Driver assistance – a better approach to road safety than PPE?

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #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.

Viewing 5 replies - 31 through 35 (of 35 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #917067
    0
    Anonymous

    Hmmm, people who drive volvos

    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.

    #917065
    0
    hawkinspeter

    zero_trooper wrote:

    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.

    #917063
    0
    zero_trooper

    Reading the article, it is

    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.

    #917061
    0
    Rich_cb

    I think that if AEB really
    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.

    #917059
    0
    don simon fbpe

    Bastard Volvo drivers!

    Bastard Volvo drivers!

Viewing 5 replies - 31 through 35 (of 35 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.