Car manufacturer SEAT has showcased technology in its new Tarraco 4×4 that alerts drivers to potential collisions with cyclists and, if audible and visual warnings are ignored, automatically applies the brakes.
The video shows SEAT engineer Esteban Alcántara, who works on active safety at the company, at the wheel of the car with two friends of his on their bikes on the same road.
Explaining how the technology works, Alcántara said that as the vehicle gets closer to the cyclists, “The front mounted el radar detects their presence, and according to the trajectory and speed of both the car and the cyclists, triggers a number of actions to prevent a possible collision.”
A visual and audible warning is given when the car detects an imminent collision within 1.5 or 2 seconds. Emergency braking kicks in between 0.8 and 1 second should the driver not react.
“When driving down a road at 72 km/h, the car would begin to respond approximately 20 metres before a possible collision,” Alcántara explained.
“Simulations are performed in several real driving conditions. Structures are used that reproduce the properties of different road users, such as pedestrians or cyclists, to test how the vehicle responds in each situation,” he continued.
SEAT highlighted that the safety of other road users ultimately rests with the motorist, but added that technology is becoming more prominent too.
“Active Safety systems play an increasingly important role in protecting road users, and in some cases can prevent accidents or minimise their consequences,” said Alcántara.
But he added: “This kind of assistant is no substitute for the driver’s obligation to remain alert, respect traffic regulations, reduce speed and maintain the safety distance when passing a cyclist.”
27 thoughts on “Video: SEAT demos 4×4 that can recognise cyclists and brake to avoid collision if driver ignores warnings”
Is it wrong for me to have
Is it wrong for me to have more faith in robots like this than humans?
HawkinsPeter wrote:
Nope.
Take a look at aviation, the safest form of transport – massive technological advances and computerised systems have turned flying from an extremely unsafe mode of transport to the safest. The vast majority of plane crashes are caused by a human flying a plane into the ground.
Kind of works the same for cars, most car crashes are caused by humans being generally a bit hopeless and driving into stuff.
Canyon48 wrote:
To be fair there’s fewer objects to avoid up in the air so it’s an easier problem to solve.
My thinking is that as most RTCs involve lack of attention, by getting rid of that issue completely the robots are going to be safer than human drivers.
At least until the inevitable robot uprising.
HawkinsPeter wrote:
You’d think that was true, surprisingly there are a lot of things to bump into and near misses happen all too often!
It’ll take a long time before we have fully autonomous cars capable of driving on the open road; advanced machine vision, detection systems and systems integration will eventually allow this though – there’s quite a large crossover between the systems used on autonomous cars and autonomous aircraft. The challenge is huge, but, ultimately, autonomous vehicles are programmed to stop/avoid obstacles – humans tend to fail at that bit.
Canyon48 wrote:
there are already several different varieties of autonomous vehicles operating on Greenwich Peninsula, carrying passengers, making deliveries etc. At the moment they’re not sharing the roads with other motor traffic, but they are sharing it with pedestrians, cyclists, scooterists, dogs, ducks, foxes etc. Of course there are road trials in the US, and I believe also in Milton Keynes, where they have to navigate around the unpredictability of concrete cows.
These things won’t all suddenly appear on one day in the future, but will start slow and small as they feel their way into our lives, until we gradually realise that we can’t imagine life without them any more.
ConcordeCX wrote:
I believe Google are running a completely autonomous taxi service in Phoenix, Arizona.
Only open to a pre-selected group at the moment but on the cusp of being rolled out to the public.
Canyon48 wrote:
I think that’s the big difference, automated systems will usually default to stopping/taking avoiding action, it’s not leaving it to the judgement of a human as to whether they could squeeze through quickly. Hopefully it should make things safer if in most situations the car won’t let the driver perform an unsafe overtake, it’ll just default to putting the brakes on.
One question I have is, can this be over ridden/switched off by the driver? and if so, does having this system available on your car, switching it off and then colliding with a cyclist make you more responsible for the accident than you’d otherwise be?
Canyon48 wrote:
Though the safety systems are pretty good at killing people too..
[url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-withheld-information-on-737-model-according-to-safety-experts-and-others-1542082575[/url]
HawkinsPeter wrote:
No, but it’s still humans that program machines for now so they can still be as flawed as humans on that basis.
What you get from robots/programs is consistency which is something I think most cyclists would appreciate when being overtaken.
surprised that this appears
surprised that this appears to be getting launched by Seat rather than the more premium brands of Audi or VW, or are they simply doing it a little more low key
EK Spinner wrote:
Yeah, they are. Lots of brands already have systems to detect and avoid VRUs (vulnerable road users) – this is something that we cyclists have to thank Euro NCAP for as they’re really been pushing this technology (by testing it in their star-rating protocol).
The tests: https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/aeb-cyclist/
How the cars rank: https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ratings (Mercedes A-class is currently best rated car in terms of VRU protection)
How the cyclist tests are done currently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOCSRa0PUdM
How they’ll be done in the future: https://www.abdynamics.com/en/products/track-testing/adas-targets/launch-pad
Jez Ash wrote:
Very interesting, although I’m not sure I like the term “Soft Pedestrian Target”
Hopefully the creators of Forza Motorsport won’t be doing it the AI systems.
This is all well and good,
This is all well and good, but when will the manufacturers invent the technology to eliminate the verbal and physical abuse thrown at cyclists who dare to get in the way of the autonimous vehicle? Or will the vehicles be programmed to scream “get off the Fu@!in? road and use the Fu@!in? cycle lane!!!!!”. And launch a projectile towards the vulnerable road user?
Pushing50 wrote:
Such technology already exists to counter the human driver. It’s small and portable and can be fastened easily to a cyclist’s belt.
There are many manufacturers currently in the market. Kryponite, Pitlock, Abus…
Should you be reading this in a country with somewhat less panicked and hysterical laws than the UK, the list of manufacturers extends to Glock, Smith & Wesson, Taurus…
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
I carry mine in a saddle bag or pannier, which rather limits how quickly I can use it.
I wonder if you can still buy caltrops…
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
HaHa, yes indeed I had forgotten about this technology!
I was thinking along the lines of what John Smith has posted above:
“Having seen the anger that crash detection causes to some drivers, who hate the fact that their cars brake when they accelerate towards a
carcyclistthey assume is turning, I think this is going to behilariousa dangerous scenario . Lots of close pass attempts resulting in emergency stops… and confrontation“I can see at least one issue
I can see at least one issue with this particular system.
If a driver starts a typical foolish overtake of a cyclist and then spots an oncoming car, would the automated system then slow/stop the car (i.e. prevent the driver squeezing the cylist) and thus crash into the oncoming car?
I hope so.
HawkinsPeter wrote:
Is that an issue? From your last sentence, you susggest not.
If it has slowed/stopped, then won’t the oncoming car be the one to crash into a now stationary object. It would be up to the driver (or AI) in the oncoming vehicle to perceive a hazard in its lane and respond accordingly (i.e. brake).
The foolish overtaker’s car would have minimized the combined impact velocity, and hopefully the alert driver (or AI) of the oncoming vehicle would have also scrubbed off all speed so either collision is avoided or happens at a low impact velocity such that only vehicle bodywork is damaged, not human bodies.
CygnusX1 wrote:
I was imagining more that the car would pull out, start to overtake, suddenly slow/stop and the oncoming car (without robo-assistance) would crash into it as they didn’t have time to react.
It’d be an issue if drivers turn off the system so that they can drive like loons, but that would leave us with the current situation.
Having seen the anger that
Having seen the anger that crash detection causes to some drivers, who hate the fact that their cars brake when they accelerate towards a car they assume is turning, I think this is going to be hilarious. Lots of close pass attempts resulting in emergency stops…
Remember folks, this is
Remember folks, this is Spanish technology and more than likely to take evasive action towards the left, to the left.
don simon fbpe wrote:
Right!!
Pushing50 wrote:
Yes, that’s right, they drive on the right.
The car will, therefore, steer away from the cyclist, to the left, and towards the middle of the road. I know, it’s crazy.
don simon fbpe wrote:
If I had written write, I would be wrong.
Right!!
Right!!
IF A DRIVER IGNORES WARNINGS
IF A DRIVER IGNORES WARNINGS ABOUT A COLLISION WITH A CYCLIST ( HUMAN BEIGN!!) SHOULD BE JAILED OR WORSE!!!!!!