

Maybe do research before posting in news. That way you don't make yourself look like an idiot.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

Maybe do research before posting in news. That way you don't make yourself look like an idiot.

i did read it and multiple sources, just confused the part about self parking and driving, as per the COC of the forum, people don't have to be a dick like they usually do and actually correct if someone's wrong as someone did to inform me about it later. so i don't get why are we still talking about it, apart from my comments, the rest of the OT is still true nothings been altered. 

[MageTank]

my comments in the OT was based on the knowledge that i was misinformed that it was a self driving car, but someone corrected me on that, its just a self parking one, my point on this still stands the same if it were a self driving car, you can't different variation of safer cars , especially when it comes to a self driving one. if in case that car hits someone, will you blame the owner for buying a less safer car ? or the company for making it, that was my concern not to encourage this division at the earliest stages. 

 

You still do not understand what is going on with this car, do you? The car cannot hit someone. It is physically impossible. The driver was 100% responsible for hitting a pedestrian. He purposely accelerated while aiming directly at the person. Even if this car had the pedestrian detection feature, he still would have hit that man. Your title is wrong, and your source over-dramatized the situation in a very unprofessional way. This entire debacle was user error, not a fault of the machinery involved. Volvo is not to blame for something one of their drivers failed to acknowledge. You still call this a safety feature, but with or without this feature, you still need to use your brain and control the vehicle. This is not a replacement for knowing how to drive, or park for that matter. It is a small supplement for parking in an attempt to prevent auto-accidents when parking your car.

 

If you see a pedestrian, and still hit the gas on your car when near them, you do not deserve to be behind the wheel of a car, Plain and simple. 

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

You still do not understand what is going on with this car, do you? The car cannot hit someone. It is physically impossible. The driver was 100% responsible for hitting a pedestrian. He purposely accelerated while aiming directly at the person. Even if this car had the self parking feature, he still would have hit that man. Your title is wrong, and your source over-dramatized the situation in a very unprofessional way. This entire debacle was user error, not a fault of the machinery involved. Volvo is not to blame for something one of their drivers failed to acknowledge. You still call this a safety feature, but with or without this feature, you still need to use your brain and control the vehicle. This is not a replacement for knowing how to drive, or park for that matter. It is a small supplement for parking in an attempt to prevent auto-accidents when parking your car.

 

If you see a pedestrian, and still hit the gas on your car when near them, you do not deserve to be behind the wheel of a car, Plain and simple. 

and you, did not understand my comment. i can't discuss furthermore, ive made my self clear. 

[MageTank]

and you, did not understand my comment. i can't discuss furthermore, ive made my self clear. 

What comment do i not understand? You are defending a title that is straight up spurious. Volvo did not say what your title is claiming they said. Just change the title to something proper, and people will stop calling you out on it.

[Guest Kloaked]

So people are using the "Software costs money!!" defense.

 

So does GameWorks.

[DeScruff]

You know, I think its kinda scary when "Volvo charging extra for a pedestrian detection on a self driving car" is in the realm of believability to some people.
I mean that just sounds like (or should sound like) a parody article from The Onion or something.