Autonomous cars? I think not

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Jmuzz » Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:59 am

find_bruce wrote:Does anyone know the conditions imposed on Uber for their test? I expect that they would include a requirement that a licenced driver be behind the wheel at all times.


The state has authorised full autonomy (though now suspended). Potentially you can sleep in the back seat.
Whether this car was in that category hasn't come out yet.
So it will depend on that cars classification.

Regardless of the classification the driver may have had a job description to supervise at all times, or they may have only had a duty to be there to push emergency stop within 5 seconds if it went completely crazy.
Unknown at this stage.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4366
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Car and driver failed, say experts. Driver says SMIDSY, the car DGAF

Postby Thoglette » Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:35 pm

Uber crash shows 'catastrophic failure' of self-driving technology, experts say
Sam Levin in San Francisco for The Guardian Fri 23 Mar 2018 wrote:The footage “strongly suggests a failure by Uber’s automated driving system and a lack of due care by Uber’s driver”, Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law school professor and autonomous vehicle expert, said in an email. He noted that the victim is visible about two seconds before the collision, saying: “This is similar to the average reaction time for a driver. That means an alert driver may have at least attempted to swerve or brake.”
Last edited by Thoglette on Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

Newcastle Dave
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:17 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Newcastle Dave » Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:36 pm

All this talk about how a human would have seen and avoided the pedestrian would seem to be forgetting one thing.
Apparently the unfortunate pedestrian didn't seem to be able to see the rather large well lit SUV approaching
That's not to say she actually looked, just to say don't put your faith in a human being any better than the autonomous car

User avatar
WyvernRH
Posts: 2375
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW

Re: Car and driver failed, say experts. Driver says SMIDSY, the car DGAF

Postby WyvernRH » Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:00 pm

Thoglette wrote:Uber crash shows 'catastrophic failure' of self-driving technology, experts say
Sam Levin in San Francisco for The Guardian Fri 23 Mar 2018 wrote:The footage “strongly suggests a failure by Uber’s automated driving system and a lack of due care by Uber’s driver”, Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law school professor and autonomous vehicle expert, said in an email. He noted that the victim is visible about two seconds before the collision, saying: “This is similar to the average reaction time for a driver. That means an alert driver may have at least attempted to swerve or brake.”


Interesting... If we want to start a rabbit running.... A scenario that occurred to me is that Uber actually have a car sensor setup that works fine but looked at the cost and went ' WAY too expensive' and started progressively winding back the sensor set to find the cheapest combination that works 'Just OK'. This incident would be where went they went one step too far....?

User avatar
antigee
Posts: 561
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby antigee » Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:25 pm

Jmuzz wrote:
find_bruce wrote:Does anyone know the conditions imposed on Uber for their test? I expect that they would include a requirement that a licenced driver be behind the wheel at all times.


The state has authorised full autonomy (though now suspended). Potentially you can sleep in the back seat.
Whether this car was in that category hasn't come out yet.
So it will depend on that cars classification.

Regardless of the classification the driver may have had a job description to supervise at all times, or they may have only had a duty to be there to push emergency stop within 5 seconds if it went completely crazy.
Unknown at this stage.


The Economist dated March 3rd -9th has several articles on autonomous vehicles and is possibly worth reading - some of the articles are online but most will be behind their paywall I guess - anyway having read that article my suspicion would be very strong that the Uber vehicle involved in this death would be fully autonomous (level 4 in the jargon) because Uber is only really interested in developing driverless cars to cut a cost out of its business model therefore has no interest in developing vehicles that require human intervention

I wasn't really that enthused to watch the video of a vehicle striking and killing someone but I'm actually glad I did as it wasn't what I was expecting....was expecting the drivers nightmare scenario of someone simply stepping off the sidewalk/pavement directly as you are passing giving very little reaction time. This was a situation where there was reaction time with the lady pushing her bike across the other carriageway and into the path of the vehicle.

One of the Economist articles (From here to autonomy) talks about how autonomous cars perceive the world using cameras, radar and LIDAR and the need for systems to learn how to interpret that data - to be able to identify objects so can then "choose" how to react:

"....pay people to label images manually. Mighty A1, based in Seattle has an online community of 300,000 people who carefully label street scenes for a range of automotive clients..."

more worryingly: "Imaginery from video games such as "Grand Theft Auto", which have strikingly realistic street scenes can also help. Because the software knows what everything is....."

Also seen somewhere an article that talked about future autonomous vehicles being linked so that they can learn from each other how to deal with new "images"/situations

So in this case the vehicle failed to identify and more worryingly then failed to react to an unknown object in the other lane that was moving towards it....

seen several quotes from those involved in developing autonomous vehicles that go along the lines of this one:

"....choosing between hitting a group of children in the road or swerving and hitting another vehicle. Many people working in the field think that such questions do not reflect the real world...best course of action is to slam on the brakes. AVS have superhuman, 360-degree perception and much faster reaction times...." Danny Shapiro of NVIDIA Economist From here to autonomy

as to human intervention in automated systems believe a little research would find a long list of errors either not interfering or interfering and making the wrong decision based on inattention or poor training - from nuclear accidents to shipping, trains and planes

having a bored guy sat in the car was never going to get near saving that ladies life

lots of questions and as to regular drivers kill many people everyday as one commentator said "better than human" is a pretty low bar

LateStarter
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:10 pm
Location: On the saddle

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby LateStarter » Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:16 pm

I don't understand this bit

"...Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law school professor and autonomous vehicle expert, said in an email. He noted that the victim is visible about two seconds before the collision,..."

AV technology absolutely has to be aware of the environment and all objects, stationary and moving 360 degrees around it to identify and track every object that might intersect its path, they DON'T wait for objects to "appear" in their path only 50m away and then start thinking about what it is and what should be done. Just because its dark does not suspend the laws of physics and allow the AV to proceed in a protective bubble to the limit of its headlights.

Surly in order to get a licence to test AVs on public roads they would have to meet this requirement? Someone walking, pushing a bike across a wide road can't be considered something that "suddenly" appears out of nowhere, dark or not.

Seems to me (not an AV expert) like a very very basic and fundamental stuff up in the AV implementation?

User avatar
Tequestra
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:12 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Tequestra » Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:26 pm

RobertL wrote:But there won't be a "wheel" to sit behind in a truly autonomous vehicle. There will be no controls for a human operator to use. We will just be going along for the ride.

Darwin used to quote a Latin phrase, 'Natura non facit saltum' to help clarify the pace of evolution. It means, 'Nature does not move in jumps.'
He means that successful adaptation is not the result of some fashion trend inside a single generation.

First we make autonomous cars that can do everything except wash themselves for us; cars that can technically be completely autonomous, but morally they should not. We already have a huge body of road rules compiled over a century or more, which has evolved to work somewhat elegantly, even in Thailand, ;-), and that body of road rules is based on there being a licenced human being responsible for the public behaviour of the car, horse, bus, bicycle, whatever vehicle they drive. There is no way to imprison a software program for culpable driving.

For the sake of the working human-controlled legal road rules systems, we should be free to go ahead and make autonomous cars that can technically drive themselves, but they must have steering wheels, brakes, accelerators, and all standard *manual controls, and a licenced human driver to take responsibility if the autonomous car's software, err, crashes. That will allow for a fair and smooth transition of the legal system to incorporate machine based liability after my generation is dead and buried.

* manually operated; operated by a human, not necessarily clutches, because apparently real men are secure enough to let their gears change for them. But nothing else!
Last edited by Tequestra on Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Viva le Tour Electrique' !!!

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 5733
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby bychosis » Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:31 pm

LateStarter wrote:I don't understand this bit

"...Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law school professor and autonomous vehicle expert, said in an email. He noted that the victim is visible about two seconds before the collision,..."

AV technology absolutely has to be aware of the environment and all objects, stationary and moving 360 degrees around it to identify and track every object that might intersect its path, they DON'T wait for objects to "appear" in their path only 50m away and then start thinking about what it is and what should be done. Just because its dark does not suspend the laws of physics and allow the AV to proceed in a protective bubble to the limit of its headlights.


In addition, the video shown does not appear dip at all indicating braking once the ped comes into view, nor does the 'driver' get thrown forward into the seatbelt. I would expect that within 2 seconds the vehicle should be well into maximum braking dipping the front of the vehicle wether the ped could be avoided or not.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

User avatar
Howzat
Posts: 804
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Howzat » Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:48 pm

Newcastle Dave wrote:All this talk about how a human would have seen and avoided the pedestrian would seem to be forgetting one thing.
Apparently the unfortunate pedestrian didn't seem to be able to see the rather large well lit SUV approaching
That's not to say she actually looked, just to say don't put your faith in a human being any better than the autonomous car

Or to put it in the familiar terms of Australian debate: "Driverless car accident raises questions - what was the cyclist doing on the road and was she wearing a helmet?"

...Uber car data shows cyclist "just came out of nowhere."

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby AdelaidePeter » Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:03 pm

LateStarter wrote:I don't understand this bit

"...Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law school professor and autonomous vehicle expert, said in an email. He noted that the victim is visible about two seconds before the collision,..."

AV technology absolutely has to be aware of the environment and all objects, stationary and moving 360 degrees around it to identify and track every object that might intersect its path, they DON'T wait for objects to "appear" in their path only 50m away and then start thinking about what it is and what should be done. Just because its dark does not suspend the laws of physics and allow the AV to proceed in a protective bubble to the limit of its headlights.


The "expert" is wrong. Just because the woman doesn't appear on the video until 2 (more like 1) seconds before impact, doesn't mean she wasn't visible before that.

The pedestrian crossed at least one full lane before she entered the lane in which she was hit. So she would have been on the road for at least 3 seconds before impact, maybe more. If you can't see 3 seconds ahead (about 50 metres at 38 mph), then you need to slow down. So either (a) the car "saw" her and failed to brake, or (b) the car was going too fast for the conditions. Either way, the car was at fault.

I'd have some sympathy for the car if the pedestrian stepped out from behind a bush straight into the car's path. Sadly this does happen sometimes, but it was not the case here.

eeksll
Posts: 2481
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:36 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby eeksll » Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:18 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:
LateStarter wrote:I don't understand this bit

"...Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law school professor and autonomous vehicle expert, said in an email. He noted that the victim is visible about two seconds before the collision,..."

AV technology absolutely has to be aware of the environment and all objects, stationary and moving 360 degrees around it to identify and track every object that might intersect its path, they DON'T wait for objects to "appear" in their path only 50m away and then start thinking about what it is and what should be done. Just because its dark does not suspend the laws of physics and allow the AV to proceed in a protective bubble to the limit of its headlights.


The "expert" is wrong. Just because the woman doesn't appear on the video until 2 (more like 1) seconds before impact, doesn't mean she wasn't visible before that.

The pedestrian crossed at least one full lane before she entered the lane in which she was hit. So she would have been on the road for at least 3 seconds before impact, maybe more. If you can't see 3 seconds ahead (about 50 metres at 38 mph), then you need to slow down. So either (a) the car "saw" her and failed to brake, or (b) the car was going too fast for the conditions. Either way, the car was at fault.

I'd have some sympathy for the car if the pedestrian stepped out from behind a bush straight into the car's path. Sadly this does happen sometimes, but it was not the case here.


(c) the car did not "See" her at all
(d) "saw" her and decided it was not worth braking for

this looks like a high way, not sure "too fast for the conditions" is relevant.

whether or not the car was ultimately at fault for the death is up for debate. I am assuming the car did not speed up to hit the pedestrian, the pedestrian did not look like she got stuck like a deer in headlights. Anyone looking out for their own skin is not going to cross a road like that.

But certainly I would have expected the autonomous car to have slowed down. There definitely seems to be some failure somewhere in the system. Like g-boaf mention in a previous comment, there are less "smart" cars which would have detected and braked in that situation currently in circulation.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4366
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Thoglette » Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:38 pm

eeksll wrote:this looks like a high way, not sure "too fast for the conditions" is relevant.


And here's the rub. In two parts

Firstly, the road design encourages fast driving, despite this being a part of the road regularly crossed by pedestrians

Secondly, the moment the driver (human or robotic) loses situational awareness they need to SLOW DOWN.

Any genuine SMIDSY event (vs. IDGAF or #OMG) is a direct result of a loss of situational awareness. Which is caused by too many events happening for the driver to process and keep track of.

Much of the grumpling about cyclists on the roads from drivers is a tacit admission that they're struggling to deal with the cognitive load that car-sized objects present and that they have no mental space left to process cyclists, pedestrians, small children, cows or fallen trees.

That is, they're driving too fast for the conditions.

They (we) are encouraged to drive too fast for the conditions by both road design (which makes driving at an appropriate speed feel slow) and excessive speed limits, which are then treated as minima. The problem being that these limits are so far removed from the average speeds achievable (in any urban area) as to be laughable. To the point that traffic planners are looking to drop freeway speeds to achieve less concertina-induced congestion. (As Yehuda Moon points out, car drivers are in a big hurry to get to the next red light)

And our state government "main road" departments are constantly "upgrading" roads to allow safer (read higher) speeds. This wastes billions annually (WA MRD in 2015 spent $1.5B on new and improved roads while less than $100M was spent* on rail and less than $10M was spend on cycling infrastructure )

*as best I can tell at a glance.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Red Rider
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:44 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Red Rider » Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:43 pm

Very dismal showing by this 'autonomous' car. If it could not detect and react to this woman then it's practically useless. This is the 3rd incident I've seen of a driverless Volvo hitting a pedestrian (one of them was actually an inflatable kangaroo).

There is a $23k car available today that has collision avoidance and pedestrian monitoring.

Uber should get taken to the cleaners for this.

I think Waymo has the right idea on this tech. They have been developing it for many years and are still working on it to be 'perfect' before realease. All else just reduces the operators alertness and misguides them into thinking it wont fail.

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Jmuzz » Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:26 pm

Newcastle Dave wrote:All this talk about how a human would have seen and avoided the pedestrian would seem to be forgetting one thing.
Apparently the unfortunate pedestrian didn't seem to be able to see the rather large well lit SUV approaching


Haven't you ever encountered the bag lady or drunk walking all over the road in their own alternate universe?

That is likely the situation here, consider it a case of helping those who can't help themselves.

The more relevant issue to this forum is that the malfunction is so extreme that it is quite likely this car would have run into a cyclist legally cycling along in the middle of the lane at half the cars speed.

This isn't a situation which should have failed. It is almost like object sensors were disabled. That should be impossible, but cascading failures happen, I have mates almost killed after mining equipment had its lockout padlocks cut off with bolt cutters! These idiots exist. Who knows what someone might have done to "fix" a faulty sensor, "keeps stopping due to fault detection, bypass system, problem solved!".

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4366
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Thoglette » Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:02 pm

Jmuzz wrote:Haven't you ever encountered the bag lady or drunk walking all over the road in their own alternate universe?


Regularly. And ducks, cows and small children. So far, I've managed to avoid hitting any.

Except for one roo. They really do just jump out of nowhere.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
WyvernRH
Posts: 2375
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby WyvernRH » Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:28 pm

Jmuzz wrote:The more relevant issue to this forum is that the malfunction is so extreme that it is quite likely this car would have run into a cyclist legally cycling along in the middle of the lane at half the cars speed.
<snip>
This isn't a situation which should have failed. It is almost like object sensors were disabled.


Yesssss, this is the concept that interests me. Look, if the 'systems' available to, ahem, military folk, could avoid 'stuff' at very high speeds at low level in almost any weather conditions a decade or so ago then I reckon whatever the car had in its sensor array today should have seen this person and re-acted. I am VERY pro autonomous cars for safety reasons but am very suspicious of the business model pushing them along at the moment.

Richard

Scintilla
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Scintilla » Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:34 pm

Jmuzz wrote:
Newcastle Dave wrote:All this talk about how a human would have seen and avoided the pedestrian would seem to be forgetting one thing.
Apparently the unfortunate pedestrian didn't seem to be able to see the rather large well lit SUV approaching


Haven't you ever encountered the bag lady or drunk walking all over the road in their own alternate universe?

Never mind the derogatory slurs on the person killed. Haven't you ever noticed the typical CBD pedestrian distracted by mobile phone use?

This is NOT an unexpected thing to occur. More socially-developed nations have road designs and rules that ensure that motor vehicles generally cannot do this, or drivers are strongly incentivised to ensure they NEVER do this.

fat and old
Posts: 3760
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby fat and old » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:33 pm

That is the mentality that has me against strict liability, on display right there. The concept that anything is possible (which is true), and that someone else is responsible (which is not true).

Oh, and the implied slur upon the society I live in doesn’t help.

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 6152
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:07 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:It's a little early since we don't yet know what actually happened. I've already read news with conflicting information.

It's sad, any such death is.

I think in longer term we will see death and injury rates plummet to 1% of current levels when self drive vehicles are ubiquitous.

Exactly. It cou;\ld have beena shortcoming of the system. Or it could have been a situation where no-one could have avoided the outcome, man or machine.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:06 am

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:It's a little early since we don't yet know what actually happened. I've already read news with conflicting information.

It's sad, any such death is.

I think in longer term we will see death and injury rates plummet to 1% of current levels when self drive vehicles are ubiquitous.

Exactly. It cou;\ld have beena shortcoming of the system. Or it could have been a situation where no-one could have avoided the outcome, man or machine.

Having seen later video, there was something definitely wrong with that vehicle's technology. Ordinary driver assistance systems in many cars now days would have prevented that collision or at the very least reduced its severity.

The question I have is why did the Uber fail, and is that failure isolated to one vehicle or is it systemic problem with Uber's tech.

If such sad failure was going to happen, it does not surprise me that a company with the culture of Uber was behind it.

I stand by my original comment though - these systems will ultimately will make our roads far safer for all road users.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4366
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Thoglette » Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:09 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:I stand by my original comment though - these systems will ultimately will make our roads far safer for all road users.


I've been involved in technology development (consumer; industrial and defence) for longer that I'd like to admit. And while the outcome you claim as being inevitable is possible I consider it unlikely.

Why? There's no commercial or political driver to make it happen. Rather, the commercial driver is to a) sell more cars more often and b) keep the incumbents in control of the market (by continuing the current trend of making cars overly complicated through regulation).

These twin drivers will ensure that cars become unmaintainable once out of warranty, per current trends. Including the software. And like the current hardware, this will be sourced from the lowest bidder. If we keep anything like the current number of cars-per-capita the majority will be made-in-XXXX knock-offs (from manufacturers who phoenix after every incarnation is sued out of existence by the big names through IP claims).

There is no real political driver for road safety: there's plenty that could be done with existing technology but absolutely no stomach for it (e.g. the whining about cameras, never mind implementing IVMS).

My prediction is that we will see a small, short peak in safety before the usual factors cause it to deteriorate to a level lower than we currently experience, with the decline only stopped by a series of major scandals.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

Scintilla
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Scintilla » Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:27 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:The question I have is why did the Uber fail, and is that failure isolated to one vehicle or is it systemic problem with Uber's tech.

The technology is all part of the Volvo's equipment. Uber is just the end-user.

Scintilla
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Scintilla » Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:30 pm

fat and old wrote:That is the mentality that has me against strict liability, on display right there. The concept that anything is possible (which is true), and that someone else is responsible (which is not true).

Oh, and the implied slur upon the society I live in doesn’t help.

Stop taking so much implied-insult on-board :roll: The society that I mentioned as somewhat lacking is that of Arizona, USA, where such vehicles are allowed on the roads with minimal controls. California refused to give Uber (or others) permission to operate autonomous vehicles.

User avatar
outnabike
Posts: 2171
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby outnabike » Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:59 pm

That was no accident. Whilst testing the driver should still have control.

Image
Vivente World Randonneur complete with panniers

User avatar
Mububban
Posts: 1594
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:19 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Mububban » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:03 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Having seen later video, there was something definitely wrong with that vehicle's technology. Ordinary driver assistance systems in many cars now days would have prevented that collision or at the very least reduced its severity.


I thought Autonomous Emergency Braking only works at fairly low speeds, not 60+?
When you are driving your car, you are not stuck IN traffic - you ARE the traffic!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users