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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

yeah well

[loafula]

What if I crash into IT with my H2?

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"...

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?

"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?

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.

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:What about...

[Richard_at_work]

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

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: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

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...

[MooUK]

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

Re:A Moose...

[MooUK]

The person responsible for the previous firing has been sacked.

Code Name:

[night_flyer]

Titanic

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!

"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.

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.