Technology being rolled out by Ford could mean fewer collisions caused by drivers pulling out of a junction while their view of the road they are joining is obstructed, with the motor giant fitting 180-degree cameras to some of its new models to effectively allow motorists to see round corners.
The camera lens is embedded in the front grille, with the driver pushing a button to see the footage it provides shown on an 8-inch screen on the dashboard, and that means that rather than edging out into the road and hope nothing is coming, they can check more easily that the coast is clear.
Here’s a video showing how the Ford Split View Front Camera, which will be available as an option to the company’s latest S-MAX and Galaxy vehicles as well as the Edge SUV which comes to the UK later this year, works.
Ford engineer Ronny Hause said: “We have all been there and it’s not just blind junctions that can be stressful, sometimes an overhanging tree, or bushes can be the problem.
“For some, simply driving off their own driveways is a challenge. This is one of those technologies that people will soon wonder how they managed without.”
The camera is yet another example of how car manufacturers and others are using technology to improve the safety of road users.
But while the likes of Google, with its self-driving car, and Volvo, with a system that detects vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians, are seeking to eliminate the human error element that is a factor in most collisions, Ford’s camera for now does not.
So in terms of the safety of cyclists, there is likely to be a degree of apprehension that some drivers using the technology will be looking primarily for cars and other vehicles, and fail to spot someone riding in a bike lane, say.
With the pace of technological innovation in automotive technology that is being driven by major players in the automotive market, it’s perhaps not too much of a stretch to hope that a few years down the line, devices that improve what motorists are able to see may be combined with collision avoidance systems and come as standard on new vehicles.
Ford itself has already outlined its “Vision for the Future” in which it envisages “automated vehicles that still keep the driver in the loop to take back control of the vehicle, if needed.”
However, it admitted that “this vision will likely not be realised for many years,” and that “many technological details remain to be worked out, and drivers will need to become comfortable with the idea of giving up some measure of driving control to their vehicle, which will not happen quickly.”
Keith Freeman, a quality training manager for the AA quoted in a post on the Ford Social website, said that Ford’s new camera would make it much easier for motorists to spot cyclists than is the case at present.
“Pulling out at a blind junction can be a tricky manoeuvre for new and experienced drivers alike,” said Mr Freeman, who is also involved in the Ford Driving Skills for Life initiative, which is aimed at training young drivers.
“The best approach has traditionally been to simply lean forward to get the best view whilst creeping forwards with the windows wound down to listen for approaching vehicles, but cyclists are a particular risk as they can’t be heard,” he went on.
“This technology will certainly make emerging from anywhere with a restricted view so much safer and the experience less nerve-wracking for those behind the wheel,” he added.

























50 thoughts on “Ford rolling out tech that helps drivers “see round corners””
I’m broadly supportive of any
I’m broadly supportive of any initiative that improves safety but still sceptical. Such measures make drivers generally ‘lazy’ and thus a danger on the road elsewhere.
Despite all these fantastic improvements to cars drivers are still killing cyclists because they can’t be bothered to look.
MamilMan wrote:… Such
Most definitely this. While the application of technology helps to a point, all it does is further erode a drivers basic responsibility to drive with complete care and attention. How many stories have we seen about Muppets driving into lakes / canals / one way streets because their Sat Nav ‘told them too’ ? And this all assumes that a driver actually stops at the Give Way lines instead of sticking half their vehicle out of the turning first, THEN stopping to look for other road users.
‘Oh, I pulled out into the cyclist because my car said it was safe’ Right.
And don’t get me started on that stupid Ford read-out-your-text-message gimmick either.
I might have ranted a bit.
STiG911 wrote: And this all
actually this technology allows the driver to look without sticking their nose into the bike lane first.
How about a technology that
How about a technology that makes drivers see things in plain sight?
Oh goodness, can you imagine
Oh goodness, can you imagine how much worse drivers will be at spotting cyclists when looking for cars when they are doing it on an 8″ 1 megapixel screen than when they are doing it with their own eyes?
This is one more reason to always cycle with bright flashing lights, even in bright daylight.
DaveE128 wrote:Oh goodness,
yeah, they should stick to what they can see through parked vans, much better than a small screen.
For some, simply driving off
This is too true!
Judging by some of the
Judging by some of the manoeuvres I see on a daily basis, I thought that a large percentage of vehicles were already fitted with such technology. 😕
“coast is clear…well apart
“coast is clear…well apart from that cyclist 20 ft away but, you know, fuck ‘im”
*crash*
Volvo are introducing systems
Volvo are introducing systems that will intervene if the driver doesn’t stop for pedestrians and cyclists. If they perform as volvo are touting about zero deaths from a volvo car then other manufacturers will follow.
CXR94Di2 wrote:Volvo are
Nice Volvo advert there mate.
The “intervention” you are talking about will probably be no more than a beeping noise; just another item to ignore.
…or do you mean automatic braking, which Volvo have recently demonstrated to not work at all?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8nnhUCtcO8
severs1966 wrote:
…or do
Works pretty nicely in my mate’s car, as do a lot of the other safety features. These things are all taking us closer, bit by bit, to driverless cars – and I reckon that’s got to be a good thing for cyclists and cycling in general.
blinddrew wrote:
severs1966
It stops your mate crashing into other motor vehicles (which is what it is really designed to do), or it stops your mate hitting pedestrians and bike riders?
I understand that for
I understand that for whatever reason the particular vehicle didn’t have the pedestrian system fitted. Stupid of the demonstration not to check first. Doesn’t mean these systems don’t work!
severs1966 wrote:CXR94Di2
Automatic braking works in my Volvo just fine – though you certainly wouldn’t rely on it and its a surprise when it goes off! You’re confusing a few different things though, there’s the ‘city safety’ auto brake feature which is for cars, and then systems to auto detect and brake for pedestrians. Apparently they’ve now got cyclist detection too
http://road.cc/content/news/77811-volvo-unveils-its-cyclist-detection-system-automatic-braking-video
I guess no technology is going to be perfect at first, however, and it is absolutely no substitute for looking where you’re going.
But no, you’re right – far better not to innovate with safety. We should keep things as they are, that way we get to keep our righteous indignation as vulnerable hard-done-by road users.
Look this is proven
Look this is proven technology from Dunton the home of Ford Research in Essex. I know this because of the number of arses who live around this way that have been testing this for years. It allows them to overtake on blind bends; on the wrong side of the road over the brow of a hill and most magically shrinks the car allowing them to overtake cyclists at pinch points. Absolutely ace and is disguised as furry dice hanging from the rear view mirror.
Awright geezer?
Awright geezer?
Broadly in favour of this. My
Broadly in favour of this. My only concern is that, like parking sensors, cars will be designed with this technology in mind but it will only be available as an option. If the option is not selected visibility could be worse than before.
“Safety interventions that do
“Safety interventions that do not alter people’s propensity to take risks will be frustrated by responses that re-establish the level of risk with which people were originally content.
In the absence of reductions in people’s propensity to take risks, safety interventions will redistribute the burden of risk, not reduce it.”
J.Adams.
It ought to be fairly easy to
It ought to be fairly easy to highlight moving objects on the monitor. Something like focus peaking on modern cameras: http://www.streamingmedia.com/Images/ArticleImages/ArticleImage.15862.jpg
Not saying they will, but they could.
So the old line-of-sight
So the old line-of-sight style driving which ensured that both parties could see the upcoming interaction will be removed.
I’ll be riding along and some dolt will mis-check their camera and suddenly bolt out from behind the hiding place of the bush they keep overhanging their driveway.
Lovely.
Ush wrote:So the old
Ensured ? Ensured ? My arse.
fukawitribe wrote:Ush
“could” as opposed to “couldn’t”
Ush wrote:fukawitribe
“could” as opposed to “couldn’t”— Ush
..except that in the ‘old’ style they couldn’t see unless they had a clear line of sight at a junction or until they were already in lane/road.. so this turns a “couldn’t” into a “could”. There are some risk compensation/expectation issues, like having lights on at night, but to dismiss it out of hand strikes me as overly simplistic.
Doesn’t matter what high tech
Doesn’t matter what high tech gubbins is fitted, if the driver doesn’t *look*. Remember, cyclists are invisible even when in plain sight…
its been said before but
its been said before but replace the airbags with a bads of nails and driving will improve over night.
mrchrispy wrote:its been said
No drivers seat belt or door, and a spike out of the centre of the steering wheel would sort it too. 😉
atgni wrote:mrchrispy
I think these things would not change car occupant casualty rates but would improve things for cyclists and pedestrians. The opposite of seat belt compulsion which increased casualties amongst vulnerable road users as is admitted by the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transportb Safety.
“June 2008 article in Significance by Richard Allsop, Oliver Carsten, Andrew Evans, and Robert Gifford (all members of PACTS). See table below.
Significantly the Significance article did not make it into the Review’s list of key references on seat belts. A significant omission because the authors, all defenders of the seat belt law, acknowledge an effect of the law of important consequence to vulnerable road users. They say “the clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.” ”
felixcat wrote:I think these
Your quotes would tend to indicate that this is not true.
fukawitribe wrote:felixcat
My point is that the keen seat belt advocates in PACTS have been forced to admit that seat belt compulsion increased casualties in vulnerable users. Their belief that belts saved lives in car users is a different matter, and disputable. John Adams’s books and website make a good case for this. He also talks about the Isles Report. Before the debate in Parliament which preceded the vote on compulsion, the DfT asked Isles to look into the effect of compulsion in the countries which had already passed seat belt laws. He concluded that no positive effect could be shown, The report was not published and only became public when leaked to New Scientist. The report is on Adams’s website.
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/
felixcat wrote:He concluded
Ahhhh Mr. Adams – let us hope his understanding of that report is better than his understanding of non-linear dynamic systems and climatology.
fukawitribe wrote:
Ahhhh Mr.
I think this is whar is known as ad hominem. His views on climate change are entirely unconected with his ideas on risk homeostasis, in which field he is an acknowledged expert.
You do not have to hope anything about his understanding of the Isles Report. You can read it for yourself on his website, and form your own view on what it says. I do not know Isles’s views on climate change.
felixcat wrote:I think this
It’s more like poisoning the well, though the two are sometimes closely related. Ad hominem is attacking the person delivering the message based on their character e.g. he’s black/gay/Welsh/Conservative therefore you shouldn’t listen to his argument against wind farms. Poisoning the well is attacking an argument by presenting other irrelevant information about things the person has said or done e.g. he once said that he doesn’t believe in evolution therefore how can his views on Google’s transfer pricing policy be trusted.
vonhelmet wrote:felixcat
Without knowing his expertise, or otherwise, regarding the analysis of effects of mandating seatbelt usage, I think it is perfectly valid to wonder about methodology given what i’ve seen in another scientific analysis he was involved in. As felixcat has said, he is an expert in the field, so I no longer have to worry about that.
fukawitribe wrote:
Without
Again, you don’t have to wonder about Adams’s methodology, the discussion with Gifford on his site, and other postings are clear enough.
I refer to him not because I regard him as an unquestionable authority, but because his writings on the subject make so much sense to me, and posting his website address saves me paraphrasing at a length which is not suited to a discussion here.
Isles’s expertise is unknown to me. Presumably PACTS regarded him as sufficiently expert to inform Parliament, and is is their misfortune that he produced the “wrong” result.
I suggest you get hold of Adams’s book. It is an enlightening and entertaining read.
felixcat wrote:fukawitribe
I think this is whar is known as ad hominem. His views on climate change are entirely unconected with his ideas on risk homeostasis, in which field he is an acknowledged expert.
You do not have to hope anything about his understanding of the Isles Report. You can read it for yourself on his website, and form your own view on what it says. I do not know Isles’s views on climate change.— fukawitribe
Not an ad hominem – I only really know the name from the climatology side – and, from what you’ve said the answer is ‘yes’.
fukawitribe wrote:
Not an ad
I am not clear on what “yes” is the answer to. Do you mean his understanding of Isles is better than his views on CC?
I was not aware he had any fame in the field of CC.
felixcat wrote:fukawitribe
Indeed I do.
Not fame, but the discussion in the draft of Chapter 9 of Risk (found in a different search, and interesting and amusing in many parts) is missing a lot of science and concentrating on summary quotes a tad too much for my liking.
fukawitribe wrote:felixcat
Great. Then you agree that Isles showed that seat belts did not cut car user casualties but increased vulnerable road user casualties in the previous seat belt compulsion countries? Because that is what Isles said, and what Adam’s read him as saying. Isles is pretty explicit. I’m glad we can agree.
felixcat wrote:fukawitribe
Great. Then you agree that Isles showed that seat belts did not cut car user casualties but increased vulnerable road user casualties in the previous seat belt compulsion countries? Because that is what Isles said, and what Adam’s read him as saying. Isles is pretty explicit. I’m glad we can agree.— felixcat
Nope, i’ve not read it yet so i’m not going to agree to anything. I just said there’s clearly hope he’s not missed important stuff as elsewhere.
Why are people pissing and
Why are people pissing and moaning about this? In other threads we have people saying there’s not enough visibility in some vehicles, too many blind spots etc, then here we have some technology that completely eradicates a number of blind spots and people whine about it?
This is good technology. It doesn’t have to be used, and obviously not all drivers will use it properly, but to many drivers (me included) this could be really useful.
danthomascyclist wrote:Why
Exactly!
It’s pretty clever tech, I
It’s pretty clever tech, I can’t see it being a crap 1MP camera given how cheap good sensors are now. The counter argument is it’s as useful as the driver is good, you can throw it onto every car but a driver still needs to use it and if they’re too cocksure they’ll just do the classic of ‘getting their nose out’.
I live just off a reasonably busy road where the sight-lines are appalling to see oncoming traffic, something like this would make a big difference for being able to read the road better.
Good to see in this thread
Good to see in this thread lots of people comparing apples with oranges – so much pointless noise.
Stop comparing technology that helps to [b]prevent[/b] accidents with technology that [b]protects[/b] the driver in the event of an accident.
The first is great for ALL road users, vulnerable or not. The second is only good for the driver, and possibly causes them to drive in a way that is more risky to other road users. Nothing new here, but people keep confusing the two.
This technology by Ford is designed to help prevent accidents, so stop comparing it to airbags and seatbelts; that’s just dumb.
danthomascyclist wrote:Good
There is a difference, but the same factors do apply. A classic study into anti lock braking shows this. It fround that the German taxi divers given this safer braking technology braked later and harder. They absorbed the safety benefit as a performance benefit. If the technology does not change the tendency to take risks, then it will be negated by human behaviour.
There is no need to call those you disagree with dumb.
felixcat
There is a difference, but the same factors do apply. A classic study into anti lock braking shows this. It fround that the German taxi divers given this safer braking technology braked later and harder. They absorbed the safety benefit as a performance benefit. If the technology does not change the tendency to take risks, then it will be negated by human behaviour.— danthomascyclist
What did the report say about the effect on the majority of non-professional drivers ?
fukawitribe wrote:
What did
The report did not look at amateurs. Can you propose any credible reason why they might react differently to better brakes?
danthomascyclist wrote:Good
Don’t think anyone is comparing these systems to seatbelts and airbags. The argument is simply that, if people must drive cars, the best safety interventions for others on the road would involve the removal of driver safety aids, and the installation of systems which hurt the driver in the event of a collision. Then drivers might actually be motivated to drive carefully. Instead we get an endless stream of pointless ‘safety’ aids whose only function is to generate good PR for people who make the killing machines.
Front end cameras aren’t new
Front end cameras aren’t new – Jaguar / Land Rover have had them for a while.
Trickle down to cheaper cars might be news.
doubt it will happen, could
doubt it will happen, could involve law suits