Home

Apparently, this is "The most significant development since the safety belt".

From the  BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43752226

However, the article is mainly interested in car occupant safety and there has been one particularly notable incident involving an XC90 and a pedestrian although Uber had disabled Volvo's system (probably not fair to count it as a problem with the Volvo).

Personally, I can't wait until we have robots taking over from inattentive hoomans.

35 comments

Avatar
don simon [2327 posts] 3 months ago
2 likes

Bastard Volvo drivers!

Avatar
Rich_cb [792 posts] 3 months ago
4 likes

I think that if AEB really does prevent about 10% of all collisions then it should be mandatory on all new vehicles.

If the system can be improved to recognise pedestrians and cyclists then it could hugely reduce casualty rates.

Avatar
zero_trooper [239 posts] 3 months ago
3 likes

Reading the article, it is almost too good to be true. I was aware of AEB, but not how successful it has been. Presumably with improving technology effective pedestrian/cyclist/animal AEB could become a reality. Can't believe that insurance companies, or DoT for that matter, aren't pushing harder for it.

Avatar
hawkinspeter [2006 posts] 3 months ago
1 like
zero_trooper wrote:

Reading the article, it is almost too good to be true. I was aware of AEB, but not how successful it has been. Presumably with improving technology effective pedestrian/cyclist/animal AEB could become a reality. Can't believe that insurance companies, or DoT for that matter, aren't pushing harder for it.

It's probably too early for the insurance companies to be convinced as they'd be betting a lot of money on the outcome and it's still a new technology. Give them 5 years or so and someone might make a special machine assisted policy.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [2041 posts] 3 months ago
3 likes

Hmmm, people who drive volvos are more likely to be more cautious and indeed older drivers in any case, older drivers drive less and not at peak times, this is a fact.

They might improve those inside but just like seatbelts this did nothing for the vulnerable outside the vehicle, actually making matters worse.

Far better to have speed restricted vehicles in all areas via GPS and/or transmiters in signposts with a maximum top speed of 80mph and acceleration no greater than 0-60mph in 12seconds for all vehicles unless taken off road i.e. a track. That and reducing speed limits like minor NSL roads should be 50mph max and many not even 40mph, all city/town streets should be 20mph.

THAT would have a massively greater efffect on road safety not just for the occupents but also for vulnerable road users, in some ways it negates much of what the radar systems do because it gives the operator more time to consider what's happening.

The Radar system also proves how shot drivers are, if you can't operate a simple vehicle without crashing into something or a human being then you don't have the ability to be safe on the roads.

My first car after passing my test was a 1980 Ford Escort 1.3E, then a ex company Vx Astra 1.3, both had 13" wheels, no power steering and in 130,000 miles between them I didn't manage to hit anyone/thing nor scare the crap out of some poor sod on the road.

We have the technology to stop motorists from going too fast which has a hand in pretty much every incident one way or another, just not the bollocks to do it because it would restrict the freedoms of the poor old motorist.

Avatar
hawkinspeter [2006 posts] 3 months ago
3 likes

@BTBS - not only do we have the technology to stop motorists from going too fast, we also have so much traffic that we hardly even need that technology in cities.

Avatar
Duncann [1351 posts] 3 months ago
2 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

just like seatbelts this did nothing for the vulnerable outside the vehicle

But it's not like seatbelts.

Seatbelts only come into play after a collision has occurred. This system reduces the chances of being in a collision (with things, including the vulnerable, outside the vehicle) in the first place.

It's certainly not the solution to everything but it's positive.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [2041 posts] 3 months ago
3 likes
Duncann wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

just like seatbelts this did nothing for the vulnerable outside the vehicle

But it's not like seatbelts.

Seatbelts only come into play after a collision has occurred. This system reduces the chances of being in a collision (with things, including the vulnerable, outside the vehicle) in the first place.

It's certainly not the solution to everything but it's positive.

wrong, seatbelts come into play the moment they are put on the person driving in a very similar fashion to other safety aids particularly helmets in sport and cycling in general. Go read up on why risk homeostasis is a massive issue with regards to safety and how seatbelts had a very noticeble impact on safety of the vulnerable which caused more incidents/deaths that would not have occured if the seatbelt had not being worn/forced upon motorists.

John Adams is the google search you want.

Avatar
Awavey [412 posts] 3 months ago
5 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Hmmm, people who drive volvos are more likely to be more cautious and indeed older drivers in any case, older drivers drive less and not at peak times, this is a fact.

 

it might be more significant that it costs nearly £50k to buy, which is why they probably only sell ~30,000 of these a year in the whole of Europe, thats not far that ahead of how many Ford Fiestas on average are sold each month, and VW are selling 40,000+ Golfs, per month.

they made 14,000 Sinclair C5s after all, and I dont think anyone has been killed driving one in 33 years, so clearly the safest mode of transport is a car based on a bike a with a battery

Avatar
Duncann [1351 posts] 3 months ago
2 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Duncann wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

just like seatbelts this did nothing for the vulnerable outside the vehicle

But it's not like seatbelts.

Seatbelts only come into play after a collision has occurred. This system reduces the chances of being in a collision (with things, including the vulnerable, outside the vehicle) in the first place.

It's certainly not the solution to everything but it's positive.

wrong, seatbelts come into play the moment they are put on the person driving in a very similar fashion to other safety aids particularly helmets in sport and cycling in general. Go read up on why risk homeostasis is a massive issue with regards to safety and how seatbelts had a very noticeble impact on safety of the vulnerable which caused more incidents/deaths that would not have occured if the seatbelt had not being worn/forced upon motorists.

John Adams is the google search you want.

You're right about the psychological effect of using seatbelts, helmets, etc. and the feeling of safety they offer to users leading to greater risk taking and more collisions. Adams’ work seems contested but some effect is accepted – so I was clearly wrong to say seatbelts only come into play once a collision has happened. I apologise.

I think the more important point, however, is that the Volvo uses a collision avoidance system. Seatbelts, we agree, are not that.

Whether the Volvo's system fully cancels a greater appetite for risk (including lessened attentiveness) which it might engender is not clear, and it would be interesting to see data on XC90 collisions and non-occupant KSIs - rather than just occupant fatalities. After all, driving a (proper) tank would let you collide with loads of things, squash peds and pedallers by the dozen and still emerge without a scratch on yourself.

But something which – unlike seatbelts - moderates at least some of drivers’ actual bad behaviour (even at the vehicle level, rather than the system level you want) seems positive.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet [2060 posts] 3 months ago
2 likes

As has been mentioned. Volvo is generally not the choice of the hooligan. Even the T series cars never really found a hooligan home as you could get way better stuff for the money. My mate had one we took to the Nurburgring and it was better than expected but no match for BMWs and Clios with less power.

Most Volvos probably never get driven in anger, probably just in incompetence by old people with hats who do slow close passes.

Avatar
felixcat [585 posts] 3 months ago
3 likes
Duncann wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Duncann wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

just like seatbelts this did nothing for the vulnerable outside the vehicle

But it's not like seatbelts.

Seatbelts only come into play after a collision has occurred. This system reduces the chances of being in a collision (with things, including the vulnerable, outside the vehicle) in the first place.

It's certainly not the solution to everything but it's positive.

wrong, seatbelts come into play the moment they are put on the person driving in a very similar fashion to other safety aids particularly helmets in sport and cycling in general. Go read up on why risk homeostasis is a massive issue with regards to safety and how seatbelts had a very noticeble impact on safety of the vulnerable which caused more incidents/deaths that would not have occured if the seatbelt had not being worn/forced upon motorists.

John Adams is the google search you want.

You're right about the psychological effect of using seatbelts, helmets, etc. and the feeling of safety they offer to users leading to greater risk taking and more collisions. Adams’ work seems contested but some effect is accepted – so I was clearly wrong to say seatbelts only come into play once a collision has happened. I apologise.

I think the more important point, however, is that the Volvo uses a collision avoidance system. Seatbelts, we agree, are not that.

Whether the Volvo's system fully cancels a greater appetite for risk (including lessened attentiveness) which it might engender is not clear, and it would be interesting to see data on XC90 collisions and non-occupant KSIs - rather than just occupant fatalities. After all, driving a (proper) tank would let you collide with loads of things, squash peds and pedallers by the dozen and still emerge without a scratch on yourself.

But something which – unlike seatbelts - moderates at least some of drivers’ actual bad behaviour (even at the vehicle level, rather than the system level you want) seems positive.

The point about risk homeostasis is not that drivers (in this case) take more risk, but that they maintain their acceptable risk level by changing their behaviour as external factors change. What should be risk improvements are consumed in other ways. I can easily imagine that when the vehicle takes some of the collision avoidance  decisions that the driver relaxes and alows this, instead of maintaining the same level of care taking.

Risk homeostasis in general  is accepted in many other fields. It is only cotroversial in road safety. Why this is so we can speculate.  It certainly means that the efforts of the road safety industry are often negated, and the industry does not like to admit this.

Avatar
hirsute [301 posts] 3 months ago
1 like

I don't understand how AEB works on say the M11 near Cambridge to Stansted where it is 2 lanes. If you leave an appropriate gap between you and the car in front, then at least one car will fill the gap. Would you not then get rear ended when the brakes kick in ?

Avatar
brooksby [3301 posts] 3 months ago
1 like
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Far better to have speed restricted vehicles in all areas via GPS and/or transmiters in signposts with a maximum top speed of 80mph and acceleration no greater than 0-60mph in 12seconds for all vehicles unless taken off road i.e. a track. That and reducing speed limits like minor NSL roads should be 50mph max and many not even 40mph, all city/town streets should be 20mph.

I've never understood those small commercial vehicles you see around which have a sticker on the back explaining that they are speed limited to 70 mph... I mean: of course they are limited to 70 mph, that's the national speed limit!

Avatar
hawkinspeter [2006 posts] 3 months ago
1 like

As much as I'd enjoy reduced speed limits (I don't drive), I don't think they are politically palatable at the moment. However, computer controlled/assisted vehicles are almost inevitable due to the amount of cost savings that the large logistics companies will enjoy.

Avatar
OnYerBike [10 posts] 3 months ago
1 like
hirsute wrote:

I don't understand how AEB works on say the M11 near Cambridge to Stansted where it is 2 lanes. If you leave an appropriate gap between you and the car in front, then at least one car will fill the gap. Would you not then get rear ended when the brakes kick in ?

I'm by no means an expert, so this might be wrong, but I think the radar detects relative speeds and is therefore looking for something moving towards you very fast (e.g. the back of a stationary car). A car that pulls in front but travelling at a similar speed is not moving much relative to you and therefore would not trigger the system.

Avatar
Duncann [1351 posts] 3 months ago
2 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

As much as I'd enjoy reduced speed limits (I don't drive), I don't think they are politically palatable at the moment. However, computer controlled/assisted vehicles are almost inevitable due to the amount of cost savings that the large logistics companies will enjoy.

I suspect surveillance and control will increase but by stealthy increments and unwitting acceptance.

Insurers may increasingly incentivise it in the way some already do for young drivers. Vehicles will come fitted with more sensitive tracking and monitoring devices (black boxes) that could be interrogated as a result of an incident (much as mobile phone data is already for some offences). Free-flowing, higher speed limit lanes on motorways may be only open to autonomous vehicles. AV taxis may become cheaper and more convenient than driving your own car. People will relinquish control when they see advantages.

Compliance will not be mandatory (because that would be big brother/nanny state fodder for the Daily Mail) but most of us accede indirectly. In the same way as many would object to be compelled to carry a tracking device that the state can monitor - but we almost all choose to do so anyway (i.e. your mobile phone).

Avatar
Bluebug [351 posts] 3 months ago
2 likes
brooksby wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Far better to have speed restricted vehicles in all areas via GPS and/or transmiters in signposts with a maximum top speed of 80mph and acceleration no greater than 0-60mph in 12seconds for all vehicles unless taken off road i.e. a track. That and reducing speed limits like minor NSL roads should be 50mph max and many not even 40mph, all city/town streets should be 20mph.

I've never understood those small commercial vehicles you see around which have a sticker on the back explaining that they are speed limited to 70 mph... I mean: of course they are limited to 70 mph, that's the national speed limit!

Speedometers aren't accurate and indicate a lower speed to ensure you don't drive over the speed limit.

The level of inaccuracy depends on make and model -  so I've been behind vans limited to 70mph on the motorway and on my car speedometer they were travelling at 65mph.

In regards to limiting the speed to 70mph -  due to the fact that some people are unable to look side ways properly when changing lanes on motorways and 3-lane national speed limit A roads, having a car that can go faster means they don't side swipe you as it is quicker and safer to accelerate so you are ahead of them then brake.

Avatar
Duncann [1351 posts] 3 months ago
2 likes
OnYerBike wrote:
hirsute wrote:

I don't understand how AEB works on say the M11 near Cambridge to Stansted where it is 2 lanes. If you leave an appropriate gap between you and the car in front, then at least one car will fill the gap. Would you not then get rear ended when the brakes kick in ?

I'm by no means an expert, so this might be wrong, but I think the radar detects relative speeds and is therefore looking for something moving towards you very fast (e.g. the back of a stationary car). A car that pulls in front but travelling at a similar speed is not moving much relative to you and therefore would not trigger the system.

I've wondered about this too: all going at 70mph very close together may be safer than going at different speeds very close together - but it still ain't safe. Does an XC90 gently back off to open a gap with the in-squeezer and give the close-follower a flash of brake light... and allow another chancer in? You'd probably never get to your destination!

In a future when all motor vehicles all behave identically and can communicate with those around them (co-ordinating braking, etc.) then tight convoys might be safe. But such complete systems seem a long way off - there'll be weak links for a long time.

Avatar
Duncann [1351 posts] 3 months ago
2 likes
brooksby wrote:

I've never understood those small commercial vehicles you see around which have a sticker on the back explaining that they are speed limited to 70 mph... I mean: of course they are limited to 70 mph, that's the national speed limit!

You must be a very law-abiding citizen!

Avatar
brooksby [3301 posts] 3 months ago
3 likes
Duncann wrote:
brooksby wrote:

I've never understood those small commercial vehicles you see around which have a sticker on the back explaining that they are speed limited to 70 mph... I mean: of course they are limited to 70 mph, that's the national speed limit!

You must be a very law-abiding citizen!

(smug=ON)

I haven't driven a car for over a year now but I think, yes, pretty much

Pretty sure I've never broken the speed limit in my years driving.

Have no points on my licence.

(smug=OFF)

Avatar
fenix [1002 posts] 3 months ago
2 likes

Lots of new cars have this technology - so the more the merrier - and the cheaper it will get. 

 

Adverts for cars are getting more and more bizarre  and ;ess to do with motoring and driving as the reality of driving is pretty grim for most people. 

So you end up with the VW SUV being advertised as tougher than a rambunctious Ram ?

Skoda seems to be selling Paloma Faith.

What was the car that was selling on the basis of it had a dash cam that you could use to send love letters to your other half ?

Stuff like this AEB seems to go unheralded. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter [2006 posts] 3 months ago
0 likes
Duncann wrote:
OnYerBike wrote:
hirsute wrote:

I don't understand how AEB works on say the M11 near Cambridge to Stansted where it is 2 lanes. If you leave an appropriate gap between you and the car in front, then at least one car will fill the gap. Would you not then get rear ended when the brakes kick in ?

I'm by no means an expert, so this might be wrong, but I think the radar detects relative speeds and is therefore looking for something moving towards you very fast (e.g. the back of a stationary car). A car that pulls in front but travelling at a similar speed is not moving much relative to you and therefore would not trigger the system.

I've wondered about this too: all going at 70mph very close together may be safer than going at different speeds very close together - but it still ain't safe. Does an XC90 gently back off to open a gap with the in-squeezer and give the close-follower a flash of brake light... and allow another chancer in? You'd probably never get to your destination!

In a future when all motor vehicles all behave identically and can communicate with those around them (co-ordinating braking, etc.) then tight convoys might be safe. But such complete systems seem a long way off - there'll be weak links for a long time.

Convoys of trucks have already been tested and that part of the technology works pretty well. I believe some of the tests involve a hooman driver controlling the first vehicle in the convoy and as other trucks join, the computer takes over from their respective drivers. The fuel savings are surprising.

Here in the UK soon:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/25/uk-platooning-trials/

Avatar
fukawitribe [2448 posts] 3 months ago
4 likes
Bluebug wrote:

Speedometers aren't accurate and indicate a lower speed to ensure you don't drive over the speed limit.

That might just be the other way around..

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet [2060 posts] 3 months ago
3 likes
fenix wrote:

Lots of new cars have this technology - so the more the merrier - and the cheaper it will get. 

 

Adverts for cars are getting more and more bizarre  and ;ess to do with motoring and driving as the reality of driving is pretty grim for most people. 

So you end up with the VW SUV being advertised as tougher than a rambunctious Ram ?

Skoda seems to be selling Paloma Faith.

What was the car that was selling on the basis of it had a dash cam that you could use to send love letters to your other half ?

Stuff like this AEB seems to go unheralded. 

Don't forget Skoda were also selling the Wiggins lifestyle. Where you aimlessly drive about reservoirs and pretend you're interested at the school play having retired at 38 like most normal people. 

The most terrifying advert is the Nissan one where apparently braking and acceleration in their new noddy car only needs one pedal. The mind boggles. Even more so at the choice of Paranoid as the Qashqai advert soundtrack, in which your typical nu-mule, beard-cuck meets his dominant other half on her motorbike, because, you know, men are portrayed as fops or fat, thick, slobs in adverts now. 

This is sort of advert people should still be making for cars. Sod PC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Z0Tv4eO0M

 

Avatar
don simon [2327 posts] 3 months ago
1 like
brooksby wrote:
Duncann wrote:
brooksby wrote:

I've never understood those small commercial vehicles you see around which have a sticker on the back explaining that they are speed limited to 70 mph... I mean: of course they are limited to 70 mph, that's the national speed limit!

You must be a very law-abiding citizen!

(smug=ON)

I haven't driven a car for over a year now but I think, yes, pretty much

Pretty sure I've never broken the speed limit in my years driving.

Have no points on my licence.

(smug=OFF)

I don't see the relationship between never breaking the speed limit and no points. For the record I drive like a twat and had a clean licence for over 30 years, that's a high mileage driver too.

In response to lower speed limits, I don't see how that wouldn't work. The A9 up through that there Scotland is limited and uses average-speed cameras, the drive is none the worse and if anything more relaxing.

Avatar
ktache [825 posts] 3 months ago
3 likes

My other half was driving me on the M3 last summer, was still being developed as a "smart" motorway, average 50mph with enforcement, she found it nice to drive and so did I.  All travelling at the same speed, no one doing crazy speed in the "fast" lane, no rapid lane changes to gain an advantage.  Really enjoyable for me and I don't like being in cars, especially on the motorway.

Avatar
ConcordeCX [816 posts] 3 months ago
4 likes
Duncann wrote:

I've wondered about this too: all going at 70mph very close together may be safer than going at different speeds very close together - but it still ain't safe. Does an XC90 gently back off to open a gap with the in-squeezer and give the close-follower a flash of brake light... and allow another chancer in? You'd probably never get to your destination!

In a future when all motor vehicles all behave identically and can communicate with those around them (co-ordinating braking, etc.) then tight convoys might be safe. But such complete systems seem a long way off - there'll be weak links for a long time.

choo-choo!

 

Avatar
brooksby [3301 posts] 3 months ago
0 likes
don simon wrote:
brooksby wrote:
Duncann wrote:
brooksby wrote:

I've never understood those small commercial vehicles you see around which have a sticker on the back explaining that they are speed limited to 70 mph... I mean: of course they are limited to 70 mph, that's the national speed limit!

You must be a very law-abiding citizen!

(smug=ON)

I haven't driven a car for over a year now but I think, yes, pretty much

Pretty sure I've never broken the speed limit in my years driving.

Have no points on my licence.

(smug=OFF)

I don't see the relationship between never breaking the speed limit and no points. For the record I drive like a twat and had a clean licence for over 30 years, that's a high mileage driver too.

In response to lower speed limits, I don't see how that wouldn't work. The A9 up through that there Scotland is limited and uses average-speed cameras, the drive is none the worse and if anything more relaxing.

FAir enough:maybe I should have said “have no points in my licence either”.

(SOrry for late reply, have to wait until I have access to a pc or my wife’s iPad to post comments, since the changes to the road.cc mobile site...)

Avatar
hughw [40 posts] 3 months ago
0 likes
don simon wrote:
brooksby wrote:
Duncann wrote:
brooksby wrote:

I've never understood those small commercial vehicles you see around which have a sticker on the back explaining that they are speed limited to 70 mph... I mean: of course they are limited to 70 mph, that's the national speed limit!

You must be a very law-abiding citizen!

(smug=ON)

I haven't driven a car for over a year now but I think, yes, pretty much

Pretty sure I've never broken the speed limit in my years driving.

Have no points on my licence.

(smug=OFF)

I don't see the relationship between never breaking the speed limit and no points. For the record I drive like a twat and had a clean licence for over 30 years, that's a high mileage driver too.

In response to lower speed limits, I don't see how that wouldn't work. The A9 up through that there Scotland is limited and uses average-speed cameras, the drive is none the worse and if anything more relaxing.

 

I recently drove down the A9 behind a gentleman driving a Nissan Qashqai, who would drive at 60 - 65 in the single carriageway sections, then at the average speed camera brake hard and slow down to 40-50, before accelerating back to 60 (or 70 for the dual carriageway).

This was extremely un-relaxing, as I had cruise control set to 60, and trying to drive greenly.

Pages