Volvo Introduces a Collision-Proof Car

carazoo.com sends along a story on Volvo's upcoming crash-proof car. The company will introduce a concept car based on the S60 this month at the Detroit Auto Show, looking ahead a few years to the goal that by 2020 "no one should be killed or injured in a Volvo car." The concept car will have forward-looking radar as a proximity sensor, and the ability to brake if a collision is imminent. When the car senses a collision, a light flashes on the windscreen display along with an audible warning. If the driver doesn't act, the car will brake automatically.

Comments

Good luck with that.

[Sefert]

Up here in northern Canada the roads can get mighty icy. Your car can brake for you all it wants, but that won't change the laws of physics as you're sliding on a sheet of ice towards a thousand pound moose.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like in Sweden, the country Volvo is based in (I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I strongly doubt Volvo hasn't thought of that).

Re:Good luck with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's tough to fit brakes onto your dog sled.

Re:Good luck with that.

[RichMan]

> Apparently, they don't have Anti-Lock Breaking in Canada

We do. It does not work with zero traction. Locks, releases, locks releases, locks releases ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system

While ABS offers improved vehicle control in some circumstances, it can also present disadvantages including increased braking distance on slippery surfaces such as ice, packed snow, gravel, steel plates and bridges, or anything other than dry pavement.

Re:Good luck with that.

[dgatwood]

That's what the steel spikes are for. They impale your tires and dig into the pavement in the event of traction loss. Gets rather expensive after hydroplaning a couple of times, though.

In other news, Volvo has announced a cutting-edge strategy for surviving the economic slump through their exclusive partnership with Goodyear and Michelin....

Re:Good luck with that.

[MBCook]

Anti-lock brakes are designed to keep the wheels from locking up. They don't do anything to fix the problem of having absolutely no traction in some circumstances.

It's nice to see this. Some companies have been offering radar based cruise control for a while. It's unfortunate this is going to go through a series of lawsuits ("my car didn't stop for me", "my car stopped and spilled my soda over my priceless work of art", etc.).

Don't forget that the car could combine the information about external temperature and traction (from the traction control slip sensors, and the steering assist) to realize it would be hard to stop and plan for a larger stopping distance.

It will be REALLY interesting when this is combined with other sensors (like all the little proximity sensors that Ford's recently announced "help me parallel park" system has) to be able to not only brake, but identify that the lane to the right is empty and swerve to avoid the accident. This will be a while away though.

I wonder how much this will be abused? While it would be easy to try to let the computer do all the work (basically rely on it in emergencies) I would think that would be so nerve wracking most people wouldn't do it.

Re:Good luck with that.

[nschubach]

Nah, it's easy. It just takes a bit of practice to be able to say "Whoa-Mush!" over and over really fast a bunch of times in a row to get the dogs to "anti-lock".

Re:Good luck with that.

[diodeus]

Yup - it happened to be going down hill on slush. If the ABS had *not* kicked in, the wheels would have locked until the tires penetrated the slush and met the road.

But with the ABS active, the apply/release frequency was perfect to ensure the tires kept floating on top of the slush, so I slowly slid into the car in front of me.

I asked the dealer about disabling the ABS, they wouldn't do it.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Wonko the Sane]

I remember the good old days, back when the trolls were original, interesting and wrote with decent prose.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Darth_brooks]

My sister got bit by a moose once....

Re:Good luck with that.

[Linker3000]

"You Are Experiencing an Accident"

Re:Good luck with that.

[cayenne8]

"It's nice to see this. Some companies have been offering radar based cruise control for a while. It's unfortunate this is going to go through a series of lawsuits ("my car didn't stop for me", "my car stopped and spilled my soda over my priceless work of art", etc.). "

Geez...if they keep up with this trend, you might as well have a "Johnny Car" system that just automatically drives you around. Man...I hope I never see the day of that in the remaining days of my life.

I enjoy driving...that's why I've always owned 2 seater sports/performance cars. I don't want the machine to take over for me. If I want to slide, let me slide. If I wanna lock up the brakes...let me, etc. Next thing you know...they'll put govenors on all the cars to limit how fast you can go if you want to...nothing over 70mph.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was hoping the steel spikes were for the moose.

Re:Good luck with that.

[GooberToo]

It's important to remember, in *theory* ABS makes the majority of the driving public safer drivers. Which is to say, an average driver with average driving skill is now a superior driver with regard to stopping distance and ability (no skid, controlled turns).

For a small percent of the driving population, ABS actually makes you a less safe driver as ABS can not and does not stop a vehicle is a shorter distance than what a better than average driver can accomplish - on any road surface. This means for a small percentage of the driving population, ABS actually made you a less safe, more dangerous driver.

Of course, that all assumes the driver is actually using their ABS system properly; and this is where theory breaks down. Most ABS drivers still pump their brakes. For a large percentage of the driving population, ABS actually makes the roads more dangerous and countless studies show a large percent of average drivers who are aware they have ABS, now tailgate, brake later, and create more dangerous driving situations for those around them under the false pretence ABS can keep them from harm. In other words, a large percentage of the driving population actually believe they can drive more reckless, and do so on a regular basis, because they wrongly believe they are now safer drivers than they were without ABS - more than compensating for their new found dangerous driving habits.

The end result is, statistically on average, ABS has actually created more dangerous roads for the majority of the driving population.

Re:Good luck with that.

[xaxa]

Hey, I invented another use for it. Just sleep all your way to work in the jammed traffic. The car will be doing the usual start-stop all by itself.

We call that a "train".

Re:Good luck with that.

[poetmatt]

I do believe there's a single type of material that ABS helps reduce stopping distance but in all others the idea is to avoid the collision entirely, not just "stop faster". Thus, wheel lock = all traction gone, but "abs lock" = turn/swerve.

Re:Good luck with that.

[moose_hp]

Sorry for that >.>;;;

Re:Good luck with that.

[LandDolphin]

Interesting review of ABS. I have to say, that I personally agree with all of your points. However, has there been any studies taken to support your (our) Hypothesis?

Re:Good luck with that.

[wvmarle]

In Sweden (and other parts of northern Europe) it is allowed to drive on spiked tyres in winter; and many people actually do this. It is quite helpful when driving e.g. on the winter roads: frozen lakes. Those roads are opened every winter and are indicated on normal road maps.

Re:Good luck with that.

[MrNaz]

I like driving. But I like the idea of sleeping through the traffic jam on the way to work more.

Re:Good luck with that.

[not already in use]

the apply/release frequency was perfect to ensure the tires kept floating on top of the slush

Please explain to me which law of physics would cause an ABS engaged car to stay afloat on top of slush.

Having lived in Wisconsin all my life, I see snow, ice, snow on top of ice, slush -- everything. I've also been switching between a car with ABS and one without. Even disregarding the decade plus and millions of dollars spent on R&D on the subject and going purely on firsthand experience, I call bullshit on you. Had you locked your brakes up going down a hill, not only would you have gotten in an accident at a higher rate of speed, your car would have rotated and done more damage to others and likely yourself. Blaming ABS is a convenient excuse for your accident, albeit a completely ridiculous one.

I asked the dealer about disabling the ABS, they wouldn't do it.

Did you ask them to remove the seat belts while they were at it?

Re:Good luck with that.

[MooUK]

ABS doesn't decrease ideal braking distances - but then it's not designed to. It's designed to help maintain traction, especially in the hands of those not skilled in driving in such a situation.

ABS is for Joe Public, not Lewis Hamilton.

Re:Good luck with that.

[norminator]

Volvo has an entire team dedicating to breaking systems?

Isn't that another description for a testing department/QA?

Re:Good luck with that.

[ryanleary]

Sounds like a job for Clippy.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Oswald]

"Pound" is a unit of currency in the United Kingdom. Although Canada theoretically has its own currency (the "dollar"), many loyal subjects of the crown still insist on reporting monetary value in pounds. A "thousand-pound moose," therefore, would be a moose that cost approximately US$1460.

Re:Good luck with that.

[adonoman]

I had ABS nearly cause an accident on dry pavement in the middle of summer a few years back. I was pulling up to a stop light and when I hit the brakes to stop, the ABS kicked in immediately and would let the brakes do anything - I ended up weaving my way between the lanes of cars and slowly rolling through the red light (right past a cop car). I towed the car in and we traced it to some electrical problem that essentially tricked the ABS into thinking the brakes were locked when they weren't.

Re:Good luck with that.

[sexconker]

Want to know how far away that thing behind you really is? Turn your head and look behind you.

Also, learn to drive.

Re:Good luck with that.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

The problem is everyone thinks they are a Lewis Hamilton. And besides it was used in F1 for a few years....

Re:Good luck with that.

[bmajik]

The answer is, it depends.

First point -- the ABS in a racecar is an entirely different ball of wax than what you get in a production car. It's designed for people that operate closer (and past) the limits of the tires adhesion as their day job and tuned appropriately. Discount comparisons to race ABS to street systems.

On bikes with ABS and race riders going over uneven grip surfaces (i.e. pavement with standing watterpuddles), the ABS bike cut the stopping distance in _half_. That's huge.

On dry tarmac with a good driver, most _production_ ABS systems will not allow the cars to slowdown at their maximum rate, which is where the tires have their absolute _maximum_ grip of ~15% slower than indicated road speed... i.e. straddling the threshhold between lockup and rolling. An ABS system typically intervenes prior to this point.

It is possible for me to be able to get my wheels to begin to hum/howl during threshhold braking and ABS will not activate.

Another area where ABS is a detriment is that it doesn't tend to actually work the way you say it does. Suppose I am driving on an uneven road -- right side dry, left side icy. If I hit the brakes, the left side will want to lock up while the right side will have grip. But maximally activating the right side brakes as you suggest will cause the car to yaw, as the right side will slow down while the left will not. For passenger car systems ABS this is highly undesirable as the driver must now provide an immediate steering input.

So in effect, most production car ABS systems will release brake pressure on the dry side as well to prevent the car from yawing. A talented driver could brake and counter steer to correct the yaw.

I agree that ABS systems have gotten much better, but on passenger cars, they do not outperform qualified humans in _all_ conditions. I have road course experience in production cars with and without ABS and the only thing production-car ABS is good for on a race track is saving you a little tire money (i.e. it keeps you from flatspotting a tire)

The best way to think about ABS is that it makes the default reaction of most panicing drivers an acceptable one. It is little more than a brake-force attenuator. If you hadn't pushed the pedal as hard at that moment in time, it wouldn't have done anything.

My street cars have ABS and I leave it on, because even though I have done many track days and have excellent car control and "looking ahead" skills, I can occasionally be surprised by something. Most humans (including race drivers) have the same reaction/reflex time.. the difference is in conditioned response and more so than that, prediction/anticipation. It is difficult to be in the zone 100% of the time when commuting or driving on the street, and so I don't expect my abilities to be at the level they are at when I am on the track. Accordingly, I like the money I've saved from ABS and stability-management systems keeping me from wadding up the car around town.

Re:Good luck with that.

[repvik]

The same law of physics that makes it harder to stop with ABS in loose snow and gravel. If you lock your brakes on slush, the tires push the slush in front of them, effectively digging itself downwards. With ABS though, you regularly remove any slush build-up that can help you brake. I have personally experienced this (I live in Norway..)
From the Wikipedia article on ABS: "In gravel, sand and deep snow, ABS tends to increase braking distances. On these surfaces, locked wheels dig in and stop the vehicle more quickly. ABS prevents this from occurring."

In almost all cases, ABS is a "Good Thing(TM)". In a few corner cases, it's not quite as good. Either way, it's in no way an excuse for driving like an idiot.

Re:Good luck with that.

[bwalling]

The end result is, statistically on average, ABS has actually created more dangerous roads for the majority of the driving population.

You are surely not correct. Automobile insurance companies offer discounts on policies for cars that have ABS. They would only do this if it were in their financial interest, which would mean that it is safer for the average driver to have ABS than to not have it.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Mashiki]

Too bad they're also illegal in parts of Canada too. I can't tell you how useful they'd be in Southern Ontario after getting 7" of snow. Especially after *insert random city here* decides to plow lightly, and salt lightly.

Re:Good luck with that.

[AK Marc]

Please explain to me which law of physics would cause an ABS engaged car to stay afloat on top of slush.

There are no tire laws of physics. That you demand such an explanation indicates that you are an ass. If you are in slush/packed snow/gravel, you can often stop faster by locking up your brakes. Snow on ice is not packed snow. That's one thing that confuses people about the description. Lets back it out to gravel. That's a more uniform surface world-wide. When you "roll" stop on gravel, you brake and slow, rolling over the gravel. When you lock up the brakes on gravel, you push some of the gravel in front of your tires into a wedge and you grind the wedge into the remaining gravel. This effectively increases your coeficient of friction. If you want it in physics laws, go pay attention to friction. You may note that friction is often greater between similar surfaces (i.e. metal on metal may have a higher Cf than plastic on metal).

Now, when ABS kicks in, you will never form a wedge. You will have a lower Cf without the wedge, and thus will take longer to stop. So say the laws of physics.

Re:Good luck with that.

[dryeo]

From one study ( http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808206.html )

The principal findings and conclusions from the statistical analyses of accident data are the following:

        * ABS significantly reduced the involvements of passenger cars in multivehicle crashes on wet roads. ABS reduced police-reported crash involvements by an estimated 14 percent, and fatal involvements by 24 percent. The finding is consistent with the outstanding performance of ABS in stopping tests on wet roads.

        * Certain types of collision involvements on wet roads, such as striking another vehicle in the rear, or striking a stopped vehicle, were reduced by 40 percent or more. This benefit, however, was partially offset by an increased likelihood of being struck in the rear by another vehicle. The better your own braking capabilities, the more likely that a following vehicle with average braking capabilities will hit you.

        * ABS had little effect on multivehicle crashes on dry roads. The contrast in the results for wet roads and dry roads is consistent with findings in stopping tests, where ABS improved stopping distances and directional control substantially on wet surfaces, but much less so on dry surfaces.

        * The risk of fatal collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists was reduced by a statistically significant 27 percent in passenger cars with ABS. Unlike the effects for multivehicle crashes, this reduction was about equally large on wet and dry roads.

        * All types of run-off-road crashes - rollovers, side impacts with fixed objects and frontal impacts with fixed objects - increased significantly with ABS. Nonfatal run-off-road crashes increased by an estimated 19 percent, and fatal crashes by 28 percent.

        * Rollovers and side impacts with fixed objects - crashes that typically follow a complete loss of directional control - had the highest increases with ABS. Nonfatal crashes increased by 28 percent, and fatal crashes by 40 percent.

        * Frontal impacts with fixed objects, where the driver is more likely to have retained at least some directional control prior to impact, increased by about 15-20 percent, both nonfatal and fatal.

        * The negative effects of ABS on run-off-road crashes were about the same under wet and dry road conditions.

# The reason for these negative effects is unknown. One possibility is that average drivers may at times steer improperly in panic situations. Because ABS preserves steering control under hard braking, cars may be swerving or heading off the road.

# The observed effects of ABS on snowy or icy roads, while not statistically significant, were all similar to the effects on wet roads - i.e., positive for multivehicle collisions, negative for run-off-road crashes.

# The overall, net effect of ABS on police-reported crashes (including multivehicle, pedestrian and run-off-road crashes) was close to zero.

# The overall, net effect of ABS on fatal crashes was close to zero.

So the type of accident changes and the fatality rate seems close to the same.
Also this page shows various studies where decreasing one type of risk raises another also resulting in close to zero change. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Risk-homeostasis

Re:Good luck with that.

[cavefrog]

Thanks for the constructive criticism. Maybe I should have been more clear. Here's an example: I had a guy cut out in front of me from a driveway. He was looking the other way, and I would have t-boned him had I not been alert. As it was, I couldn't react quick enough to use the horn, but I was quicker on the brakes. I stopped with a loud screech, just short of hitting him, and his head snapped around to look at me. I still remember the shocked look on his face, and I'm sure he'll remember to make sure traffic is clear in *both* directions before pulling out into the road next time.

That's when I realized that people honk their horns for many different reasons - they're irritated, they're trying to flag down a friend, and sometimes it's to indicate danger - but screeching tires almost always mean danger. Maybe the horn would have had nearly the same effect, but there's also the fact that fumbling with the horn would have made swerving more difficult, had I needed to. And it's nice to think that that guy maybe has a clearer memory of the incident than he would have had otherwise, and will remember to be more careful next time.

Re:Good luck with that.

[xaxa]

Where I am, there can be so many trains they essentially do get in traffic jams. They call it "waiting for an empty platform at the station ahead" or "held at a red signal". Also, there's way, way more normal people than objectionable ones (500 to 1? Maybe 100 to 1 at night). At peak times you still don't get a seat, but obviously the train still stops where you don't need to (so do cars, at junctions, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings etc). But they go fast between stations. Generally they go everywhere in the city, but not necessarily as fast as you might like, and outside the city it's a different story.

Self-driving cars would still suffer from a lack of road space, and maybe need somewhere to park. Big cities would probably need self-driving trains/trams, which already exist in some locations. The self-driving railway here still has a person to open and shut the doors, for "safety" (union pressure).

Having said that, I cycled to work for the first time today (I said I'd start in the new year, so I did). I enjoyed it, even though it's very cold (for London, forgive me if you're from somewhere with more than 2cm of snow a year). Apparently, cycling to work halves the risk of me getting heart disease, and should make me "10 years healthier" (like a 12 year old?), which is my main reason as I'm not especially fit at the moment. The government like this, as they've projected that half the National Health Service budget (£50bn) will be spent on obese people if nothing's done about it.
It's also slightly quicker than taking the train (30 minutes rather than 40-45), and much faster than driving. And a lot cheaper (even if I buy the fancy £500 bike I saw in the shop window on my way home).

That may have drifted off-topic somewhat.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Kumiorava]

You can also use winter tires without spikes if you want to. The tires just need to be made for winter and snow.

Re:Good luck with that.

[adolf]

Illegal in parts of Canada?

Even in Ohio, we're allowed to run studded tires from November 1 to April 15. I'm looking at buying either two or four of them when the Blizzaks wear out on my 325i.

I don't think studs will help much in fresh, deep snow, at least on this car. The problem there seems to be more related to ground clearance than traction -- the undercarriage seems to float on top of the snow, and the tires don't have enough weight on top of them to grab anything meaningful. (I've considered mounting some sort of plow blade to the front, and/or installing rubber wedges in the coil springs to prop up the suspension, but generally I'm pretty happy to stay home when there's 8" of snow on the ground...)

On hard pack or ice, though, studs can't be beat. They're noisy, sure, and they tear up roads, but they work great and don't fail suddenly like chains or cables do.

yeah well

[loafula]

What if I crash into IT with my H2?

Re:yeah well

[_Shorty-dammit]

Then I will laugh at you for not buying a real Hummer. If you're going to buy a Hummer, at least get a real one. Not a chick Hummer. Or at least get a different kind of chick hummer.

Re:yeah well

[RobBebop]

Why is this marked troll? The original Hummer was a badass car that had real "macho" potential and retailed for about $70k. The H2 is a sissy-version that has the same size and poor fuel efficiency, but otherwise was scaled down so it could hit the more customer friendly $30k sales point.

And don't get me started on the "smaller/leaner" H3....

If you wanna drive a Hummer... accept no substitutes and get the original Hummer. And if you want to drive a car that'll survive an impact with a Hummer... get a Volvo (or another Hummer).

Re:yeah well

[Sciros]

The H1 is over $100k, the H2 is $70k+, and the H3 is close to $40k if you don't want a bare-bones one.

None of the cars are "sissy" by any standard except maybe when compared to the HMMWV, which is the military version of the H1. An H2 commands plenty of respect on the road (and off the road). The H3 is a more expensive and less reliable XTerra, so it's rubbish in that sense but it's definitely not a sissy car.

And no Volvo would do well in an actual collision with any of the Hummer models. The Volvo SUV might do OK in a collision with an H3, but that's it.

Re:yeah well

[Arthur Grumbine]

Then you will continue to be a douche. Sorry, like the intrinsic unity of time and space, there is nothing in the known universe that can separate H2 drivers from douche-ness. Most philosophers believe that "what it is to be" an H2 driver is to be a douche...although apparently thousands of douches loudly, and rudely, take issue with this manifestly self-evident proposition...thus confirming it with empirical evidence.

Re:yeah well

[Skreems]

An H2 commands plenty of respect on the road (and off the road).

You may be mistaking "muffled laughter" for "respect"...

Re:yeah well

[repvik]

Ah, so "fear" == "respect" in your world.

And then..

[gambit3]

"When the car senses a collision, a light flashes on the windscreen display along with an audible warning. If the driver doesn't act, the car will brake automatically." ... and then you get rear-ended by the vehicle that was tailgating yours.

Yeah. What could possibly go wrong here?

Re:And then..

[corsec67]

Yeah. What could possibly go wrong here?

The person tailgating gets a ticket for following too closely, reckless driving (not wreckless driving, though).

Re:And then..

[IceCreamGuy]

I'm the same way. I mean, like, take my computer, for instance. I want to be in complete control over everything that it does, so I use it as a stand for my abacus.

Re:And then..

[Dutch Gun]

... and then you get rear-ended by the vehicle that was tailgating yours.

If the car has to brake to avoid a collision, and you get rear-ended because of it, then it seems likely it would have happened either way.

Besides, you used to hear the same sort of arguments about seatbelts. "What if I plunge into a lake and can't get out?" or, "What if the car flips upside-down, catches on fire, and the seatbelt traps me?" At this point, everyone more or less realizes that you're significantly more likely to be involved in a simple collision where you'd be thrown out through the window and onto the pavement (possibly into traffic) without your seatbelt/airbag protecting you. Seatbelts protect against a very real and common danger at the potential expense of a very unlikely scenario. This seems no different to me.

Will it be foolproof and 100% safe/effective? Well, look at airbags. They used to deploy too forcefully, and we learned via a few tragedies that kids can't be in the front seat. But at this point, you'd be insane to think that airbags don't save a lot of lives every year. It's the same thing that will happen with technologies such as these. Probably the thing to do is NOT be an early adopter, and let them work all the bugs out of the system first.

That being said (worthy goal notwithstanding), this sure sounds like a lot of hubris, calling it an "accident-proof" car, or that "no one should die in a Volvo." I seem to recall something about an "unsinkable" ship a few years ago, and look how that turned out?

Re:And then..

[MrNaz]

So you're saying that, in the absence of such a system, if you see a sudden obstacle in front of you, you'd assess the ability of the vehicle *behind* you to stop in time before you brake?

Dude, get off the roads.

Re:And then..

[garett_spencley]

"Besides, you used to hear the same sort of arguments about seatbelts. "What if I plunge into a lake and can't get out?" or, "What if the car flips upside-down, catches on fire, and the seatbelt traps me?" At this point, everyone more or less realizes that you're significantly more likely to be involved in a simple collision where you'd be thrown out through the window and onto the pavement (possibly into traffic) without your seatbelt/airbag protecting you. Seatbelts protect against a very real and common danger at the potential expense of a very unlikely scenario. This seems no different to me."

I recently completed a driver's ed course that made a very convincing argument that in those specific extreme scenarios seat-belts still increase your chances for survival. The showed us a video where they intentionally drove a car head-first into water and showed what would happen. If you weren't wearing a seat-belt the driver would be thrown forward creating a situation where he/she could be knocked unconscious or injured in such a fashion that would make it more difficult for the driver to escape via the side window.

They also interviewed survivors who had been in cars that flipped up-side-down AND caught fire. These survivors claimed that the seat-belt did absolutely nothing to prevent their escape, but did keep them in their seat which helped prevent injury which could have made escaping the disaster much more difficult.

The course actually convinced me that seat-belts should be mandated even though I used to feel otherwise. I still feel that adults should be able to take risks with their own lives if they so choose. However, the one thing that had I never considered before is that seat-belts help keep a driver in control of a vehicle and thus better able to prevent their vehicle from causing further damage to other drivers, pedestrians and property. Passengers can also become projectiles during a collision which can obstruct the driver's ability to bring the vehicle to safe stop without causing further damage.

Does this care have a.....

[ChrisGilliard]

spill proof cup holder too? I've always wanted one of those.

Automatic braking?

[Tubal-Cain]

I bet that thing is a lot of fun in a demolition derby.

"I Canna Change The Laws of Physics, Captain!"

[Reality Master 101]

While everyone would laud the goal "that no one should be killed or injured in a Volvo car," it's a completely ridiculous objective. If a huge truck hits you from behind, you'll die. If you run out of gas on rail road tracks in front of a train, you will die. If you're going too fast in mountain passes and dive off a cliff, you will die.

Unless Volvo has invented anti-gravity or a General Products Hull, this is a ridiculous piece of marketing that only the most stupidly ignorant could believe. Maybe the goal here is to give attention to Volvo, but the goal is so absurd that it seems like it has to bite them in the butt in some unforeseen way.

Re:"I Canna Change The Laws of Physics, Captain!"

[blueg3]

Actually, a General Products hull won't save you. Cars already are less strong than the could be, because their squishy contents are too susceptible to high acceleration. A perfectly rigid car body would just kill its passengers.

Re:"I Canna Change The Laws of Physics, Captain!"

[dmomo]

Ahhh. You are missing a subtle point in their claim "that no one should be killed or injured *in* a Volvo car"! All they have to do is simply eject the passenger from the car so they die outside of the vehicle. ... ..

Profit?

Re:"I Canna Change The Laws of Physics, Captain!"

[MBCook]

It seems like a pretty reasonable goal under normal driving circumstances. Sure a car won't be able to handle a train, but I assume they are referring to standard highway driving with other vehicles withing a few dozen times the mass of yours.

Re:"I Canna Change The Laws of Physics, Captain!"

[wvmarle]

41.000 people killed in traffic in the USA? That is a very bad record.

Compare to my home, The Netherlands. 16.4 mln people packed together, very busy and often chaotic traffic (far worse than in the USA, that is what Americans tell me, many don't dare to drive on our "narrow, winding, chaotic roads where people drive so fast", indeed our max speed on motorways is about 30 km/h higher than the max allowed in USA), and we had 791 dead and 18,190 wounded in 2007.

Scaled up to the population of the USA (303 mln) that would give me 14,600 dead and 336,000 wounded.

Netherlands is one of the safest countries in the world when it comes to traffic. For the complete European Union (497 mln people) suffered 39,200 dead on the roads in 2006, per head of the population still over 40% less than the USA.

You Americans really can do a lot to improve traffic safety!

wishful thinking

[Bobtree]

This summer I had to ask two passengers in my car to buckle their seat belts.

"Oh, you're that kind of driver?" one asked.

I told them I'm not the driver they should be worried about.

Re:wishful thinking

[bennomatic]

I once stopped dating a woman because she refused to buckle her seat belt. I said she could do whatever she wanted in her own car, but if I was driving, I wanted to reduce the likelihood that I'd have a mangled corpse on my hands if something unforeseen happened.

Her reasoning? She didn't want to mess up her clothing. I decided that I couldn't have someone that vain and short-sighted in my life. The break-off was easy, though, since she decided my refusal to drive with her un-belted was a control issue, so we both went away happy.

Re:wishful thinking

[foniksonik]

Next time just let them be and then proceed to drive like a madman (make sure you have an open road)... speed up then brake randomly, swerve around for no reason.... maybe do a little drifting around a wide turn ;-p

Then respond: "Yes, I'm THAT kind of driver!"

Re:wishful thinking

[IceCreamGuy]

I actually tell people to buckle their seatbelts, and, if asked about it, explain in no uncertain terms that yes, I am that kind of driver. Hey, A less-than perfect driver that knows they're not great is much better than a bad driver that thinks they're the best.

Accident-proof or Accident-resistant?

[I_am_Rambi]

Have Volvo engineers ever driven in ice and snow? If they haven't then they know that no vehicle is accident-proof. Accident-resistant maybe, but not accident-proof.

Accident-proof == No matter what conditions you drive in, and no matter how you drive, you will not get into an accident.

Accident-resistant == Depending on the conditions and driving patterns, there are extra features to help prevent an accident.

If this car is accident proof, then I would expect to go 70 mph down an icy road and expect to stop in the same about of time that I expect to stop in excellent conditions without hitting the stopped car in front of me or going into the ditch.

Re:Accident-proof or Accident-resistant?

[0100010001010011]

Have Volvo engineers ever driven in ice and snow?

Dear Astute ./er,

Thank you for pointing out your observations. Here in Sweden we don't get much snow and ice at all. Thanks to you and your observations we will be able to refine our system with ideas that we have never thought of before.

Sincerely,
Volvo Engineer

Re:Accident-proof or Accident-resistant?

[pushing-robot]

It's Reverse Swedish Notation.

internet wiseguys

[Lord Ender]

Before everyone here rushes to spout off edge-cases for which this may make things worse, I would like to remind you all that this is still a very good thing so long as it saves more lives than it kills.

Yes, a piece of automation that occasionally kills people is a good thing if it saves even more lives.

Re:internet wiseguys

[Lord Ender]

You should have the collision sensor removed from your air bags. Replace it with a button which says "deploy airbags." You could have another button which tightens your seatbelt, leaving the belt loose until pressed.

That would empower you to make these decisions for yourself, rather than relying on the instant reflexes and unwavering attention of machinery.

Re:internet wiseguys

[bennomatic]

I posted this above, but I think it fits here as well. Your comment about edge cases is true from a total life-saving perspective, but whether or not this is a commercial success may depend on the less extreme edge cases.

What I mean is, if they see a 10-20% reduction in deaths in Volvos, but it turns out that this causes a 10-20% increase in minor accidents (those edge cases), or if people perceive the unwanted deceleration as a lack of control. Even if that perceived lack saved them from a much worse situation, or if the minor auto body damage saves them from death, popular response may be negative, and they might have to pull the features despite their success.

It might be hard to convince someone that their car did a good thing for them when they're saying, "I totally had it under control, but the car took over, and the guy behind me hit me and bent my fender, cost me $1000." People might not be convinced that that $1000 saved them a $5000 front-end repair, or their lives.

I remember one time, some dunderhead I knew in high school complained that her bike helmet was worthless. Why? Because when someone opened their car door in front of her, she flipped over, landed on her head, and the helmet cracked in two.

She didn't even get it when I pointed out that that could have been her head. She was just upset that her $30.00 helmet was ruined. I don't mean to be pessimistic about general intelligence, but I'd say that kind of response might be more the rule than the exception.

Re:internet wiseguys

[MBCook]

Have you ever met someone who was convinced that a specific safety feature in their car (or it's excellent engineering) saved their life?

My family has met someone who was in a horrible high-speed accident in a Honda S2000 (little sports coupe) and walked away (cuts and bruises, I think) with the car totaled. They are convinced (and quite possibly right) that many other small soft-topped cars would have been lethal for in the same crash. They immediately went out and bought another one to replace it because it did such a good job (and was a nice car).

Those people will tell their stories and it will spread. That's GREAT advertising. If your airbag goes off because of a minor collision just on the sensor it's annoying and expensive, but people were more willing to listen to the "airbag saved my life" stories than the "cost me $1500 I didn't need to spend" stories. Eventually they were made mandatory. I'm guessing this will work the same way.

As I've said in other comments in this story, I'm more interested in everyone else having this system than having it myself, although I'd gladly take one.

Re:internet wiseguys

[JoeMerchant]

Popular sport amongst hoodlum gangsters around Tampa when the first airbag equipped police cars rolled out was "pop-a-cop," intentionally ram hard enough to get airbag deployment, effectively disabling the officers' ability to give chase for long enough to get lost in the city.

I envision a really nifty radar spoofing device that would panic stop these Volvos without doing anything other than re-transmitting a modified radar pulse back at them... I'm sure the police wouldn't use such a system, but I can picture suburban geek troublemakers messin' with the soccer moms.

Re:internet wiseguys

[YttriumOxide]

Have you ever met someone who was convinced that a specific safety feature in their car (or it's excellent engineering) saved their life?

Yes, me (I know your statement was in the positive about this, so I'm not arguing with you, just giving my own little story here).

I was driving my company car in Australia (a Holden VZ Commodore Acclaim (3.6 Litre "Alloytec" engine, 5 speed Automatic, Sedan body)) a couple of years back, and it was raining. As I was going through a roundabout, a guy came on in front of me WAY too close (I had right of way, but he claimed later that he didn't see me). Now, the Holden Commodore is a bit of a tank really - big, heavy and not so manoeuvrable compared to the "sportier" kind of cars I normally drive. I slammed my foot on the brake pedal and turned to move to the next lane of the roundabout - the ESP ("Electronic Stability Program") did its job PERFECTLY and I made it off to the side of the roundabout without a collision. The other guy saw me at that point, and we both stopped just up the road, where he apologised.

A couple of days later, it was raining again, and I was at a similar roundabout. I made sure there were no cars in any direction, turned off the ESP (the driver can toggle it on/off with a simple button press) and tried a similar manoeuvre to see what the car would do - the wheels locked, skidded on the wet road, the car spun around twice and ended up off the side of the roundabout (just a dirt patch, so it was fine to do). I am therefore EXTREMELY grateful for the ESP when I needed it.

Re:What about...

[Richard_at_work]

If you have had a few close calls while passing, perhaps you need to examine your driving habits?

For an extra 50 euros....

[AltGrendel]

...you can get a pair of Peril Sensitive Sunglasses(TM) to wear too.

The trouble with semi-automated driving

[Animats]

Having done some work on automated driving, I have some misgivings about semi-automated driving. ABS, which is a huge advance in vehicle control, hasn't reduced accidents as much as it should. Driver overconfidence seems to increase in ABS-equipped vehicles. Merely adding automated braking, which has been around for years, may not help with passenger cars. It would probably encourage tailgating. It's a big win for heavy trucks, but they have pro drivers. Those guys aren't aggressive drivers, mostly tired ones. Passenger car drivers aren't that consistent.

Tailgating may be acceptable if there's a comm link between the car ahead and the car behind. That's been demonstrated successfully; if anybody in the chain starts to brake, everybody behind them brakes too. It needs to be coupled with enough smarts that not too many vehicles become a tight group, and a vehicle can't close up behind something that can stop shorter than it can.

Studies of crashes by Mercedes indicate that 80% of accidents would have been avoided if braking started 500ms sooner. Those aren't the severe accidents, though.

Anyway, while radar-controlled automated braking has its uses, it's not an answer in itself.

Re:The trouble with semi-automated driving

[Wonko the Sane]

Do you remember that ultrasound device that lets you "beam" sound to a specific location? I want something like that so I can talk to other drivers on the highway.

Of course as soon as those devices became common the entire country would perish in the worst case of road rage in history.

Only in foreseeable

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

I work for a civil engineering firm and we design roadways (often many miles long) and in doing so I often see accident reports spanning many years. The majority of highway accidents (especially at high speeds and especially fatal ones) could not have been prevented by one or both (or more depending on how many cars are involved) of the cars braking as soon as ANYONE or anything could tell an accident was imminent.

Usually someone didnâ(TM)t look in their rearview mirror and changed lanes right into a car or someone fell asleep at the wheel and drifted across traffic and because of a split second lapse of attention someone is dead.

Itâ(TM)s not a OH NOOOES THAT PERSON HAS BEEN STOPPED IN FRONT OF ME FOR 2 MINUTES BUT I DIDNâ(TM)T NOTICE AND NOW ITâ(TM)S TOO LATE TO BRAKE!!!

A car comes over a hill in the highway going 30 over the speed limit (we design those speed limits on purpose and itâ(TM)s because of things like this) and thereâ(TM)s a disabled car with a blowout or engine problem in the road ahead of you and braking simply slows you down. You still hit the car and the lady standing in front of it looking helplessly at her engine still dies because you wanted to cut 5 minutes out of your drive time.

There is also the question of allowing your car to decide when you should brake and ALL the potential hassles/problems/safety issues involved in that.

Anyway, back to the point, if Volvo thinks that by installing some sensor in the bumper that will trigger the brakes if thereâ(TM)s something in front of you will keep people from dying in their cars they are pouring a lot of money down the garbage.

This technology will solve 1 problem for all 50 it creates in a drivers experience.

Override?

[chinton]

What if I decide not to brake for the dog in front of me because of the 18-wheeler behind me?

Liability

[wfstanle]

If anything prevents this idea from becoming reality, it's the issue of liability . Does any company want to take on the added liability that this concept entails. For example, if a car equipped with this crashes (and it will happen) who will be liable? Even if the company is found not to be at fault, there is the cost of proving it in court.

Re:Liability

[GameMaster]

That's easy. The "Collision-Proof" car will always be a prototype. It will never be a production model available for purchase. They will use it to get good PR for their brand while allowing a healthy distance from the idea that their production models are guaranteed to be collision proof. However, that doesn't mean that this is all useless hot air. Ideally, the more effective/economical technology developed for this prototype will trickle down to the production line. Once the more effective features have been in production with higher end companies, like Volvo, for a while they will work their way down to lower end cars. This is the way it's always worked in the car industry. Features we take for granted in modern cars (power windows, ABS breaks, airbags, etc.) can often be found on prototype cars from many decades before the first publicly sold car carried them.

A Moose...

[Akardam]

... once got in the way of my sister's "crash-proof" Volvo.

Mind you, moose crashes can be pretty nasti...

Re:A Moose...

[Nimey]

My sister was bitten by a frost moose once...

Re:A Moose...

[MooUK]

We apologise for the previous posts. The posters involved have been fired.

Re:A Moose...

[sxltrex]

Fired? Was there an American subtitled version?

Re:A Moose...

[MooUK]

The person responsible for the previous firing has been sacked.

Re:A Moose...

[BlueParrot]

Mind you, moose crashes can be pretty nasti...

Monthy python jokes aside, this is very true and quite a few people die from it every year. Part of the problem is that moose have tall enough legs that when you hit one it won't go under the car but it gets thrown through the windshield. Seeing that an adult moose can be several hundred kilograms the front passengers are therefore faced with a shower of splintered glass and getting crushed by the animal as it crashes through the windshield. It should be noted that driving a gas-guzzling SUV won't help you here as as it is essentially the speed and design of windshield which determines how bad the outcome is. If anything driving a heavy car would probably mean you have a longer breaking distance, making things much worse.

Unreasonable requests

[phorm]

I think I might have dated the same woman. She hated wearing a seatbelt, but for some reason would accept it if *I* buckled it for her. She also tried to bring her open beer into my car, insisting that if I really cared about her I wouldn't worry about a silly thing like roadside checks and fines, etc.

I've met the type a few times since. Some women like to request unreasonable things in order to have men "prove" how much they value them over common sense. I've seen guys do similar things though in different ways (acting unreasonable and demanding acceptance)...

Good call in ditching her.

Get on with it.

[thesolo]

Why don't they just get on with the computer-driven cars already? All you need to do is look at the tech coming out of car companies to see where we're headed.

• The Lexus LS460 parallel parks on its own.
• Mercedes introduced a radar Cruise Control system on its S-Class to automatically slow the car or stop it completely if the car in front is braking. (Adaptive CC is now on several German cars.)
• The new VW Passat CC has "Lane Assist" to correct the car if it senses that it's drifting out of a lane.

So where does that leave us? We now have cars that will follow other cars to the point of stopping entirely, can park themselves, will stay in the lane on their own (to a point)...the obvious goal here is to remove more & more of human input from driving.

So can we just skip all of this crap and go right to the computer-driven car, so we never have to worry about insurance premiums, speeding tickets, drink-driving, falling asleep at the wheel, and all of the rest of the nonsense that goes along with cars?

On the flip side, if you're a sports-car enthusiast, this is likely to be the last generation where one can purchase a raw, loud, driver's car. We're going to wind up like the character in Rush's Red Barchetta before we know it.

Code Name:

[night_flyer]

Titanic

I heard

[mandark1967]

that if the car senses a collision is imminent, regardless of its attempts to prevent it, that it just explodes so it can maintain it's "collision proof" claim.

snow tires

[OglinTatas]

I tell everyone I know (in wintery climates anyway) to buy a good set (4, NOT 2) of snow tires. They all tell me to get stuffed because they have new "all season" tires (all season in Alabama, maybe) or they have a 4WD SUV or whatever. 4WD only helps you get going, not stop, and antilock brakes are only as good as the tires and the surface the tires are on. I do use snow tires in winter, and trust me, there is a world of difference! The only accident I was at fault in was an ice storm that caught me by surprise the day before I had intended to put on the ol' blizzaks. I left work at late at 8PM hoping to be the only person on the road. Began stopping what seemed like a reasonable distance for conditions, ABS kicked in as soon as I put my foot on the brake pedal and I slid all the way (under 25 MPH) into the back of the only other car on the road. New "all season" tires.

With blizzaks, when ABS kicks in you actually stop. Been using them for eight years.

GET SNOW TIRES. (I'm sure everyone in Canada already knows that. Few people around here seem to know or care.)

Re:snow tires

[fprintf]

Just remember that Blizzak's actually wear rather quickly and turn into "all-season" tires after about a season's use of driving on mixed surfaces (e.g. snow and pavement). On the other hand, standard modern snow tires like the Nokian, still wear quickly due to their soft compound however they tend to last longer than a season or two simply because they have so much tread.

See http://www.tirerack.com/winter/wintertesting.jsp for some in-depth reviews of tires *and a comparison between all-season and proper winter tires.

Good on ya for driving with snow tires, just don't overestimate how long those Blizzak's actually last!

Re:snow tires

[WarwickRyan]

You have more control if you drive out of it on ice than if you break.

Been in a similar situation myself in 2003/4, and managed to get back home without hitting anyone. When it started sliding I didn't break, I used the gas to carefully change my direction.

Mind you I've driven an American car in the past, and they handle like tanks. So there's probably little that you can do to control such vehicles on the ice..

Liability

[TriZz]

I think this car is neat-o burrito in concept, but in reality...all that's going to happen is that Volvo is going to get sued all to hell when the system fails and a collision occurs. Calling the car "collision proof" is just a bad idea since we live in a society that tries to avoid accountability at all costs (excluding lawyer fees).

more importantly

[thermian]

What about the car behind you that can't brake as fast?

"H2 commands respect" ;-) maybe not..

[fantomas]

"An H2 commands plenty of respect on the road (and off the road)"

Over here in the UK you're more likely to get laughed at if you drive one of them round the streets and have people shout "tosser" at you.

Anybody who feels the need to drive an oversized military-style vehicle half a mile down (sub)urban roads to buy a pint of milk or a new pair of socks is looked on with a degree of suspicion and pity. People are a bit wary that the driver isn't too concerned about the well being of other road users and pedestrians.

Building a better idiot?

[geekmux]

Fantastic. Yet another pseudo-automation that will likely translate into yet one more reason idiots think they don't need to pay attention while driving, and instead finish their phone call or text message.

Re:Locusts

[Random BedHead Ed]

Just recently, there was a show about it on the Science Channel.

Did the show explain how the new system can prevent the car behind you from rear-ending your shiny Volvo? TFA doesn't. And while it's great that these concept cars can auto-brake, the guy on your tail isn't necessarily driving another Volvo.

In heavy traffic I often balance my braking between avoidance of read-ending the car in front of me and my expectations of what the car in my rearview mirror is capable of if I slam the brakes too hard. I don't want to drive one of these Volvos unless it's capable of making that judgement at least as well as I can.

Not a big deal

[l00sr]

I predict that by the year 2020, no one will be killed or injured in a GM, Chrysler, or Ford car either.

Re:What about...

[canadian_right]

Any driver should be able to brake as hard as they want, at any time, safely. If you don't think this is always a safe maneouver then you are a tailgater. That's right - you should always give the car in front of you enough space to brake as hard as they want at random. Yes, I know, some idiot will cut in front and take your space, but that is how much space there should be between you and the car ahead of you.

Public roads are not race tracks. Oh, and please stop slewing your car to the left before making right hand turns unless you are driving a 5 ton truck or bigger. Even an Escalade does not need the extra turning space.

Re:What about...

[girlintraining]

If you have had a few close calls while passing, perhaps you need to examine your driving habits?

The odds of an accident are approximately 1 per 10,000 for every car trip. Most people make 2 a day to work and such, and we'll say as much on the weekends just to keep it simple. The median age in this country is about 35 right now. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume that everyone gets their license at 18 and starts driving. That's an average of 17 years of driving experience. Each year of experience creates 730 trips. The chance that you have been in an accident is, if my math is correct, about 62% by the time you're 35. Now, what do you think the ratio of near misses to accidents is? I'm guessing it's many-fold higher for our hypothetical driver. Of course, before you think "Well that isn't me!" another statistic for you: 80% of drivers think they're above average.

So, about examining those driving habits? How about examining the laws of probability instead. It'll be more fruitful.

This isn't new.

[Anonymous Psychopath]

The Acura RL has had collision sensing and avoidance as an option for several years, called the Collision Mitigation Braking System.

http://www.acura.com/index.aspx?initPath=RL_Learn_FeaturesOptions_SafetySecurity_Braking_CollisionMitigationBraking

Re:Locusts

[Random BedHead Ed]

You definitely should have sued them for that fiver for your Ford F-150. I would have gone for the fiver if they'd hit my Ford Pinto.

Re:Locusts

[m0nkyman]

I thought it was funny.

For the humour and history impaired, a Ford Pinto is likely to burst into flames when rear ended.

Which kind of makes the flamebait moderation meta-funny.

Re:Seems like common sense

[ivan256]

Fat lot of consolation that would be for the whiplash, and sub-replacement cost payout for your vehicle from an insurance company (you almost always get book-value, not replacement cost. These can be quite different on any newish car).

The proper way to deal with somebody breaking the rules of the road is to accommodate them. Move out of their way, and let them pass if they insist on riding your ass. It's called defensive driving, and in most places it is just as much the law as following at a reasonable distance.

Re:Locusts

[blincoln]

Did the show explain how the new system can prevent the car behind you from rear-ending your shiny Volvo? TFA doesn't.

All of you complainers are looking at this totally the wrong way.

Think of the hidden benefit for those of us who won't be driving these cars even if most other people are - install a fighter jet-style radar-reflective chaff launcher on the back of your car, and suddenly you have a "stop tailgating me - immediately" button on your own dashboard.

Re:Locusts

[YttriumOxide]

Sorry, but I'd classify that as "still your fault". As SOON as the asshat swooped in front of you (which he certainly was an asshat for doing, no doubt there), you should've been on the brakes to increase the distance between you and him (not saying slam them on, just press them enough to slow rapidly, but safely). When he swooped out again, you would've already been braking and so wouldn't have hit the guy at the front (you'd needed to have increased your braking more of course, but if you were going fast enough that you couldn't, then you were too close BEFORE the asshat swooped in).