- This topic has 35 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
don simon fbpe.
-
CreatorTopic
-
April 15, 2018 at 9:28 am #28375
hawkinspeter
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.
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
Dnnnnnn
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!
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.
Bluebug
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.
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).
OnYerBike
hirsute 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.
hawkinspeter
As much as I’d enjoy reduced
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.
brooksby
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!
Hirsute
I don’t understand how AEB
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 ?felixcat
Duncann wrote:BehindTheBikesheds wrote:Duncann wrote:BehindTheBikesheds wrote:just like seatbelts this did nothing for the vulnerable outside the vehicleBut 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.
Anonymous
As has been mentioned. Volvo
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.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:Duncann wrote:BehindTheBikesheds wrote:just like seatbelts this did nothing for the vulnerable outside the vehicleBut 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.
Awavey
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
Duncann wrote:BehindTheBikesheds wrote:just like seatbelts this did nothing for the vulnerable outside the vehicleBut 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.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:just like seatbelts this did nothing for the vulnerable outside the vehicleBut 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.
hawkinspeter
@BTBS – not only do we have
@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.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.