Volvo To Add In-Car Sensors To Prevent Drunk Driving (reuters.com)

Volvo is installing cameras and sensors in its cars from the early 2020s, monitoring drivers for signs of being drunk or distracted and intervening to prevent accidents. These new safety features come a couple weeks after the automaker announced it will limit the top speed to 112mph on all its new cars from 2020 to help reduce the number of accidents. Reuters reports: Head of R&D Henrik Green said cameras will be installed on all Volvo models built on its SPA2 platform for larger cars, starting from the XC90 SUV in the early part of the next decade, before being added to smaller cars built on its CMA platform. Volvo said intervention if the driver is found to be drunk, tired or distracted by checking a mobile phone - among the biggest factors in accidents - could involve limiting the car's speed, alerting the Volvo on Call assistance service, or slowing down and parking the car.

CEO Hakan Samuelsson said that while the strategies meant Volvo might lose some customers keen on high speeds, it also opened opportunities to win parents who wanted to buy the safest car to carry their children. "It would be easy to say that people can do whatever they like but we feel we have a responsibility to do this. Maybe people will see us as 'Big Brother,' but if we save some lives then it's worth it," he told journalists. Volvo also said it would introduce Care Key on cars from 2021, allowing buyers to set speed limits, and that it was talking to insurers to offer better terms for users of these safety features.

Comments

Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many places in the world is it actually legal to drive 180kph?

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indianapolis, Daytona, and other cities in designated areas. There's usually a bunch of others going the same speed too and thousands of people cheering you on.

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Harlequin80]

Quite a few, Germany is one. And then there are the places where though illegal it is the norm to drive those speeds. Italy for example.

Re: Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up crybaby. You need one of these faggot cars to bring you home to your mama so you can cry into her tatas. Incel loser.

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[AHuxley]

Germany for now.

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of them!

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Traffic laws are not crimes
I don't need a drivers license.
I'm not driving I'm traveling.
I'm an Article 4 free inhabitant.
Where is the Corpus Delecti?

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Highdude702]

GLHF Hope you know your laws better than that hispanic broad from cali that made youtube...

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[speedlaw]

The reason German cars are German Cars is due to the Autobahn. If a car is tight at 180 kph, it will be very good at 90 kph.

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know my rights
People vs. Battle
Terry vs Ohio
Black's law dictionary defines Driver as "One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902". When i'm traveling I'm not in a commercial capacity, it's a private capacity and therefore I don't need a drivers license.

Re: Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

since driver training doesn't seem to cover driving anywhere near 112mph (well, there is the insane drivers ed instructor who makes the news from time to time for teaching while under the influence) this is good for new drivers.

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like we have a sovcit here.
Zappy zappy, bork bork nom noms.
Where is Officer P Barnes when we need him?

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

My son who is cop recently locked up one of those sovcit wankers. After release he got his drivers licence and registered his car. The bust is on YouTube somewhere, oh how we laughed.

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

your rights end where my right (to live) starts.

Re: Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Teehee.. it is fun to bully people, isn't it?

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[dcw3]

Pretty much this. I spent six years driving the autobahns, and even the cheap econobox cars handled well and stress free at 160 kph+ That's just under 100 mph for us 'Mericans.

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgot to mention that it was also very nice to drive a '85 Vette (new at the time) at 155mph legally. It also handled well up to ~140...sketchy after that.

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[s122604]

Traffic laws are not crimes I don't need a drivers license. I'm not driving I'm traveling. I'm an Article 4 free inhabitant. Where is the Corpus Delecti?

Hey, why are you breaking my window
Ow, that taser really hurts

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a race track. Go to a track day and you can floor the shit out of your Volvo if you like. I've taken my piece of shit VW to track days before and had a blast with it.

If you've never done it, you should.

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[mjwx]

The reason German cars are German Cars is due to the Autobahn. If a car is tight at 180 kph, it will be very good at 90 kph.

Not necessarily, cars designed exclusively for high speed runs like rocket cars and dragsters tend to have very bad low speed handling.

Not all German cars are good either, they produce a lot of mass market crap that Americans never see... However the one's you're thinking of, they're good cars because they've been designed to be good at low and high speeds. 180 KPH (111 MPH) isn't that fast for a modern sporty-ish car. My BMW M240i will go up to about 170 MPH (~280 KPH) if you took the 155 MPH limiter off, however like most road legal cars, the steering starts to get light as you go faster and lose downforce... Where this point is depends on the car, I've had older cars that would start to get light at 90 KPH (Nissan Silvia S15 to be exact).

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[eaglesrule]

Bingo! I have a sovereign citizen bingo!

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol.
don't forget they "do not consent".

Re:Keen on high speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully he'll come back to murder your son and his entire family, including you. There are many ways a clever person can off people without leaving a trail.

The More you add the more it fails

[rtb61]

They have to be extremely careful adding this stuff to vehicles, when it fails, for what ever reason, it denies access to the vehicle by the owner. The more tech you add, the greater the servicing cost and the more frequent failures will be and the worse the reputation of the vehicle. You can add all the silly crap in you want to, inflate service and repair costs but there will be consequences. There a numerous studies on the more tech you add the more frequent failures become and the more frequent and costly servicing becomes (simply more stuff to fail and more stuff to service and more stuff to repair).

You know where this is heading cars that refuse to move unless they get their authorised $2,500 service and that means towing costs on top, owners will be impressed (oh yeah, they are counting on the hugely inflated authorised only service costs, the more automation, the locked in your become).

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[sound vision]

"Silly crap" seems to be working out pretty well for Tesla, and they are really just enabling drunk driving. I can get with Volvo on this one.

Re: The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude where's my car?
Where did you last see it?
Can't remember.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Like full time running lights. I asked the salesman, "So if you're in a dark alley in a bad part of town and want to shift yourself OUT discreetly, how can you turn the lights OFF?" Dumbstruck silence and after about half a minute "I guess I never thought about it like that."
Now take this new Volvo. You get into a "situation" and need to get a family member to hospital pronto - car maxxes at 112, family member dies. Or you are getting away from armed robbers (eg - Brazil, South Africa, Russia) and the &%$^ Volvo can't outrun a Yugo. Nice.
And as the famous Scotty said "The more they complicate it, the easier it gets to stop up the pipes" or something along those lines.
Nanny state and Nanny company forcing stupid tech down on us. It can only backfire.
captcha: submit (no, I refuse to)

Re: The More you add the more it fails

[Type44Q]

and the worse the reputation of the vehicle

The Swedes are too smart to have unloaded Volvo any earlier than necessary; rest assured every last bit of value was extracted while the company still had a reputation - their quality deteriorated tremendously when they switched to FWD and they've been going downhill ever since; now the only way they can get any attention is by making ridiculous announcements.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Gravis Zero]

There a numerous studies on the more tech you add the more frequent failures become and the more frequent and costly servicing becomes (simply more stuff to fail and more stuff to service and more stuff to repair).

It also depends on the type of technology that is being added. If it has moving parts then it's far more likely to breakdown. This is part of the reason why EVs are cheaper to maintain, it's mostly solid state. This particular sensor could also be a highly reliable part if it's a solid state component, especially MEMS sensors. You never hear people talk about the microphone on their cellphone failing because it's an ultra-reliable MEMS sensor.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[DNS-and-BIND]

Where this is heading is control. Drivers will no longer control their cars. The company (or the government, which is pretty much the same thing under the corporatist tyranny) will control the car. You'll have to satisfy their requirements, whatever they decide they might be, before the car will turn on. Then your destination will have to qualify. Going to the shooting range? Your car will decide if that's suitable for you or not.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Whatsisname]

If you have a "situation" you call a fucking ambulance.

Otherwise, if you're driving at speeds where a max of 112 is a problem, you're more likely to get yourself, your family member, and worst of all, some other random people killed.

Don't be a dumbass.

Re: The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

I see we have another one size fits all asshole. This is the same logic the gun grabbers use. I can't foresee ever needing a particular thing so therefore you should not be allowed either. I'll bet you're one of those pieces of shit that constantly complains about how there should be a law...

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Jane Q. Public]

It will be a cold day in Hell before I'll buy a car that tells me what to do.

Ain't gonna happen.

Re: The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't.
If there is a situation where someone needs urgent medical attention it will be much better to call an ambulance.
It will get to you faster than you can get to the hospital. It is a rolling ICU with trained personnel and while it is going to you you will have the time to care about the one needing care.
You also don't need to risk hurting or killing the one who needs care while you drive recklessly to the hospital.

Advising someone to panic to the hospital in a case like that is just bad. To do it just to push an agenda just because you like to speed is just straight up immoral.
 

Re: The More you add the more it fails

[muecksteiner]

FWD, and for that matter, parts from the Ford toolbox, were not the problem. My 2003 S60 D5 has 420k km on the clock, and is showing no signs of deteriorating. That thing is built like a tank, handles like one, and will hopefully last another 200k km. There is also a fairly minimal amount of electronics, by modern standards. If they had stuck to building cars like that, they would still be my top choice, if that S60 ever croaks.

I recently spent a few months abroad, and the company which sent me there gave me a brand new Toyota with all the bells and whistles. I still have nightmares about that thing: tons of half-assed "assistance" systems which keep bothering you with false alarms, dreadful user interfaces... those months with the Toyota re-inforced my resolve to keep that S60 alive for as long as technically possible.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[jawtheshark]

They already do... in a sense. I have a 19 year old car that allows me everything. My wifes car (new from winter 2017), doesn't allow you to do a lot of things. Example: I can start my cars engine whenever I want, in gear (obviously not a good idea), out of gear, etc. My wifes car? Push the button (not a key. *sigh*) and it tells you "Please engage the brake before starting the engine". Why? I'm in neutral/park, there we're standing in our perfectly even garage. Why do I need to do this? Just start the engine as I told you.

That's modern cars for you.

Prohibiting you to drive because you are drunk/tired/distressed is just one step further.

I will drive my old car until it literally starts to fall apart. The advantage of having it driven for 19 years is also that you know it inside out. You immediately know if something is off and needs to be repaired.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

I've drove someone in a bad to the hospital and hit more than 112mph on the autoroute on the way, and I was told by the ED that person would be dead if we waited the 30+ minutes for a ambulance to turn up instead.
I also had a vehicle accident (at 25mph...) and it took 55 minutes from placing the call to arriving in ED. I spent 2 months in isolation in part improving my outcome because of the after effects of that delay. If the truck hadn't have frontal'd head on into a pole and ended up on its side in a roadside ditch I'd have drove my damn self there that day too.
In your personal case, the ambulance will be faster, meanwhile out in the real world its not always the case.
I did a first responders course a short while ago, and on that they repeatedly pressed the need for more first responders to keep people alive because the emergency services have a problem getting to people in time around this rural area.

I won't ever be buying a Volvo.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[dehachel12]

waited the 30+ minutes for a ambulance

where the H do you live ??? Furthermore, moving a badly injured person can KILL him/her.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Cederic]

Like full time running lights. I asked the salesman, "So if you're in a dark alley in a bad part of town and want to shift yourself OUT discreetly, how can you turn the lights OFF?" Dumbstruck silence and after about half a minute "I guess I never thought about it like that."

You put the fucking lights on so that you don't contribute to it being a bad part of town by running some poor fucker over because you're too stupid to drive without your lights on.

What sort of fuckwit drives down alleys with their lights off at night? Stop fucking driving.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[hackertourist]

And yet my current car (loaded to the gills with electronics) has a service interval 4 times longer than the first car I owned 20 years ago, and (despite being 11 years old now)it's never had an issue that needed the garage's attention in between regular services.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[dcw3]

I don't like the idea of Volvo doing this any more than you do. But, you've clearly been watching too much TV/movies because your strawman situations are not ever going to happen to 99.99% of the population.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[dcw3]

In the US, hospitals will advise against this. I did the same, rushing my wife to the ER (we're about 5 miles/ten minute drive away) with a pulmonary embolism, only to be told that I should have waited for the ambulance. When you take an ambulance, they get wheeled directly into the back door of the ER. When you walk in, you have to deal with the reception folks who are trying to triage everyone in the room. Obviously, if you make enough noise, things can be expedited...got my wife right in. It's really a judgement call...how long before you expect to have one arrive. I'm fortunate here in northern VA...they don't take long at all. Two years ago, I had a nasty fall (nearly ripped the nose off of my face hitting the rough edge of a flagstone step...bad enough that two trauma room nurses turned away when they saw it), and was actually on the operating table in under an hour.

Re: The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you call 911 and you're on hold for half an hour? I guess you just die then?

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[AmiMoJo]

Cars today are far more reliable than cars from 50 years ago, but are also vastly more complex. Modern cars have many, many more features than older ones and thus many more things to go wrong, yet are still more reliable.

At least that's how it is in Europe, where laws mean that if a manufacturer makes an unreliable car it's going to cost them. Even out of the warranty period they usually end up paying most of the cost of expensive repairs due to quality issues or design flaws. Volvo are operating in that environment.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Ol Olsoc]

And yet my current car (loaded to the gills with electronics) has a service interval 4 times longer than the first car I owned 20 years ago, and (despite being 11 years old now)it's never had an issue that needed the garage's attention in between regular services.

It's called Slashdot reactionary syndrome. Someone bragging about how awesome his 1970's Toyota Corrolla is -so much better than this new junk, amirite?

I've always wondered how much trolling that might be. My very first car was a '65 Buick Skylark. I had a celebration when it hit 100K miles. It was about finished. Over time the engines were improved to the point where they are now effectively blueprinted. I love to compare my new Jeep 4 cylinder to my old Voyager. I also expect to get 300K miles on my vehicles now, not toss 'em after 80-90K

Modern cars are simply much much better.

I'll make one complaint though. The "entertainment" electronics is a distraction. Some of the radios are great if you like distracted driving just to use the damn things. I can operate a standard pushbutton radio simply using peripheral vision.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's not just a sensor. You have to look at the sum of all of the failure modes of the entire system. Every part, every connection between parts, every software interaction, etc. contributes to your probability of failure. And beyond component failure, there's the issue of the functional system failing to act correctly; since we're talking about a behavior monitor, there's a huge range of variables in play, more than can be tested for in a lab environment. Everything from someone's size, clothing, posture, mannerisms, age, mood, health, etc. contributes to the system's ultimate detemrination of whether the driver is fit to operate the vehicle. And without access to detailed diagnostic information, the average user will have no way to distinguish between an unannunciated component failure and a system implementation issue.

Bottom line: Nothing like this should ever be added to a car without a way for the owner to fully disable it.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

If your 19 year old car lets it start while it's in gear, something is broken. The cars I've had that would now be more than 19 years old required the clutch to be pushed in to start.

Re: The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you call 911 and it's answered by Donald Trump because he's visiting the dispatch center that day and instead of getting you the help you need he starts bragging about how great he is? WHAT DO YOU DO THEN? WHAT?!

You die, that's what.

These people think they know everything but they actually know nothink.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered living somewhere else rather than a third world hellhole?

Yes, in the third world an ambulance isn't going to arrive faster than you can drive, but in real countries with real health systems the ambulance will be there in 5-10 minutes, max. Third world? No country that doesn't have a working healthcare system (and I think we can agree one where an ambulance takes 30 minutes to arrive is classified as that) is going to enforce DUI laws anyway, so why does it matter?

Where do you live out of interest? I'm guessing Sierra Leone, or may be Bangladesh?

Re: The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Never lived in a rural area have you? There are plenty of places where the hospital is an hour drive and the ambulance response time is 40 minutes if they're not on another call already. The roads are pretty damn clear most times, too, so 120+ to cut that hospital trip down to 30 minutes isn't all that unsafe or difficult unless you've got deer in the area.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH - your insurance should be significantly cheaper.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[cellocgw]

Yep - another case study from the metro Boston area (was written up in great detail by the husband of the woman who died). The woman lived a few blocks from a hospital. She knew she had serious asthma sensitivity. One night she felt an attack coming on, and knew enough that she needed to be treated in the E.D. . However, she figured she'd just walk over. Ended up with the attack coming on faster than anticipated, and due to poor/obsolete signs on the hospital, collapsed outside a locked door.
Many factors contributed to her death, but certainly in an urban area, calling for an ambulance will bypass all the factors that took place before she died.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Wulf2k]

So can not moving them.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Wulf2k]

Ok, what if I just want to move the vehicle a few feet without blinding everybody in front of it at night?

I can't, so I should just stop caring?

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Wulf2k]

What if you've previously had a stroke, are mentally and physically capable of driving, but it detects your slurred speech, droopy lip, and non-standard movements as inebriation?

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[dcw3]

I don't think you're disagreeing with me here. Those are things Volvo would be responsible for addressing, and would likely be required to. Your scenarios are much more likely than the ACs.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Cederic]

Times I've needed to move my car a few feet and had to risk blinding someone: Zero.

Times I've seen someone else have to do this: Zero.

Times I've heard of anybody needing to do this, including you: Zero.

Where do you park, a fucking alley full of vampires?

Re: The More you add the more it fails

[Miamicanes]

> and the &%$^ Volvo can't outrun a Yugo.

I think a morbidly obese woman in a motorized wheelchair scooter could have outrun a Yugo.

Re: The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't live in a rural area you fucking idiot, you live in a suburb. And ambulances do not take 40 minutes to get to your home in a suburb. If they do, well, that's on you, and that's on your local government. Stop blaming Volvo for that shit.

The number of genuinely rural residents in the US is absolutely tiny and they're not going to be affected by something that's built into a fucking Volvo.

That's the problem with Slashdot, full of idiots who pretend they live on farms because they don't live in a city and they own a pick-up truck, but you and I know you're just a poseur - your pick up doesn't have a spec of mud on it and you'd probably take it to the car wash if you went through a dirty puddle.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[squiggleslash]

Have you tried locking the doors?

Also have you tried watching fewer Charles Bronson movies? They weren't exactly accurate depictions of 1970s New York City, let alone modern day America you know.

Re: The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to admit, that does sound like a thing Donald Trump would do. I mean, he's going on currently about how upset he is that he wasn't thanked by a dead man so... yeah.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. So, there are about 16 million emergencies in the US per year resulting in hospital admission, and about 2 million per year leading to critical care. I think it's safe to say that there are at least a good million people in the US per year who would die if they can't get to the hospital on time. So, that .01% that you're not worried about would be 100 people that would die. Sure, not too statistically significant, but it really does suck to die because you're stuck in a car that could save you, but won't because it was actually _designed_ to fail. Also, bear in mind that there are plenty of places in the US where there's either no cell phone service, or it takes emergency services a long time to arrive, or both. Many of them are remote places where people may go to do things like hiking, mountain biking, free climbing, etc. Basically activities that have a higher than average chance of leading to injuries, heart attacks, etc.

So, yeah, people do sometimes have an urgent need to have their vehicles work. Now, needing to drive more than 112 mph may not be an issue. However, a system that detects if someone is drunk may check for symptoms that are also present in, for example, someone who has suffered major blood loss, or is concussed, or is having a heart attack, etc. Until the computer in the car is imaged from an AI that's successfully gone through medical school (which I consider to be a possibility in the future), it may not be wise for it to be making those kinds of decisions.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Campgrounds, arriving back late at night, almost every weekend all summer. It's not a straw-man argument, let me turn the damned headlights off.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[Anonymous Coward]

No. We're not going to help you run over a tent full of sleeping children you asshole.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[jawtheshark]

Idiot... You can start a car when it's in gear, it just isn't a good idea and it will fail. The point is there is nothing stopping you from doing exactly that.

Re:The More you add the more it fails

[JesseMcDonald]

Apparently you've never been to an organized astronomy event. "No white lights" is basic etiquette, to preserve everyone's night vision. You'll be asked to ensure that your headlights, back-up lights, and interior dome lights are all disabled before parking anywhere near the observing field. If you need to leave during the event the standard procedure is to have someone walk ahead of the vehicle with a red flashlight to guide you outside the area safely before you re-enable your vehicle's lights.

Misread the title

[DontBeAMoran]

"Volvo to adds in-car censors to prevent drunk swearing"

Seems a no win here.

[speedlaw]

If you don't drink you won't want to pay for a needless in car breathalyzer....why would you ? If you do drink the last thing you want is your car to decide you have had 'too much', whatever that is. Can't see who, if anyone, is the audience here. While I loathe the right wing description of "virtue signaling" is that where Volvo is going ? Back when there were two swedish car companies, they used to say "one for the right lane (volvo) and one for the left lane (saab). Looks like the right lane is now a maiden aunt who reads Streetsblog and is writing letters against legal cannabis and about speeders on her block to the local legislators....

Re:Seems a no win here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its because more of (upcoming) EU "regulations". Much like Euro was a way to force people and manufacturers onto electric vehicles, this will aim to compulsorily remove or minimize human control. If you think you shouldn't care because you're in the US just have a look at how this shit spreads.

Re:Seems a no win here.

[ljw1004]

Can't see who, if anyone, is the audience here.

I see clearly who the audience is...

1. Add "big-brother" safety enforcements like 112mph speed caps and distracted-driver preventions
2. Observe fewer car accidents that involve Volvo vehicles. Achieve their 2020 goal of "no deaths in a new volvo"
3. Potential customers observe the safety statistics. They observe no deaths in a Volvo. For them, it becomes a no-brainer to buy a Volvo. PROFIT.

I agree that by no means everyone will view "zero deaths" as a positive selling point. For a lot of people they'll ignore this feature. But I'm sure there will be a sizeable potential audience for whom it's a major selling point. Imagine you have kids, and you're having a conversation with your spouse about which new car to buy, and your spouse says "let's get a volvo because no one dies in a volvo" and you have to answer "well I'd rather get a car that looks better even though people do die in it". It'll be hard to get your way. Like a lot of people I was persuaded to get rid of my motorcycle when my kids were born, for similar reasons.

Re:Seems a no win here.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Volvo's ultimate goal is to have their system be mandatory in all vehicles. Then you won't have a choice.

Re:Seems a no win here.

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't virtue signaling. Virtue signaling is inherently pointless and ineffectual; it is a performative act with no purpose or outcome other than broadcasting the righteousness and 'woke'ness of the speaker/tweeter/etc. to everyone listening (and, if you're lucky, to earn thousands of sweet, sweet twitter points). No original - or even nonconformist - thought was ever expressed while 'virtue signaling'. Virtue signaling is narcissistic and pathetic, but ultimately harmless.

Volvo, otoh, is developing new technology that expands surveillance culture in a brand new way. If this is successful and accepted (or even if it isn't) governments - especially European ones - are likely to try to make shit like this mandatory. It's like if everyone's "Fuck white people. #PrayForNZ" tweets actually killed a white person each time they got a retweet.

Re: Seems a no win here.

[Anonymous Coward]

They will succeed in their zero deaths goal because they will only sell five of these turds. Stick a fork in them

Re:Seems a no win here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like Euro was a way to force people and manufacturers onto electric vehicles

Sounds ridiculous. proof ?

Re:Seems a no win here.

[thegarbz]

I agree that by no means everyone will view "zero deaths" as a positive selling point.

I don't. Personally I think we don't give out enough Darwin awards as it is. Airbags are crap. I think we need giant stakes in the steering column which will stab people in the heart when the computer detects stupidity.

Car accident? Stake!
Cut someone off? Stake!
Speeding? Stake!
Driving too slow? Stake!
Run a red light? Stake!
Try to merge onto a highway at 50km/h? Stake!
Honk at me because I dared to give way to a predestrian who had a green light and you're just an impatient shit like the guy behind me yesterday? Stake's them in the balls first so they feel pain, then Stake!
Drivers with Belgian license plates? Well for efficiency reasons we can just Stake them now since they aren't long for this world.

We'd solve so many problems. No idiots on the road. People would preference public transport. Over population would be resolved. Less traffic. Reduced CO2 emissions.

I can't see anything other than wins here.

Re:Seems a no win here.

[Attila Dimedici]

That was my thought as well: Who is the customer for this?


The answer appears to be government bureaucrats. Of course, as the auto manufacturers in the U.S. discovered, government bureaucrats don't buy enough cars to build your business around them.

Re:Seems a no win here.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your ideas fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Seems a no win here.

[Anonymous Coward]

And documented evidence you attmpted to drive while drunk.

How does the 5th amendment fit into all this?

Stupid

[SirAstral]

This is stupid... I wonder if the car will let you drive home if a passenger is drunk? No more designated driver for you!

But hey, look on the bright side, at least Volvo will have random pictures of you and your family in the car. I love these new "safety" spying features!

Re: Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just Volvo.

Are we going to have a pool on when that system is used to violate someone's privacy? And how long it takes before a fix is available, if ever?

Re:Stupid

[CrimsonAvenger]

This is stupid... I wonder if the car will let you drive home if a passenger is drunk?

Was wondering something similar - will it protect you from the open bottle of beer in the back seat on a hot day? Yeah, I know - "hot day" and "Sweden" don't really go together...

Or does it focus exclusively on the driver. And if the latter, how?

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely it will focus on broad laws. In most of Europe it's not illegal to have opened beer bottles in a car. So rather than have cameras looking for beer it is much more likely to have cameras looking at your neck (dozing) and eyes (focus in the wrong place too often or for too long) and possibly reaction speed if there is a good way to trigger that measurement. And yes those cameras will look at the driver and combine with the current system to detect sleepy drivers (I think they measure steering wheel usage, by setting a baseline when you start driving they then try to detect if you are getting worse during the drive).
 

Re:Stupid

[lordlod]

I wonder if the car will let you drive home if a passenger is drunk?

Really?

You think that a camera system that can determine your level of intoxication won't be able to differentiate between a driver and a passenger?

As far as grumbly whinges go, this one is really weak.

Re:Stupid

[mark-t]

It's against the law to have an open bottle of bear in the back seat too, regardless of whether the driver has consumed any alcohol. The only time passengers are allowed to consume alcohol in a vehicle is if they are isolated from the driver so that they are effectively in an isolated part of the cabin from where the driver sits, such as what you may find at the back of a limo, etc.

And there goes the "family" brand

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't imagine the car allowing mothers with screaming kids to operate the vehicle-- it's pretty much the definition of "distracted driving".

Volvo: A Car for People Scared of Their Own Shadow

[TigerPlish]

First they announce they want to nanny the car to 112 MPH.

Now they announce a nanny to prevent distracted or impaired driver.

I foresee a demise for this company within 10 years.

I forgot where I read it decades ago, it might've been Csaba Cede in Car and Driver in the 80's... that "Volvo is the car for people scared of their own shadows." Maybe it's also the car for facists who wish to impose their will on the People, to hell with what the People want.

This smacks of authoritarianism. I don't think it'll do well here in the States, and ditto for their move to govern the car to no more than 112.

Government's wet dream

[ugen]

And of course, once technology is available, your friendly local government will make it mandatory for all vehicles. There is no escape.

Re:Volvo: A Car for People Scared of Their Own Sha

[tquasar]

Bonus points for the Csaba Cede reference.

As a parent

[FeelGood314]

I like to think my boys are pretty responsible but there is no way I would give them a car that could do 180km/h. I remember the stupid stuff I did as a teenager. I'm always amazed that so many boys actually make it to 20. So here is a better way to think of this, if Volvo proves this works, what percentage reduction of traffic fatalities and injuries would justify making it mandatory in your country? Sweden at 4.7 deaths per 100,000 people per year seems god awful if you think about living to 100 but then the USA is 12.9 deaths per year. So vehicle deaths are a huge problem. If something added $30 to the yearly cost of owning a car and reduced the death rate by %10 that would be $6.4 Million per life in Sweden. Might not be worth it. In the USA though it would be $2.3 Million per life saved. It might be worth it there.

Re:As a parent

[SlaveToTheGrind]

$6.4 Million per life in Sweden. Might not be worth it. In the USA though it would be $2.3 Million per life saved. It might be worth it there.

What sort of stone-cold calculus does it take to reach the conclusion that saving the life of an arbitrary human might be worth $2.3 million but not $6.4?

Re:As a parent

[WolfgangVL]

Stone cold capitalism. We're talking about the USA.

Re:As a parent

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly don't understand how insurance works.

Re: As a parent

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, just because Volvo is limiting their cars to 112 mph does not mean they built it well enough that you could get it up to 113 mph without the limiter. The limiter really does nothing, it is more of an advertising gimmick. But no way would I ever buy a car with cameras and such like they are talking about now. That is truly an imposition on privacy and freedom, both of which outweigh protecting lives.

Re:As a parent

[SlaveToTheGrind]

We're talking about the USA.

Actually, OP was talking about Sweden.

Re:As a parent

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory Fight Club.

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

Time machine?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Volvo is installing cameras and sensors in its cars from the early 2020s,"

Re: Time machine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it come with a big red bow and a personalized note?

Crash not accident

[Whatsisname]

Volvo's technology is designed to reduce crashes. Not accidents.

An accident is "an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause."

If someone is driving drunk, or driving distracted, and they crash, it's no accident. By defaulting to the term "accident", we are implicitly absolving drivers of heavy machines of their responsibility to operate them safely and competently.

https://www.crashnotaccident.c...

Re:Crash not accident

[drinkypoo]

If someone is driving drunk, or driving distracted, and they crash, it's no accident.

That's a stupid thing to say. If you don't mean to crash, it's an accident.

By defaulting to the term "accident", we are implicitly absolving drivers of heavy machines of their responsibility to operate them safely and competently.

No, we absolutely are not. We are only differentiating between intentional and unintentional collisions. The driver is still assigned fault based on a number of factors, substance abuse being one of them, and we still have special treatment for people who got into a collision as a result of substance abuse. We do however treat people who intentionally get into collisions differently from people who do it unintentionally, because that's an assault with a deadly weapon — and people who commit such crimes are more likely to commit them again.

Re:Crash not accident

[Anonymous Coward]

What it is designed to do, it doesn't fucking work.

I bought an XC40 and the thing would detect parked cars as vehicle hazards -- then take control of the wheel and shift your position. The problem is it was doing this on two-lane highways. Fucking awesome, right? Parked car? Why not die in a head on collision? Hurr Durr! PReveNTing crAshes!

This is just one example of dozens -- the interface is shit to use the card; seven clicks to change driving modes through an iPad like interface that relies on swipes to navigate. It's a nightmare to use and feels incredibly dangerous.

The rear collision detection system would engage while driving when nobody was around. This locks the steering wheel in place and tightens the seatbelt so much you're frozen into the car in one position. Fucking dangerous.

The list goes on and on...

The problems got so bad eventually Volvo refunded me for the vehicle it at it's original purchase price.

Fuck. Volvo.

Re:Crash not accident

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, and just adding one more thing worth noting: Even luxury features they're supposed to have are cheapened. For example, Car Play? You cannot use it wirelessly in the XC40, only via the wired connection. This is lame; it's not a deal breaker, but it's fucking lame. It also makes the wireless charging bay completely worthless if the phone has to be plugged in every time.

Volvo produces an absolutely shit product.

Re:Crash not accident

[thegarbz]

Don't mess with english language to try and get your way. Use the linguistic tools as they apply.

A drunk driver killing someone is still an accident unless he was intentionally trying to murder said person. The answer here is not to claim he's being absolved through the use of the word "accident", the answer is to impart specific blame by pointing out his "negligence" caused the accident.

Re:Crash not accident

[mark-t]

A drunk driver killing someone is still an accident unless he was intentionally trying to murder said person.

Not exactly.... more like the death of the person is more of an unintended consequence of something that they *did* deliberately choose to do, which was to get drunk enough that they couldn't safely control the vehicle.

But how can one justly say that something that they never directly intended to happen, but which was both made more likely to happen and even predictable to happen, is only an "accident" when in fact it only arose out of a direct consequence of something that they *did* deliberately choose to do, which was to try and drive after they had been drinking too much alcohol?

It's like saying that if I deliberately drop a raw egg onto the floor, the mess that it makes is an "accident".

Re:Crash not accident

[subk]

That's why lawyers say "there are no accidents, only incidents".

This could go wrong in many ways

[The Grim Reefer]

So what happens if the owner is injured and has no other way to get medical treatment other than to drive to a medical facility? If the car recognizes that the driver is not paying attention due to being in excruciating pain and pulls over and won't move, that's not good. Or if the driver is transporting an injured family member? I'm sure checking on the family member while driving could be seen as distracted too. There are so many ways this could go wrong.

Re:Volvo: A Car for People Scared of Their Own Sha

[drinkypoo]

This smacks of authoritarianism. I don't think it'll do well here in the States, and ditto for their move to govern the car to no more than 112.

Geely^WVolvo drivers don't want to go that fast anyway, I don't think any of the people in the market for one of those cars will ever notice the limiter. Hell, I had a 115 MPH limiter on my 240SX and it was not a significant issue in normal life, even though that was a sports car. It was gear-limited to about 124 anyway.

These drivers don't want to drive drunk, either, so as long as the car doesn't have to phone home it's not likely to reduce sales at all.

The goal in the USA is zero highway fatalities so this is just a preview of the kind of hardware that will eventually be mandatory in all new vehicles... worldwide, really.

Parents

[rsilvergun]

worried about their partying kids. And yeah, a lot of parents could give a crap if their 17 your old kid gets plastered because hey, they did to when they were that age, as long as they don't get an underage DUI.

Re:Parents

[dcw3]

Yeah, I did it when I was their age, and realized just a few years later how dumb it was. When my kid got to that age, ~16-17, we talked more than once about responsible drinking. You're not going to stop them, but you can influence them to do so safely.

"if we save some lives then it's worth it"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Just imagine the possibilities:

• Limiting all cars to 20MPH is worth it.
• Filling in all swimming pools with concrete is worth it.
• Confiscating anything sharper than a butterknife is worth it.
• Confiscating all guns... oh, right.

Re: "if we save some lives then it's worth it"

[Anonymous Coward]

In the United States we made the conscious choice at the time we became an independent country that protecting our freedom outweighed protecting out lives. So while the Constitution itself is not a suicide pact, it is instead the implementation and embodiment of the suicide pact envisioned and called for in the Declaration of Independence:

In support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine provenance, we pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Re: "if we save some lives then it's worth it"

[Anonymous Coward]

suicide ? how about murder? You are NOT ALONE on the road. YOU RIGHTS END where MINE BEGIN.

Re:"if we save some lives then it's worth it"

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to get worked up.

The guy was saying that the trade-off of saving lives by putting in those safety-oriented limitations vs losing a certain amount of sales is worth it *to them*. He's not making that judgement call for you.

The 112 mph limit is a compromise, presumably made after some deliberation. They must have figured that a lot of customers will find it acceptable. It doesn't follow that they would consider a 20 mph limit (the one in your example) equally sensible.

Track and Trace

[Anonymous Coward]

Your phone has became a computer that tracks and monitors you.

Your car is next.

Re: Track and Trace

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure?

Re:Volvo: A Car for People Scared of Their Own Sha

[TigerPlish]

Hell, I had a 115 MPH limiter on my 240SX and it was not a significant issue in normal life, even though that was a sports car. It was gear-limited to about 124 anyway.

Most of my cars have been utterly incapable to hit 140. my Rx-7 tapped out at about 130, top gear at redline ('84 GSL-SE). My miata barely kissed 125, that was drag-limited. My Rx-8 is the only missle I had, it felt nailed down at nearly 130 when I let up on the gas when I came to my senses. Some guy in Germany posted a pic in winter in the autobahn, 152 at near-redline in top gear.

How to put this.. I'm not interested in top speed, I"m interested in "does this car make me giggle like a madman when I fling it around a corner or take off from a light". What I abhor is either the guvmint or the carmaker deciding, for me, to limit it. I don't care if I'm drag-limited. That's not the government or the maker saying "this fast, and no faster." I kinda let the Krauts slide with their 155mph, because honestly by 130 things get weird. I will admit that I've not driven a proper fast car like a Bugatti. I bet that feels calm and collected at 200.

It's the principle of the thing for me. Like most Canon cameras being almost as capable as its brothers, but artificially prevented by software.

Many here are saying this is the way of the future, that all cars will be like this. Good thing by then I"ll be pushing up the daisies. (then again, with my luck, I'll live to 105 and have to suffer through this.. bullshit.. of protecting people from themselves)

Instead of airbags, we shoulda had put a 6" steel spike on the steering hub. "You wanna drive without a seatbelt? ORLY?!" And let natural selection do its thing.

Re: Volvo: A Car for People Scared of Their Own Sh

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the car leave you to to work out the translation from kph to mph or does it handle all the non-driving stuff for you? I'm not gung ho about opening the calculator app while going 111 on my narrow road.

Nanny car now is deciding when I am good to drive

[guacamole]

Why stop only at refusing to drive when I look tired or distracted late night or early in the morning? We need cars to make other safety related decisions. For example, refuse to change lanes if the driver did not use turn signal, brake and stop the car when driver tries to cross intersection on yellow light, refuse to accellerate beyond speed limit, don't brake if the driver did not check rear view mirror, brake on every stoo sign, etc.

Re:Volvo

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah fuck that noise. If you can't drive over 112MPH while drunk and tweeting, then you might as well not drive at all! Fuck other people. Who cares if you endanger them with your irresponsibility and entitlement so long as you had fun? YOLO man. YOLO.

Value

[markdavis]

>"CEO Hakan Samuelsson said that while the strategies meant Volvo might lose some customers keen on high speeds,"

And lose customers who value freedom, value privacy, value control, value repairability, value not being harassed or labeled, value glitches not causing new safety and convenience issues, and value their wallets.

Re: Value

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but it's 2019, you've got to use the right signal words to tell everyone that these non customers are actually bad people.

Only criminals like privacy, after all

Re: Volvo

[Anonymous Coward]

Just hack that beotch. Since the speedo works through the wheel sensors, it's probably as simple as pulling the ABS fuse from the engine compartment fuse box. HTH

Fu Vulva

[Anonymous Coward]

FU Vulva

Re: Volvo

[Anonymous Coward]

You never addressed his question. Why would you purchase a car designed to defy your wishes? You offered mitigation suggestions for after the fact. I agree with him. I would never buy a car designed to be my nanny. More unnecessary complication and potential failure points in exchange for features I don't need or want.

Re: Volvo

[Anonymous Coward]

You buy a Volvo so you can drive head-on into a Mac truck and walk away. They're kinda known for that.

As the Great George Carlin Said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Volvo, the intelligent car, for ignorant people.

Product/service to disable it all..

[Rick Schumann]

..will be available from 3rd party companies almost immediately.

Re:Product/service to disable it all..

[Anonymous Coward]

And good luck getting your insurer to pay out if you've installed such a modification. Or, if you tell them up front, your premium will be considerably higher.
If the technology is sufficiently cheap and reliable I have zero problem with this. In fact, I wish all cars did it. (They probably will in a few years, driven by insurance pressures.) My parents, unfortunately, are from the generation where having a few drinks and then driving was fine (they're in their 70s / 80s). It just wasn't frowned on in the same way it is today, but old habits die hard and they are still prone to occasionally driving when they've had too much. It's a rural area, and taxis / public transport aren't easily accessible, so they end up doing it for the convenience. Not that that's an excuse. Not as much as they used to, but I'd still be delighted if their car stopped them from doing it. I would really rather not lose them to an RTA.
To be honest, sometimes I've considered driving after having had a few beers. I don't, and it's nothing I would ever condone or do with my sober head on, but I'd be pretty happy to have a car that prevents me making those bad decisions.

And as for the top speed restriction? Fine by me. 112mph is still plenty to get you an instant driving ban. Modern engines are all powerful enough to get a top speed more than 112 but for road use it's the acceleration that can be useful (to make overtaking easier, get out of sticky situations) and the top speed is really an unwanted side effect. I'd be quite happy if they limited it to 90mph to be honest. Let's face it, if you want to go to track days and drive around at 200mph this probably isn't the car for you anyway, but I could also see approved track owners being given a code to temporarily unlock the restriction for track use - they would have to commit to locking it again before the car was allowed to leave, and the ECU would record the ID of the unlocker so if someone was caught just unlocking the cars willy-nilly their code could be revoked.

Though it appears that their implementation monitors for drunken behaviour and stops the car if the driver isn't fit. That's potentially dangerous as the driver could set off on his journey and get himself out into the middle of nowhere before the car stops, and then get into all kinds of bother by wandering off into the potentially freezing, wet night and getting lost. It would be better to have a check prior to setting off as well.

Re:Product/service to disable it all..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why buy the piece of shit to begin with, then? I mean, I don't disagree with the premise of your argument, but anybody who buys one of these only to turn around and disable all the features is a moron. Just buy something that isn't crippled out-of-the-box.

Re:Product/service to disable it all..

[Rick Schumann]

They're not 'buying one of these' as if it's an accessory you pay extra for, Volvo is baking this right into the vehicle. So you're saying "don't buy a Volvo at all"? Gee whiz that makes all sorts of sense, AC (not). Do you ACs even think before you comment or is it all just knee-jerk? Here, let me spoon-feed you, dumb babby: Want a Volvo, buy a Volvo, oh noes, silly speed governor and silly 'distracted driving detector, what do? Oh I know, buy this gadget/service that disables all that silly crap! WIN! There was that so difficult to understand?

you are a psychopath alcoholic

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do drink the last thing you want is your car to decide you have had 'too much'

oh heavens how dare anyone stop you from your drunken killing rmpage

everything wrong with this

[Anonymous Coward]

having machines make life or death decisions for us. ultimate stupidity

Re:Volvo: A Car for People Scared of Their Own Sha

[Cederic]

by 130 things get weird

Nah. Your brain also very rapidly adjusts and treats it as normal.

Just start reacting to things happening half a mile ahead instead of waiting until you reach them.

There's an app for that...or there will be

[hyades1]

My buddy has a device that plugs into the OBD II port. It comes an app that allows him to make a huge number of performance adjustments to his car.

How long will it take before somebody offers a specific app to disable all Volvo's Big Brotherish performance tweaks for as long as the device is plugged in, then reset everything to the way it was as part of the removal process? I'm betting it will be available about a week after the first "Neutered Volvo" sale for about a hundred Euros.

If I were writing it, I'd call it something like "Volvo's Not the Boss of Me", then sit back to watch the currency roll in.

Re:There's an app for that...or there will be

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who is even the slightest gearhead wouldn't buy a Volvo anyway. I've driven a few of the post-chinese Volvos via rentals (the fact that the bulk of "luxury" rental fleets are nearly all volvos should really tell you something) and they are absolutely abysmal.

The accelerator feels like you're pressing your foot onto a greeting card that's been scotch taped to the floor. And the brakes as you push down are "no brakes.....no brakes.....no brakes.....ALL OF THE BRAKES ALL AT ONCE"

The new ones truly now feel like you're driving a proper chinese car, where you think to yourself, "so is this the day where the steering will just decide it can't be bothered anymore with steering the car?"

Anyone who buys a Volvo really does get what they deserve. And here I thought volvos couldn't get any worse than the 90s-00s models with all of their electrical system gremlins...

Re:There's an app for that...or there will be

[hyades1]

Where's SAAB when you need it!

Mexicans won't like this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as driving drunk is a 'Mexican' thing. Who cares about innocent people being killed by drunk Mexican drivers going through Stop signs and ramming into them at crossroads? That's 'racist'.

Re:Volvo: A Car for People Scared of Their Own Sha

[dcw3]

First they announce they want to nanny the car to 112 MPH.

Obligatory racist comment:
What did you expect from a Chinese company when you can blindfold their drivers with dental floss?

Maybe that's why my Asian wife is my Ex...told her that when I was teaching her to drive. And no, I'll never buy a Volvo with this kind of BS.

Re:Volvo: A Car for People Scared of Their Own Sha

[dcw3]

Double bonus if either of you could spell Csaba Csere

https://www.caranddriver.com/f...

Re: Volvo

[rally2xs]

That's Subaru...

nope. it's a trap.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Not your place. Companies arnt your friends or family, they're not the government or the police force. They're not tyrannical overlords.

They make metal cages that take you from A to B.

Making vehicles into monitoring devices is terrifying, they obviously start off with things that seem good. Then they transition to interior cameras and microphones that store data and can be tapped into or subpoenaed.

Stop falling for this. Make your self a slave. I'm not interested.

Re: Volvo

[Anonymous Coward]

"Volvo--they're boxy but they're good."

O NO U DI'NT

[Anonymous Coward]

HEY! Stop insulting cry babies. INCELS can't even get any momma titty action. They'd blow thier micro-peen right in half if they even got stiff breeze from her skirt while walkin by!