Slashdot Mirror


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?"

42 of 509 comments (clear)

  1. What? by neonmonk · · Score: 5, Funny

    I need a car metaphor.

    1. Re:What? by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:What? by Moryath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."

    3. Re:What? by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      Will you settle for a ship metaphor?

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

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  2. I thought they already solved this problem by Pojut · · Score: 3, Funny

    Go go gadget Car-From-Demolition Man!

  3. Not good enough by nysus · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    1. Re:Not good enough by confused+one · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Not good enough by edumacator · · Score: 4, Funny

      at least eliminating themselves.

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

  4. There is no zero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:There is no zero by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Funny

      Untrue.

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

      Thought so.

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:There is no zero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      0.75

      and it was expensive

    3. Re:There is no zero by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 5, Funny

      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".

  5. In a Volvo? by Jojoba86 · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    But what about those outside the Volvo?

    1. Re:In a Volvo? by Zironic · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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."

    2. Re:In a Volvo? by localman57 · · Score: 4, Funny

      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...

    3. Re:In a Volvo? by Deag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:In a Volvo? by GuldKalle · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:In a Volvo? by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    6. Re:In a Volvo? by fhuglegads · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  6. prior art by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

  7. Auto-car. by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Auto-car. by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Auto-car. by gemtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Auto-car. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

    4. Re:Auto-car. by Seumas · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Auto-car. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    6. Re:Auto-car. by germansausage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Auto-car. by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Auto-car. by acid06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  8. Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak by complacence · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  9. NOTICE! by ae1294 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  10. Sounds like zero-vulnerability network security by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
  11. Terminator car by guyminuslife · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  12. I find that hard to believe... by Mortiss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. So what happens when... by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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?

  14. Zero fatality car... by AhabTheArab · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is that something like the unsinkable Titanic?

  15. Solution Calculated by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  16. Re:Building the Zero-Fatality Car by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  17. Zero is a great goal even if it's unreachable by davidwr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  18. easy answers by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...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.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  19. Sort of, but not really by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Sort of, but not really by thewise1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.