Building the Zero-Fatality Car 509
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?"
Not good enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Come talk to me when they figure out the "zero fatality life."
There is no zero (Score:4, Insightful)
Auto-car. (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.
Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like zero-vulnerability network security (Score:5, Insightful)
Terminator car (Score:4, 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?
2020 (Score:2, Insightful)
'By 2020, nobody shall be seriously injured or killed in a new Volvo.'
By 2020, nobody may be able to afford a new Volvo, so we'll keep driving the 20 year old deathtrap ones.
I find that hard to believe... (Score:4, 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.
Don't see the big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
So what happens when... (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?
Re:Don't see the big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple low-tech solution to deliver this today (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, not more than once...
Re:Auto-car. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak (Score:3, Insightful)
Two hundred years ago a horseless carriage was impossible. 150 years ago an airplane was impossible. 100 years ago a computer was impossible. 50 years ago a cell phone was impossible.
Zero fatality car... (Score:5, Insightful)
Volvo in 10 years.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Volvo has just been bought by Geely, a chinese firm.
Sure the chinese have promised to keep volvo volvo, not to mess with the whole swedish safety stuff, but what car brand has ever been taken over and NOT changed significantly towards the new parent company? Hell, all current volvos sit on Ford chassis.
Good luck making a zero fatality car with the chinese at the helm...
Re:Auto-car. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people should not be driving. Period.
?
a mistake, believing your car is that safe (Score:1, Insightful)
The more likely you make it that you'll survive an accident in the car the more likely you make it that people will take chances when driving and so produce more accidents. And, there are simply accidents you will not survive.
On the news last night was a note about a pickup tuck that hit a truck cab from behind, riding up onto the hitch, followed by a school bus and then a second school bus rear-ending the first. In other words the pickup truck got turned into compressed scrap between the truck cab and the first school bus. I cannot imagine any car engineered to survive that and remain affordable. The driver of the pickup truck was killed as well as one student on one of the school buses. I cannot imagine anyone engineering an affordable gasoline efficient (for these days) car that would survive such an accident.
On a lighter note, one comedian, I cannot remember who, made a suggestion that I think had some merit because it would make people pay more attention to their driving and really make them want to avoid accidents as much as possible; a six inch steel spike standing up from the middle of the steering wheel. I had a similar experience owning my first car, a 1962 Volkswagon Van. There was nothing between you and the traffic ahead of you except a single sheet of metal and the control console. You rear-end anything with any force while you were driving that and you'd lose your legs at least.
It won't matter anyway. The city I live in is doing everything it can to banish cars from the city. They're putting up so many bicycle only permeable barriers, barricades and traffic calming measures they'll eventually decide that it will be simpler to try and enact a ban on private vehicles.
More Obese Cars? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In a Volvo? (Score:5, 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.
Re:There is no zero (Score:2, Insightful)
Untrue.
How many times have you had sex with a living female human being this week?
Thought so.
Sorry man, that doesn't fly. Females are a figment of the imagination too.
Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I find that hard to believe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Worse yet, the more safety measures you add on, the less people feel they need to pay attention so it can make the relatively few failures more catastrophic.
Re:I find that hard to believe... (Score:3, Insightful)
And of course, there's an excellent source of proof that human beings can get themselves killed in amazingly stupid ways: The Darwin Awards [darwinawards.com].
Re:Building the Zero-Fatality Car (Score:4, 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.
Re:What? (Score:5, 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 [rinkworks.com].
I'm waiting for Idiocracy to occur. After all, we already have "Ow, My Balls" on TV - ABC just calls it "Wipeout."
Re:Impossible everywhere but in PRspeak (Score:3, Insightful)
As cars have gotten safer they have also gotten far more powerful. The fact that a 16 year old can get behind the wheel of a 250kW vehicle is a scary thought. Classical example of exactly the kind of stupidity I'm talking about was in the news 2 months ago, a guy was caught doing double the speed limit in a 100kmh zone (instant impoundment of the vehicle and loss of licence in my state). He was not only a new driver, but was on the highway on the way home from the licensing centre. He has his licence for less than 20 minutes and now has lost it for 1 year, and is on probation for a year after that.
Humans will never have a zero fatality car because frankly we think we're better than the tools we use. The SCRAM shutdown system was turned off during a maintenance activity at Chernobyl, the BP Texas City operators overfilled a column during start-up because they knew better than the process manual they were following, and most importantly more than half of the cars I have seen with stability control or traction control have a button right there on the dashboard to turn it off.
But this is good. Natural selection should remain in working conditions at all times.
Zero is a great goal even if it's unreachable (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.
Re:Auto-car. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Auto-car. (Score:2, Insightful)
When I talk about automation, I mean an automated transportation experience that can be over-ridden by the driver when it is necessary. If your car decides the correct speed to travel at is measure din Mach, you should probably be able to easily take over.
When I mention partially automated, I'm referring more to the example of the car from this article - where they are more "assists" than "controls" -- and I think those are exactly what you're describing a concern with. I suppose it depends how "partial" automation are implemented. Would your experience with ABS have a parallel in a system that automatically breaks just before impacting a car or pedestrian in front of you that you are clearly not reacting to fast enough to be safe on your own?
I don't have an answer for that. I guess it would only be derived from exhaustive real-world testing. I like the idea of such fail-safes in all vehicles, but mixing real-time human interaction/control with partial automation definitely seems open to much more complexity. It's one thing to negotiate automation in an automated caravan where the car just has to make sure it is going at-speed with the others in its group without getting too close or far away or drifting out of its lane. It's definitely another to negotiate countless variables from an active human driver.
I have a better idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
How about we stop giving driver's licenses to anyone who can manage to stand up? Make them more difficult to get, and remove drivers from the road when they become unsafe.
I know, what a concept, right?
I bet if the drivers on the road were better tested and more competent, the rate of serious injuries and fatailities might not get to zero, but it'd be way closer than it is now.
"What's that clicking? Oh my left blinker's on. Wonder how long that's been on for. I got in the left lane doing less than the speed limit only a few minutes ago, so it must have been then."
Re:In a Volvo? (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.
Re:There is no zero (Score:3, Insightful)
But usually it's free of charge.
Some people buy movie tickets, flowers, and dinner. Some just pay a hooker. Either way you're paying for sex.
If you really wanted to pedantic about it, there's also opportunity cost. Think of all of the other exciting things you could be doing, such as coding or watching Gentoo install.
Re:In a Volvo? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Auto-car. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anecdote: The first year the Calgary police bought cars with ABS they cracked up twice as many in one winter as the cars without ABS. As soon as the ABS started vibrating the pedal the cops backed off on the brakes and smacked into whatever they were trying to avoid. Once they added ABS practice to the emergency driving training the accident rate went down to where the ABS cars had only half as many accidents as the non-ABS cars.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just when you think you have idiot-proofed something, Nature will design a better idiot just to spite you.
Currently, the worst drivers tend to remove themselves from the gene pool, or at least have the possibility of death place some sort of upper bound on how moronically one can drive. Just imagine the type of idiot nature will be able to design once Volvo removes these constraints.
Re:There is no zero (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Auto-car. (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.
not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately they tend to remove others... Like the one who used to signal a lane change (without looking), wait 5 seconds, and change lane (again, without looking). Never had an accident, but probably ignored a trail of accidents in the (unused) rear-view mirror.
Re:Not good enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Auto-car. (Score:4, 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.