Volvo Pedestrian Detection Demo Goes Terribly Wrong

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
Lesson to be learned here: If you are going to test out the latest and greatest safety feature on an automobile, (1) first make sure the auto actually has the feature installed, (2) make sure the driver doesn’t override the feature if it was installed and last but not least, (3) never test new features on humans. Volvos may be a safe car, but their demonstrations are sure dangerous enough. :D
 
This is exactly why a client company that I routinely work with refuses to turn on features like this in the USA. If anything were to ever go wrong, their liability (and ensuing litigation) go through the roof.
 
That's what happened when they get acquired by the Chinese company....

Human safety is no longer their thing.... :(
 
"Its possible to override the safety feature by accelerating" Then what good is it? If you're driving you always either have your foot on the gas or the brake pedal
 
"Its possible to override the safety feature by accelerating" Then what good is it? If you're driving you always either have your foot on the gas or the brake pedal

because people will stall the car to carjack you or rape you or stall you on train tracks because they can. .
 
If the failed demo shows anything, it's how changes to car design have reduced pedestrian injuries. The linked story said the 2 guys who got hit were only bruised.
 
"Its possible to override the safety feature by accelerating" Then what good is it? If you're driving you always either have your foot on the gas or the brake pedal
You have to have an override. Have you been watching TV lately with the "protesters" looting and pillaging in the streets and attacking innocent people? Or like that Asian guy with his family who was being attacked by a huge gang of squids on motorcycles (which he like a boss ran over to get away when they tried to force their way in)? There are good reasons to run people over on occasion.
 
Mercedes had the same issue with their auto-braking system a few years ago. Launch a car in the fog in front of journalist and THEN discover the function wasn't enable.
Some serious ass kicking is deserved here...
 
What I took away from this is that apparently crash test dummies and mannequins are worth more than people now. I should get a bunch and watch their value soar.
 
Mercedes had the same issue with their auto-braking system a few years ago. Launch a car in the fog in front of journalist and THEN discover the function wasn't enable.
Some serious ass kicking is deserved here...
Well, its idiotic to ever use real people in a tech demo anyway.

If I have a new safety system for my 9mm, is it smart to point my gun at a journalist's head and pull the trigger and say "See, it didn't go off!" Just have them stand to the side and use some mannequins.
 
Safety feature or not, why would you gun it like that? There's no way that car could've stopped without hitting that guy halfway on its way over to him. He stood there like a man, too.
 
I was the co-founder of the robotics program at my college more than a decade ago. We decided to build a robot that would give campus tours via the web with GPS, but those details are unimportant. The important details are that it weighed 300 pounds and we learned very early that it needed a kill switch if it got out of bounds or too close to a human. How did we figure this out? Well, it took a chunk out of the leg of the other co-founder before damaging a door quite severely (the test was indoors). In our case it wasn't from "gunning" it but rather that the wireless got out of range/interfered with and lost the control signal, but in any case...these things happen. ;)
 
Some of you need to be reminded that this is entirely a human failure, not a failure of the car, which most likely did not even have the Pedestrian Detection feature installed.
 
Some of you need to be reminded that this is entirely a human failure, not a failure of the car, which most likely did not even have the Pedestrian Detection feature installed.

It had the system installed. Pressing the gas pedal down far enough overrides the system.
 
It had the system installed. Pressing the gas pedal down far enough overrides the system.

What makes you so sure of that?

I've tried to track down the actual and full contents of Volvo's email regarding the incident, which appears to have been released to many media outlets, all of which do not seem to have bothered to fully posted the email but instead interpret it for their readers. For example, here is what Time says Volvo told them in an email:

"However, Volvo tells MONEY the dealer in question was trying to demonstrate the XC60’s City Safety system, which helps avoid or mitigate rear end collisions with other vehicles at low speeds. This system is not able to detect pedestrians; the model in question lacked an optional $3,000 Pedestrian Detection system."

Other media outlooks, such as Daily Mail and Fusion, translate even less of what Volvo actually said. If anyone can find the original text of Volvo's email, that would be helpful.
 
I have my own pedestrian detection system and it's free. It's called two eyes, looking where you are going, and common sense.
 
I have my own pedestrian detection system and it's free. It's called two eyes, looking where you are going, and common sense.

I thought we're a society that is constantly demanding to not have to be responsible for anything and dependent on everything for our needs....?.... At least that's what I've been taught.
 
I have my own pedestrian detection system and it's free. It's called two eyes, looking where you are going, and common sense.

Yea, but most pedestrians don't.

Still got to wonder at this. Was it a case of chinese whispers that the model had pedestrian detection, yet they didn't take note it wasn't actually a base standard feature and decided on poor word or mouth to go ahead and run people over thinking the car would stop because it's a Volvo, they have all the safety stuff by default right?
 
That was a moronic demonstration, but I do hope he's ok and the tech saves lives.
 
Anything that requires a computer to perform is bound to fail. Would rather require and force all drivers to drive with common sense and full responsibility. Taking the wheel of a vehicle is a big responsibility.
 
Anything that requires a computer to perform is bound to fail. Would rather require and force all drivers to drive with common sense and full responsibility. Taking the wheel of a vehicle is a big responsibility.


And anything that's performed by humans is bound to succeed? Maybe after some failures, yeah. Humans fail a lot more than computers, actually. And computers fail because the humans that programmed them did. You notice that after some iterations, everything gradually comes together and keeps getting better and better? That's how programming is. As bugs are worked out, the systems get more and more reliable. No what about humans? Currently, we're not like that. Supposing we survive the first incident, our ability to actually learn is limited by our innate talents. That's a hell of a lot less stable.
 
Anything that requires a computer to perform is bound to fail. Would rather require and force all drivers to drive with common sense and full responsibility. Taking the wheel of a vehicle is a big responsibility.

Requiring "all drivers to drive with common sense and full responsibility" would eliminate 80% of drivers from getting on the road.

Computers are much more reliable.
 
Requiring "all drivers to drive with common sense and full responsibility" would eliminate 80% of drivers from getting on the road.
I'm not joking, but why would it be a bad thing if say 25% of applicants for driving tests failed? Think about how dumb the average person is. Now realize that half the people are dumber than that. And now imagine the dumbest half of the dumbest half. Yet, we give them the wheels of a 4,000 lb missile?

It makes no sense to me, and I'd much rather we had tests that fail people, and also have more punishments that instead of monetary would have people lose their licenses for certain periods of time, and eventually permanently. Not everyone should be allowed to drive, and just as there are lower test requirements for ultra-light aircraft compared to light sport aircraft compared to jet aircraft and so forth, IMO we should have a similar system where its very easy to get a 35mph city scooter, more difficult to get up to a 650cc motorcycle or maxi-scooter, additionally difficult to get up to a 2-passenger 2000lb car, and most difficult to get a 2+ and 2000lb+ pound vehicle which only 75% of people who apply will ever pass.

Because face it, even when self-driving cars come out, its going to be decades and decades before we get all the legacy vehicles off the road, and even then they will probably only self-drive on certain roads, like the HOV lane and what not and not work universally everywhere.

And once you get the worst 25% of drivers off the road, you will be creating a market to fill that demand, with more mass transit systems and buses and uber services made available, which will also reduce pollution and parking congestion in the cities.
 
I failed the maneuverability part of the driving test. I had to go back and re-take it. Thankful I haven't found myself in that exact scenario even after 18yrs of driving haha
 
It had the system installed. Pressing the gas pedal down far enough overrides the system.

It had the system that detects cars in front, you need to add another $3000 to detect people.
 
I'm not joking, but why would it be a bad thing if say 25% of applicants for driving tests failed? Think about how dumb the average person is. Now realize that half the people are dumber than that. And now imagine the dumbest half of the dumbest half. Yet, we give them the wheels of a 4,000 lb missile?

It makes no sense to me, and I'd much rather we had tests that fail people, and also have more punishments that instead of monetary would have people lose their licenses for certain periods of time, and eventually permanently. Not everyone should be allowed to drive, and just as there are lower test requirements for ultra-light aircraft compared to light sport aircraft compared to jet aircraft and so forth, IMO we should have a similar system where its very easy to get a 35mph city scooter, more difficult to get up to a 650cc motorcycle or maxi-scooter, additionally difficult to get up to a 2-passenger 2000lb car, and most difficult to get a 2+ and 2000lb+ pound vehicle which only 75% of people who apply will ever pass.

Because face it, even when self-driving cars come out, its going to be decades and decades before we get all the legacy vehicles off the road, and even then they will probably only self-drive on certain roads, like the HOV lane and what not and not work universally everywhere.

And once you get the worst 25% of drivers off the road, you will be creating a market to fill that demand, with more mass transit systems and buses and uber services made available, which will also reduce pollution and parking congestion in the cities.

I'm not sure taking away (or not granting) licenses is an effective way to stop people from driving. People who are going to follow the rules are probably going to pass the test with practice.
 
I'm not sure taking away (or not granting) licenses is an effective way to stop people from driving. People who are going to follow the rules are probably going to pass the test with practice.
I don't want to stop people from driving, I want to stop dumb people from driving. ;)

There is a large dropout rate and low pass rate for even light-sport aircraft certification. If you make the test even a fraction as difficult, you will have a good amount of people that are simply too dumb to pass the test. Which is a good thing.

As of right now, its virtually impossible to not get a drivers license, since worst case scenario you might have to take it two or three times, which isn't very expensive either.

There are people that don't even know the law, not that they just disregard it. They don't know that you aren't allowed to cross a solid white line, they don't know that its illegal to drive on the shoulder to pass on the right, they don't even consider that its necessary to use your blinker before changing lanes. They don't know that you're only allowed to change one lane at a time, and that as soon as you pass you are legally required to get back into the right most lane that is practical (obviously you can stay left if you're about to pass another vehicle shortly).

People don't have a clue... and then of course you have pure jerks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHJxIwvFIGY (driving on the sidewalk, and would rather fight people than admit they are wrong)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jGNd4Deys (or these douchebags pulling out guns and threatening to kill people)

These people shouldn't have licenses, and being caught driving without a license should result in harsh fines and jail time. We need to get over this idea that everyone is ENTITLED to drive like its a God given right.
 
most site got the info wrong, the car is testing for APA's (Advanced Park Assist) parking exit, since the vehicle does not have Pedestrian detection, the vehicle just proceed with exit without scanning...

interesting thought is that the ultrasound sensor which use in APA and UPA should had pickup any object, as Bosh claim it can pick up fishing wire meter away!
 
I was the co-founder of the robotics program at my college more than a decade ago. We decided to build a robot that would give campus tours via the web with GPS, but those details are unimportant. The important details are that it weighed 300 pounds and we learned very early that it needed a kill switch if it got out of bounds or too close to a human. How did we figure this out? Well, it took a chunk out of the leg of the other co-founder before damaging a door quite severely (the test was indoors). In our case it wasn't from "gunning" it but rather that the wireless got out of range/interfered with and lost the control signal, but in any case...these things happen. ;)

There is a guy who was named Murphy just for this reason :rolleyes:

You know, a proper risk assessment for every cycle of operations will help reduce these accidents. It's like going crazy with "what if" before the what happens.
 
I was the co-founder of the robotics program at my college more than a decade ago. We decided to build a robot that would give campus tours via the web with GPS, but those details are unimportant. The important details are that it weighed 300 pounds and we learned very early that it needed a kill switch if it got out of bounds or too close to a human. How did we figure this out? Well, it took a chunk out of the leg of the other co-founder before damaging a door quite severely (the test was indoors). In our case it wasn't from "gunning" it but rather that the wireless got out of range/interfered with and lost the control signal, but in any case...these things happen. ;)

Did you have to put it down after it acquired the taste of human flesh?
 
Back
Top