Building the Zero-Fatality Car

CWmike writes "In the future, new cars might include an appealing sticker: 'This car is rated for zero fatalities.' John Brandon reports that Volvo, for instance, has launched a program called Vision 2020, which states, 'By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo.' It includes not just new protective measures in the car, but technology for communicating dangers to and from the car. Other car companies have similar, less formalized programs. As ambitious as it seems, Ed Kim, an analyst at automotive research firm AutoPacific, says the zero-fatality goal is achievable. In the next 10 years, there will be a confluence of safety technologies — such as road-sign recognition, pedestrian detection and autonomous car controls — that lead to safer cars, says Kim. Will your next car look something like this?"

Comments

What?

[neonmonk]

I need a car metaphor.

Re:What?

[Yvan256]

In the future, we will finally have flying cars.

Re:What?

[TrisexualPuppy]

I need a car metaphor.

So, basically, imagine lots and lots of corporations as cars on a busy Interstate. On one hand, we have SCO which was a tanker truck filled with benzene and toxic sludge going to the nearest creak to offload, but before it got there, it had a catastrophic wreck and burned for a while. As a matter of fact, the sludge was so nasty that it has been burning for several years, and fire crews have not been able to extinguish it.

As for the zero-fatality car, let me put it this way. Since the Interstate (the world-wide work force) is still blocked with toxic sludge and fire (the recession and its causes), nothing is getting done, and Volvo isn't selling as well as it did. In order to appease shareholders temporarily and raise Volvo's stock for the next week or two, Volvo has decided to build a vehicle that not only can withstand any wreck, but since it is zero-fatality, you just can drive right through that fire and toxic sludge and be on your merry way to economic recovery.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

creak = creek

(sorry)

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason the first thing I thought of was 'finish him'!

Re:What?

[TheLink]

I was hoping for something more like General Products hulls ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Products_(Larry_Niven) ).

That'll cut down on fatalities. But not to zero...

Re:What?

[Moryath]

Remember the fundamental law of the universe.

Just when you think you have idiot-proofed something, Nature will design a better idiot just to spite you.

Thus the reason we have to have instructions printed on a package of toothpicks, and my clothes iron has a tag on the power cord saying "warning: do not iron clothes while wearing them."

Pretty much anything on this list.

I'm waiting for Idiocracy to occur. After all, we already have "Ow, My Balls" on TV - ABC just calls it "Wipeout."

Re:What?

[lgw]

In this case, the problem with Volvo's plan is not idiots but suicides. Suicide-by-car happens, and I doubt you could build a car to prevent fatality if someone deliberately hit a bridge pillar at max speed after removing his seatbelt.

Re:What?

[tverbeek]

Will you settle for a ship metaphor?

This is like rating a passenger vessel as "unsinkable".

Re:What?

[operagost]

Flying cars would be more likely. How is a car going to keep you alive if you're T-boned by a rig running a light at 50 MPH? The physics don't add up. Their "zero fatality car" assumes that every vehicle on the road has these collision avoidance systems. I'm sure that they're hoping that the governments of the world will mandate such technology, raise taxes to cover the subsidies, and make Volvo rich.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, common dude, you didn't like Double Dare or American Gladiators as a kid? Obstacle courses are fun.

Re:What?

[Runaway1956]

No need for those theatrics. I'll just load Granny up for a holiday trip, and intentionally ride beside a bunch of 18-wheelers. Real close, so you can hear the thunder and rumble of their suspension, and the tires hitting the asphalt. When Granny strokes out, we'll have a fatality in a Volvo.

Re:What?

[Wiarumas]

As much as you are kidding, this is the first step. One of the major challenges of flying cars is the driver. The sooner we eliminate the driver out of the equation (partially if not completely), the more likely flying cars become a reality.

Re:What?

[natehoy]

hit a bridge pillar

Autonomous collision avoidance would stop the vehicle or steer around the obstacle.

at max speed

Roadsign detection and speed governing would mean max speed = roadway speed limit. Smacking a properly-designed modern car into an immovable object at any legal roadway speed is generally not fatal.

after removing his seatbelt

In Scandinavian Volvo, seatbelt removes you. Seriously, they'd probably have some form of interlock that prevents you from removing the seatbelt while the car is at speed.

Regardless, I'm sure someone will manage to kill themselves (cars, for example, would have a hard time differentiating land from water, so your nearest boat launch would provide ample opportunity).

Re:What?

[dave420]

Of course they can. Really? You think that's too hard?

Re:What?

[Captain Splendid]

Wasn't there a Beowulf Shaeffer story where he discovered the one thing that would fuck up a GP hull? Anti-matter or something similar. The Puppeteers paid him off to keep it quiet.

Re:What?

[dave420]

The most major challenge is to lower the amount of necessary maintenance, while keeping the safety of the flying car in tact. They can't fall out of the sky, but then they can't require hours of maintenance every week to be safe.

Re:What?

[lgw]

All of these things would be disable-able, I bet. Not being able to accelerate around a problem would be a real safety problem, so I doubt the speed-limit thing would do more than beep at you. Now if they could invent a sat-nav that didn't try to launch you into the water, they'd have something!

Re:What?

[lgw]

Have you never worked with someone who disabled multiple elaborate safety devices just to make it slightly easier to work with his equipment? It's a common enough human trait even when people aren't trying to hurt themselves.

Re:What?

[Coren22]

That and lasers.

Re:What?

[behemoth64]

I need a car metaphor.

A car is like a house. If you nuke it, people inside die

Re:What?

[Chris Mattern]

SPOILER ALERT

It was gravity. Specifically, when you orbited too close to a neutron star, the gravity well gradient became so steep that the tidal stresses pulled you apart. The puppeteers paid him off, not because he'd discovered a weakness in the GP hull, but because he used the fact that the puppeteers hadn't figured it out for themselves to deduce that the puppeteers didn't have a ready feel for the concept of tides and that would be because the puppeteer home world, the location of which the puppeteers regard as their most closely held secret, had no moon. The puppeteers paid him off big time not to divulge that clue to their home world's location.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it mean the rating is "Titanic"?

Re:What?

[Captain Splendid]

There you go. Thanks for the memory refresher.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

One more to add to the list.

A long time ago I bought a bike. The box said, "Do not attempt to ride bicycle before it is assembled."

Re:What?

[IMightB]

Removing warning labels is my solution to avoiding an Idiocracy-like future. The problems takes care of itself.

Oddly enough, my wife hates MXE but loves Wipeout.

Re:What?

[Experiment 626]

Just when you think you have idiot-proofed something, Nature will design a better idiot just to spite you.

Currently, the worst drivers tend to remove themselves from the gene pool, or at least have the possibility of death place some sort of upper bound on how moronically one can drive. Just imagine the type of idiot nature will be able to design once Volvo removes these constraints.

Re:What?

[IMightB]

Also, with feature like the auto-brake for pedestrians. I wonder how long it takes for enterprising metropolitan pedestrians to realize that they basically now have a continuous walk signal.

Re:What?

[IndustrialComplex]

and my clothes iron has a tag on the power cord saying "warning: do not iron clothes while wearing them."

The only time I've ever burned myself on an iron is when I was naked. TMI? or Not enough? Either way, good luck getting THAT image out of your head.

Re:What?

[superdave80]

Man, if I got a ticket for one of those ships, I'd be the luckiest man alive!

Re:What?

[sabernet]

Actually, there was a story where antimatter evaporated the hull. It involved an awkward moment where they(him and an Earthling) were effectively just floating in space.

Re:What?

[ultranova]

Removing warning labels is my solution to avoiding an Idiocracy-like future. The problems takes care of itself.

It's not idiots but psychopaths who are the problem. You know, the creeps who suggest "kill the weak" as a solution to any problem.

In any case, I suspect that at least half of those labels are jokes.

Re:What?

[petermgreen]

The driver is a challange but I don't think it's the most important one. IMO for a really practical flying car you really need the following.

1: able to drive along the roads (nessacery because there will be some places you can't really fly) and fit into normal car sized spaces.
2: able to take off and land in a small space (if you have to drive to a runway to take off you are going to lose a lot of the benifit) with minimal infrastructure.
3: able to fly safely and at tolerable fuel economy
4: able to carry a decent number of passengers in comfort

The trouble is while there are plenty of craft that can satisfy these individually all the craft i'm aware of fall down on at least one of them.

Winged craft need a lot of space to take off and the wing doesn't tend to fit fit in a car sized footprint. The footprint problem can be got arround to some extent by using a folding wing or a fabric wing but they still tend to end up making the passenger part very small to make the sums work out.

Helicopters can take off and land in a small space but they are already very expensive even before you start trying to figure out how to make them run on the road as well. Plus you would probablly be limited to a two-blade rotor so you could align it front to back while on the road.

Jet lifted cars drink huge ammounts of fuel and are intrinsically unsafe (lose your lift and drop like a rock).

Re:What?

[severoon]

Smacking a properly-designed modern car into an immovable object at any legal roadway speed is generally not fatal.

Uh...relatively low speed impacts can be fatal. Especially when smacked into an "immovable" object. Remember, it's 1/2*m*v^2 —small changes to v make big changes to your face.

Re:What?

[moeinvt]

"Have you never worked with someone who disabled multiple elaborate safety devices just to make it slightly easier to work with his equipment?"

You mean like bypassing the "operator present" handle on the left side of my brush mower so that I can temporarily use my left hand without turning off the engine? Using the right hand would disengage the cutting mechanism, but I can live with that feature. The folks who designed that mower were obviously sitting in an air conditioned office and didn't consider the ideas of perspiration, thirst, flying wood and plant pieces, insects, etc. Either that or they were just following idiotic government regulations, and were smart enough to make it easy to short circuit the damned thing.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think cars need to be designed to remove idiots from the driving gene pool. A claymore mine to replace the air bag would, in time, make the roads safer for those drivers who were careful and the cars would get cheaper with wreck avoidance becoming a priority instead of costs continuing to spiral up[ward in the futile chase to idiot proof them.

Re:What?

[delinear]

Roadsign detection and speed governing would mean max speed = roadway speed limit. Smacking a properly-designed modern car into an immovable object at any legal roadway speed is generally not fatal.

Collision avoidance can decrease the risk but it'll never account for every possibility including all weather conditions, road conditions, loose debris, animals, people not in safety cars (cyclists, motorbikes, pedestrians). And I'm not sure that hitting an immovable object (concrete bridge support for instance) at 70MPH (the legal maximum here in the UK) is likely to be non-fatal - and even if by some miracle the driver survives, you've suddenly dumped a lot of dangerous debris all over the motorway that everyone else is now hitting at 70MPH. That's not accounting for the fact that migration to the new system would take a long time so you'll have a mix of safety and normal cars on the road (and even when the vast majority have migrated there will be some exceptions - vintage cars for instance are unlikely to get these features added). If we could magically switch all cars to these "fatality free" versions simultaneously tomorrow, I'd still feel confident giving odds of seeing the first fatality within a week.

Re:What?

[delinear]

Even if every car had these systems it wouldn't guarantee safety - there are circumstances where a computer could probably do a reasonable or even a better job than a human brain, but there are other times when human insight is the better tool for the job. Imagine a 40MPH road with a bunch of kids on a school outing walking down the path, liable to run out at any time, or animals, horses, etc - a human would know instinctively that the safe thing would be to slow down (not all of them would of course, that's a different matter). The computer would happily plow on at 40MPH and that had better be some pretty damn impressive collision detection (both on the lead car and any following it) - and let's hope there's no ice or oil on the road, either...

Re:What?

[jellomizer]

Zero Fault is impossible. Because it is made up from a bunch of Fault based technologies. Also there will be people driving in the good old classic 2000 model cars that will allow you to box in and collide with the car.

Re:What?

[natehoy]

You missed the "properly-designed" part. Multiple crumple zones, airbags, seatbelt, and a properly-designed crash frame make a massive difference.

Very big difference between absorbing 70mph (6.2 rods per second for those offended by my use of modern American units) in an inch or two, and absorbing the same thing using carefully-crafted deceleration over 6 feet.

And Volvo ain't no slouch when it comes to figuring out how to engineer a car to fold in just the right ways in just the right places.

Re:What?

[slick7]

I need a car metaphor.

How's this for a metaphor...Safety First!

Re:What?

[Tetsujin]

I need a car metaphor.

A car is like a house. If you nuke it, people inside die

Interesting. Why can't they build cars out of the same stuff they use to make refrigerators?

Re:What?

[uniquename72]

Very big difference between absorbing 70mph (6.2 rods per second for those offended by my use of modern American units) in an inch or two, and absorbing the same thing using carefully-crafted deceleration over 6 feet.

There's also a big difference between a 20-year-old man absorbing this and a 90-year-old, or a 6-month-old. THAT's where the idea of a zero-fatality car fails. People die falling out of bed, ferchrissakes.

Re:What?

[mobby_6kl]

A few high-end cars already feature pedestrian detection based on video/IR. So far, I think they just highlight them and show a warning, but it's entirely possible to have the car brake if it sees somebody wandering into the path. I don't know if any cars take into account the current weather, but almost all already have temperature sensors, and plenty also have rain sensors for automatic wipers. Combined with perhaps data from the last ABS/TC activation, the car can have a better idea of what the road conditions are than the average driver. I don't think having oil spilled on the road is a common enough occurrence to bother.

And even if the car does end up mowing down the children, it's very unlikely to cause serious damage to the car, let alone a occupant fatality, since, well, they're small kids that just will bounce off the bumper.

Re:What?

[tverbeek]

King of the world, even.

Re:What?

[vegiVamp]

No, that is not the reason you have those instructions on packaging. The reason you have those instructions on packaging is that some people honestly believe that if nature designs a better idiot, it is somehow beneficial to keep it in the genepool.

Re:What?

[Richy_T]

And I think in "Fleet of Worlds" they work out where the generator is which would enable the destruction of a GP hull. Though that doesn't really make much sense to me.

Re:What?

[Richy_T]

Would it be able to tell if the kids were bahaving in an orderly manner or pushing and shoving each other around though?

Though with that said, I'm in favor of automated systems in general. They will, overall, be safer and I think they're inevitable. Unfortunately, it'll probably mean the end of motorcycling on public roads.

Re:What?

[b0bby]

Currently, the worst drivers tend to remove themselves from the gene pool, or at least have the possibility of death place some sort of upper bound on how moronically one can drive.

Or not, like the guy around here the other day that rear ended (at a high rate of speed) a person sitting at a light. Was he texting? Had a stroke? Who knows, but the driver who was properly stopped was killed, the driver who caused the accident was injured but may well survive. The kinds of systems described in the article would go a long way towards preventing such accidents.

Re:What?

[idontgno]

Lasers don't bother a GP hull in the slightest.

X-ray lasers (common weapon lasers in Known Space canon) just stop at the outside surface of a GP hull. Optical-frequency lasers go right through, since the GP synthetic is intentionally transparent in the optical frequencies of all the Puppeteer's customers. That may be the effect you're thinking of: a high-powered visible-light laser would pretty much mow down anything inside the hull, but the hull itself would be fine. Hell, you could just hose out the insides and install new fittings and gear.

The other thing that goes through a GP hull is tidal force (and, more generically, probably gravity).

But antimatter being the Kryptonite of the GP macromolecule... absolutely correct, as the Shaeffer's almost-disasterous expedition to Cannonball Express showed.

Re:What?

[paeanblack]

It's a simple solution really. They just replaced the airbags with ejector seats.

That way, you are no longer technically in the car when you die.

Re:What?

[severoon]

You're right, it doesn't matter. Put a driver-facing spike in the middle of the steering wheel and let's call it a day.

My snark-laden point is: striving for an unreachable goal is not without value. Having said that, did anyone actually read the article and take note of the number of "safety" features Volvo is planning that promise to unexpectedly lock up the brakes? Apparently we need only wait by the tracks until our enemies try to cross and then run around in front of the car until the next train comes...

Re:What?

[AK Marc]

Driving is safe enough, even with the nuts, that only the reckless teens take themselves out of the pool, and even then at a surprisingly low rate. The blind grandmas plow over piles of pedestrians and don't hurt themselves, plus they've already procreated. Driving is way too safe to have any effect on the gene pool.

Re:What?

[McGiraf]

nice .... it will work wonders for cyclists to0 , looking forward to this.

Muhahahaha!

Re:What?

[badkarmadayaccount]

Like Chernobyl...

Re:What?

[bandmassa]

But we do. They fly into trees, they fly off the road and they fly into people and property.

There's actually a really good fatality proof technology that's been in cars since before Henry's T-Model. It's called braking. It uses controlled friction at the wheels to reduce a car's speed. The idea is the driver slows to a speed suitable for the conditions and, using their eyes, brakes to a stop in order to prevent collision. The user interface is a simple pedal, next to the accelerator pedal. It's actually as easy to use as the accelerator! Really!

Re:What?

[alexandre_ganso]

Hey, come on, this zero-fatality stuff was certainly made up by their marketing people, not the engineers. As if anyone reading /. wouldn't know that.

Re:What?

[alexandre_ganso]

I suppose you are not talking about some boss of you finding a way of trespassing your firewall just to find porn...

Re:What?

[Adm.Wiggin]

Meaning they're going to make a really long and DiCrappy movie about it? This will be interesting.

I thought they already solved this problem

[Pojut]

Go go gadget Car-From-Demolition Man!

Re:I thought they already solved this problem

[eastlight_jim]

I don't know if you've seen TFA or just making a quick joke but a comparison between the main picture and a google image search for "demolition man car" shows that you're basically spot on!

Re:I thought they already solved this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

He's probably referring to the "impact foam" that the car in Demolition Man flooded with in order to save Rambo from dying when he jumped and crashed it.

Not good enough

[nysus]

Come talk to me when they figure out the "zero fatality life."

Re:Not good enough

[confused one]

Not possible. No matter how far and fast medical technology improves, someone will always be able to fuck up bad enough to cause a fatality, at least eliminating themselves.

Re:Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Remove the driver, that way, you get zero fatality pedestrians too. And then you can design any kind of car, even a tank with rocket boosters. It's the idiots behind the wheel that kill, not the cars themselves.(Well there are design errors that make that possible, but that's not what this story is about.)

Re:Not good enough

[edumacator]

at least eliminating themselves.

A world in which only the idiots die...The idea has promise.

Re:Not good enough

[Hylandr]

Not possible. No matter how far and fast medical technology improves, someone will always be able to fuck up bad enough to cause a fatality, at least eliminating themselves.

autonomous car controls

Like accelerator pedals...

- Dan.

Re:Not good enough

[timeOday]

But at some point it will be possible to restore them from backup.

Re:Not good enough

[Kell Bengal]

Simply making all cars go 30 kmph slower would go a long way to reducing road fatalities. Remember, energy is quadratic with speed - if we halved the speed, the energy of a collision would only be a quarter of a full-speed impact. Of course, I'm not advocating we make 60 kmph the speed limit (no one would go for it, anyway), but if you were serious about eliminating deadly crashes, that would be the one simple way of doing it.

Re:Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

at least eliminating themselves.

A world in which only the idiots die...The idea has promise.

Except that idiots tend to be lonely and wind up taking others with them

Re:Not good enough

[fhuglegads]

It would work but people would be so full of frustration from the computer governed speed cap in their car they would go into work and kill everyone. Maybe that Beer guy in Connecticut had a truck that only went 36/60 mph/kmph.

Re:Not good enough

[TheRealMindChild]

Remember, idiot and smart are subjective, just like good and bad. With no "bad", you have no comparison of what is "good". If you eliminate all of the idiots, a ratio of those not eliminated become the new idiots... until you have no one left.

Re:Not good enough

[WillDraven]

Yeah, I was wondering how they planned on stopping people from driving into oceans, volcanoes, mines, etc. Will this car keep you alive for a week buried under a dozen meters of mud when the whole mountainside above you gives way? (No, I didn't RTFA.)

Re:Not good enough

[shadowfaxcrx]

Only if their whuffie is high enough.

Re:Not good enough

[sabt-pestnu]

I have to wonder... In an average collision, are you safer in the vehicle that is causing the crash, or in the one being collided with? I would tend to think the former, but don't have any evidence.

Re:Not good enough

[sgt scrub]

uh huh huh. that sounded funny. so. what does it mean?

Re:Not good enough

[edumacator]

You don't have to explain that to me. I'm no idiot.

Not yet at least.

Re:Not good enough

[vegiVamp]

While a long life full of interesting things does appeal to me, I suspect that I will, at some point, tire from it and will deliberately want to make an ending. Everything that has a beginning, must eventually have an ending, too. Such is the universe, and it is good.

For examples of the misery that ensues when things keep going after they should have met their end, look at myspace, geocities, and so on.

Re:Not good enough

[confused one]

that's if they haven't found a way to screw up the backup.

Re:Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if there aren't enough people being born to replace the dying idiots.

There is no zero

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero is a figment of your imagination. You can only ever approach it, more and more expensively.

Re:There is no zero

[Lord Kano]

Untrue.

How many times have you had sex with a living female human being this week?

Thought so.

Re:There is no zero

[Anonymous Coward]

0.75

and it was expensive

Re:There is no zero

[MadKeithV]

Untrue.

How many times have you had sex with a living female human being this week?

Thought so.

Sorry man, that doesn't fly. Females are a figment of the imagination too.

Re:There is no zero

[Anonymous Coward]

True in this case, how does it fare with fatalities when under water after falling off a waterfall? Not so well, I think... If proven wrong, that'd be a helluva commercial.

Re:There is no zero

[Anonymous Coward]

it frightens me that the term "living" is needed here.

Re:There is no zero

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Untrue.

How many times have you had sex with a living female human being this week?

Thought so.

I find it curious that you felt it necessary to qualify that in three separate ways: "living", "female", and "human".

Re:There is no zero

[commodore64_love]

>>>0.75

So you started at 11:45 pm last week and finished at 12:45 am this week (hence 0.75 times this week). That's pretty typical for a college Saturday night/early Sunday morning. But usually it's free of charge.

Re:There is no zero

[edumacator]

Third base ain't bad.

Re:There is no zero

[operagost]

The average slashdotter reading the GP post:

Living

check...

female

check!

human

D'OH!

Re:There is no zero

[Sockatume]

They could approach it closely enough that the death-and-serious-injury rate amoungst Volvo owners, multiplied by the number of Volvo owners, multiplied by some arbitrarily large time period, is small but finite. That'd (probably) achieve their stated goal, not the implicit one.

I suggest they attack the middle variable by not selling any more Volvos.

Re:There is no zero

[Kell Bengal]

the death-and-serious-injury rate amoungst Volvo owners, multiplied by the number of Volvo owners, multiplied by some arbitrarily large time period, is small but finite

And if that finite number is less than a recall, they won't do it.

Re:There is no zero

[timeOday]

There were zero commercial airline deaths in the US in both 2007 and 2008. (Maybe some since, I don't know). Granted, I don't seriously expect privately driven vehicles to ever approach that (just as civil aviation does not), and over a long enough time horizon, 0 approaches impossible.

Re:There is no zero

[natehoy]

As Meatloaf once observed... "Don't be sad... Two outta three ain't bad."

Re:There is no zero

[alvinrod]

But usually it's free of charge.

Some people buy movie tickets, flowers, and dinner. Some just pay a hooker. Either way you're paying for sex.

If you really wanted to pedantic about it, there's also opportunity cost. Think of all of the other exciting things you could be doing, such as coding or watching Gentoo install.

Re:There is no zero

[MadKeithV]

Only on /. could I get modded *insightful* for that comment.

Re:There is no zero

[Anonymous Coward]

The economics of it changes if any of those variables are different.

Re:There is no zero

[Cesa]

I'd settle for two out of three.

Re:There is no zero

[Anonymous Coward]

So you started at 11:59:45 pm last week and finished at 12:00:45 am this week (hence 0.75 times this week). That's pretty typical for a Slashdot Reader Saturday night/early Sunday morning. But usually it's free of charge.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:There is no zero

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of an old sailing quote:

"There are only two types of sailors that have never run aground. The first has never left the end of the dock and the other is an outrageous liar"

Maybe the secret to the zero-fatality car is that it doesn't move....

Re:There is no zero

[stubob]

"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for all Volvo owners drops to zero."

Re:There is no zero

[mobby_6kl]

Yeah, you'd think it would be modded "Redundant" instead.

Re:There is no zero

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we're witnessing the birth of a very interesting poll...

Re:There is no zero

[Anonymous Coward]

People from 4chan come here sometimes, you know.

Re:There is no zero

[fastest fascist]

You must have stolen someone's account, because you're clearly new here.

Re:There is no zero

[Golddess]

Actually, in the first scenario you're only paying for the possibility of sex. :P

Re:There is no zero

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a visualization of the /. crowd, where many had their hands raised until the qualifiers were invoked. In my mind, a subset of the hands went down for each qualifier word.

Re:There is no zero

[Belial6]

No, your paying for sex. You know it. The woman knows it. Just because our legal system will not allow you to sue when she doesn't keep up her end of the deal doesn't mean you didn't pay for sex. It's not a lot different than the guy that pays a pot dealer for pot, and when he gets home finds out he has a bag of oregano. He still paid for pot.

Re:There is no zero

[Lord Kano]

I find it curious that you felt it necessary to qualify that in three separate ways: "living", "female", and "human".

You must be new here.

LK

Re:There is no zero

[Belial6]

The part I find funny about all of the "Slashdot readers never get laid" jokes is that I suspect that the average amount of sex amongst Slashdot readers is probably noticeably higher than the average for the population in general. I know that I've had more sex, more frequently, with more women, and with more women at the same time since I've started reading Slashdot, than I ever did before.

I'm not saying that there is cause and effect between the two, but I suspect there may be a correlation.

Re:There is no zero

[Lord Kano]

it frightens me that the term "living" is needed here.

I had to weed out the imaginary ones.

LK

Re:There is no zero

[Idiomatick]

This probably falls under the 'a b and c ... pick two' paradigm for some people out there.

Re:There is no zero

[Lord Kano]

You seem to have misunderstood my point. I wasn't implying "Slashdotters don't get laid", I was saying "HE doesn't get laid."

LK

Re:There is no zero

[Belial6]

Sure, I wasn't complaining about your post per se. I was just pondering how amusing the meme is given that reality is likely the opposite. HE may be the exception that really doesn't get laid.

In a Volvo?

[Jojoba86]

By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo

But what about those outside the Volvo?

Re:In a Volvo?

[Zironic]

"The goal is unique in that Volvo Cars has designated a year and is showing a social responsibility that also extends to people in other vehicles and pedestrians," says Anders Eugensson, safety expert at Volvo Cars. "We are very clear about the fact that our cars should not negatively affect other people at the moment of an accident. In addition, no unprotected roadusers should be seriously injured or killed."

Re:In a Volvo?

[wwwillem]

The missing piece in the article:

by 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed by a new Volvo

Re:In a Volvo?

[localman57]

Exactly. I got an '86 Cutlass Supreme with a V8, shoddy tires, worn out brakes, a missing front bumper, and a case of PBR in a cooler in the passenger seat. I'll take them odds vs. any Volvo in the world...

Re:In a Volvo?

[mcgrew]

Better you than me, buddy!

Re:In a Volvo?

[Deag]

Well your old car might look like it comes off better than the volvo. But likely your V8 engine will end up up crushing you while the volvo will crumble everywhere but the passenger compartment.

Re:In a Volvo?

[GuldKalle]

Maybe they plan to use ejector seats. If the car senses a dangerous situation, you are promply ejected from it to protect the reputation of Volvo.

Re:In a Volvo?

[autocracy]

Mmkay. Bring it.

Re:In a Volvo?

[morgan_greywolf]

Okay, so, essentially, by 2020, Volvos will be made out of Nerf material?

There's a fundamental law of nature that says when you stick 4 wheels underneath a human being, sh*t happens.

Re:In a Volvo?

[jimicus]

The Volvos that they were building around that time looked an awful lot like tanks - and their body was built to a similar specification.

Recent models don't look much like tanks, but they have historically been very much a marque associated with safety.

Re:In a Volvo?

[tverbeek]

Actually 4 wheels aren't necessary; 2 will suffice.

However studies show that 4 wheels do tend to degrade operator attentiveness much more than 2 wheels do. Motorcyclists usually focus better on the task at hand (i.e. operating the motorcycle) than automobilists do, because they have fewer things such as passengers, radios/CD/MP3 players, heating/cooling systems, phones, computers, etc. to distract them from it. They also get direct feedback (in terms of wind, seeing the pavement rush past their feet, etc.) of how fast they're going, which helps in making judgments about (for example) how much to brake before making a turn. The more that vehicles mask the vehicle's speed from the operator (smoother ride, better soundproofing, etc), the more dangerous they become.

Re:In a Volvo?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take you up on those odds. You realize Volvo also makes Trucks right?

Re:In a Volvo?

[toxonix]

All of the cool stuff has been deemed unsafe to those outside the Volvo. Like fins, bug eye lamps, the whole wedge shape thing.

Re:In a Volvo?

[LongearedBat]

It will cumble?!? Must be made of some new type of material. ;)

Re:In a Volvo?

[LongearedBat]

Doh! I misspellt "crumble". Me fail.

Re:In a Volvo?

[morgan_greywolf]

Motorcyclists usually focus better on the task at hand (i.e. operating the motorcycle) than automobilists do, because they have fewer things such as passengers, radios/CD/MP3 players, heating/cooling systems, phones, computers, etc. to distract them from it.

Are you sure about that? Pay particular attention the link that says "technology."

hey also get direct feedback (in terms of wind, seeing the pavement rush past their feet, etc.) of how fast they're going, which helps in making judgments about (for example) how much to brake before making a turn. The more that vehicles mask the vehicle's speed from the operator (smoother ride, better soundproofing, etc), the more dangerous they become.

You'd think so, but then you probably haven't seen the kids driving crotch rockets down here in Tampa.

Re:In a Volvo?

[fhuglegads]

I just googled "unicycle accidents" and there's a lot of good stuff there... which brings us to zero wheels. People have been removing themselves from the gene pool without the use of a vehicle on a regular basis. The problem is not the number of wheels, it's the number of idiots.

Re:In a Volvo?

[Firethorn]

Are you sure about that? Pay particular attention the link that says "technology."

It's part of the 'usually'. Most bikes still don't come with entertainment systems, and it'd be rather tough for me to even try to text while on my bike.

Of course, I have a stock V-Star classic 650. No cruise control/throttle lock*, no radio, not even a fuel gauge.

*IE it's not actually a 'cruise control' in that it maintains a custom speed. It maintains a constant throttle, allowing you to remove your right hand for brief periods without slowing.

Re:In a Volvo?

[grumbel]

For an extreme example see Formular 1 cars, those drive at extremely high speed and crash frequently into walls or other cars, yet they managed to have zero-fatalities for the last 15 years and most of the time the driver can just walk away from a crash. Now you can't directly apply all of those technologies to normal everyday cars, but given that normal cars don't need to drive at high speed under race conditions it shows that a near zero-fatality car is possible.

Re:In a Volvo?

[Arthur Grumbine]

Doh! I misspellt "crumble". Me fail.

The ironing is delicious.

Re:In a Volvo?

[IflyRC]

Volvo cars now officially purchased by Chinese company Geely. I wonder if this will hold true.

Re:In a Volvo?

[riverat1]

So they're planning to go out of business before 2020? That's the only way I can think of to guarantee that statement.

Re:In a Volvo?

[roothog]

For an extreme example see Formular 1 cars, those drive at extremely high speed and crash frequently into walls or other cars, yet they managed to have zero-fatalities for the last 15 years and most of the time the driver can just walk away from a crash.

Clearly, we need to be driving faster to save lives. I'll do my part on I-20 this weekend.

Re:In a Volvo?

[e4g4]

I wouldn't really use the fatality rates of Formula 1 drivers as an example of zero- or near-zero-fatality car design. That fatality rate (of zero), while possibly helped a bit by safety features, is helped out quite a bit more by the removal of idiot drivers. The test to be allowed to race a Formula 1 is _much_ harder than the test to drive a normal car, and selects out the idiots quite effectively. I guarantee that if you put a sampling of non-professional drivers in Formula 1 cars and sent them to the tracks to drive at Formula 1 speeds (together), you could get a fatality in no time.

Re:In a Volvo?

[morgan_greywolf]

Formula 1 cars are still guaranteed to kill pedestrians; see post I was replying to.

Re:In a Volvo?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think E=MC2 proves that zero fatalities within a Volvo means that 100% of the people outside of Volvo's will die instantaneously

Re:In a Volvo?

[spire3661]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that '86 Cutlass would crush like one of your PBR cans against almost any modern car. Hell, a Smart car driver will be far more likely to walk away then you would be in a crash with one. All that steel is a very false sense of security, especially in a GM model made in the 80's.

Re:In a Volvo?

[jbengt]

However studies show that 4 wheels do tend to degrade operator attentiveness much more than 2 wheels do.

Believe it or not, I did have a friend who fell asleep riding a motorcycle and crashed into parked cars. He now has one leg shorter than the other.
But more to the point, no matter how attentive the operator of the 2-wheeled vehicle is, 4 wheels are safer in traffic.

Re:In a Volvo?

[sgt scrub]

death race 2020!

Re:In a Volvo?

[tverbeek]

"no matter how attentive the operator of the 2-wheeled vehicle is, 4 wheels are safer in traffic."

Only safer for the operator, not for the traffic.

Re:In a Volvo?

[JTsyo]

Plus monitor your vitals to eject you during a medical emergency.

Re:In a Volvo?

[mobby_6kl]

>That fatality rate (of zero), while possibly helped a bit by safety features, is helped out quite a bit more by the removal of idiot drivers.

So you haven't seen any of the recent races, have you?

Re:In a Volvo?

[fropenn]

That's the thing - the technology to substantially increase the safety of our vehicles already exists. Have you ever watched a horrific F1 or NASCAR crash only to see the driver walk away?

So it's not even about developing new technology (or automating processes). It's about implementing what we already know in a cost-effective manner. But I'd be willing to pay more for a much lower risk of a life-ending crash.

Re:In a Volvo?

[mobby_6kl]

As much as I love the (turbo-) brick Volvos, their current cars are going to be way, way, safer, despite obviously not looking like a tank. They're very much still associated with safety, it's just that the others started to take this seriously too.

Renault vs Volvo
That Renault is a pretty safe car, but not out of the ordinary, and a modern Volvo can certainly match that performance. Though to be fair, the used car could've been in an accident previously, which would've weakened the frame so who knows how accurate this is.

Here are a few more with new Volvos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIFKdvuTylc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XVxVVtincE

Re:In a Volvo?

[vegiVamp]

Yeah, straight onto the busy highway :-p

Re:In a Volvo?

[chebucto]

That's a nice thought, but in reality motorcycle are by far the most dangerous form of transport.

Measured per 100 million vehicle-miles,
cars have 1.2 fatalities
light trucks have 1.2 fatalities
large trucks have 0.3 fatalities
motorcycles have 38.4 fatalities

source

Re:In a Volvo?

[Richy_T]

I though "technology" on a Harley Davidson meant the round thing at the front and the round thing at the back.

Re:In a Volvo?

[bvimo]

I thought you were alluding to bukake ;)

Re:In a Volvo?

[b0bby]

You should check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
It's a crash test of a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, done by the IIHS for their 50th anniversary. It's pretty amazing to see how little all that metal does for you... and yes, I realize it's a joke, but this video is too good to miss.

Re:In a Volvo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, motorcycle riders have more skin in the game. Bikes don't really have crumple zones, and very few have airbags. There really are no fender benders on a bike.

Re:In a Volvo?

[Jonathan_S]

>By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo

But what about those outside the Volvo?

Well there is one absolutely fool-proof way to keep anyone from being injured or killed in or around a new volvo in 2020. Don't build or sell any Volvos in 2019 or 2020. Presto, all injuries and deaths will be around old(er) Volvos.

Re:In a Volvo?

[tverbeek]

But how many of those fatalities were caused by human beings with 4 wheels under them? "Dangerous" doesn't just mean "dangerous to the driver", a concept that most SUV-armed drivers don't seem to grasp.

Re:In a Volvo?

[cynyr]

I would say that has to do with the transmission in the motorcycle as well. Most are manual sequential gear boxes, in that they have a clutch that has to be operated.

Re:In a Volvo?

[r0kk3rz]

That and motorcyclists have next to no 'safety features' at their disposal that will save them from certain death, other than the number one safety feature present in all vehicles, the driver.

Basically the safer the vehicle becomes the more dangerous the driver becomes, because they have less to lose.

Re:In a Volvo?

[inventorM]

What if you were under a bridge or in a tunnel?

Re:In a Volvo?

[versus]

anyway, you'll die not __in__ the Volvo

Re:In a Volvo?

[shikaisi]

Exactly. This is why I always give a very wide berth to Volvo drivers. They seem to believe that because their car is built to be very safe, this means that they can drive more dangerously to compensate. As a result, they take more risks, do more stupid stuff and cause more collisions and injuries to other road users. A few years back, a psychology department did some research on driver behaviour and confirmed my long-standing fear of Volvos. Basically they put people in a driving simulator seated in a variety of differently designed driver's seat environments. The people who were given the safest-feeling car, basically a kind of Sherman tank with a padded dashboard set-up, compensated by driving most dangerously. The people who were put in a car made out of chicken-wire and cardboard, with a 12 inch spike in the middle of the steering wheel, consistently drove safely and politely with consideration for other road users. All a "zero fatality" car will do is bring out the worst in people who will now drive like they are invulnerable and proceed to mow down pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and anyone in "normal" cars with impunity.

prior art

[TheSHAD0W]

They can use some of the same technology as was utilized on this motorcycle:

http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=21816

Re:prior art

[hedwards]

At some point that technology will be available and work. I mean if Honda can include an airbag with some of their motorcycles Motorcycle airbag I doubt that this technology won't get implemented at some point in the future. There's of course also the newly available radar for checking blindspots in cars.

Re:prior art

[cynyr]

The helmet was a good idea. How about one of those MotoGP air bag suits?

Auto-car.

[Seumas]

I'm really interested in the promise of an automated car that you don't have to get a license for or actually drive. They would be inherently safer, even taking failures into consideration. Of course, this will never fly (in America, at least) because we have this mentality that we need to be actively behind the wheel of a six ton three-story tall truck with twelve wheels, wider than two lanes of traffic, with a pair of truck-nuts dangling off the back. To pick our snot-nosed kids up from the grade school.

Re:Auto-car.

[Seumas]

Of course, old people will also be upset and angry by either the car in the article (with some automation) or the desired auto-car itself. They have lived long lives and fought in wars, so who are we to strip them of their independence and prevent them from exercising their hard-earned god-given rights to wipe out entire fields of soccer playing children or entire restaurants full of diners?

Re:Auto-car.

[bluefoxlucid]

Are you a serious socialist? I can't imagine any other mentality that accepts both "Independent drivers cause 300 deaths per car accident" (wiping out a field of soccer players would take a lot of effort, and some would escape off the field into terrain I couldn't follow by the time I could turn and catch up; a restaurant would take a large amount of high explosives in the back) and "totally automated cars are completely feasible and will never cause fatalities when they malfunction." It's got to be a perfect-world-versus-horrible-decaying-world mentality.

Re:Auto-car.

[confused one]

That's funny... All the people who've caused accidents I was involved in were young.

Re:Auto-car.

[gemtech]

Didn't you mean to state:
Most people should not be driving. Period.
?

Re:Auto-car.

[Anonymous Coward]

truck-nuts dangling off the back.

America! Fuck Yeah!

Re:Auto-car.

[Joce640k]

Snowflake won't have enough leg room in anything less!

Re:Auto-car.

[hypergreatthing]

yes, i would love that. Then people would run around with HERC cannons and watch the mayhem, put it on youtube.

Re:Auto-car.

[Seumas]

Are you a serious socialist? I can't imagine any other mentality that accepts both "Independent drivers cause 300 deaths per car accident" (wiping out a field of soccer players would take a lot of effort, and some would escape off the field into terrain I couldn't follow by the time I could turn and catch up; a restaurant would take a large amount of high explosives in the back) and "totally automated cars are completely feasible and will never cause fatalities when they malfunction." It's got to be a perfect-world-versus-horrible-decaying-world mentality.

I understand that you are being intentionally daft for the point of argument, but what part of "would be inherently safer, even taking failures into consideration" did you have difficulty comprehending? Even with a given failure rate in some sort of automated system, an automated system with a human in the vehicle is without any reasonable question far safer than one driven entirely by a human. A car doesn't eat and drink while driving, drive drunk, have conversations, turn around to smack the kids, finger a smoke in one hand, listen to the radio, try and read a book or newspaper, get dressed, put on make-up, shave, have the reaction time of a slug, have arguments with other people in the vehicle, make phone calls, text-message, or any other countless risky behaviors that huge portions of drivers regularly engage in.

As for your quoting a statement that I never made in any way (much less a quotable one) about "totally automated cars are completely feasible and will never cause fatalities when they malfunction". Well, nobody said that. I said the likely failure rate of automation would be far better than the fatality rate of human driving.

Most people are dangerous drivers at least some of the time. However, the most dangerous drivers are the elderly and those under twenty-four years of age. Public safety surpasses any need for "a feeling of independence" and an automated vehicle system would help both (all, actually) groups retain mobility and independence, just without the need of physically controlling every action of the vehicle at all times. I don't see why there is any issue with that. Do people get their tits twisted over the idea of a microwave stealing their vitality and independence versus building and stocking a fire so they can whip out a cast iron pan and cook dinner over it?

Also, I don't follow soccer, but I think you may have a confused understanding of the game. I seem to recall that there are only twenty-two players on a soccer field, not 300. I also think you may suffer some confusion over various political ideologies if automation as a compromise to allowing independence without the significant risk of very young and old drivers strikes you as "socialist".

Re:Auto-car.

[The Shootist]

To paraphrase Mr Heinlein, "forget Republican or democrat, left or Right; there are two kinds of people in the world, those who wish to control others, and those who have no such desire."

Re:Auto-car.

[Joce640k]

They also complain about seatbelts and think that old cars are safer ... should we listen?

Re:Auto-car.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I suspect the bigger trick; beyond the technology(if GPSes with pre-digested machine-format maps, and RTS units in fully computer-generated environments, with perfect knowledge of the location of all objects in the virtual space, are still fucking it up, real world systems with sensors and machine vision and stuff have a way to go...) will be the liability allocation.

With human controlled cars, the human is presumed to be the responsible agent, unless the vehicle can specifically be proven to be at fault(ie. brake failures under normal use, flipping over and catching fire if you tap a wall at 10mph, spontaneous acceleration, etc.). Humans are actually pretty miserable drivers, especially the distracted, tired, intoxicated, bored, old, trying-to-outrun-the-cops, and other pathological case ones; but the liability for the deaths, injuries, and property damage caused is spread out across a huge number of them in a fairly thin layer.

Now, if the car were automated, there would be a strong case to be made that the car, and thereby its manufacturer, is the responsible agent. Even if a car achieved, say, a factor of 10 reduction in accidents(not wildly implausible, with some technological advance), the amount of liability incurred by the manufacturer would be absolutely crippling.

It would take a sea-change in how accident liability is allocated for automated vehicles to make it out of test tracks, rail systems, and specific instances(like antilock brakes).

Re:Auto-car.

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have transportation that doesn't require a license. It's called planes, trains, and automobuses.

Re:Auto-car.

[Seumas]

I'm no mathematician, but I suspect your personal anecdotal experiences may not be conclusive of the overall accident and fatality rate of the rest of the nation (or world).

Drivers with the greatest fatality rates are people under twenty-four years of age (especially under nineteen) and older drivers (over fifty or sixty - I forget which).

Stories of old people accidentally stepping on the gas instead of the break are pretty common and young people are just careless, inexperienced, irresponsible, and stupid. But of course, you can't dare take driving away from them, because getting behind the wheel of a 75mph 3,000lb chunk of steel before you can even be trusted to smoke, vote, hold a full time job, or live on your own is considered about as "unamerican" as you can get.

Re:Auto-car.

[Seumas]

Yes, because an automated car will jam a transmitting fork in the owner's head so that they will be forced to do their bidding. You'll just hop in your car and have absolutely no influence or control over it, because something that offers automation somehow erases all decision-making from the driver. You'll want to go get a pizza and the car will demand that you go to a farmer's market for some veggies, instead. Yep, that's totally how it is.

See, this is exactly the kind of absurd reaction Americans have to the simple idea that they could have an automated vehicle and a framework to support it. You mean I ain't gonna have my foot directly on the pedals and my hands directly on the steering wheel all the time? WHAT ARE YOU SOME SORTA FUCKIN' PINKO COMMUNIST?!"

Of course, who would want to spend their time reading or relaxing or having a conversation or getting some work done on the way to the office when they could spend their time tapping the gas and break in gridlock for a couple hours each direction of their daily commute?

Re:Auto-car.

[netsuhi.com]

You already almost have this in America. With cruse control, automatic gearboxes and all the other gadgets inside your cars all that is left for the driver to do is steer (once every 100 miles or so). I would much prefere to drive my manual small car in England down twisty roads where I actually have to drive.

Re:Auto-car.

[Seumas]

There are plenty of people who shouldn't be driving. Age shouldn't have much to do with it, but aptitude should. Unfortunately, we give licenses to any idiot with a pulse that can answer most of a list of twenty questions and take a brief street test without running someone over.

Though older and younger drivers are the most dangerous, there are plenty of exceptions across the board (more dangerous people in the middle and some safer one toward the extreme young/old ages). I don't see why we can't require more frequent and thorough testing of people as they ramp up to learning and getting their license and then toward the more senior years to ensure they remain safe and capable drivers. Unfortunately, that isn't the case in most states (or any, for all I know?).

Of course, with an automated system, the human would be the brain of the system who can override in emergencies, but could otherwise carry on about their business in the cabin/cockpit while the car automates 99.9% of the process. Allowing mobility and independence to those young and old who may otherwise currently be a danger to the public or in an ideal world of more frequent and thorough testing, prevented from enjoying the freedom of travel seems like an ideal solution.

Re:Auto-car.

[Seumas]

This is only the case on the interstate. Driving on freeways and within cities is the complete opposite.

Re:Auto-car.

[bluefoxlucid]

I don't think I'd ever be able to handle a car that was partially automated.

I've run off the road on ABS trying to recover, because when I squeeze my brakes my focus immediately goes to my car (I have a sports suspension in a tiny economy car, go figure...): if it starts to lose traction, I respond by easing off the brakes and executing reflexive recovery maneuvers. In normal driving, I don't need my brakes except to stop; if I can't adequately slow down by backing off my throttle, I am going too fast.

So of course, either I'm correcting for an error or I'm avoiding a sudden hazard (idiots popping out into the street--children actually look first, wtf?-- or other idiots in cars). At that point, I'm completely aware of my car's behavior, and focusing on keeping it in control. When the ABS kicks in, the dynamics change is so drastic I have to completely give up on handling my car to switch strategies; this has caused me problems. Specifically, my main problem is I lose all braking control: the pedal sinks completely to the ground when ABS kicks in, as the computer is now managing my brakes and I don't have access to that dynamic in any fine-control form anymore.

I couldn't even drive an automatic on the highway very well; if other drivers drove dumb and didn't react to my occasional misjudgments of what the car was going to do (particularly, going into high gear when I need to ACCELERATE, NOW), I'd have caused 4 or 5 accidents a year at least, maybe twice that many. Now I have a clutch and I execute the exact same maneuvers (merging into faster lanes from slower lanes in dense traffic), and don't cause any disruption to the flow of traffic. Ever. My predictions on what's possible also follow what the car actually does.

A semi-automated car with me behind the wheel would be worse than a regular car with a drunk behind the wheel, or a fully automatic car with flawed programming. At least the flawed fully auto would register "oh shit I just hit another car" and take action to rectify, damaging property but possibly avoiding major accidents. I can't react to a computer constantly changing the dynamic of my vehicle, or changing it at inopportune times; I work off physics, and I have to plan what changes to those physics are about to happen if I'm going to react to them.

Re:Auto-car.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this might be the reason why Americans are so depressingly in favour of robot cars. The only roads they have are long, straight highways, the only transmissions they have are slushbox automatics, they only have to manage two pedals, and the land barges and Toyotas most of them have take steering input only as a humble suggestion. So they're never engaged in actually driving.

Alternatively it might just be because they're all lazy, fat assholes.

Re:Auto-car.

[tkdog]

But Seumas - isn't data the plural of anecdote?

Re:Auto-car.

[BarryJacobsen]

Also, I don't follow soccer, but I think you may have a confused understanding of the game. I seem to recall that there are only twenty-two players on a soccer field, not 300.

He was assuming some place other than the USA, where the would actually be spectators around the field, as well as the players on it :P

Re:Auto-car.

[langelgjm]

That's funny... All the people who've caused accidents I was involved in were young.

I could make a crack here about how maybe the problem is that you're old, and your perception of who is causing the accidents is incorrect...

In reality though, I see no reason why periodic re-examinations should not be implemented (and not just for driving, either). I'm pretty sure we don't let pilots just get their license after one exam and keep it forever. Doctors have to have continuing education. Why is that when it comes to a driver's license, it's enough to take one [sometimes very easy] exam when you're 16 years old, and then just pay a renewal fee forever?

Now for my own anecdotes: I've never been involved in an accident while I was driving. Out of the two accidents where I was a passenger, one was caused by an old person, and one by a young person.

Re:Auto-car.

[Seumas]

The automated solutions I've seen actively worked on today are not so "robotic" as the example you describe. Some of them involve magnets in the road which help guide the vehicle and some of the solutions also involve "caravans" where there is a lead car and then a handful of other vehicles virtually tethered behind them in a very efficient, fast, safe caravan. Because they can automatically break very quickly as needed and they are in lanes which do not share the road with manual drivers, they can travel at greater speeds with more safety and fewer variables.

The demonstrations I've seen appear almost ridiculously simple, though they of course are comprised of great complexity to pull it off.

The problem with most of these solutions would really seem to be in the more urban environments. It's one thing to have a fleet of cars automatically handle themselves in a controlled system on an interstate or freeway, but how would it translate to stop and go traffic in city blocks? It would be easy to make the cars obey traffic laws and signs (so they don't go the wrong way, for example), but the same principal applied in those conditions may prove cumbersome.

I don't think insurance and liability would actually be as big of an issue. In an accident, you would deal with the person occupying the vehicle. That person could of course turn around and deal with the manufacturer if it is their liability. And if that proved to be the issue most of the time, then it would probably raise the price of the vehicles. But then individuals would probably have cheaper auto insurance themselves, as a result.

The point is that if you have a 90% reduction in accidents, you would probably have a huge reduction in lawsuits and insurance claims, too. So even if someone does have to pay out occasionally, it would balance out in the end. And everyone would be the safer for it.

If automation ever does happen, it's likely to occur in stages. Perhaps the same way we currently have public roads and private tollways.

It may also just be that we're awaiting some singularity at which point the culmination of so many advances will bring us more than simple modern cars with automation anyway.

Re:Auto-car.

[kevinNCSU]

I think we can ALL agree that the real problem is people from Maryland.

Re:Auto-car.

[Rude Turnip]

They're called taxis. You get in and use voice commands to tell it where to go. Or, hop on a bus and take a pre-determined route.

Re:Auto-car.

[Anonymous Coward]

Europeans still insist on manual transmission thought. There is little difference in principle between having an automatic transmission and having an automatic steering wheel.

What we don't want is car that has a remote controlled "lock up the doors and drive to jail" function.

Re:Auto-car.

[Seumas]

When I talk about automation, I mean an automated transportation experience that can be over-ridden by the driver when it is necessary. If your car decides the correct speed to travel at is measure din Mach, you should probably be able to easily take over.

When I mention partially automated, I'm referring more to the example of the car from this article - where they are more "assists" than "controls" -- and I think those are exactly what you're describing a concern with. I suppose it depends how "partial" automation are implemented. Would your experience with ABS have a parallel in a system that automatically breaks just before impacting a car or pedestrian in front of you that you are clearly not reacting to fast enough to be safe on your own?

I don't have an answer for that. I guess it would only be derived from exhaustive real-world testing. I like the idea of such fail-safes in all vehicles, but mixing real-time human interaction/control with partial automation definitely seems open to much more complexity. It's one thing to negotiate automation in an automated caravan where the car just has to make sure it is going at-speed with the others in its group without getting too close or far away or drifting out of its lane. It's definitely another to negotiate countless variables from an active human driver.

Re:Auto-car.

[BForrester]

A police officer gave us the national statistics back when I took drivers ed. The elderly cause the most accidents. Women are more likely to be in accidents than men. However, males under 25 are much more likely to be in accidents resulting in serious damage, injury or fatality.

Another consideration: if you have been in enough accidents to group the co-responsible under the category "all the people," maybe it's not the "young" who are the problem in your case.

Re:Auto-car.

[operagost]

You do know that the recession has basically killed off that market, and Hummer is no more? 2001 called, they want their environut rhetoric back.

Re:Auto-car.

[operagost]

No, we're thinking more of a car that can be disabled at any time by any cop, or a car that can be disabled in its garage so that you can't leave town. These are powers that can be abused, and can't be turned over to the state without great consideration of the consequences. All the lefties who are opposing the Arizona immigration law because of what cops COULD do should get this: but they won't because they're actually the opposite of "liberals" (thanks, FDR).

Re:Auto-car.

[jaggeh]

You think thats bad, in ireland in 1979 there were so many drivers on provisional learners licences that the government decided to give an amnesty for everyone on their second permit.

So right now of our 50+ aged population theres a signifigant percentage of them driving who have never passed a test.

Not only are they getting old, but they are also incompetent

Re:Auto-car.

[operagost]

Now, if the car were automated, there would be a strong case to be made that the car, and thereby its manufacturer, is the responsible agent.

That could be fixed with a simple EULA-style disclaimer.

Re:Auto-car.

[qwertyatwork]

Screw that. I want a truck boat truck!

Re:Auto-car.

[bluefoxlucid]

Would your experience with ABS have a parallel in a system that automatically breaks just before impacting a car or pedestrian in front of you that you are clearly not reacting to fast enough to be safe on your own?

Mine didn't. I'd be uncomfortable with that, as well. It's a difficult general problem, even for me: on one hand I might not react fast enough and the car might do better; on the other, humans are remarkably better at learning by reflex than explaining the things they learn, and I might actually out-reflex my car and resolve a situation where it may suddenly decide I can't and it has to take over... and then it fails, and causes death that I may have averted. You can't tell which situation is going to occur until it's over, though; there's no way to say I could or couldn't have handled that once the computer takes over, there's no way to say the computer could have done it if I fail, and I hate the defense of "nobody got arrested for manslaughter because they didn't disable their automated failsafes and the computer wasn't as good a driver as they would have been." Sorry, but if I could avoid crushing a pedestrian and the computer couldn't, it's still my responsibility for not having confidence in my own abilities (even if it's understandable that humans occasionally make mistakes, these things happen, and punishment isn't appropriate).

It's one thing to negotiate automation in an automated caravan where the car just has to make sure it is going at-speed with the others in its group without getting too close or far away or drifting out of its lane. It's definitely another to negotiate countless variables from an active human driver.

yeah, seriously. Complete automation is one thing: you're challenging the accuracy of your model and the ability to respond to environmental stress. Semi-automation is another: you're negotiating with a human that may simply have a completely different strategy in mind, and there will be contention and unwanted assistance, causing much danger.

I always wanted a panic button somewhere (maybe a fourth pedal, or an emergency button or lever on the steering wheel or column) that would activate full reactionary systems. Something for me to say, "Okay, I can't handle what's coming up or what I'm trying to do now; please kick in traction control for me." At that point I'm not trying to control the car; I'm ready to just floor it, turn where I want to go, hope it goes there, and slam the brakes when I want it to stop/slow down. I know what I want to do, but have no fucking clue how to do it.

Of course in those situations the computer will probably fail, but I'd expect it to fail less spectacularly than me since it can at least control all 4 wheels individually (hey, I have brakes and throttle, I can't apply 30% braking to one wheel and 50% to another). In other situations, I want full awareness of my car-- I want to feel it slip a little when I'm going just slightly too fast for conditions, so I'm encouraged to back off.

Current generation TC/ESC really needs a warning light that comes on immediately to alert the driver that their nice, smooth, perfect ride is a complete fabrication at this immediate time; and drivers need to be taught that this means to slow the fuck down, not to be proud of their fancy all-wheel-drive self-correcting car. Seriously, there are many situations where I would probably turn on TC if I had it; there are also plenty of situations where TC would do something, but I'd pull the fuse if I didn't have a switch to turn it off. In any case, I would be MUCH happier if my car would alert me when it thinks I'm doing it wrong, even if TC is off and it's not going to do anything about it.

Re:Auto-car.

[FrigBot]

Or maybe you're just jealous.

Re:Auto-car.

[dave420]

I think that should be an optional extra. If someone stole my car I'd love the cops to have that ability. If we ran around stopping the police from having anything that could be abused, we'd have no police. Clearly your position is rather strange. It must be the liberals screwing with your head (thanks, FDR).

Re:Auto-car.

[natehoy]

Another consideration: if you have been in enough accidents to group the co-responsible under the category "all the people," maybe it's not the "young" who are the problem in your case.

100% of the accidents I caused were caused by someone who was young, you insensitive clod!

Thousands of other middle-aged folks will tell you the same thing.

The fact that we're not yet old is irrelevant. Young people cause all traffic accidents, and I have statistical proof of that. None of us middle-agers have ever caused an accident as old people.

Re:Auto-car.

[germansausage]

I realize this is slightly offtopic, and I agree that an automated car might sometimes do the opposite of what the driver wants. However, with respect to the ABS I'll say this. You need to learn how to drive with the ABS on. This is not a skill you already have, and learning it in an emergency situation... well, you know how that ended up. The whole point of ABS is that you can apply maximum braking power and still steer the car. Next time it snows, go find an empty parking lot and go nuts with the ABS. A good, "aware and in tune with his car", driver will master controlled panic stops (nice oxmoron eh..) in about 5 minutes. Added bonus, this is a lot of fun.

Anecdote: The first year the Calgary police bought cars with ABS they cracked up twice as many in one winter as the cars without ABS. As soon as the ABS started vibrating the pedal the cops backed off on the brakes and smacked into whatever they were trying to avoid. Once they added ABS practice to the emergency driving training the accident rate went down to where the ABS cars had only half as many accidents as the non-ABS cars.

Re:Auto-car.

[Nethemas the Great]

The American culture also once had the mentality that wearing seat belts were a hassle. So much so that in the first years that they found there way into cars it was estimated that only 10-15% of people actually used them. At this point most everyone save inbred hicks understand their point and use them or at least are compelled to obey traffic laws mandating their use.

Cultures can be changed, usually it takes a bit of time or a heavy handed law but eventually usually do.

Re:Auto-car.

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

To be blunt, you have trouble with automated cars because you are a bad driver.

Note that when I say "bad", I'm referring to your judgement, not your skill.

The fact that you are regularly bumping up against the limits of your vehicle means that you're driving too fast, following too closely, and merging with too little margin.

Eventually, you will screw up, and when you do you'll cause a lot of damage because you have left very little margin for safety.

You are driving on public roads with other drivers, many of whom are unpredictable and far less skilled than you. This does not give you a license to drive aggressively - indeed, it mandates that you drive defensively to mininize the risks.

Go show off your skills at autocross or the track. Do everything you can to avoid using those skills on the highway.

Re:Auto-car.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in America and I drive a compact, 5 speed. And I definitely do not want to drive (or be driven) a fully automated car. Some of us drive because we enjoy driving and would rather not have a computer do the driving. Sounds exceedingly dull.

Re:Auto-car.

[Maarx]

I'm from Jersey, and the problem is cars older than '98 with Pennsylvania plates.

Re:Auto-car.

[cgenman]

You're cutting your driving close enough that a quarter-second automatic transmission shift almost caused accidents? There's your problem right there. Have you considered semi-automatic or paddle shifting?

I don't know. I live in a part of the world where Ice happens 6 months out of the year. And I can brake on Ice. But I can't brake on ice anything like my car's ABS can brake on ice. I can steer on ice. But a good EST system will keep the car moving in the direction the wheels are pointing, which I can't do. I've driven a friend's car, which does a nice steering and suspension stiffening thing as the car goes faster, and adjusts the suspension pressure to avoid tipping during cornering.

I like the analogy of fighter jets. Modern jets basically have the computer keep the jet pointed in the direction that the pilot expects. The pilot tells the computer where to go in a way that's reminiscent of a normal plane, and the computer invisibly makes everything work in a way that humans couldn't do. The invisibleness makes it good.

I don't know. I still just want cruise control that doesn't need me to tell it to slow down because someone is coming up in front of us. And considering how many people I've been a meatspace blind-spot avoidance system for, I wouldn't mind one of those floating around. Incremental betterness.

Re:Auto-car.

[slimjim8094]

Hmm. From my personal experience doing EMS, out of the hundred or so motor vehicle accidents I've been to, all but one has been caused by somebody over 30, and mostly women. Most involved cellphones. The one exception involved a teenager on a very icy road at night, and both drivers screwed up so there was no clear cause. Admittedly, we don't do many highway accidents so those may be different (but it's true for the 10 or so I've seen).

Maybe it's the area I live in. And of course these are just anecdotes - but it's a lot of anecdotes.

Re:Auto-car.

[morari]

Yes, actually I do. At least here in America, getting one's driving license is too easy. Fill in a few test answers and drive through a few cones. The initial education and test should be far more difficult, and you should be re-tested every few years.

Of course, you also have to wonder about America's obsession with automatic transmissions and needlessly large vehicles.

Re:Auto-car.

[bluefoxlucid]

The fact that you are regularly bumping up against the limits of your vehicle means that you're driving too fast, following too closely, and merging with too little margin.

Occasionally my vehicle needs to do something I didn't plan for, like evade a driver that merged 30 feet in front of me from a dead stop.

Also from time to time I find myself riding around on I-95 with traffic going 80mph... with 3 carlengths between cars. Sometimes the next lane to the left(!) is going 65-70. That means I'm merging rightwards into a slower lane. I signal, I watch the cars around me, and I take extra time to allow drivers to register that I'm about to merge in front of them. However, with a clutch I stay locked in third gear right up to 90mph; when I use the throttle, the car does exactly what I expect. In an auto, I'll back off the gas to maintain distance from the car ahead of me just before merging, and my car goes right to high gear and stays there; flooring it doesn't make me go any faster for about a full second, which means merging causes an emergency situation that the drivers around me have to react to.

I take issue with having a vehicle that applies behavior I can't control, or behavior I can't predict. If the difference between being a "Bad driver" and being a "Good driver" is using a car that can actually do exactly what I'm trying to do, then the problem is the car I'm in. If my car's engine can supply the power and the suspension can handle far, far more intensive maneuvers, then the car should not actively change dynamics into configurations that might not allow me to safely execute a rather banal and boring lane change. Seriously, I don't need a fucking race car for this shit; I've got a 300% margin of error in a ~1.5 second part of a maneuver (so about 4 seconds for someone else to react if I fuck up) in a Mazda3. If that suddenly becomes a collision if the other driver doesn't react due to the gear my car's in or some other automated function, I'm driving the WRONG car.

As an aside, I'm not sure traffic is flowing quite efficiently if the cars are packed that close together at that speed, or if the difference in speed between adjacent lanes is greater than 10mph. Case in point, stretches of I-95 south from Delaware where the far left lane runs 100mph, and the immediate next lane runs 70mph. And yes, I've had my amazing brakes bring me to a firm stop just after the next guy's brake lights came on, dropping from 65mph, and seen the guy behind me suddenly jump into the emergency lane and skid to a stop next to me... following too closely, guess he was annoyed the left lane of 695 wasn't 80mph today....

What world do you live in where everyone leaves 60 feet of space at highway speeds, and merging between traffic lanes is a simple affair? Can you drive in the right lane without dealing with on-ramp mergers pulling 20 feet in front of you at 20mph while traffic is flowing at 65?

Another anecdote, I drive Franklintown Road in Baltimore to Woodlawn (look it up on Google Maps). There are a lot of blind curves, and near Woodlawn there's a really big one where opposing traffic sort of appears 30 feet away. So coming around this at roughly 30mph, I'm suddenly on my brakes hard; there's a big SUV 30 feet away going 45-50mph (!!!), passing a row of 3 cars going the nominal speed of (get this) 40mph. Great, I'm facing a 70mph head-on collision with some moron who decided to pass in the opposing lane of traffic while speeding on a road where the nominal speed is 15mph above the speed limit anyway... around a fucking blind curve.

What's even more ridiculous is because I only go at most 5mph above the speed limit there (and 5mph under in the rain, even though everyone still wants to go 40), I've had an idiot in a Lexus do the exact same thing to me coming the other way, trying to pass me around that exact curve. I braked and yielded ... just as he merged ahead of me, a Benz SUV came around the other way. Yeah, I've

Re:Auto-car.

[gemtech]

Funny you should mention automatic transmissions and needlessly large vehicles. I have an F150 (automatic, big V8) to haul stuff with, had it for 9 years. I live out in the country (sort of) and it's a necessity but it only gets driven when needed (15mpg will do that to you).

But last year I bought a Chevy Cobalt right before the cash for clunkers thing, 5 speed manual. It had sat on the dealer's showroom floor for over 4 months and nobody was interested. I found that odd, but I'm now not surprised since I found out that 90% of the US cars are automatic.

And I'm 53 years old. I hope that wasn't the "old" you were refering to.

Re:Auto-car.

[WillDraven]

Humans are actually pretty miserable drivers, especially the distracted, tired, intoxicated, bored, old, trying-to-outrun-the-cops, and other pathological case ones;

The way things are going I wouldn't mind an automatic car with a mode for this.

Re:Auto-car.

[bluefoxlucid]

You're cutting your driving close enough that a quarter-second automatic transmission shift almost caused accidents?

A what? Quarter second? ... your transmission shifts down in a quarter second? Mine claimed 30mpg (it got 23.5 with 90% highway driving, it claimed 24 in the city), and it would take a full second to downshift. And only one gear, down to direct drive: I downshift lower than that. So even after it finally downshifted, it didn't have the power to do what I wanted. The model with a stick shift could do it easy.

I love driving in the snow, but currently need better tires for it. I don't drive that fast... I took the highway at 20mph in the last storm. Some people had better tires and TC and ESC and still lost their back end going 40-50mph in that stuff... so I think 20mph was justified, when a better equipped car with fancy computer controls couldn't go twice that speed without living precariously perched on the knife-edge between cruising and spinning all over the fucking place. I did pull off some acrobatics to scare off a tailgater (yeah, he was like 10 feet away... I turned left, downshifted, and rev'd to torque steer so my car tracked diagonally but traveled in the same direction); if I'd had to stop, he would have taken far too long to figure out how to stop himself (even with ABS, my car had a lot less momentum than his due to its weight). Who tailgates in the snow?

I can't stand driving cruise control. Traffic speeds vary too much too fast.

Re:Auto-car.

[LanMan04]

My wife got t-boned by a little old lady last week. It happens.

Re:Auto-car.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's BRAKE, not 'break'.

Goddamn, people...

Re:Auto-car.

[jbengt]

All the people who've caused accidents I was involved in were young.

Is that why they took away your license at a such young age?

Re:Auto-car.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a frightful idiot. You should start using public transportation or ride a motorcycle to save others the misery of dying or being seriously injured at your hands. How many accidents have you caused, will you cause?

Re:Auto-car.

[morari]

I understand completely. I live in a rural area myself. I have a old Chevy truck sitting out behind the house. V8, four-wheel-drive. It pulls greats, but is lucky to get any more than 15-20mpg. But you know what? It's nice to be able to haul my own gravel when the driveway gets washes out every couple years. And it gets me to work for a month or two every winter when the roads are covered in snow.

Outside of those specialized circumstances however, I tend to stick with much smaller vehicles. I actually use a 1972 Super Beetle as my daily driver. Those Cobalts are pretty nice though, I had a Cavalier for years. They're a little too complicated for me to work on myself in the driveway though. ;)

Re:Auto-car.

[EnglishDude]

Pull the ABS fuse, or learn how to drive a car with ABS.

My modern car don't have ABS (was an optional extra), so when I borrow someone else's car, I check whether they have ABS (amongst other things) and think hard what I need to do in an emergency before setting off. The ABS light is there to warn you that you need to change the braking method if it fails.

Otherwise, I totally agree with what RzUpAnmsCwrds said.

Re:Auto-car.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's BRAKE, not break! Goddammit, every time there's a car thread it's full of people making this mistake.

Re:Auto-car.

[JTsyo]

Hey don't diss the Canyonero

Can you name the car with four-wheel-drive?
Smells like a steak and seats thirty-five!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down.
It's a country-fried truck endorsed by a clown.
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Twelve yards long and two lanes wide,
sixty-five tons of American pride!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports!
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts.
Canyonero! Canyonero!
She blinds everybody with her super-high beam.
She a squirrel-squishin', deer-smackin' drivin' machine!
Canyonero! Canyonero!

Re:Auto-car.

[acid06]

Driving tests do not help with any of these issues. Here in Brazil the driving tests are very difficult to master if you're not a somewhat decent driver (it's very common to hear people failing 7 or 8 times and then just giving up).

All of this doesn't help to make the traffic any better at all. People will just "train" for the exam and then after they pass, they just unlearn most of it.

Also, you can't safely test highway driving abilities as a bad driver would endanger the other drivers around and whoever is doing the evaluation. So you have a chicken and egg problem. People usually only drive on highways around here after some experience "in the city" and usually avoid heavy traffic until they're comfortable.

The only good formula is common sense. No amount of regulation will fix it. While I do agree that the driving exam in the US is a joke, a good exame would only improve things by a very very small amount.

Re:Auto-car.

[misexistentialist]

My condolences if some teen drove up on your lawn. "Junior operators" do have a lot of restrictions in most states that would be a little strange imposed upon 18-year-olds, who are not exactly known for the maturity either, but have hopefully learned some fear during their mandated hours driving under parental supervision.

Re:Auto-car.

[Anonymous Coward]

In most vehicles you can remove the main ABS relay to disable the system. It will likely turn on an ABS or general check engine light, but at least the ABS will not longer bother you. I did this with an older vehicle that had for the same reason as you. I didn't like how the dynamic changed when it engaged.

Re:Auto-car.

[illumin8]

It has been proven that a car with ABS brakes can stop faster than the old "pump the brakes rapidly" method. So, when you need to stop fast, feel free to mash your foot to the floor as hard as possible and let the ABS brakes do their thing. I know it creates that funky pulsing sensation as the brakes pulse hundreds of times per second, but it truly can stop faster than you can by pumping. Don't try to second-guess the automatic systems... just let them do their job and hopefully prevent an accident.

Re:Auto-car.

[Richy_T]

I'm pretty sure we don't let pilots just get their license after one exam and keep it forever.

You're wrong. Though there are periodic medicals and checkouts that are required to keep flying on that license.

Re:Auto-car.

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't even drive an automatic on the highway very well; if other drivers drove dumb and didn't react to my occasional misjudgments of what the car was going to do (particularly, going into high gear when I need to ACCELERATE, NOW), I'd have caused 4 or 5 accidents a year at least, maybe twice that many. Now I have a clutch and I execute the exact same maneuvers (merging into faster lanes from slower lanes in dense traffic), and don't cause any disruption to the flow of traffic. Ever. My predictions on what's possible also follow what the car actually does.

That you are up shifting to accelerate now indicates to me that you are incompetent and don't realize that you are incompetent.
You are also demonstrating an inability to adapt.

I have 3 vehicles. Manual transmission go out and lock hubs 4wd locking brake pickup truck. Manual transmission AWD car with anti-lock brakes. Automatic transmission car with antilock brakes. They all handle differently. Big whup, the first time I ended up with anti-lock brakes, I went to an empty parking lot and practiced emergency braking and emergency steering while braking. Oh my the methodology is different from an older car.. I'm still practicing intentionally breaking tires loose from the pavement for turns in the AWD car. And yes, a lot of automatic transmission cars are complete and utter mushboxes. So is a manual transmission pickup truck with 0.5 tons of gravel in the back and 1.5 tons of gravel in a trailer.

Re:Auto-car.

[langelgjm]

That's effectively the same thing. Hang on to your driver's license, but if you flunk eyesight and reaction time tests, maybe you shouldn't be able to use it.

Re:Auto-car.

[gewalker]

Or maybe they are like me. I used to wear my seatbelt all the time, until the state government passed a law that said that I must wear the seat-belt.

Re:Auto-car.

[confused one]

I was in my 30's at the time. The people who clearly caused the accidents (and were charged as such) were in their teens and early 20's. By young, I meant very young.

Re:Auto-car.

[cynyr]

how about a video camera to be stuck on your dash and plugged into the ODB2 port, and triggered externally, for 2 weeks, of which it will take 4 hours of video for review. do this to the driving population every 3 years(34% per year) and I'm willing to bet the roads would be safer, as you could even fine cars that were in the videos....

Privacy on the open motorway be damned.

Re:Auto-car.

[cynyr]

no, you just need to replace all of the cars all at once with the autonomous ones, and add info to the roadway for them at the same time.

Re:Auto-car.

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy sounds fine. Keep your bile to yourself.

Re:Auto-car.

[Chowderbags]

Snowflake won't have enough waist room in anything less!

Fixed. And now it's got the benefit of being sadly true.

Re:Auto-car.

[Simetrical]

(if GPSes with pre-digested machine-format maps, and RTS units in fully computer-generated environments, with perfect knowledge of the location of all objects in the virtual space, are still fucking it up, real world systems with sensors and machine vision and stuff have a way to go...)

There are plenty of third-person RPGs with "move to" commands that work flawlessly even if you click on someplace very distant: I've had my character take the most direct route when I did that in Dragon Age even when it took like a minute on a roundabout path to get there. AFAICT, a typical PC can do excellent pathfinding for one actor at a time, if you do it right. Just not hundreds, like you get in RTSes. But an onboard car computer only needs to do one at a time.

Re:Auto-car.

[Simetrical]

But of course, you can't dare take driving away from them, because getting behind the wheel of a 75mph 3,000lb chunk of steel before you can even be trusted to smoke, vote, hold a full time job, or live on your own is considered about as "unamerican" as you can get.

Or maybe you can't take driving away from them because in large parts of the country, they have to drive to get to school/the doctor/etc., since the population density is sometimes too low for any kind of public transportation (or non-motor transportation, like bicycles) to be workable.

Re:Auto-car.

[bluefoxlucid]

That you are up shifting to accelerate now indicates to me that you are incompetent and don't realize that you are incompetent.

No, I'm downshifting to third and staying there. The automatic in the Cobalt had this thing where if you eased back on the gas pedal a bit, it would immediately shift to high gear; and if you floored it, it would max at 6250RPM (6500 was redline) and then a full second later shift down ONE gear. The torque converter was so lossy that, at highway speeds, I actually couldn't accelerate in 5th gear (at least, acceleration was so ridiculously slow it's not worth mentioning). It would downshift to go from 80 to 90mph if you wanted to go that fast.

In other words, unless you kept your foot down for the WHOLE maneuver (this is stupid and aggressive, since you have to execute lane changes and everything QUICKLY and with minimal warning), the car would go into high gear and then refuse to accelerate.

Screw that, I got rid of all that computer fancy shit and got a box of gears and a lever to move shit around in it.

Re:Auto-car.

[bluefoxlucid]

"Pumping" is called "Cadence braking." I tend to threshold brake. Controlled dynamics, man; I've 40-0'd in a half a car length in the rain.

Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[complacence]

The zero-fatality car is stationary and has no passenger or pilot space.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Lies! A car-sized bomb fits your description and can cause PLENTY of fatalities!

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[mcgrew]

Two hundred years ago a horseless carriage was impossible. 150 years ago an airplane was impossible. 100 years ago a computer was impossible. 50 years ago a cell phone was impossible.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but with sufficiently advanced technology you can make cars as safe as air or (modern) rail.

(If you count suicides the trains lose to cars already, but that's probably unfair since suicides are not exactly accidents.)

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[mcvos]

Nobody is saying that a specific kind of technology is impossible. Just that it's impossible that that technology will never kill anyone.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[confused one]

Nope... Sadly, car bombs have proven that a stationary car with no (remaining) passenger or pilot space can be quite fatal.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they proven that a stationary car with no passengers can be fatal to its passengers?

FTA:

nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo.

Stop nitpicking; you know very well what's meant.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[thegarbz]

But none of those technologies are impaired by basic human stupidity. Take a look at the car in TFA, all they do is warn the driver. There's nothing stopping some idiot doing 200kmh in a mountain road and then flying off the side of the cliff. It's no consolation that there will be a "lane departure" warning light flashing as you're falling to your doom.

As cars have gotten safer they have also gotten far more powerful. The fact that a 16 year old can get behind the wheel of a 250kW vehicle is a scary thought. Classical example of exactly the kind of stupidity I'm talking about was in the news 2 months ago, a guy was caught doing double the speed limit in a 100kmh zone (instant impoundment of the vehicle and loss of licence in my state). He was not only a new driver, but was on the highway on the way home from the licensing centre. He has his licence for less than 20 minutes and now has lost it for 1 year, and is on probation for a year after that.

Humans will never have a zero fatality car because frankly we think we're better than the tools we use. The SCRAM shutdown system was turned off during a maintenance activity at Chernobyl, the BP Texas City operators overfilled a column during start-up because they knew better than the process manual they were following, and most importantly more than half of the cars I have seen with stability control or traction control have a button right there on the dashboard to turn it off.

But this is good. Natural selection should remain in working conditions at all times.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

And despite thousands of years of people trying, flapping one's arms in the air won't propel them to the moon, and it never will.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[BarryJacobsen]

Nobody is saying that a specific kind of technology is impossible. Just that it's impossible that that technology will never kill anyone.

I'm very curious as to the number of trackpad related deaths...

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[Shotgun]

So, you're saying it is a 3yr old Ford?

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[speleo]

Yeah, I wonder how technology would have saved the kid killed yesterday when his truck was squished between a semi tractor and a school bus. Force field? Transporter? Maybe those Speed Racer jump jack things.

While it's a worthwhile goal, I suspect the reality will be a bit different.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[Minwee]

That's why the only car that is truly safe is one that has the engine switched off and starter disconnected, locked in a titanium safe, buried in a concrete vault on the bottom of the sea and surrounded by very highly paid armed guards.

Even then I wouldn't bet on it.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[thewiz]

I already have a zero-fatality vehicle: it's called the M1A1 Abrams.
Gas mileage sucks, though.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[apoc.famine]

Exactly. It's not often it happens, but every now and then shit like this goes down. You can't call it "zero fatality" when life has a million in one chance of going horribly wrong. (From what I understand, nobody was in that car - they had just walked away from it after parking.)

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[rrohbeck]

You can still be killed by a plane crashing on it so it would never be zero.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[mcgrew]

But none of those technologies are impaired by basic human stupidity. Take a look at the car in TFA, all they do is warn the driver.

That's all they can do NOW, but before ten years have gone by you'll have cars that refuse to go 100 on a mountain road, and if we're lucky we'll have cars that require no driver.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[AK Marc]

They were never "impossible" they were just "not possible." You are confusing the two and making a play on that inconsistency. Accelerating something from sub-light speed to above light speed is impossible. It was 200 years ago, 150 years ago, 100 years ago, and 50 years ago. It is now. It will be forever in the future. It is impossible. Making something "foolproof" is impossible. Fools evolve. Safety features fail (either from design error or wear). Making a replicator is not possible now. It isn't forever impossible. The ability to change one atom to another exists now, but is not possible to use that to transform materials on a useful or cost effective basis.

Not to mention that you listed items when the thing in question is a characterization of an item. Those are completely different topics. It's simple to look backwards and list things that hadn't been invented yet. That's not an argument, that's an encyclopedia entry unrelated to the current discussion.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[thegarbz]

Yeah and some douche will bypass all of that fancy stuff and crash killing not only himself but the occupancy of another car. Even the car in I Robot had a manual driving mode. The ability to override this all will be dictated by marketing as people like to be in control. Safety features are only good if someone uses them.

Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak

[cynyr]

Think if enough force is used it could bash in your skull? how about anything like a sharp edge that could cut a major artery? or if it is corded, could that be used as a garrote?

You just need to think about it harder.

pedestrians

[StripedCow]

So how about the pedestrians?

Re:pedestrians

[hedwards]

From personal experience, I'd have to say, don't walk anywhere. And if you do be sure to not cross streets and definitely don't assume that the drivers care about crosswalks.

NOTICE!

[ae1294]

WARNING: You are exceeding the speed-limit by 5 mph, we will alert the authorities...

WARNING: Your car is overdue for it's monthly maintenance check and will not start after august 1.

WARNING: You took that corner too fast for current conditions, we have alerted the authorities.

WARNING: Your car has exceeded it's 5 year life span and has been terminated. Please contact your dealer for a great deal on a new one.

Re:NOTICE!

[ae1294]

WARNING: O RELY? A11 y0ur bas3s ar3 b3l0nging to us n0w.

[Car smashes into concrete wall at 170MPH...]

Re:NOTICE!

[morari]

Exactly. I don't generally drive anything made after about 1975. :P

Re:NOTICE!

[ae1294]

WARNING: You are a paranoid idiot who is trying to cover up his fear of change by attempts at being witty,

NO U!

Re:NOTICE!

[ae1294]

Exactly. I don't generally drive anything made after about 1975. :P

GASP! I hope you have the proper permits for that! You could put someones eye out or even perhaps enjoy driving it!?!

Re:NOTICE!

[confused one]

Seriously dude, if you're that worried then use your 1337 haxor skilz and reflash the damn computer(s).

Re:NOTICE!

[MadKeithV]

WARNING: Don't attempt to drive your 5-ton high center-of-mass SUV like it's a Porsche GT4.

Re:NOTICE!

[ae1294]

Seriously dude, if you're that worried then use your 1337 haxor skilz and reflash the damn computer(s).

Because the car is always watching me and asks "What are you doing Dave?" and my name isn't even Dave.... Creepy fucking dashboard paper clip... I should have never bought an iCar....

Re:NOTICE!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Do you seriously think that will be legal?
2) That isn't going to prevent me (party A) from being adversely when party B hacks parties C, D, E, F, G, H, and I, causing them to all collide with one another and with me for hilarious lulz.

Re:NOTICE!

[ae1294]

WARNING: Don't attempt to drive your 5-ton high center-of-mass SUV like it's a Porsche GT4.

Waht? I drive a 1997 Hyundai Tiburon FX 2.0L 5-speed manual....

Re:NOTICE!

[MadKeithV]

Sorry man, wrong car firmware.

Re:NOTICE!

[ae1294]

Sorry man, wrong car firmware

AHHH MAN! you bricked my f'ing car dude! WTF am I going to do now right the train? SHIT my dad is going to kill me.

Re:NOTICE!

[MadKeithV]

I can't let you do that, Dave.

Re:NOTICE!

[DriedClexler]

Well, then how am I supposed to sue Firestone and Ford and get a big settlement?

Re:NOTICE!

[ae1294]

I can't let you do that, Dave.

O thank Cthulhu, it rebooted from the second eprom. Now if we can only keep it from call its brothers for help via on-star...

Re:NOTICE!

[ae1294]

Well, then how am I supposed to sue Firestone and Ford and get a big settlement?,

Big settlement??? Like what? the $10 dollars off your next deathtrap purchase?

Re:NOTICE!

[rrohbeck]

WARNING: You are exceeding the speed-limit of 5 mph, we will alert the authorities....

Fixed that for you.

Re:NOTICE!

[SirGarlon]

WARNING: Your car has exceeded it's 5 year life span and has been terminated. Please contact your dealer for a great deal on a new one.

So you're saying the zero-fatality car will be made by Microsoft?

Re:NOTICE!

[Anonymous Coward]

WARNING: Your car is overdue for it's monthly maintenance check and will not start after august 1.
[...]
WARNING: Your car has exceeded it's 5 year life span and has been terminated.

WARNING: You have erroneously used apostrophes in personal pronouns. Mockery will ensue.

Re:NOTICE!

[ae1294]

WARNING: You have erroneously used apostrophes in personal pronouns. Mockery will ensue.

WARNING: In Soviet Russia troll uses you...

Re:NOTICE!

[cynyr]

IDK, the suspensions in newer cars(not that mcpherson strut shit) I hear are much better than those in 1968 and such.

Re:NOTICE!

[ae1294]

IDK, the suspensions in newer cars(not that mcpherson strut shit) I hear are much better than those in 1968 and such.

It's easy to swap out that stuff and keep the good bits...

Re:NOTICE!

[toddestan]

Actually more like Apple.

Sounds like zero-vulnerability network security

[The_Wilschon]

The way to achieve perfect security for a computer is unplug it from the network, and never turn it on. I guess the only way to prevent anyone from ever dying in a new Volvo is to prevent them from entering it...

Re:Sounds like zero-vulnerability network security

[Zerth]

Seriously. I have a vision of somebody with a bumper sticker that triggers other cars' pedestrian avoidance system to slam on the brakes because it sees a "person". That'd be lovely on the highway.

Re:Sounds like zero-vulnerability network security

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, before you open the door to enter, it either stabs you in the chest or runs you over.

Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

That car looks even more dangerous to me than my 'dumb car'. Too many systems seem to be given higher priority in controlling the car than the driver. What happens when some jackass spoofs his car location, and my Auto-Magical-iSmart-Safe collision detection forces me to swerve off the road to avoid a radar ghost?

Terminator car

[guyminuslife]

Think of the military applications! The Army should start putting every soldier in a new Volvo. You can shoot at them, you can bomb them, you can even throw tactical nukes at them...but they keep coming!

Should we be worried about the coming Swedish blitzkrieg?

Re:Terminator car

[StripedCow]

Hell, we can even send somebody up in one to probe the innards of the Sun.

Re:Terminator car

[Anonymous Coward]

Should we be worried about the coming Swedish blitzkrieg?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with Volvo.

Volvo has not been Swedish since the Chinese company Geely bought it from Ford.

Re:Terminator car

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, we can even send somebody up in one to probe the innards of the Sun.

You are thinking too small. Why not eject them to the other side of the universe and back with a solar-screen?

Who cares if it would take an infinite amount of time?

Re:Terminator car

[guyminuslife]

Oh, shit.

Anyone know of a good way to learn Mandarin?

Re:Terminator car

[Anonymous Coward]

It hasn't been Swedish since Ford bought it. Ford is not more Swedish than Geely is.

2020

[EnglishSteve]

'By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo.'

By 2020, nobody may be able to afford a new Volvo, so we'll keep driving the 20 year old deathtrap ones.

Re:2020

[bluefoxlucid]

Volvo drivers are shitty at driving anyway. They buy a car because they assume they'll hit a lot of things.

Re:2020

[GuldKalle]

It's better than to assume that you'll never hit anything.

Re:2020

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought it because I assume you'll hit me, you inattentive clod!

Seriously. Volvos crumple like an accordion, that's how they prevent injury. If I wanted to drive around sending other vehicles into the ditch like a pool cue, it would be something made by Ford, Mercury, or Lincoln, in the mid 1970s.

Re:2020

[bluefoxlucid]

I buy a car assuming that I have to have a car with a nice, tight suspension and enough acceleration to get me going if I need to move rather than stop. Rather than slam my brakes and skid into people pulling out in front of me, I hit the brakes while checking the mirrors and downshifting; a fraction of a second later, I'm halfway WOT signalling and merging behind the car in the next lane that just passed me, and accelerating so fast that I'm riding his bumper 5 inches away once I've matched speed. Then it's time to normalize (ease off throttle, get some distance slowly so the guy I just merged barely in front of can also back off).

On a road at 40mph with a flow of traffic of 45-50mph (yes, people drive faster than the speed limit; I follow traffic flow because otherwise drivers keep moving around me, disrupting traffic flow and causing accidents), I've had someone pull out in front of me less than 30 feet away from being parallel parked. The guy pretty much turned full and mashed his gas, so he cut right out of the parking spot and half way across the road (look up "Boston left turn"). So, I had to 45-to-0 in under 30 feet starting from the point when the hazard occurred.

Can you stop that fast?

I can't. I mean, I CAN, but I have Dunlop Signature Sports tires instead of Bridgestone R060A Pole Position ultra high performance 90% silicone tread summer tires. I'd be sliding; my tires don't have the grab, even threshold braking. They came with the car, they're not horrible.

What I can do is brake, swerve sharp into his now vacant parking spot, then swerve back out just before slamming into the next car. The guy behind me of course had enough room to stop-- especially since he wasn't riding my bumper.

I don't buy a car with the assumption that these situations are going to happen and I'm going to take someone out. I buy a car with the assumption that I should probably take more Advanced Driving courses with Summit or Skip Barber or someone, and practice my collision avoidance techniques and my car control. If I hit something-- even something that was desperately trying to be hit-- I'm doing it wrong.

I find that hard to believe...

[Mortiss]

As much as Id like to believe all these new and wonderful technologies, I wouldn't underestimate the ability of human beings to inflict a grevious harm on themeselves in the most creative ways. You may have the zero-fatality car but the guy plowing into you head first might not and the result would most likely be just as fatal. OTOH, every bit of safety counts.

Re:I find that hard to believe...

[tigre]

Worse yet, the more safety measures you add on, the less people feel they need to pay attention so it can make the relatively few failures more catastrophic.

Re:I find that hard to believe...

[dkleinsc]

And of course, there's an excellent source of proof that human beings can get themselves killed in amazingly stupid ways: The Darwin Awards.

Re:I find that hard to believe...

[Nethemas the Great]

I believe the marketing department has an easier time saying "zero" fatalities than they would saying 0.000001 fatalities/hwy mile hence the rounding. Of course the fun part is that GM could have played the rounding game back in the '60s when Nader was being a pain in their *%$ but they were more fond of intimidation and harassment by way of questioning his sexual habits and general character along with intrusive probing of his private life.

Re:I find that hard to believe...

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Actually, fun fact:

The safer the cars get, the more dangerous it is for firefighters to get you out of them. For example, it's wonderful that the passengers are now fully surrounded by airbags - for the past few years, the major injuries in our district have tended to be from glass spray from windshields, etc. The downside is that the cars are still mangled from taking a hit, and require cutting apart to free the occupants. There's no rhyme or reason as to where they put the explosives for those airbags, or the wires feeding them, or the controllers - and obviously, cranking an O-cutter through any one of those items is likely to kill you, or seriously injure the patient, or the EMT inside the car. Also as the car's structure becomes even more dependent on math, instead of mass... the number of viable cutting / spreading points is reduced as well. On the good side, the lack of injury means we normally have more time to manually disassemble things, as opposed to when someone is bleeding out, etc. Personally I don't care to hit another seatbelt pre-tensioner again for the rest of my life.

And then there's hybrids, which love to be cut apart in random places. Happiness is a dead short, eh? :)

Re:I find that hard to believe...

[fastest fascist]

They did say IN a Volvo... Presumably the design includes some kind of disintegrator field on the outside the car.

Building the Zero-Fatality Car

[omar.sahal]

'By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo.'

To the guy who said

But what about those outside the Volvo?

its still a good question though, those outside matter. I hope Volvos goals are not so narrow they haven't forgotten them.
Plus I hope this is't a marketing ploy.

Re:Building the Zero-Fatality Car

[omar.sahal]

Now I also advise read the article first

The goal is unique in that Volvo Cars has designated a year and is showing a social responsibility that also extends to people in other vehicles and pedestrians,

. Please heed this advise kids before its to late, and you make an ass of your self.

Re:Building the Zero-Fatality Car

[idontgno]

Please heed this advise kids before its to late, and you make an ass of your self.

For instance, by failing to correctly spell common English words generally taught at the 4th grade level while condescendingly lecturing others.

Ditto for mis-punctuation and general poor communications skill.

But kudos for violating the long-standing Slashdot taboo against reading the article.

Re:Building the Zero-Fatality Car

[Anonymous Coward]

. Please heed this advise kids before its to late, and you make an ass of your self.

The ablity to speel too advice and avoding the unessesarry commas, migt also hellp.

Re:Building the Zero-Fatality Car

[omar.sahal]

Thanks foor the advicer, resident grammmer nazi.

Don't see the big deal

[khallow]

My car hasn't killed anyone yet either, meaning it too is a zero-fatality car. And I'll get a new one, if it does. Also how much are these cars going to cost for this improvement in safety? I'd rather occasionally kill people with my car slightly more often than pay a huge amount extra for a minuscule safety improvement. More important, the insurance costs on my car (a 92 Honda Civic BTW) are pretty low (around $50 a month in insurance). That's a concrete measure that indicates I already don't have much risk associated with the vehicle.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[Sarten-X]

There are lots of cars just like yours, though, that have been involved in collisions and killed their occupants or others. maybe the driver wasn't paying attention. Maybe they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe that death could have been prevented with a slightly-different curve in the body.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

But I would rather have that you pay a huge amount extra for a car that improve my safety than you kill me (occasionally). Actually I will start lobbing for the improved safety features to be required by law in all new cars.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[tsstahl]

Maybe that death could have been prevented with a slightly-different curve in the body.

So your position is that sufficiently hot chicks can't die in car wrecks? Maybe the masked slow moving yet amazingly effective psycho that uses unlikely implements to kill is nature's way of balancing the population scales with regard to hot-chick-death?

Re:Don't see the big deal

[SleazyRidr]

Well, I'd prefer to kill you than have to pay 5 cents extra for gas, but as a society we've decided that not killing people is a pretty good thing to do.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[kevinNCSU]

I can see the Ad campaign now with Captain Reynolds driving a volvo:

For the last 3 year Volvo drivers have experienced ZERO fatalities. You know why? Because we are so... very... pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die. Huh? Look at that chiseled jaw!

Re:Don't see the big deal

[Nerdfest]

Good thing too. The fact that it's illegal to kill them is the only thing keeping a significant number of people alive.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[khallow]

Well, I'd prefer to kill you than have to pay 5 cents extra for gas, but as a society we've decided that not killing people is a pretty good thing to do.

Is it just 5 cents for you or the entire country? We'd be saving lives in the latter case even if the price decline were just for a few weeks. These are the sorts of trade-offs that people don't understand. Sure, killing me to save ten bucks in gas over the next three months is ridiculous, but killing a few more people to save three hundred million people a few billion dollars isn't.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[SleazyRidr]

I'm not sure if you're serious or just trolling.

If you're serious, you scare me very much.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[khallow]

If you're serious, you scare me very much.

Let me put it another way. Most of the things we do carry some sort of risk of death with them. Even getting up in the morning. I accept that there are a number of things other people will do that will slightly increase my chances of dying. That's part of the price I'm willing to pay to live in a free society. As a sort of corollary, I oppose high cost to benefit efforts to reduce risks of dying precisely because they are limiting the freedom of the society I live in plus they don't supply sufficient benefit to warrant the loss of freedom.

The six-million-dollar car

[Sarten-X]

The problem is that safety costs money. There's the materials involved, which aren't cheap. There's the engineering, which isn't (or shouldn't be) cheap. There's the electronics, which are getting cheaper. There's the redundancy, which isn't cheap. People don't like saving their own lives when it costs money or time to do so.

That said, I sincerely hope this takes off, and that by some miracle of economics it's affordable. We have the technology...

Re:The six-million-dollar car

[Tom]

The problem is that safety costs money.

Economy of scale is in full swing when it comes to cars. We have a billion or so of them on the roads, it is quite easy to drive down prices at that scale. Do you remember when airbags were expensive extras?

Re:The six-million-dollar car

[hedwards]

I know, and they also don't like it when the government tells them that they have to. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets and speed limits, for instance, contrary to some people's opinions are not civil rights issues. Now, if we knew that the idiot not doing it was the only one that would be affected, we could conceivably roll those laws back, but the reality is that other people end up being affected by such carelessness.

Re:The six-million-dollar car

[cgenman]

I forget which car company it was, but one decided they wanted to reduce the number of fatalities of pedestrians involved in accidents with their cars.

The solution, I believe, was to lower the bumper slightly on their new cars, and add a hollow spot under the front of the hood. The lowered bumper struck the pedestrian below the waist, causing the pedestrian to roll up onto the hood of the car. The hollow spot under the hood served as an airbag for the pedestrian, reducing trauma.

Other than a small amount of engineering (which yes, isn't free. But had to happen on new models anyway), the total cost to the end car buyer was basically zero dollars.

Re:The six-million-dollar car

[Anonymous Coward]

And that was good. What about the folks who were hit by the car going in reverse? Or who speed over railroad crossings, fly, and hit a telephone pole?

A few lives here and there are easily saved, and we should be doing that whenever we can. Going for "zero-fatality" or anything even close is going to be much more expensive.

Re:The six-million-dollar car

[dogugotw]

So, I had this friend several years back, who looked at driving safety another way. The goal is to make the driver VERY careful. His recommendation was to remove all safety gear; no seat belts, no head rests, no radar, nothing. Now, put a big metal spike right in the middle of the steering wheel and point it at the driver's solar plexus. Oh yeah, I'm not gonna hit anything EVER with that setup.

WARNING NON dealer lube job done go to dealer now!

[Joe The Dragon]

WARNING NON dealer lube job done go to dealer now!

Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

"It includes not just new protective measures in the car, but technology for communicating dangers to and from the car."

Good luck preventing serious injury or death from that jackknifed 18 wheeler that smashes into your car.

So what happens when...

[Timothy Brownawell]

...a semi truck falls off of an overpass and lands on top of one?

...a semi truck going 200mph the other direction crosses the median?

...a semi truck going 200mph on the other road runs a red light?

...that logging truck in front of you loses its cargo?

...that banana truck in front of you loses its cargo, and sends you through the guardrail?

...you run out of gas while crossing the train tracks?

...some idiot leaves their kids in one with windows up for "just a couple minutes" during the middle of summer?

...someone decides to carjack you?

Re:So what happens when...

[confused one]

Wait... You can get a semi to 200mph?

On a serious note... There's no excuse for the kid left in the car. But there is existing technology to handle this: If there's a person in the car and the interior temperature exceeds x, automatically roll down the windows and set off the alarm.

Re:So what happens when...

[weave]

There's also plenty of mountain roads without guardrails where driving off the edge of a cliff will cause quite a mess too.

Re:So what happens when...

[Anonymous Coward]

...al-Qaeda decides to blow up the bridge you're riding on?

...a meteor strikes you at 10 000 mph?

...radiation from a supernova kills all life on Earth?

...the heat death of the Universe happens?

Re:So what happens when...

[jandrese]

What happens when a semi crosses the lane on a bridge and knocks you off into the deep water?

There are so many varied and creative ways that people have found to kill themselves in their cars that "zero-fatalities" sounds like "The Titanic is UNSINKABLE!" to me.

Re:So what happens when...

[Camaro]

I notice that most of your situations involve a semi at fault. I'd like to point out that more often than not it's the idiot in the four-wheeler who's at fault because he doesn't look before he tries to cross a highway and is plowed into by an innocent semi. Almost every fatality involving a semi around here comes from that situation. I'd be very impressed if Volvo can produce a car that allows anyone to survive that kind of "accident".

Re:So what happens when...

[Monkeedude1212]

I have the perfect answer to ALL of those:

Sensors & Ejector seat.

Even the first one: You won't die INSIDE the car.

Re:So what happens when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of those sound like they might trigger an alarm at least. Honestly what I would be far more concerned with is the idea of the damn thing bricking itself. Or being screwed with. What happens if that pedestrian alert system malfunctions? Or, joy of joys, someone duct tapes some tin foil (or some other opaque-to-radar substance if that wouldn't do it) over the sensor?

Re:So what happens when...

[bravo_2_0]

That's why I drive the Challenger 2. Sure it cost me about $8m an the gas mileage isn't the best (gallons per mile) but hey when that semi doing 200mph just bounces off the side who really cares. Oh and the last guy that tried to car jack me actually gave me money once he was staring down the barrel of the main gun!

Re:So what happens when...

[Labcoat Samurai]

And yet the semi is still very frightening to a responsible driver. I'm fairly confident I'll never run into a semi. I can control for that. But I can't control for the semi driver's behavior. I've had them cut me off, tailgate me on icy roads, etc.

Re:So what happens when...

[proxy318]

yeah? and what about when you get hit by a blue shell?

Re:So what happens when...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...you run out of gas while crossing the train tracks?"

Elimination of user worked crossings fixes this. All supervised crossings, from the humble wooden gate operated by a local signalman to CCTV-operated full barrier used on major roads in most countries today, are immune to this fault. The operator will see that you're stuck on the crossing, and after waiting a few minutes for you to figure out how to fix it yourself he'll call the police.

Meanwhile the train will be stopped at a danger (red) signal.

Re:So what happens when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been in some random accident with some sort of truck? Or are you a trucker?

Re:So what happens when...

[BlackHorse]

What kind of semi trucks exist in your world? 200mph is faster than train in the US. (which as you pointed out, could kill someone in these magical Volvos)

Re:So what happens when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, clearly the answer is to make the car drive itself or close down those mountain roads. Safety is the top priority in this day and age! It's started with bubble wrap cocoons for children, and by 2020, Volvo intend adults to be similarly encased.

Personally I'm holding onto my unsafe, manual transmission, manual control, untracked and petrol powered car for as long as is humanly possible, regardless of its legality.

Re:So what happens when...

[houghi]

I was most afraid of a person I drove with who did not go faster then the legal minimum on the highway in Germany (70kmh/44mph). I think that was the most dangerous drive I ever did in my life. Driving in the city was equally dangerous.

Sometimes you read that people took 60+ driving exams before they passed. What should happen is that there should be an exponential time between exams. Fibonacci would be good if calculated in weeks.
Not too harsh in the beginning, but devastating for people who are just unable to grasp driving. After 10 times people have to wait at least a year.

Re:So what happens when...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was pretty obvious that they dont literally mean "it is impossible to die when you are in this car". Who modded this "Insightful"?!

To clarify for you, driving the car would NOT ensure that you survive the following scenarios:

The detonation of a nuclear weapon on your bonnet
A heart attack
Eating a McDonalds Happy Meal
Chuck Norris performing an elbow drop on your roof

Re:So what happens when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise, what happens when you decide that you want to drive 100+ mph (~160kph) on a local highway? ... which actually happened with two high school girls (driving a Volvo no less) on HWY 26, east of Portland, Oregon (USA). They slid into oncoming traffic and hit a semi going the other way at 50mph (~80kph). They both were killed instantly. Truck driver lived as I recall.

Having a the safest possible car won't protect you from the laws of physics (or stupidity). If people had any real understanding of the actual, factual consequences of participating in and then living through a major car wreck, we would all be driving the safest possible cars we could afford.

Disclaimer: I've owned and driven Volvos for over a decade, and while I love them, the quality has gone down the drain since Ford bought them in 1997-98 and probably will get even worse now that the Chinese company Geely bought them from Ford. Once my current (pre-Ford) Volvo wears out, I doubt I'll be buying another.

Re:So what happens when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer: hilarity ensues!

Re:So what happens when...

[fastest fascist]

You must have some serious semi trucks over there. 200 mph?!

Re:So what happens when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are some fast semi-trucks.

Re:So what happens when...

[Carnildo]

It sounds like you're in Europe, in which case you're probably not familiar with American freight trains. Freight trains in the US are typically a mile long, correspondingly heavy, and between cities, will travel at speeds between 50 and 85 miles per hour. This gives them an emergency-stop distance of around two miles

Your suggestion means that the crossing gates of an at-grade crossing will close several minutes before the train arrives (in order to permit the train to stop in time). This will have the paradoxical effect of increasing the death rate, as it encourages people to go around the gates if they can't see an oncoming train -- resulting in accidents, stalls, and other issues increasing the number of cars stuck on the tracks.

Simple low-tech solution to deliver this today

[Zocalo]

Why wait a decade when you can just remove the seat belts and install a big spike in the centre of the steering wheel? I can't see very many people who are going to drive dangerously in *that* vehicle.

Well, not more than once...

Death Proof

[skyriser2]

But does it make the car "Death Proof"?

Movie trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEVyC8FByng

Re:Death Proof

[Col. Klink (retired)]

It's 100% death proof. But to get the benefit of it, you really need to be sitting in the driver's seat.

Some how I doubt

[NotSoHeavyD3]

That 0-fatality will apply if some idiot manages to drive it off of a bridge, especially if it ends up in a river.

Re:Some how I doubt

[countertrolling]

Uh huh...

Re:Some how I doubt

[grumbel]

Cars that warn you when you get to close to the edge of the road are already on the market. It is not that hard to imagine to take that a step further to actually stop the car before it flies into the river and of course one can build bridges that don't let you drive of them in the first place.

Didn't Cordwainer Smith write a series of books...

[mdm-adph]

...about the problems with a zero-fatality society?

Drinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

If we can't hurt ourselves or others does this mean its okay to drunk drive again?

Zero fatality car...

[AhabTheArab]

Is that something like the unsinkable Titanic?

Re:Zero fatality car...

[petes_PoV]

How many volvos hit icebergs? Though if one did, I;m sure they'd make a film of it.

Volvo in 10 years..

[Vectormatic]

Volvo has just been bought by Geely, a chinese firm.

Sure the chinese have promised to keep volvo volvo, not to mess with the whole swedish safety stuff, but what car brand has ever been taken over and NOT changed significantly towards the new parent company? Hell, all current volvos sit on Ford chassis.

Good luck making a zero fatality car with the chinese at the helm...

Re:Volvo in 10 years..

[morgan_greywolf]

Good luck making a zero fatality car with the chinese at the helm...

Don't worry. That just means you'll be less likely to die in a crash and more likely to die of lead or melamine poisoning!

Re:Volvo in 10 years..

[Mr. Flibble]

Volvo has just been bought by Geely, a chinese firm.

Sure the chinese have promised to keep volvo volvo, not to mess with the whole swedish safety stuff, but what car brand has ever been taken over and NOT changed significantly towards the new parent company? Hell, all current volvos sit on Ford chassis.

Good luck making a zero fatality car with the chinese at the helm...

Your post reminds me of the joke in Back to the Future where Doc comments that the DeLorean from the future has failed due to "Cheap Japanese Junk". To which McFly responds: "Doc, all the best stuff is made in Japan in the future!"

Japan used to be associated with cheap plastic junk (sound familiar?) but look at what started to happen in the 70's and finally the 80's. China will go the same route. In about 10-20 years considerably higher quality products will be available from China. It is already starting to happen.

It sounds possible to me

[Joce640k]

.... if you limit the speed to 30mph and fit missile launchers to destroy anything which comes towards you at more than 30mph

Re:It sounds possible to me

[thegarbz]

This would work only if the oncoming vehicle isn't another Volvo. A Volvo shooting a missile at another Volvo would still count as a fatality. ;)

Re:It sounds possible to me

[Erikderzweite]

That's why you limit the speed of Volvos to 30 mph.

Re:It sounds possible to me

[thegarbz]

Two Volvos travelling towards each other at 30mph, what speed will one do relative to the other ;)

Though admittedly GP's statement is ambiguous.

Re:It sounds possible to me

[cynyr]

no the other volvo wouldn't exceed the 3-MPH that triggers the missiles.

Pet Rock Car

[PolygamousRanchKid]

My Pet Rock Car from the 70's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_rock ) has never had a fatality.

Now, if I could only remember where I parked it . . .

They expect to be out of business that soon?

[John Hasler]

> 'By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo.'

Might happen if, by 2020, nobody shall be in a new Volvo at all.

Will your next car look something like this?

[countertrolling]

No... More like this

You can't make it idiot proof

[petes_PoV]

The idiots will find new and more idiotic ways to kill themselves. Or worse, kill those around their volvo. I wonder if the zero-fatality car would have to include a way of measuring the driver's blood-alcohol level?

One can be had today

[drumcat]

Zero-fatality cars are simple. You need to have them move no faster than 22km/h. That makes the greatest collision 44km/h, and that is not dissimilar to a collision between athletes. That said, the overall goal is not ridiculous. More people died in the 20th century of car accidents than by war.

Re:One can be had today

[Marcika]

More people died in the 20th century of car accidents than by war.

Definitely untrue, probably by an order of magnitude at least. US car accidents were probably around 3 to 4 millions in the last 100 years, the entire world maybe 10 to 15 million. Compare: WW1 and WW2 alone are responsible for 80mn+ deaths. Take Korea, Vietnam, the Congo, Armenia, Afghanistan, the Soviet revolution, the Chinese revolutions and civil wars and the hundreds of smaller-scale wars, and you're talking about 100mn or more.

(Not that it matters, just being a pedant.)

Re:One can be had today

[shadowrat]

Some fatal crashes have occurred when the car's velocity was 0. they were trapped on railroad tracks.

a mistake, believing your car is that safe

[Anonymous Coward]

The more likely you make it that you'll survive an accident in the car the more likely you make it that people will take chances when driving and so produce more accidents. And, there are simply accidents you will not survive.

On the news last night was a note about a pickup tuck that hit a truck cab from behind, riding up onto the hitch, followed by a school bus and then a second school bus rear-ending the first. In other words the pickup truck got turned into compressed scrap between the truck cab and the first school bus. I cannot imagine any car engineered to survive that and remain affordable. The driver of the pickup truck was killed as well as one student on one of the school buses. I cannot imagine anyone engineering an affordable gasoline efficient (for these days) car that would survive such an accident.

On a lighter note, one comedian, I cannot remember who, made a suggestion that I think had some merit because it would make people pay more attention to their driving and really make them want to avoid accidents as much as possible; a six inch steel spike standing up from the middle of the steering wheel. I had a similar experience owning my first car, a 1962 Volkswagon Van. There was nothing between you and the traffic ahead of you except a single sheet of metal and the control console. You rear-end anything with any force while you were driving that and you'd lose your legs at least.

It won't matter anyway. The city I live in is doing everything it can to banish cars from the city. They're putting up so many bicycle only permeable barriers, barricades and traffic calming measures they'll eventually decide that it will be simpler to try and enact a ban on private vehicles.

Auto-stopping for pedestrians, wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The car will detect pedestrians and automatically slam on the brakes. Really? So in the future I can just run in front of any moving vehicle quickly and mess the driver up? Cars must stop at my whim?

Re:Auto-stopping for pedestrians, wait, what?

[lorg]

It might very well slam on the breaks, but the car won't and can't alter the laws of physics. Deceleration takes time so you might still get run over. I don't see how they could possibly prevent something like your scenario. Unless they make the speed limit 1 km/h or whatever speed you can more or less instantly stop at without causing harm or death.

Re:Auto-stopping for pedestrians, wait, what?

[Clueless Moron]

It's BRAKES, not breaks. Get it right, people!

Re:Auto-stopping for pedestrians, wait, what?

[gewalker]

Since we have now god-like technology, altering the laws of physics as you ancient humans think of as true. Off the top of my frond, I can think of 1) Statis fields, 2) Inertial dampers, 3) Teleportation, 4) Resurrection via any of the standard methods, 5) Time-travel, 6) phase shifting, 7) Intercellular structural reinforcement and 8) Real-time topology control . This is just limiting myself standard techniques developed during the third millenium.

Bricklin SV-1

[ghostoftiber]

Hideously ugly and absolutely safe. Everything we expect from a fine british automobile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricklin_SV-1

Solution Calculated

[Bob9113]

Car: Your ex-husband has a gun. He seems agitated.
Car: His blood pressure is rising, and his pupils are dilated.
Car: Considering prime directive of zero fatalities in a new Volvo...
Car: ...Solution calculated. Please exit the vehicle.

Re:Solution Calculated

[Anonymous Coward]

Car: Your ex-husband has a gun. He seems agitated.
Car: His blood pressure is rising, and his pupils are dilated.
Car: Considering prime directive of zero fatalities in a new Volvo...
Car: ...Solution calculated. Please exit the vehicle.

Where's Kit when you need him? Thank god he wasn't a volvo.

We'll need something to replace/supplement GPS.

[scdeimos]

A lot of these vehicle status broadcast systems they're proposing rely on accurate location data for the vehicles, and quite often the term "GPS" is used to infer that's what they'll be using as a source.

Anyone who's driven a car inside a tunnel or inside a building/carpark knows that GPS is shit and doesn't work unless you're out in the open. Locations in tunnels could probably be taken care of with low-power FM beacons sending their lat/long/AMSL at regular intervals through the tunnel (additional infrastructure installed and maintained by the appropriate transport authority) assuming GPS(-style) receivers also have the capability to detect these signals and interpolate between the two strongest signals. But could the similar systems be used in carparks and such? Could government force their installation, or even install and maintain them themselves?

Re:We'll need something to replace/supplement GPS.

[John Hasler]

Then there are the people who will drive off a dock in their new Volvos because the GPS told them there was a bridge there...

MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most retarded, creative, insightful comment ever.

Fatally flawed!!

[myxiplx]

Great concept, but there are some rather glaring problems.

Let's take the "Pedestrian detection with auto brake" feature for example:
http://www.volvocars.com/intl/top/about/corporate/volvo-sustainability/safety/pages/pedestrian-detection-with-full-auto-brake.aspx

Lovely in theory, except for all the moronic teens who will delight in jumping out in front of Volvos confident that the car can't hit them. You're going to have idiot kids hit by drivers of old style cars, as well as a whole bunch of tail end collisions caused by this. It'd render roads near schools undrivable at closing time.

Oh, and you have to love the fact that they're adding a warning light that flashes when it sees a problem. Which seems to miss the fact that the warning light itself is going to immediately distract you, and make it more likely that you're not going to see the pedestrian it's trying to warn you of.

While backed by the best of intentions, I just can't see this becoming reality for a long while.

Re:Fatally flawed!!

[MadTinfoilHatter]

Let's take the "Pedestrian detection with auto brake" feature for example:

Let's also hope it works better than their vehicle detection with auto brake... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ6z3IArINI

Re:Fatally flawed!!

[Ichijo]

Lovely in theory, except for all the moronic teens who will delight in jumping out in front of Volvos confident that the car can't hit them. You're going to have idiot kids hit by drivers of old style cars...

That problem will solve itself when we run out of idiot kids or old style cars, whichever happens first.

Re:Fatally flawed!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning lights aren't a bad distraction, just an added piece of information to better identify the unsafe situation. I think of the rev light on my motorcycle. When I'm redlining at 16k rpms any distraction could definitely be a problem, but instead it is just a nice reminder that says "shift dummy!". What i'm saying is warning lights have a definitive advantage in many cases and shouldn't be dismissed as only distractions.

Demolition Man

[Tisha_AH]

I liked the expanding foam protective material in the car from the movie Demolition Man. There is a great deal that can be done to make a car safe(r) but it is ridiculous to think that a car can truly be "zero fatalities". If you have ever seen what happens when it is car vs. train it would be prohibitively expensive to make a vehicle safe enough to take that title.

In the human body there are many types of deceleration injuries that will kill you. Some are cou contra-coup brain injuries and accidents where the heart is actually torn off of the aorta by G forces.

I wish them luck in designing better vehicles that are still affordable to own. We are getting away from people being impaled on the steering wheel or ending up as a quadriplegic because the car roof collapsed in a rollover accident. Folks still die from driving under the back end of a tractor trailer, being incinerated or killed by loose objects in a car.

More Obese Cars?

[rebmemeR]

So we'll cocoon ourselves in masses of materials designed to make us safe? You can talk about light materials but the overall trend is the opposite. Cars used to be under 2000 pounds and now they are 3500+ pounds, even with the materials technology gains we've had. Weight is the number one factor in determining fuel mileage. So we may avoid crashes, but then we will die from air pollution and other environmental footprint due to cars. We will feel safe driving air conditioned cars through globally-warmed deserts. Until gas is $30 per gallon, people (Americans especially) will slurp gas like there's no tomorrow.

Re:More Obese Cars?

[SleazyRidr]

Well, the other option is actually teaching people how to drive, and that's never going to happen, so we do the best we can under the restraints that have been places upon us.

Re:Didn't Cordwainer Smith write a series of books

[Tisha_AH]

Ah, the Harlan Ellison "I am pissed at how the story goes so I am using an alias" name. I thought that he stopped using that after the fiasco that was the Starlost television series from 1972.

Red Barchetta

[wowbagger]

What, no mention of how Modern Safety Vehicles will impact drivers? No mention of Red Barchetta or A Nice Morning's Drive?

You'll have jackasses in these Volvos running anybody else off the road, just because they can.

Re:Red Barchetta

[An ominous Cow art]

I was going to mention those, but you got there first. Curse you!

Re:Red Barchetta

[broter]

As my sibling poster said, you beat me to it. I do wish I had mod points.

Re:Red Barchetta

[toddestan]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. While the driver would be safe, ramming another vehicle with one of these Volvos would end up destroying the car.

when were the laws of physics repealed

[steak]

until they can stop your organs from slamming into your rib cage there will always be auto fatalities.

Avatars

[kotku]

, which will all drive around in beautiful zero fatality volvo cars going to parties where they get high on "zero hangover" electro stimulatives whilst our physical bodies lie comfortable in the "zero bedsores" reality projection gel units.

Bricklin SV-1 anyone? or an AMF ESV?

[Shivetya]

http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z9596/Bricklin-SV1.aspx

or perhaps these?

http://books.google.com/books?id=kcwHCy6F4vcC&lpg=PA54&ots=FLN5TmAJOf&dq=ESV%20AMF&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q=ESV%20AMF&f=false

or better yes, the AMF ESV

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0480.pdf

the ESV PDF is very good.

In other words, what goes around comes around. We keep striving for perfect or near perfect safety and technology is getting closer to giving it to us, however I think the ultimate requirement is that we hand over driving to computers and by then why would you want a car?

Re:Bricklin SV-1 anyone? or an AMF ESV?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the ultimate requirement is that we hand over driving to computers

Well, I think you're a joyless fucknut. Fuck striving for perfect safety. I want control, fun, a frisson of danger. A manual transmission. If you hate driving so much, push for better public transportation.

What will Mr Burns do?

[AHuxley]

This will cut the "supple young organs" count. FABF03 (Marge vs. Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens, and Gays)

Zero-Fatality car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one thinking about a built-in GPS blaring "Choose your destiny!"?

The Fifth Element, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Welcome on board, Mr. Dallas... you have nine points left on your license."

Too proactive

[bjs555]

Reading TFA, it seems to me that all the safety features are proactive, i.e, they seek to prevent an accident. I doubt that zero-fatalities can be achieved that way. People will ignore the warnings, override the controls, etc. Rather, I think it would be better to concentrate on preventing fatalities when accidents occur using such techniques as enhanced air bags and reliable fire suppression systems. I'd be willing to pay more for those features.

The only way to come close to this goal is:

[Anonymous Coward]

Eliminate the human factor (i.e. no driver).

It's much bigger than that

[johnmrowe]

This isn't just Volvo, it was passed into law in 1997 by the Swedish parliament and now drives road design, etc.

I know, I didn't believe it either.

John

Not efficient

[Aviation Pete]

as an engineer, the absolute goal of zero fatalities sounds misplaced. In the end, this means that any life has an infinite value, and no trade-off with economics is possible.

This is not a technology goal but a marketing catch-phrase. Of course, a Volvo built in 2020 will be involved in traffic fatalities, simply because humans are endlessly resourceful in finding new ways of getting killed, and car buyers will still look for the best value.

thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you.

http://www.aljyyosh.com/vb
http://www.ttweeri.com/vb
http://blog.asdely.com
http://www.d3m-point.com
http://www.koboni.com

Sounds familiar

[BCW2]

Kind of like the chances of building an unsinkable ship.
Sounds like the people who designed the Titanic.

So what they are saying is...

[pcolaman]

apparently Volvo will also find a way to eliminate alcohol completely by the year 2020, or the outer shell of their cars will be made out of the same stuff that Peeps are made out of, because otherwise drunk drivers will quickly prove that these cars definitely can and will still kill people.

I.T. analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kind of like high-availability I.T. systems; you can sell it as 100% all you want, but the best you'll ever get is 99.9999999999999...% after spending X million dollars.

They could have already done it, if they wanted.

[master_p]

The car companies could already have done things such as putting radars in cars and signaling devices. After all, ships and aircraft have had such devices for years. Not only that, but radar computers are constantly calculating where another ship will go, based on its current velocity, and warn about collisions.

Cars could have had an emitter/receiver around them (a thin metallic line around the middle of the car) which calculated the velocity of other vehicles every few milliseconds as well as the collision course and take actions immediately, adjusting the speed and hard breaking if required.

The only reason, for me, that such thing does not exist in the cars is that it would initially raise the cost of the cars, and therefore car companies keep postpone it until electronics become cheap enough not to seriously affect the price of a car. Expensive/luxurious cars could have had it though.

How would you define "Zero Fatality"

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how well the car is built, if the Semi next to you blows a tire and swerves into you, your outcome is not likely to be favorable, or worse yet a train. Something about a large mass item hitting a small mass item, the small mass item takes the majority of the damage... May be the car won't let you in if it detects a semi or a train within 10 miles of your pre-programmed route?

Zero is a great goal even if it's unreachable

[davidwr]

Yes, "zero" is not feasible on an open road where other people can drive cars that don't prevent them from doing stupid things.

However, smarts that decrease the risk of being involved in an accident and which decrease the speed and increase control during an accident go a long way to reducing not only fatalities but injuries.

Mechanical safety features like stability control, rollover and cabin-crush-in prevention, improved air bags and seat belts, and other features increase survivability.

So, can we ever get to zero fatalities and still drive on roads where other drivers have non-computer-controlled cars? No. Can we have a car that's a lot safer? Yes. Will we be able to afford it? That's the real question.

Re:Zero is a great goal even if it's unreachable

[cgenman]

The other thing about Zero is "We have systems in place for every known common condition." Rollovers? EST. Blind-spot? Blind spot avoidance. Turning into the same lane at the same time? Inter-car communication. Hitting pedestrians? Hollow spot under the hood. Make a big list of every fail condition in a car, and pair each fail condition with a safety feature that counteracts it.

It is definitely an appealing goal, and one which seems overdue. Suddenly Volvo seems relevant again.

Re:Zero is a great goal even if it's unreachable

[Seismologist]

Mechanical safety features like stability control, rollover and cabin-crush-in prevention, improved air bags and seat belts, and other features increase survivability. So, can we ever get to zero fatalities and still drive on roads where other drivers have non-computer-controlled cars? No. Can we have a car that's a lot safer? Yes. Will we be able to afford it? That's the real question.

How about the physical environment in which we drive...? Sounds to me like you live somewhere in the plains, but where I live we got mountains that you can drive right of the edge to your probable death because you might have been distracted for less than one second. Sure there might be a guiderail present, but it's mostly there to make you think you got some safety... This is not to say the mountain might hurdle a boulder at you at anytime, anywhere. Let's not talk about weather conditions, or a big elk smashing trough your windshield either. All these are independent of other drivers and engineered safety devices both in car and of the roadway. I can tell you from experience that nothing makes your fancy "stabili-track, AWD, 4x4, anti-lock, whatever" vehicle technology more useless than black ice on an inclining slope with an outward banking turn.

Re:Zero is a great goal even if it's unreachable

[RebootKid]

I can tell you from experience that nothing makes your fancy "stabili-track, AWD, 4x4, anti-lock, whatever" vehicle technology more useless than black ice on an inclining slope with an outward banking turn.

This.

The real problem is that most drivers are not required to take classes that teach them how to deal with these circumstances, and continuing education to stay current with the training. Additionally, as cars age, their ability to deal with those circumstances goes down as well.

The problem isn't predicting the "Known" conditions and having solution, it's the unknown conditions that will get you. Only a properly trained and skilled driver will be able to deal with those problems. Sorry, but I trust my own ability to handle my vehicle a heck of a lot more than I trust a computer. I would not buy one of these vehicles.

easy answers

[petes_PoV]

...a semi truck falls off of an overpass and lands on top of one? - car won't drive under bridges
...a semi truck going 200mph the other direction crosses the median? - car accelerates to 201MPH, in reverse
...a semi truck going 200mph on the other road runs a red light? - see above
...that logging truck in front of you loses its cargo? - car grows wings, flies over obstruction
...that banana truck in front of you loses its cargo, and sends you through the guardrail? - ejector seat, you're no longer in the car if you die
...you run out of gas while crossing the train tracks? - ejector seat again
...some idiot leaves their kids in one with windows up for "just a couple minutes" during the middle of summer? - warranty only applies to owner
...someone decides to carjack you? - car only comes with pink paintwork, no-one would want to steal that.

It'll never happen...

[jridley]

If you mean that no Volvo will ever kill anyone. Maybe you can shield the people inside, but IMO it doesn't count unless it won't kill anyone else either, including people in other cars, pedestrians and cyclists.

The automobile industry seems to be fixated on building tanks that can survive anything, and somewhat to warning people that they're doing stupid things. The reality is that almost all car fatalities are the results of people doing stupid things, and if anyone is betting that people will stop doing stupid things, they're up against very tall odds.

Re:It'll never happen...

[Shotgun]

If you mean that no Volvo will ever kill anyone. Maybe you can shield the people inside, but IMO it doesn't count unless it won't kill anyone else either, including people in other cars, pedestrians and cyclists.

Obviously, you've never owned a GM. Hard for a car to kill anyone when the mechanic has all its parts spread across a repair bench.

Ah yes, Volvo. Cars for scared people

[swordgeek]

Back in the early '80s, Volvos were tanks. They protected their occupants with all of the usual methods (crumple zones, etc.) as well as sheer mass and robustness.

Unfortunately, this made them (a) appealing to people who were scared of driving, and (b) terrible-handling behemoths that would crush all who opposed them.

The result: Badly-handling cars cruising down the highway at either 75km/h (in a 110 zone) or at 150km/h. The followup result: lots of accidents, with the Volvo barely scratched, but the other cars crushed into twisted ruins.

Didn't Top Gear....

[Kalidor]

What, no links to Top Gears news segment on this a few weeks ago?

I can't find the vid from work but .. beautiful shot of a test run of one of their prototype safe Volvos that's supposed to apply the breaks to prevent a crash .... crashing.

Not possible with humans driving...

[Trip6]

Humans are inherently flawed in their driving skills. Widespread autonomy won't be deployed until after 2020.

Unless you are going to build a tank, this is a marketing dream, kind of like Elon Musk retiring to Mars.

Perhaps if you built the whole car out of the material they build the black box of the plane out of...

Re:Not possible with humans driving...

[Trip6]

Flamebait?

The real question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it detect and save the owner who, about to go purchase a bland sweater vest at a formless suburban mall, has a brief moment of insight and instead chooses to sit in the closed garage with the engine running to escape the nightmare?

nanny-car

[Anonymous Coward]

When there is no potential danger, people behave more recklessly.

If you really want a car that does everything for you, ride the bus.

Re:Didn't Cordwainer Smith write a series of books

[mdm-adph]

I think you mean Paul Myron Anthony Linebarger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordwainer_Smith)

I have a better idea...

[drunkennewfiemidget]

How about we stop giving driver's licenses to anyone who can manage to stand up? Make them more difficult to get, and remove drivers from the road when they become unsafe.

I know, what a concept, right?

I bet if the drivers on the road were better tested and more competent, the rate of serious injuries and fatailities might not get to zero, but it'd be way closer than it is now.

"What's that clicking? Oh my left blinker's on. Wonder how long that's been on for. I got in the left lane doing less than the speed limit only a few minutes ago, so it must have been then."

Great. Yet another example...

[jbarr]

...of completely removing personal responsibility.

Obligatory...

[xtracto]

Toyota Wins...
FATALITY

They will always build a better idiot.

[CmdrPorno]

Also, what happens once a person has adapted to driving their crash-proof car and all of its corrective actions, and then gets behind the wheel of a different vehicle without the same protection?

What about the production process ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The car crash is not the only way a car can kill people.

I wonder if Volvo will clean up their production process to avoid the numerous forms of violence and wage slavery generated by their industry. Not to mention ecological disasters.

Nowadays, we tend to see things solely from the consumer point of view, discarding the rest of the consequences the product has on the society.

Interesting short story and song about this

[keithmon]

A short story written by Richard Foster in the November 1973 issue of Road and Track magazine covers what could be an unintentional side effect. From wikipedia's "Red Barchetta" entry, "The story describes a similar future in which increasingly-stringent safety regulations have forced cars to evolve into massive "Modern Safety Vehicles" (MSVs), capable of withstanding a 50-mile-per-hour impact without injury to the driver. Consequently, drivers of MSVs have become less safety-conscious and more aggressive, and "bouncing" (intentionally ramming) the older, smaller cars is a common sport among some." It's an interesting story and the song "Red Barchetta" from Rush, which was inspired by it, is worth a listen, too.

Is it me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it me, or are new cars making it harder and harder to drive? from that photo it has some small windows to see out of. I have driven a few new cars and it seams to be a trend to make the windows smaller and all the A B C Pillars Larger creating some huge blind spots. Smaller windows may make for better safety in a crash but when you have issues seeing other cars a crash is more likely. A lot of the older cars i drive dont really have this problem and i find myself rarely cutting people off in them compared to a new car. Plus all the new drive by wire makes driving the car feel more detached which means if there is something wrong i dont feel as much feedback as i should to tell me somethings wrong, (older car i can feel when the torque converter disengages or when the engine stumbles through the gas pedal. I dont feel a thing in a new car.)

Zero Fatality?

[Posting=!Working]

You've misunderstood "Zero Fatality." That just means it comes with the E for everyone rated version of Mortal Kombat

Engineering hubris

[joelsanda]

Titanic, anyone? What happens when one of their zero-fatality cars is hit by a petrol-carrying tanker trunk and the whole thing bursts into flames? Is it still a zero-fatality car if anyone dies in that crash? If not their notion of survivability will probably have a significant chunk of fine print towards the bottom of the page ...

never going to happen

[FudRucker]

when they get crushed by a large truck or slammed in to a concrete wall or structure like a bridge abutment at 70+ MPH nobody is going to survive that, the integrity of the car itself just cant stand up to such impacts and neither can the human body.

Re:never going to happen

[MarkvW]

"The solution is the driver" is no solution.

Do you actually drive?
Don't you know how many stupid drivers there are? I don't mean a little bit stupid. I mean REALLY stupid. What are you going to do? Make them un-stupid?

Making cars safer is the only way. These stupid drivers are not dangerous only to themselves--they are dangerous to passengers, pedestrians, and other drivers.

Re:never going to happen

[Nadaka]

The problem is the driver. The real safety solution is to remove the driver from the equation. If every vehicle on the road was networked together and every one of them controlled automatically in a coordinated fashion, accidents could be almost non-existent.

Life imitating science fiction

[djshaffer]

Larry Niven wrote a story about this "Safe at any Speed". See http://variety-sf.blogspot.com/2007/12/larry-niven-safe-at-any-speed-short.html

Vanity trumps survival

[fhuglegads]

If people really wanted to be as safe as possible when driving they would wear racing helmets. People would rather not have their hair messed up or be perceived as socially awkward. So when people die to head trauma in a car accident you have to wonder if a helmet would have allowed them to survive.

I'm not contending that all head trauma would be avoided with helmets but the difference it would make would be substantial.

I'm sure someone could argue that a racing helmet hinders vision but I'm sure inventors out there could come up with a new "auto safety helmet" that maximized vision and minimized injury.

Zero fatality? Great goal. I'll eat vegetables if they can achieve it.

Software + Comms != Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how many microcontrollers are in a car?: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8510228.stm

Do you know the quality of production software?: http://www.thedailywtf.com/

Linking systems together in any form will create emergent behavior and new sources of disaster. Oh well, here's to the first 200 car pileup.

Even KITT crashed sometimes

[RobertLTux]

Even if you could see everything at all times there will always be a possibility that something will happen and there is a nonzero chance of "something" being FATAL.

And i would say NOBODY reading this will believe that any automaker can design a system that is actually even 99.999% effective.

Re:They could have already done it, if they wanted

[Shotgun]

On the drive home yesterday, I top the hill on I-40 at Harrison Ave as I headed from RTP to Cary, NC. You can see at least a half mile ahead at that point, because the highway straightens into a valley then up a steep long hill. The highway is 4 lanes wide, each one is completely full, traffic is progressing a 10mph, and there is less than 8ft between each card.

Think about cramming that many RADAR emitters in that small of an area. To be useful, the RADAR needs to detect cars at a distance. Detecting any usable signal from the resulting noise would be a wireless engineer's worst nightmare on steroids.

Sad but true...

[Joce640k]

It will be lawyers who prevent this from happening, not technology.

Doesn't matter if you can prove your autopilot is ten times safer than a human, unless it's 100% perfect you'll be picked apart by the weaselvultures.

Not for me, thanks.

[BradleyAndersen]

I do not ever want to be in a position where my car takes over complete control from me. I don't even like automatic windows -- what happens next time I lock myself out and I can't just use a coat hanger to let myself back in?

Besides, I happen to be the proud owner of a Volvo S80, the least stolen car in America. There are plenty of reasons nobody wants to steal this bag of shit.

Sudden deceleration?

[Vrallis]

No matter how many safety systems they build in, they'll never really be able to eliminate the damage done by sudden deceleration. Your internal organs, including the brain, still move around within the body, compress and change shape, etc. When you go from 70 MPH to 0 MPH instantly your brain smacks into your skull like hitting a brick wall. Your spleen does the same to the abdominal walls, etc.

never going to happen

[atgaaa]

It must be human nature to think like this? I don't get it.
I call this sort of thinking "CNN logic": identify a problem and assume a nonsolution solution.

The problem is the driver, the problem is the driver. The solution is the driver, the solution is the driver.
It is not the car, the drinking, the cell phone, the food, the traffic the weather, the speed.

We know this because all those things occur and do not result in wrecks, note that I do not say accident.

If a driver gets into a car, they are responsible for that happens, period.
 

Volvo became a Chinese company recently

[peter303]

Party of "Geeley Motors" now. I wonder how much new bosses are going to invest in top-end engineering. Chinese products arent exactly know for this.

Volvo accidentally smashes new S60 car

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.wired.co.uk/videos/wired-things/2010-05/07/volvo-accidentally-smashes-new-s60-car

Want to jump in front of this??

bull!

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the car be zero fatalities for pedestrians, bicyclists or passengers of other vehicles? I'm sick of cars getting bulked up at the expense of all other road users.

You mean Geeley, right? So, it will not happen

[WindBourne]

Ford was foolish enough to sell Volvo to Geeley. For now, China is claiming that they will keep work in EU, but not likely. Once Geeley gets their hands on it, then this program will be dead.

The surefire solution.

[xenapan]

Invent a car that teleports instead of drives on the road. Or better yet. just invent the teleporter.

Re:The surefire solution.

[ledow]

Nah, you're bound to telefrag someone at some point.

Sort of, but not really

[Moraelin]

Actually, I'm under the impression that some of the bleeding obvious warning have little to do with "nature designing a bigger idiot" as with basically a law system where people can pretend to be idiots to sue for millions. And where juries of disgruntled anti-corporatist can actually decide to award an idiot that a company pays his medical bill, even when essentially ruling that the idiot is to blame for his own misfortune. Just because, you know, it would be somehow mean to tell a little old lady to pay for her own skin graft, when you can just take some money from a corporation to cover those costs.

E.g., "Wanda Hudson, 44, of Mobile, Ala. After Hudson lost her home to foreclosure, she moved her belongings to a storage unit. She says she was inside her unit one night "looking for some papers" when the storage yard manager found the door to her unit ajar -- and locked it. She denies that she was sleeping inside, but incredibly did not call for help or bang on the door to be let out! She was not found for 63 days and barely survived; the formerly "plump" 150-pound woman lived on food she just happened to have in the unit, and was a mere 83 pounds when she was found. She sued the storage yard for $10 million claiming negligence. Even though the jury was not allowed to learn that Hudson had previously diagnosed mental problems, it found Hudson was nearly 100 percent responsible for her own predicament -- but still awarded her $100,000."

Source: http://www.stellaawards.com/2003.html

Roll that around in your head. Even after ruling her responsible, they _still_ awarded her $100,000. God knows what for. Apparently just because it would be heartless _not_ to rob a company to pay for a trespasser's misfortune.

More worryingly, even warning signs really don't matter any more.

E.g., "Hornbeck volunteered for the Army and served a stint in Iraq. After getting home, he got drunk, wandered into a hotel's service area (passing "DANGER" warning signs), crawled into an air conditioning unit, and was severely cut when the machinery activated. Unable to care for himself due to his drunkenness, he bled to death. A tragedy, to be sure, but one solely caused by a supposedly responsible adult with military training. Despite his irresponsible behavior -- and his perhaps criminal trespassing -- Hornbeck's family sued the hotel for $10 million, as if it's reasonably foreseeable that some drunk fool would ignore warning signs and climb into its heavy duty machinery to sleep off his bender."

Source: http://www.stellaawards.com/2007.html

E.g., a woman sued Burger King after spilling the coffee onto her own lap, because, get this, although the cup did warn that the coffee is hot, the employee didn't also warn her verbally that it's dangerously hot. Because, you know, apparently otherwise it doesn't matter.

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/806345/posts

Worse yet, in some parts you can even get to pay big bucks for something you didn't personally cause or had any way to cause or prevent.

E.g., when a hare-brained pyrotechnics stunt went wrong in a bar and resulted in a deadly blaze, it wasn't just the owners that had to pay. The list of those who were made to pay millions or had to reach a settlement (again in the millions), included the radio channel which aired an ad for the event, and the manufacturer of the beer they served there (and literally had no other involvement with the event, and likely only heard of it when they got sued), and the importer of that beer, and Home Depot who sold the material they used as insulation and which was ignited by their hare-brained pyrotechnics. (Although Home Depot never sold it as fire-proof or anything.)

Source, for example: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-13-540

Re:Sort of, but not really

[wagnerrp]

The reason these lawsuits exist is because there is no penalty for filing such frivolous lawsuits. The defendant is almost assured a win if it goes to court, however doing so will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs. It's cheaper for them to settle out of court for some tens to hundreds of thousands. Companies don't think long term enough to stand up against and squash that industry outright. If instead you make the plaintiff culpable for something if they lose, it won't be worth the risk to file such suits.

Of course the counter-argument can be made in the event of a valid suit. If the plaintiff lost because the defendant was able to spend more on a legal team, the plaintiff will just end up getting screwed twice. There is a very fine line trying to curtail this sort of behavior, without making things even worse.

Re:Sort of, but not really

[Moraelin]

Well, my point was merely why those warnings exist, rather than how to prevent them. I was just saying that nature didn't create better idiots, we just created a system that makes the existing kind of idiots more deadly. Sort of like mounting a frikken laser on a shark's head. It's not that nature made a better shark, it's the addition of the laser to existing ones ;)

But for a solution... Actually, it seems to me like a simpler solution would exist, and one based on an established legal concept: you should be able to know beforehand if you're doing something wrong. It's one of the basic principles behind the rule of law, after all. A system where you find afterwards if your coffee was too hot, or if your beer shouldn't have been available to some bar you didn't know existed, is IMHO anything but.

Essentially there should be some place and way to go and say, "ok, this is our cup, this is our lid, this is the type of coffee machine we bought. Is this safe enough?" I realize that some kind of state agency would be about as popular with some americans as ass-rape, but I'm open to other agencies too. I dunno... a judge maybe? A jury? Suing yourself pre-emptively, so to speak? There should be _some_ way to rule in advance if something is OK or not, rather than just wait and see when a parasite with a sob story will make it sound like a product is inherently unsafe if "only" 23,999,999 people in 24,000,000 can use it without problems. (Numbers taken from the original McD coffee lawsuit, where not only that safety record was that ruled unsafe -- never mind that 6 times more americans die drowned in buckets each year, and nobody ruled buckets inherently unsafe -- but it actually caused the jury to increase the damages awarded.)

Re:Sort of, but not really

[thewise1]

So I can't speak to all of those, but usually when people win, there is more to the story that gets left out in the email forwards telling the story. For instance, in the case of the McDonalds coffee thing, they did try to settle for FAR less to cover the medical bills. The coffee at McDonalds was 180-190 degrees, not 134-145 degrees like at home, and thus caused 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafting. Yes, we expect coffee to be hot, but we don't expect it to be THAT hot. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm Worth reading.

Re:Sort of, but not really

[Moraelin]

The McD coffee was at the temperature recommended by the National Coffee Association, and generally not that far off from what most chains serve. To wit, Burger King, Wendy's, and several other chains have been sued for similar burns. There's also the aspect that she was stupid enough to remove a safety feature (that tight lid) while holding the cup in an inherently unsafe way (by holding it between her legs.) So essentially it's like rewarding someone for doing a wheelie on the highway with the brakes removed.

But anyway if you can perform that maneuver without either tipping the cup or squeezing with the legs, please feel free to give a demonstration. I'm sure some jury will be more than happy to reward you for it, should it go wrong.

Also, if you think your coffee at home is at 134F-145F, you may have a nasty surprise. Most of the coffee machines squirt it at much more than that, a lot going all the way to 195F. See the lawsuit against Bunn, or the specs of several Starbucks coffee makers, etc.

Basically just because Stella's lawyer argued that lie and stupidity, and a jury was retarded enough to actually buy it, doesn't make it true. I mean, I'm not sure that they teach it in law schools, because it was effing brilliant. The guy should get an effing medal for basically going in front of a jury and arguing something that far off the mark... and probably some special pants to fit his elephant sized balls in. It take bowling-sized balls to pull a stunt like that with a straight face. But what is a good lesson for the fast food equivalent of an ambulance chaser (that guy basically made a name for himself by suing everyone in sight over hot coffee... and each time apparently everyone else was serving lower) isn't necessarily something good for the rest of society.

But even then, that lawyer argued for about 165F, not 134. There's no reason to push the lie even lower than that, you know?

Either way, usually the only thing more than meets the eye is simply that some people seem to want to believe that there must be a justification to arbitrarily take from the rich and give to the poor, Robin Hood style. Corporations are bad, the little guy deserves some money, watch cognitive dissonance build a rationalization from there.

Re:Sort of, but not really

[AK Marc]

And the quoted temperature you mention is out of context because that's what the largest independent coffee organization recommends as serving temperature. McDonalds was serving at standard temperature and she's had enough coffees to know that.

Re:Sort of, but not really

[Mr. Slippery]

The McD coffee was at the temperature recommended by the National Coffee Association, and generally not that far off from what most chains serve.

Ah, the National Coffee Association, that noted consumer safety organization.

The McDonalds lawsuit was meritorious -- the woman suffered third degree burns. More than 700 people had previously been burned, some with third degree burns, by their dangerously defective product. McDonalds deliberately served their coffee much hotter than competitors, at a temperature that their own quality assurance manager testified posed a burn hazard.

safety feature (that tight lid)

The vast majority of coffee consumers add things like cream and sugar to their coffee. This necessitates removing the lid. Calling that "defeating a safety feature" is the stupidest thing I've heard this week.

while holding the cup in an inherently unsafe way (by holding it between her legs.)

Let's see, I'm sitting in a car, I've got my sugar in one hand, I need one hand to remove the lid. (I'm 79 years old so it's not like my fingers are the most dexterous any more and I can do both with one hand.) Where the fsck else do I put the coffee? (Kids -- cars didn't always come with cupholders. They were pretty rare in 1992.)

You may now apologize for your defamation of Ms. Liebeck...or you can show yourself to be a mindless corporate apologist.

Re:Sort of, but not really

[Moraelin]

Thanks for proving that Stella's defenders are a bunch of retards.

If that car doesn't have a cup holder, then use your fucking brains and get out or refrain from messing with it. That's why you have a brain: assess the situation, and refrain from doing what's unsafe. You're no more justified to spill coffee on you for lacking a cup holder, than you are to light a cigarette near a gas leak, or to play hopscotch on a bridge without handrails, or to try to hammer nails with your fist if you lack a hammer. That's why you have a brain, idiot. If circumstances X and Y of a particular place or situation makes it unsafe to do Z, it means you're supposed to use your brains and refrain from doing Z, idiot. Not that you should do it anyway and expect someone else to pay. If you choose to do something usafe anyway, you're to blame for your own misfortune.

If anything the only one I owe an apology is the GGP who was saying that nature produces bigger idiots. Yep, it looks like it does: the kind of idiot who thinks that the lack of a cup holder is not something they should have considered in their decision, but some excuse to be paid for their own stupidity. Because, you know, god forbid that they're actually responsible for _choosing_ to do something unsafe.

Geeze, what a cretin...

Re:Sort of, but not really

[TheLink]

But a number of your examples show that despite those warnings you still get sued and you often still have to pay.

And heck: "The city, however, says the killing is not the officer's fault; it argues that "any reasonable police officer" could "mistakenly draw and fire a handgun instead of the Taser device" and has filed suit against Taser,"

If that city's claim is true, I'd be afraid of police officers.

And maybe Taser should have filed a countersuit against the city for claiming that their device is so easily confused with a handgun even by reasonable police officers...

Not zero, but...

[Anonymatt]

It's easy to pick on Volvo for saying "zero fatalities", but I wouldn't be surprised if there are vastly, vastly fewer auto fatalities in 15 years, like, maybe even approaching zero. It's not about protecting you from airplanes crashing into your vehicle. Think about the style of accidents that must inhabit the big area in the bell curve that are killing most of the people.

Deathproof...?

[ikegami]

Volvo, meet Fail Crane

Achieved by US airlines

[Animats]

In 1998, 2002, 2007 and 2008, there were zero US airline fatalities. No Boeing jetliner operated by a US airline has had a fatal crash since 9/11. None of the fly-by-wire Airbus models (A320 and later) operated by a US airline have ever had a fatal crash, not even the one that had to land in the Hudson River after a bird strike.

Thirty years ago, no one in aviation would have believed that to be possible.

Re:Achieved by US airlines

[illumin8]

In 1998, 2002, 2007 and 2008, there were zero US airline fatalities. No Boeing jetliner operated by a US airline has had a fatal crash since 9/11. None of the fly-by-wire Airbus models (A320 and later) operated by a US airline have ever had a fatal crash, not even the one that had to land in the Hudson River after a bird strike.

Keep in mind, these vehicles are piloted by trained professionals and inspected by engineers multiple times a day, and have backup systems for everything. If we built cars like airplanes you would have to have two engines and two braking systems in every vehicle just in case the first one failed in traffic. You would also need an FAA approved flight plan just to travel to the grocery store.

Fun with Maketing Loopholes

[VortexCortex]

Plus I hope this isn't a marketing ploy.

Hmm, well let's see...

'By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo.'

Maybe someone tipped them off that 2020 comes after 2012?

'By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo.'

In local news: After legally changing his name to "Mr. Nobody" the man formerly known as Joseph Sickspak purchased a new Volvo and drove it off a cliff.

'By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo.'

Volvo's revolutionary "Boost Roost" (cock-pit and nitric oxide delivery system) delivers performance on demand while ensuring that no vehicular casualties can be taken seriously.

'By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo.'

A sly admission that Volvo's future is rather bleak and therefore plans to cease car production sometime before 2020.

'By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo.'

Perhaps a merger is in the works that will cause Volvo to change their company name.

Building the Zero-Fatality Car -- Easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

To build a "zero-fatality" car is not that challenging at all but my take a little time, effort, and tools. First you start out with any ordinary car. You then take off the wheels and set it on blocks if you will. You might want to set the hand brake if you suspect even the slightest incline. Remember to dismount the steering wheel, and siphon out any gas, and optionally, disconnect the battery.

That should be it.

Other than that, there is no possible way to make a zero fatality car, unless the environment and driving conditions are changed. Perhaps if you were driving somewhere in the great plains, it was totally flat (vey small to no ditches on the sides), and there was no other traffic, you weren’t traveling over 10 mph with a diesel fueled vehicle, and there weren’t any tornados or other acts of god a ‘brewing, then I believe a “zero-fatality” car might be a possibility.

not really

[junkgoof]

Unfortunately they tend to remove others... Like the one who used to signal a lane change (without looking), wait 5 seconds, and change lane (again, without looking). Never had an accident, but probably ignored a trail of accidents in the (unused) rear-view mirror.

Re:not really

[16Chapel]

Right - I can't remember which comedian said this but:

"My wife has never had a car accident. She's SEEN hundreds though."

Good fro quick trips to the market

[Noexit]

That'd be great! I'd feel a lot more secure going to the market to pick up more seashells for the bathroom.

"nobody will be killed IN this car"

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be even nicer if the car wouldn't kill anyone outside it either. Drunk drivers already get barely a scratch while running people over.

Re:WARNING NON dealer lube job done go to dealer n

[Anonymous Coward]

I got a non-dealer lube job in Vegas once. Wasn't worth it.

on the other hand...

[White Yeti]

How about: In a world where death is nearly impossible, only the most cunning, persistent, X-TREME individuals reach that final destination, that light at the end of the tunnel. Cash Darwin Awards!

Grindhouse Death Proof

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Remeber that movie. The sticker "fatality proof" would only reference those inside the car, not the pedestians, bikers, or other cars that get killed outside the safety zone. Might not that removal of risk cause the drivers of those vehicle to take more risks with others lives. Look what happed to the stock markets when there was no risk to the speculator. We all died a little. Its another posible example of the law of unintended consequences

People are the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with cars are the people driving them. Get rid of people as drivers and you'll have a more efficient safer transit system.

You're welcome.

Win

[toxonix]

OK if you actually clicked on the link , the Vision 2020 page has a tiny pic of a super cute model with little test dummy stickers on her. I would totally get in the back seat and have an accident with her. Titanium bathtub frame. Thats all you need.

Horse version.

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't they try this with horses first?

http://equineink.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/cowboy.gif

what year do they expect to stop making cars?

[junkgoof]

2019 maybe?

Re:They could have already done it, if they wanted

[ThosLives]

I still think the most cost effective solution here is education. Trying to put more gadgets and complexity in vehicles sounds nice, and as an engineer I find it fun to try and think about how such things would be designed and built, but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Of course, I'm one of those people who adheres to the philosophy that "there is nothing inherently safe about the universe." I don't understand why some people are so affronted by the fact that humans are not indestructible.

Oh really?

[sleeping143]

"'By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo."

Excuse me while I grab a knife and look for a new Volvo...

Re:Taxis

[Phrogman]

I deliver pizza on the weekends. Within my experience, Taxis are the least predictable and most hazardous vehicles on the road, more so than many apparently drunk drivers I have seen (and reported mind you).
Taxi drivers are all calm and sedate when you are in the vehicle paying them, but when they are out to get the next customers - watch out. I have seen vehicles pass (in the opposite lane, over double yellow lines) through an intersection while traffic is entering that intersection coming the opposite way. I have seen u-turns across 3 lanes of traffic with cars going both ways. I have seen 2 taxis stopped side by side (blocking the whole road) so the drivers could talk with each other, just around a blind curve. In fact I have seen taxi drivers doing the above maneuver across the main street in our downtown, blocking all traffic both ways for about a minute.

Sadly the police in Victoria BC seldom seem to stop cabbies at all, although I have seen one pulled over for speeding (I would guess he was doing about 90 in a 50 zone, and the cop was at hand, but speeding taxis are the norm within my experience).

Taxis are dangerous IMHO, I always assume if I see one driving nearby that it might do anything at any point, likely the most stupid thing possible. The only upside to this is that the drivers generally seem to be somewhat capable, if as dumb as a box of hammers.

Anyone else

[ThatsNotPudding]

after reading 'zero fatality' have the phrase "FINISH HIM!" pop into their heads?

I think it's time for...

[Anonymous Coward]

... A Nice Morning Drive.

sadly

[sjames]

It'll probably just result in idiots cruising through the school zone at 150 MPH because the car is "zero fatality". That means it can't hurt anyone right?

Let me guess ...

[Anonymous Coward]

pedestrians and cyclists don't count.

Bluetooth

[Incudie]

I can see it now... the communication between cars and road hazzards will allow the car to automatically be controlled to slowdown... over bluetooth I'm sure...

It is old tech, and called a train.

[h00manist]

Subways and trains already transport millions of people with basically no accidents. 100% electric. You don't have to drive. You can read a book and talk on the phone at the same time, while travelling. Their speeds can beat cars easily, and completely safely. They just need more of them. In Tokyo, NYC, and many other cities, you dont really need a car. In spite of all the lobbying the car industry did, to remove all public transportation in almost all cities, unfortunately to great success.

Re:It is old tech, and called a train.

[alexandre_ganso]

And you can always have your booze on a train FTW!

This is not going to last

[h00manist]

Once people start finding out the *actual* fatality rates of cars, they will start thinking about taking public transport, and the car industry will stop talking about how many people they kill to sell cars.

Wait, that's my wife's job!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds just like her.

Americans will love the autonomous car...

[JimBobJoe]

Americans love the convenience and comfort of their cars, that's for sure, but I think you're mistaking that for a love of driving.

Generally, they don't actually like driving. They buy floaty cars with automatic transmissions which separate the driver from the road. Compare this to Europeans, who often drive sleek cars with great transmissions and an intimate feel.

I think you'll find that Americans will enthusiastically let the cars drive for them.

Re:Americans will love the autonomous car...

[Belial6]

I would. If I could tell my car where to take me and then just work/play/sleep/eat/have sex/etc.. I would definitely buy that car.

I wonder what they mean by new

[bugs2squash]

If they mean, say, less than 6 months old, then...

• Presumably the stats reset to zero after 6 months of the last confirmed fatality in each model
• With delays in reporting / verifying fatalities it seems that by the time any fatality is an official statistic, the "new" window clause will cease to allow it to count
• With enough different models of car and a short enough definition of new, and a long enough lag to verify fatalities, then presumably many manufacturers could have at least one model today that can make this boast

So maybe we're not far from this goal anyway, and maybe it's got more to do with marketing spin than human lives. Though I have to say, it sounds more sincere coming from Volvo than from other manufacturers.

Pffft, kids.

[bill_mcgonigle]

You obviously didn't grow up with Knight Rider.

The answer to all of your supposed challenges is 'Turbo Boost' and an AI to invoke it.

I'd buy a Volvo if it had a Cylon eye on it...

What a clever way for Volvo...

[Anonymous Coward]

By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo

...to announce that they won't be making new cars in 2020.

The tank

[dannys42]

It's a good goal to not be killed in a Volvo. But what about those being killed by Volvos?

The holy grail

[fluido]

The holy grail is to know at any moment where every subject is, with as much precision as possible.

Obviously it is impossible for any kind of authority or goods provider to guarantee for you an accident-free future. Statistics may show an improvement (although statistics may be easily shaped to say what you want them to say). But they will never represent an assurance that you will be spared the specific pain or annoyance tomorrow.

On the other hand, to know at any moment where every subject is (and in this case, to eventually be able to remotely control their means of transportation) gives, to a more and more remote, less and less humane form of government, the possibility to steer the herd of primates with less effort.

Not evil - just plain lazy. If, at the expense of personal liberty, humans are restrained from committing what the government decides to forbid, law enforcers have less work to do. But I don't like it. To behave correctly because you are forced to does not bring about personal growth, and I am here on this earth to grow, not to own the latest volvo...

This is possible, but...

[kumanopuusan]

>By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo.

Solution I: Stop building Volvos. With no new Volvos to occupy, no one will die while occupying a new Volvo.
Issue I: It will be more difficult to maintain profitability with no sales.

Solution II: Make new Volvos that are physically impossible to occupy. Possible form factors include a Volvo made of solid concrete or steel. Klein Bottle-shaped Volvos are strongly advised against.
Issue II: The market for automobiles that cannot carry useful payloads is markedly smaller than the market for automobiles than can carry payloads.

Solution III: Make new Volvos that are possible to occupy, but restrict ownership to immortals.
Issue III: Sales teams have had difficulty contacting Superman, Dracula and the Greek Pantheon.

Solution IV: Manufacture new Volvos without any components that could lead to a crash resulting in injury or death of mortal occupants.
Issue IV: Completely removing the drive train, suspension, wheels and tires has significantly reduced manufacturing costs, but passengers are still capable of killing one another.

Solution V: New Volvos will be single-passenger stationary vehicles.
Issue V: "Drivers" are still capable of killing or injuring themselves inside a new Volvo.

Solution VI: New Volvos with be fitted with restraint harnesses and bits to prevent self-injury.
Issue VI: "Drivers" are still exposed to potential dangers such as urban violence or collisions with unsafe, mobile vehicles.

Solution VII: Place new Volvos in well-isolated, individual subterranean bunkers. Disused Cold War-era missile silos are recommended.

Volvo. For life.

A nice morning drive

[Moxon]

Time to buy a red Barchetta and an old farm in the country..

Canyonero!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

The Federal Highway comission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

Canyonero!

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

Canyonero! Canyonero!