Volvo Introduces a Collision-Proof Car 743
carazoo.com sends along a story on Volvo's upcoming crash-proof car. The company will introduce a concept car based on the S60 this month at the Detroit Auto Show, looking ahead a few years to the goal that by 2020 "no one should be killed or injured in a Volvo car." The concept car will have forward-looking radar as a proximity sensor, and the ability to brake if a collision is imminent. When the car senses a collision, a light flashes on the windscreen display along with an audible warning. If the driver doesn't act, the car will brake automatically.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Informative)
Much like in Sweden, the country Volvo is based in (I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I strongly doubt Volvo hasn't thought of that).
Re:"I Canna Change The Laws of Physics, Captain!" (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, a General Products hull won't save you. Cars already are less strong than the could be, because their squishy contents are too susceptible to high acceleration. A perfectly rigid car body would just kill its passengers.
The trouble with semi-automated driving (Score:3, Informative)
Having done some work on automated driving [overbot.com], I have some misgivings about semi-automated driving. ABS, which is a huge advance in vehicle control, hasn't reduced accidents as much as it should. Driver overconfidence seems to increase in ABS-equipped vehicles. Merely adding automated braking, which has been around for years [roadranger.com], may not help with passenger cars. It would probably encourage tailgating. It's a big win for heavy trucks, but they have pro drivers. Those guys aren't aggressive drivers, mostly tired ones. Passenger car drivers aren't that consistent.
Tailgating may be acceptable if there's a comm link between the car ahead and the car behind. That's been demonstrated successfully; if anybody in the chain starts to brake, everybody behind them brakes too. It needs to be coupled with enough smarts that not too many vehicles become a tight group, and a vehicle can't close up behind something that can stop shorter than it can.
Studies of crashes by Mercedes indicate that 80% of accidents would have been avoided if braking started 500ms sooner. Those aren't the severe accidents, though.
Anyway, while radar-controlled automated braking has its uses, it's not an answer in itself.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Informative)
> Apparently, they don't have Anti-Lock Breaking in Canada
We do. It does not work with zero traction. Locks, releases, locks releases, locks releases ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system
While ABS offers improved vehicle control in some circumstances, it can also present disadvantages including increased braking distance on slippery surfaces such as ice, packed snow, gravel, steel plates and bridges, or anything other than dry pavement.
snow tires (Score:5, Informative)
I tell everyone I know (in wintery climates anyway) to buy a good set (4, NOT 2) of snow tires. They all tell me to get stuffed because they have new "all season" tires (all season in Alabama, maybe) or they have a 4WD SUV or whatever. 4WD only helps you get going, not stop, and antilock brakes are only as good as the tires and the surface the tires are on. I do use snow tires in winter, and trust me, there is a world of difference! The only accident I was at fault in was an ice storm that caught me by surprise the day before I had intended to put on the ol' blizzaks. I left work at late at 8PM hoping to be the only person on the road. Began stopping what seemed like a reasonable distance for conditions, ABS kicked in as soon as I put my foot on the brake pedal and I slid all the way (under 25 MPH) into the back of the only other car on the road. New "all season" tires.
With blizzaks, when ABS kicks in you actually stop. Been using them for eight years.
GET SNOW TIRES. (I'm sure everyone in Canada already knows that. Few people around here seem to know or care.)
Re:yeah well (Score:4, Informative)
The H1 is over $100k, the H2 is $70k+, and the H3 is close to $40k if you don't want a bare-bones one.
None of the cars are "sissy" by any standard except maybe when compared to the HMMWV, which is the military version of the H1. An H2 commands plenty of respect on the road (and off the road). The H3 is a more expensive and less reliable XTerra, so it's rubbish in that sense but it's definitely not a sissy car.
And no Volvo would do well in an actual collision with any of the Hummer models. The Volvo SUV might do OK in a collision with an H3, but that's it.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Informative)
I do believe there's a single type of material that ABS helps reduce stopping distance but in all others the idea is to avoid the collision entirely, not just "stop faster". Thus, wheel lock = all traction gone, but "abs lock" = turn/swerve.
"H2 commands respect" ;-) maybe not.. (Score:5, Informative)
"An H2 commands plenty of respect on the road (and off the road)"
Over here in the UK you're more likely to get laughed at if you drive one of them round the streets and have people shout "tosser" at you.
Anybody who feels the need to drive an oversized military-style vehicle half a mile down (sub)urban roads to buy a pint of milk or a new pair of socks is looked on with a degree of suspicion and pity. People are a bit wary that the driver isn't too concerned about the well being of other road users and pedestrians.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A Moose... (Score:3, Informative)
My sister was bitten by a frost moose once...
Re:What about... (Score:3, Informative)
Any driver should be able to brake as hard as they want, at any time, safely. If you don't think this is always a safe maneouver then you are a tailgater. That's right - you should always give the car in front of you enough space to brake as hard as they want at random. Yes, I know, some idiot will cut in front and take your space, but that is how much space there should be between you and the car ahead of you.
Public roads are not race tracks. Oh, and please stop slewing your car to the left before making right hand turns unless you are driving a 5 ton truck or bigger. Even an Escalade does not need the extra turning space.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:3, Informative)
I had ABS nearly cause an accident on dry pavement in the middle of summer a few years back. I was pulling up to a stop light and when I hit the brakes to stop, the ABS kicked in immediately and would let the brakes do anything - I ended up weaving my way between the lanes of cars and slowly rolling through the red light (right past a cop car). I towed the car in and we traced it to some electrical problem that essentially tricked the ABS into thinking the brakes were locked when they weren't.
Re:What about... (Score:3, Informative)
If you have had a few close calls while passing, perhaps you need to examine your driving habits?
The odds of an accident are approximately 1 per 10,000 for every car trip. Most people make 2 a day to work and such, and we'll say as much on the weekends just to keep it simple. The median age in this country is about 35 right now. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume that everyone gets their license at 18 and starts driving. That's an average of 17 years of driving experience. Each year of experience creates 730 trips. The chance that you have been in an accident is, if my math is correct, about 62% by the time you're 35. Now, what do you think the ratio of near misses to accidents is? I'm guessing it's many-fold higher for our hypothetical driver. Of course, before you think "Well that isn't me!" another statistic for you: 80% of drivers think they're above average.
So, about examining those driving habits? How about examining the laws of probability instead. It'll be more fruitful.
Re:snow tires (Score:4, Informative)
Just remember that Blizzak's actually wear rather quickly and turn into "all-season" tires after about a season's use of driving on mixed surfaces (e.g. snow and pavement). On the other hand, standard modern snow tires like the Nokian, still wear quickly due to their soft compound however they tend to last longer than a season or two simply because they have so much tread.
See http://www.tirerack.com/winter/wintertesting.jsp [tirerack.com] for some in-depth reviews of tires *and a comparison between all-season and proper winter tires.
Good on ya for driving with snow tires, just don't overestimate how long those Blizzak's actually last!
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Informative)
The answer is, it depends.
First point -- the ABS in a racecar is an entirely different ball of wax than what you get in a production car. It's designed for people that operate closer (and past) the limits of the tires adhesion as their day job and tuned appropriately. Discount comparisons to race ABS to street systems.
On bikes with ABS and race riders going over uneven grip surfaces (i.e. pavement with standing watterpuddles), the ABS bike cut the stopping distance in _half_. That's huge.
On dry tarmac with a good driver, most _production_ ABS systems will not allow the cars to slowdown at their maximum rate, which is where the tires have their absolute _maximum_ grip of ~15% slower than indicated road speed... i.e. straddling the threshhold between lockup and rolling. An ABS system typically intervenes prior to this point.
It is possible for me to be able to get my wheels to begin to hum/howl during threshhold braking and ABS will not activate.
Another area where ABS is a detriment is that it doesn't tend to actually work the way you say it does. Suppose I am driving on an uneven road -- right side dry, left side icy. If I hit the brakes, the left side will want to lock up while the right side will have grip. But maximally activating the right side brakes as you suggest will cause the car to yaw, as the right side will slow down while the left will not. For passenger car systems ABS this is highly undesirable as the driver must now provide an immediate steering input.
So in effect, most production car ABS systems will release brake pressure on the dry side as well to prevent the car from yawing. A talented driver could brake and counter steer to correct the yaw.
I agree that ABS systems have gotten much better, but on passenger cars, they do not outperform qualified humans in _all_ conditions. I have road course experience in production cars with and without ABS and the only thing production-car ABS is good for on a race track is saving you a little tire money (i.e. it keeps you from flatspotting a tire)
The best way to think about ABS is that it makes the default reaction of most panicing drivers an acceptable one. It is little more than a brake-force attenuator. If you hadn't pushed the pedal as hard at that moment in time, it wouldn't have done anything.
My street cars have ABS and I leave it on, because even though I have done many track days and have excellent car control and "looking ahead" skills, I can occasionally be surprised by something. Most humans (including race drivers) have the same reaction/reflex time.. the difference is in conditioned response and more so than that, prediction/anticipation. It is difficult to be in the zone 100% of the time when commuting or driving on the street, and so I don't expect my abilities to be at the level they are at when I am on the track. Accordingly, I like the money I've saved from ABS and stability-management systems keeping me from wadding up the car around town.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:1, Informative)
In Finland spikes tyres are required in winter. Pretty big safety hazard for everyone if you're using normal ones.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:3, Informative)
The same law of physics that makes it harder to stop with ABS in loose snow and gravel. If you lock your brakes on slush, the tires push the slush in front of them, effectively digging itself downwards. With ABS though, you regularly remove any slush build-up that can help you brake. I have personally experienced this (I live in Norway..)
From the Wikipedia article on ABS: "In gravel, sand and deep snow, ABS tends to increase braking distances. On these surfaces, locked wheels dig in and stop the vehicle more quickly. ABS prevents this from occurring."
In almost all cases, ABS is a "Good Thing(TM)". In a few corner cases, it's not quite as good. Either way, it's in no way an excuse for driving like an idiot.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:3, Informative)
Too bad they're also illegal in parts of Canada too. I can't tell you how useful they'd be in Southern Ontario after getting 7" of snow. Especially after *insert random city here* decides to plow lightly, and salt lightly.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:3, Informative)
There are no tire laws of physics. That you demand such an explanation indicates that you are an ass. If you are in slush/packed snow/gravel, you can often stop faster by locking up your brakes. Snow on ice is not packed snow. That's one thing that confuses people about the description. Lets back it out to gravel. That's a more uniform surface world-wide. When you "roll" stop on gravel, you brake and slow, rolling over the gravel. When you lock up the brakes on gravel, you push some of the gravel in front of your tires into a wedge and you grind the wedge into the remaining gravel. This effectively increases your coeficient of friction. If you want it in physics laws, go pay attention to friction. You may note that friction is often greater between similar surfaces (i.e. metal on metal may have a higher Cf than plastic on metal).
Now, when ABS kicks in, you will never form a wedge. You will have a lower Cf without the wedge, and thus will take longer to stop. So say the laws of physics.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Informative)
From one study ( http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808206.html [dot.gov] )
The principal findings and conclusions from the statistical analyses of accident data are the following:
* ABS significantly reduced the involvements of passenger cars in multivehicle crashes on wet roads. ABS reduced police-reported crash involvements by an estimated 14 percent, and fatal involvements by 24 percent. The finding is consistent with the outstanding performance of ABS in stopping tests on wet roads.
* Certain types of collision involvements on wet roads, such as striking another vehicle in the rear, or striking a stopped vehicle, were reduced by 40 percent or more. This benefit, however, was partially offset by an increased likelihood of being struck in the rear by another vehicle. The better your own braking capabilities, the more likely that a following vehicle with average braking capabilities will hit you.
* ABS had little effect on multivehicle crashes on dry roads. The contrast in the results for wet roads and dry roads is consistent with findings in stopping tests, where ABS improved stopping distances and directional control substantially on wet surfaces, but much less so on dry surfaces.
* The risk of fatal collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists was reduced by a statistically significant 27 percent in passenger cars with ABS. Unlike the effects for multivehicle crashes, this reduction was about equally large on wet and dry roads.
* All types of run-off-road crashes - rollovers, side impacts with fixed objects and frontal impacts with fixed objects - increased significantly with ABS. Nonfatal run-off-road crashes increased by an estimated 19 percent, and fatal crashes by 28 percent.
* Rollovers and side impacts with fixed objects - crashes that typically follow a complete loss of directional control - had the highest increases with ABS. Nonfatal crashes increased by 28 percent, and fatal crashes by 40 percent.
* Frontal impacts with fixed objects, where the driver is more likely to have retained at least some directional control prior to impact, increased by about 15-20 percent, both nonfatal and fatal.
* The negative effects of ABS on run-off-road crashes were about the same under wet and dry road conditions.
# The reason for these negative effects is unknown. One possibility is that average drivers may at times steer improperly in panic situations. Because ABS preserves steering control under hard braking, cars may be swerving or heading off the road.
# The observed effects of ABS on snowy or icy roads, while not statistically significant, were all similar to the effects on wet roads - i.e., positive for multivehicle collisions, negative for run-off-road crashes.
# The overall, net effect of ABS on police-reported crashes (including multivehicle, pedestrian and run-off-road crashes) was close to zero.
# The overall, net effect of ABS on fatal crashes was close to zero.
So the type of accident changes and the fatality rate seems close to the same.
Also this page shows various studies where decreasing one type of risk raises another also resulting in close to zero change. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Risk-homeostasis [nationmaster.com]
Re:And then.. (Score:4, Informative)
"Besides, you used to hear the same sort of arguments about seatbelts. "What if I plunge into a lake and can't get out?" or, "What if the car flips upside-down, catches on fire, and the seatbelt traps me?" At this point, everyone more or less realizes that you're significantly more likely to be involved in a simple collision where you'd be thrown out through the window and onto the pavement (possibly into traffic) without your seatbelt/airbag protecting you. Seatbelts protect against a very real and common danger at the potential expense of a very unlikely scenario. This seems no different to me."
I recently completed a driver's ed course that made a very convincing argument that in those specific extreme scenarios seat-belts still increase your chances for survival. The showed us a video where they intentionally drove a car head-first into water and showed what would happen. If you weren't wearing a seat-belt the driver would be thrown forward creating a situation where he/she could be knocked unconscious or injured in such a fashion that would make it more difficult for the driver to escape via the side window.
They also interviewed survivors who had been in cars that flipped up-side-down AND caught fire. These survivors claimed that the seat-belt did absolutely nothing to prevent their escape, but did keep them in their seat which helped prevent injury which could have made escaping the disaster much more difficult.
The course actually convinced me that seat-belts should be mandated even though I used to feel otherwise. I still feel that adults should be able to take risks with their own lives if they so choose. However, the one thing that had I never considered before is that seat-belts help keep a driver in control of a vehicle and thus better able to prevent their vehicle from causing further damage to other drivers, pedestrians and property. Passengers can also become projectiles during a collision which can obstruct the driver's ability to bring the vehicle to safe stop without causing further damage.
Re:Seems like common sense (Score:3, Informative)
Fat lot of consolation that would be for the whiplash, and sub-replacement cost payout for your vehicle from an insurance company (you almost always get book-value, not replacement cost. These can be quite different on any newish car).
The proper way to deal with somebody breaking the rules of the road is to accommodate them. Move out of their way, and let them pass if they insist on riding your ass. It's called defensive driving, and in most places it is just as much the law as following at a reasonable distance.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:3, Informative)
You can also use winter tires without spikes if you want to. The tires just need to be made for winter and snow.