Volvo Self-Parking Car Hits People Because Owner Didn't Pay For Extra Feature 392
schwit1 writes: A video that recently went viral shows a demonstration of a Volvo XC60's self-parking feature. It reverses itself, waits, and then confidently drives into a group of people at a non-negligible speed. (Two were hit, and while both were bruised, they were otherwise OK.) The situation was presumed to have resulted from a malfunction with the car — but the car might not have had the ability to recognize a human at all. A Volvo representative said the car was not equipped with the "Pedestrian detection" feature. That feature is sold as a separate package.
Sure, let's make everything tiered (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Volvo's new tiered purchase plan: and would you like tires with that? What about brakes? An engine?
Re: Sure, let's make everything tiered (Score:3)
Re:Sure, let's make everything tiered (Score:5, Insightful)
There's always a better idiot to beat your safety system. Also, wasn't this caused simply by the driver stepping on the accelerator? This did not look like the kind of driving any self-parking car would do, pedestrians or no.
It wasn't self-parking. A person did this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sure, let's make everything tiered (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, wasn't this caused simply by the driver stepping on the accelerator?
That appears to be the case. The reporting on this is very muddled, but at least one article says that the car was not in "self-parking" mode, so the pedestrian detection would not have been active even if this car had it. The driver was in full control of the car, and intentionally accelerated toward the reporters. So the real story here is that some random guy in the Dominican Republic is an idiot.
Re:Sure, let's make everything tiered (Score:5, Insightful)
More than one guy in that video was an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps he is not an idiot.
He got to run over some people on purpose and gets to claim it was an accident.
Maybe he didn't like those two people very much.
Re:Sure, let's make everything tiered (Score:5, Insightful)
So does this mean Volvo sells a configuration that 1) has a computer control the car in small, enclosed spaces and 2) doesn't have said computer look for obstacles, and specifically not humans?
My wife's car (not a Volvo) has obstacle detection, and "self-park". The obstacle detection only works at low speed, and it will only stop the car if the computer is in control (self-park activated). If a human is in control, it will beep and display the location and distance to the obstacle on the dash display, but it does not override the human. It does not distinguish between a pedestrian and other obstacles, like a tree or trash can.
For the situation in the video, where 1) a human was in control, and 2) the car was moving fairly quickly, the obstacle detection would not have prevented the collision, and likely would not have even been activated.
In my opinion, this is the correct division of blame for this incident:
Idiot driver: 99%
Idiot journalists who didn't get out of the way: 1%
Volvo: 0%
Re: (Score:3)
Japanese manufacturers offer collision avoidance that can completely stop the car when it is travelling below 30 MPH, if a crash is imminent. It works very well for preventing rear-endings in traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not. It's exactly what the parent said it is. If you're driving along, and under 30kph, and someone stops in front of you, or someone walks in front of your car, the car will make every effort to stop itself before the collision will occur. That has nothing to do with cruise control, adaptive or otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
These were Journalists. You know, the people who flunked Calculus 1, and then couldn't get into the English department because they were spending so much of their time hanging out at the lit table or at rallies that they weren't doing the readings. So they transferred into J-School.
Someone Please Provide a Better Explanation (Score:4, Interesting)
Surely the vehicle already has to avoid obstacles to park?* Why does avoiding pedestrians cost extra?
It would be very helpful if someone who truly understand this could clear it up. Is the driver really a dumbass who should have known better, or is Volvo insanely treating "not plowing through human beings" as an optional extra?
* Or does it? I admit I have no experience with self-parking cars. How much preparation/setup (i.e. like "pre-washing" for a dishwasher) is required on the part of the driver? Is the driver expected to position the car in a certain way, and make sure certain obstacles aren't present?
Re: Someone Please Provide a Better Explanation (Score:5, Informative)
The pedestrian avoidance is a completely separate piece of kit. The parking system is made of short range ultrasound sensors and/or cameras around the car. The pedestrian detection is a longer range *radar* detector looking forward, used when driving at city speeds. It's a much more expensive system so it's understandable that it isn't standard (yet).
Of course the parking system also detects humans like any other obstacle. It's just dumb sensors and cameras like cars have had for many years).
Re: Someone Please Provide a Better Explanation (Score:4, Funny)
The pedestrian avoidance is a completely separate piece of shit.
FTFY
Re:Someone Please Provide a Better Explanation (Score:5, Informative)
City-safe (city safety really) is a system that automatically applies the brakes when it detects another vehicle within 6 meters of the front of the car with which a collision is imminent. It's designed for stop-n-go city traffic to avoid or at least reduce the severity of the relatively common low speed rear end accidents.
It has nothing to do with parking so avoiding pedestrians in that context is irrelevant.
The driver is a dumbass.
Volvo has a "automatically brake when a pedestrian collision is predicted" feature which costs a bunch of money and hence "not plowing through human beings" is an optional extra just like it is in almost every other car ever made. Of course it isn't even optional in most cars - though I'm sure you could retrofit the LIDAR and computer and so on.
Self parking is irrelevant, since that was not being used in the case in question.
Re: (Score:3)
Great marketing (Score:2, Insightful)
the car was not equipped with the "Pedestrian detection" feature. That feature is sold as a separate package.
Release to market with minimum feature set, Microsoft would be proud.
Re:Great marketing (Score:5, Funny)
Release to market with minimum feature set, Microsoft would be proud.
Only if it also includes easily-exploitable security holes.
Re: (Score:2)
whereas security holes in Microsoft's products aren't
That's what you think.
Re: (Score:2)
A minimal feature set is something that is planned and purposefully implemented whereas security holes in Microsoft's products aren't.
There's a couple of thousand people at the NSA that would beg to differ with you...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Even if it had all the features, from TFA, the guy pointed it at a group of people standing still and dumped it.
The car would've assumed the driver knew what he was doing (it only works when moving slowly and not accelerating hard) and plowed into the fools anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Release to market with minimum feature set, Microsoft would be proud.
--- but when a Microsoft product offers more than a minimum feature set, the geek is the first to go ballistic.
dont' engage it with people there? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't a human without any major cognitive disabilities know not to trigger the auto-parking feature when there were people standing in the spot?
Re:dont' engage it with people there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't any reasonable marketing idiot realize that actually having a feature that prevents the automatic car from driving into someone and NOT making it standard is a recipe for a major lawsuit?
Saying "You know, we tried to make it work, and just couldn't, so be careful." is a lot more defensible than saying "We figured we could withhold a vital safety feature in order to charge another few hundred bucks for it.".
Re:dont' engage it with people there? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:dont' engage it with people there? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: dont' engage it with people there? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was submitted by schwit1.
If it said the sky was blue I'd look outside to check.
Re: (Score:3)
Shouldn't a human without any major cognitive disabilities know not to trigger the auto-parking feature when there were people standing in the spot?
You've obviously never driven in New York or Chicago! People don't give a fuck when they hit other CARS, let alone a nice soft target like a human...
Seriously, drive down a street in NY, especially Brooklyn. You'll see all the unlucky street parkers, and almost every car has some street-side damage on it. People pull halfway into intersections to see if ther
Re:dont' engage it with people there? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every 'auto-parking' feature I have seen in a car requires the driver to operate the throttle/gas/accelerator & brake pedals.
i.e. driver mowed down some folk, and then tried to blame the car.
Re:dont' engage it with people there? (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire point of the Three Laws was to show that they couldn't possibly work as intended, and create lots of interesting stories in the loopholes.
Trust your instincts (Score:3, Interesting)
Volvo's comments in the Fusion article also suggest that the pedestrian detection feature would not have helped, given that the driver appears to be accelerating towards the people injured. If somebody is driving a car at you, follow your instincts and get out of the way.
Flamebait title (Score:5, Insightful)
A more appropriate title would be: "Idiot hits pedestrians after purposely setting up his vehicle to do so, hoping it wouldn't."
Re:Flamebait title (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Flamebait title (Score:5, Insightful)
A more appropriate title would be: "Idiot hits pedestrians after purposely setting up his vehicle to do so, hoping it wouldn't."
Actually, it should be more like "Genius finds an easy way to sue a Multi-billion dollar company that's apparently run by idiots."
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't drive itself.
Re: (Score:3)
It drives itself a bit - enough to make an idiot think it drives itself totally.
It's like the automation equivalent of uncanny valley.
Re: (Score:3)
And my car drives itself a bit (it has an automatic transmission) and yet doesn't have a "don't drive into pedestrians" feature without anyone seeming to care.
I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
That didn't look like a parking attempt. How is "ramming speed" the first step of parking?
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)
Pedestrians? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't quite the understand the situation. Even if the car is unable to recognize pedestrians, should it just drive into 'unknown' obstacles like that?
Re: (Score:2)
The cars do have auto-braking features as standard, but only for avoiding other cars — if they are to avoid crashing into pedestrians, too, then owners must pay extra.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the car have a brake pedal? Maybe the driver shouldn't have a licence?
This is a volvo driver we're talking about
Re: (Score:3)
This is a volvo driver we're talking about
So drive a BMW. The pedestrian avoidance system is a horn.
Re: (Score:2)
If you drive a BMW, pedestrians will avoid you.
It's OK (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a pedestrian, I have right of way.
Extra feature (Score:3)
Oh, you wanted brakes, too? I don't see anything on the invoice about brakes.
Another reason my first new car will be a Tesla (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another reason my first new car will be a Tesla (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Options (Score:4, Insightful)
No matter how old it is, I still can't fathom the "extra" scheme applied to the automotive industry.
It's rather simple so let me break it down for you. 1) Not everybody wants, needs or can afford every feature. 2) Automakers can sell more cars if they offer them at a range of prices. 3) People like to customize their vehicles because having something a little unique is valued. 4) If people weren't willing to pay extra for options then they would quickly not be offered. 5) Bundling options keeps complexity down to a manageable level and if done right improves profits for the manufacturer.
Why can't all cars be more like a Model S and ship with the most relevant technological developments "out of the box"
If people start gravitating with their dollars towards that business model then that is what will happen. I think it is unlikely but stranger things have happened. However remember that you are talking about a $100,000 luxury car so the rules are quite a bit different than for the market for a minivan or pickup that costs 1/3 of the price of the Tesla.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't all cars be more like a Model S and ship with the most relevant technological developments "out of the box"
Which out-of-the-box Model S are you talking about?
The one without the cruise control, lane assist, self-parking or adaptive suspension options? (which is all of them).
Misnomer (Score:5, Insightful)
The car did not hit people because the owner didn't pay for an extra feature. The car hit people because the driver made an error, assuming the car had a feature the car did not have.
Get stuck while offroading? It's not the car's fault you didn't buy the 4WD version.
Damage the engine by filling up with diesel instead of regular gas? It's not the car's fault you didn't buy the model with the diesel engine.
Injured because your car didn't notify the manufacturer when it was in an accident? It's not the car's fault you didn't pay for the accident monitoring service.
Re:Misnomer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Misnomer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh, you just brought up an interesting angle. What if you get used to a car that has this feature, and come to expect it, then drive one that does not? That's risky. This makes me me never want to purchase this feature. Or if I get it, never trust it.
Slippery slope, blame the driver (Score:3)
This is a slippery slope. We must hold the driver accountable.
*All* cars today will confidently drive into a people. Most of them only do so by moving forward or backward in whatever direction they are pointed. The fact that this car has a button that backs up, does a little turn, then pulls forward does NOT change the chain of responsibility. Ex: Suppose my car has a button that drives forward 10 feet, honks, spins around, then drives backward 10 feet. Can I blame the manufacturer when I hit the button and run someone over? We can't let that become the standard.
Oh, did my drone just gun down a bunch of children? Blame Boeing, their bid for the child detection feature was too expensive! -- I DON'T THINK SO FOLKS!
Question: Does the brake still work in self-park mode?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. As when you are in full control, being in partial control means YOU still bear the burden of assessing the surroundings and reacting to such. Just as the rear-view cameras cannot see the entire rear end of most vehicles. etc.
I fear until we have truly self-driving cars, all we are doing is breeding a bunch of inept drivers, who can't handle being in full control of their large and very heavy blunt objects.
Re: (Score:2)
Answer: Another commenter stated that you have to be pushing the gas pedal for the car to move. It isn't really autonomous at all. So this is definitely the drivers fault.
This is driver error (Score:5, Insightful)
It was the driver's responsibility to operate it safely (ie not stamp on the accelerator and actually look at what's ahead), the fact that a premium feature could have compensated for the idiot behind the wheel is moot. It's akin to driving straight at a brick wall then complaining that the accident was caused by a car company not giving you "brick wall avoidance" as a feature in your model rather than you doing something stupid.
Car explodes on ignition... (Score:2)
Innacurate summary (Score:2)
TFA said:
He said the car is not attempting to self-park. “It seems they are trying to demonstrate pedestrian detection and auto-braking"[while the car is under human control]
So not nearly as sinister as a self driving car that charges extra for a vital feature. It costs extra because it requires them to stick a radar in the car, and radars cost money; and it's fine that they charge extra as all of these cars should be equipped with a pedestrian avoidance system anyway, namely a driver.
Title completely incorrect (Score:3, Informative)
Seems like bad PR handling... (Score:2)
There may be good reasons for the 'pedestrian detection' feature to be an extra purchase(more sensors, more DSP, recouped development costs, etc.) or it may just be a single bit in the firmware waiting to be flipped in a magic screwdriver upgrade; but either way, "Yeah, we have
Re: (Score:2)
how long before failing to include it is negligence?
That will be a scary day. When all the jay-walking hobos think every car will automatically stop for them, so they step out to cross the road anywhere they feel like it.
Not Autonomous Driving (Score:2)
The video does not show any auto-driving. It seems like they were trying to demonstrate an auto-brake accident avoidance feature.
Basically, the driver (appearing to be fully in control the whole time) reversed the car and then gunned it, aiming at the pedestrians. I'm guessing the expectation was that auto-brake would kick in before ploughing into the bystanders.
This was a boneheaded move on part of the driver and the idiots who agreed to basically be crash test dummies. Fifth Gear tested auto-braking with
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Suppose he was using the "auto park" feature in the car to park and hit someone in the process, it would not be not be an "auto-driving failure"? That's stupid and wrong: they should not sell the "auto park" feature without the "pedestrian detection" feature.
Not so simple (Score:3)
Spotting a car is easy. Spotting people, or other random obstacles, not so much.
Cars tend to be large and made of hard reflective surfaces. 2 or 3 ultrasonic sensors at fixed locations in the bumper is enough to notice a car and avoid hitting it. Those sensors are cheap, and you can probably run them with an 8-bit PIC.
A system to detect random objects is much more involved. More and better sensors, vastly more complicated program and a real CPU to run it. In this case, radar and a camera, both of which require lots of processing to use. All quite expensive.
Even better, the car wasn't parking itself. From the two articles, it sounds like the driver hit the gas with the expectation that the car was going to prevent him from running into people. It wasn't capable of that, and wouldn't have overridden his explicit action even if it were.
driver hit the gas (Score:2)
Self driving planes shouldn't fly into the Alps (Score:2)
So Many Dumb Ways To Die (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Why does the car need to recognize people? (Score:3)
This falls into the same category as... (Score:2)
Idiots who get wounded or killed, testing a bulletproof vest.
click bait (Score:5, Informative)
Summary from TFA:
(1) The car isn't self-parking, it's under driver control.
(2) Pedestrian detection wouldn't have helped because the driver was overriding the automatic features of the car.
Pedestrian detection costs extra money because it requires installing a radar and camera.
Re:Defective (Score:5, Insightful)
There exist a system fÃr detection of hinders in all cars. It's called a driver.
The driver should never use a feature of a car that can make it move in a way that it can hit a human.
Its common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
The driver should never use a feature of a car that can make it move in a way that it can hit a human.
Except for features of a car that are designed to function without a human. The entire point of moving to self-driving / self-parking cars is so you don't have to do it.
Now, we're not at that point yet, and I agree that in this instance it's the driver's responsibility. However, it's not defensible or ethical for Volvo to sell the pedestrian-detection feature separately from the self-parking feature anymore than it would be for them to sell seat-belts as an option. They know idiot drivers exist, they kno
Re: Defective (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hm. Legit point, but then you have to ask whether the driver reasonably understands how the assistive technology works well enough to be able to supervise it, and also how easily they can stop the process if things go wrong (i.e. if the assistive technology requires the driver to take their limbs off the wheel, brakes and accelerator in order to work reliably, then it's pretty much guaranteed that they won't be able to act quickly
Re:Defective (Score:4, Insightful)
The car wasn't driving itself. The driver in the car stepped on the gas and drove into the people.
Re:Defective (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't doing any autonomous movement so your premise is garbage and thus the rest of the post meaningless.
The idiot in the car backed up and then accelerated towards a group of people. Surprise, surprise, the car didn't magically stop and the people were hit.
Now, the car company in question does sell something that might have caused the car to apply the brakes automatically in that situation but it costs a bunch of money. Are you seriously claiming they need to include that on every car they make?
Re: (Score:3)
So, you're saying the "self-parking" bit the headline, summary and article describe is a complete red herring and had nothing to do with what the car was actually doing at the time?
If you say so. It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote, it just might not be applicable to the situation that the headline, summary, and article all apparently failed to describe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. There was no self parking involved - the headline, summary, and article are making it up. That should be obvious from the video in which the car is clearly not parking.
You said " someone needs to get cracking with that recall" and "It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote". So what precisely do you expect to be recalled due to this case of a person accelerating a car towards a group of people?
Re:Defective (Score:5, Informative)
Second, there is the "pedestrian detection system". This is a radar-based long-range detection system used when driving in the city (for auto alerting the diver and/or auto-breaking if a child runs out in the street, for example).
In order to do self-parking, only the parking assistance hardware is involved. The parking assstance avoids all obstacles, and of course it would never automatically move the car if it detected an obstacle. The pedestrian radar is an optional package simply because the hardware is still quite expensive. Of course there will always be optional extras on cars. Volvo is probabl class leading when it comes to having the safety features made standard as soon as possible, but this piece of kit is just too expensive yet
So: 1) Volvo does not "charge extra" for enabling some feature on hardware already included. 2) There is no "pedestrian detection" that can be enabled or disabled that relates to parking .It's a city driving pedestrian safety option. 3) Other cars with parking assist or automatic parking have anything other than the sensors (cameras/ultrasound) that Volvo use.
Re: Unicorn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it sounds like Volvo's lawyers told him to point the finger to limit damage when the pedestrians file a civil suit against the driver and also name Volvo. Typical PR spin. Nothing to see here, these aren't the droids you're looking for, etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea. I wouldn't use the feature as I actually can park a car properly. Whether the guy did override the system or not Volvo's lawyers will point that direction until there is definitive proof of an error. It's standard practice.
Regardless, "pedestrian detection" should never be an "additional" feature for a self-driving vehicle of any kind, no matter what mode of operation the vehicle is using.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This car had been purchased with the "Find and Acquire Parking Space" (FAPS) option which, upon activation, locates any open parking space nearby and seeks to claim it as quickly as possible. The car simply noticed a space a couple hundred feet away and dove for it.
In other unrelated news, Volvo lawyers are recommending to the marketing department that the FAPS option only be available in conjunction with the Pedestrian Detection option.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what: Until there are no human controls at all, everything is entirely driver error.
Because that's where the legal liability will be.
So, "driver incompetently shows off technology he didn't pay for but which should have been mandatory" is, in my mind, no different than "idiot crams car into reverse and drives over pedestrians".
As I said "until such time as Google (or whoever makes it) takes legal and financial responsibility for everything its car does (which they never will) ... then people shou
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a fucking asshole on purpose, or does someone need to hit you with a Volvo? Because you're just a screeching monkey on the internet at the moment.
Look, put your bullshit away and try to be a grown up. If you can't, then fuck the hell off.
If you have auto-park, auto-park sure as hell better include the "don't run over ped
Re:Thanks Volvo! (Score:5, Interesting)
Except, of course, that it wasn't a self-driving car, simply a self-steering parking mode, and the driver had full control over the speed at all times. Le sigh...
Re: (Score:3)
The summary is luddite bullshit. The video has nothing to do with parking, it has to do with an auto-braking feature on some new Volvos that detects people and stops even if you're trying to ram them at full speed. But that feature costs extra money, and they didn't have it on the car they tried.
The video supports this contention, because it shows a dozen or so people standing in front of the car, several with cell phones out to film. The car is nowhere near a parking spot. It accelerates like the driver fl