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.
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?
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.
It doesn't drive itself.
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?
Or you splashed some fuel when filling the tank on accident.
Or the police lied to make their actions seem reasonable.
Right, because having a car parked with an item in it that is sold at most department stores and kitchenware stores is reasonable cause to blow up someone's property. And I guess everyone better start driving electric cars if they don't want the police to blow up their stuff too.
And sure driving with a revoked license is illegal, but the car was parked. Now the person involved may have been stupid enough to say he drove it there, or the police might be making that up like they often do. It'd be nice to be in a country where the word of a police officer could be trusted, but the US isn't such a place - and no not all police are going to make stuff up to protect themselves but enough have and then not been charged with filing a false report that it's rational to not trust any of them. Just like when the 8 year old says "no I didn't I eat those cookies" when found next to the now empty cookie jar it's rational to not just trust them at their word.
I guess if you don't know what the headline, byline, and article text are then other simple concepts might be an issue too.
Marvel you fool!
Well only those of you who didn't bother with reading the opening paragraph of the linked article.
So your thesis is that males would prefer to look at drawings of men in skin tight costumes over women in skin tight costumes?
Because writing something on he internet is not talking with government agents and hence does not fall under https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
So if Roberts was telling the truth he should be charged for hacking the avionics. If he wasn't telling the truth then he should be charged with making false statements.
Though of course the FBI will want to dig up evidence either way before doing anything. Even though it's obvious the second is the case. If a plane he had caused a plane to climb the pilots would have reported that the plane initiated a climb all by itself and the FAA would be investigating and probably grounding planes or having them disable the entertainment systems.
Maybe in a couple of weeks your first grade teacher will tell you about the word "nearly" and how it isn't just a random jumble of letters with no meaning that we just throw randomly into sentences for fun.
That's still the modern usage. Once upon a time motor meant "to move" and engine meant a contrivance to do something or just a physical device. "search engine" is that old usage in modern vernacular.