> You want to replace parking sensors with vision, go right ahead, prove it in the lab first, don't remove the parking sensors and just assume that the engineer

> You want to replace parking sensors with vision, go right ahead, prove it in the lab first, don't remove the parking sensors and just assume that the engineers will figure it out. That's what surprised me about this. Some of these tests were really obvious. Failing one or two edge cases is forgivable, but being this inaccurate so consistently says far more about the company and their priorities. Clearly they are not QAing their products properly. This is a customer facing feature so it's easy for a reviewing to identify and test, but they're willing to cut costs on a safety feature like this then who knows what else they're doing to save costs that isn't so obvious.