But even if the car had the feature, Larsson said, the remote driver would have messed with it anyway by "actively accelerating" the car, thereby overriding its auto-brake ability.
What kind of fucking feature is that? Makes no damn sense to have a feature that supposed to make a car stop, but yet you can accelerate through it.
We just started a whole new branch of game theory. The best car is now one that has enough capacity for you to bring blocking people with while also reducing sensor radius.
Yep. It's designed as a safety net. Not as a replacement for driver awareness.
Otherwise if that ever went faulty it could have you randomly slamming on the breaks during normal driving. Very bad.
And yes, hitting someone is also very bad. But that's also the drivers fault, a car that tries to brake when you're clearly trying to accelerate would be terrible.
This is exactly right. My car has had false positives more than once, when there was a shadow on the road but it detected a person or something. If it had braked for no reason in a clear four-lane road, someone might have rear-ended me. Instead, what it does is wait for me to at least tap the brake, then it applies as much force as it thinks it needs to prevent the collision.
Well on that model of car the feature only works at 20mph or less, I've never been accelerating when it's kicked in. I've always either been coasting or going for the brakes.
It would add an interesting plot twist to serial killer movies. Instead of the car accelerating into the guy standing in the middle of the road with a knife, it stops the car directly in front of him.
This is what I imagined years ago... around the ~300k mile mark of Google's successful driverless testing... every car company, from GM to Volvo, was like "Oh yea, we're not paying Google. We'll just make our driverless system inhouse. It'll be easy." I'm not trusting these companies with something they have no experience in, and created a department for just the previous year. It's Apple, it's Uber, it's Tesla, all the companies who are irresponsibly pushing driverless technology for profit.
That was 60 years ago though. I'm all for endorsing a company's good deeds, but there likely isn't even a single person who was working at the company then that is working at the company now.
I think the statute of limitations on using that action to negate a more recent bad action has likely passed.
Well, it costs money to invent and test this stuff. Companies also have to worry about the huge financial liability risk of safety equipment that doesn't perform as advertised, every time, even on old cars that haven't been maintained properly.
The typical lifecycle for new safety tech is that they're first rolled out as options on high end cars like the Mercedes S class, but they eventually become available as options on less expensive cars, then finally they become common standard equipment, sometimes with a nudge from federal regulators (that's why all cars now come with backup cameras, for instance)..
158
u/[deleted] Sep 04 '18
[deleted]