Volvo auto brake system fail?
Why Hacker News recommends it
HN cites it as an example of the limits of driver-assist safety systems, often with the caveat that the pedestrian-detection option was not fitted.
What it is
A one-minute clip of a Volvo automatic braking demonstration that fails to stop. The uploader finds it funny.
Recommended by 0 HN commenters across 0 different months, 2016 to 2018.
What Hacker News said
Cites ploxiln · 2016-07 · on “It’s No 'Accident:' Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crashes' Instead”
You can try to save people from themselves, but it's never quite as effective as you expect. [this video] Imagine the ridiculous driving when people "know their car will stop before a crash anyway". Yeah, more people will be saved overall... but there will be a lot of "funny" results too. Personally, I'd rather have strict penalties than being forced to do the equivalent of trading a linux laptop for an iPad Pro just so I can't hurt myself or anyone else. (I drive a stick shift of course, and can turn off traction control :)
Cites Animats · 2016-09 · on “Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance”
The NHTSA is hinting in that direction, indicating that manufacturers must clearly distinguish between driver assistance systems (levels 1 and 2) and real self driving (levels 3 - 5). There will probably be some standard on this. There has to be; consider what happens when car rental fleets start having some of these features. There was an accident with a Volvo where someone was showing off the pedestrian safety system, and hit a pedestrian. It turned out they hadn't purchased the pedestrian safety system.[1] Something is needed to prevent problems like that. Then there's mode switching trouble. Classic problem with aircraft control systems. Tesla disengages the "autopilot" if the driver tou
Critical John_KZ · 2018-05 · on “Boeing's folding wingtips get the FAA green light”
>Cars brake themselves now Uber clearly doesn't follow this trend. Neither does Volvo, apparently [this video] >Pipers have parachutes Only because they're prone to a certain unrecoverable spin in some configurations. You can get a ballistic chute on a Cessna too if you like. >The Cessna 172 is a very old design That's because it's a great design, and one that has been tested for 50 years. I'd take it over modern ones. >Surviving an accident due to going too slow to die isn't "safe". It is if you don't die.