Volvo introduces airbags for pedestrians

http://inhabitat.com/volvo-introduces-the-worlds-first-pedestrian-airbag-equipped-car/

by flexie • 13 years ago

48 61 13 years ago

There's also new braking technology to automatically stop the car when it's about to hit something in front of it. (Of course this could lead to another car crashing againt car nuber 1 if it doesn't carry the technology). Apart from that cars added "shock absorbency" in hoods and widened the space between the engine and the hood.

But still, do people start to drive faster and closer to another because of the extra safety-features like airbags, ABS, safetly belts, roll-cages? Imagine a long spike shooting out of the logo on the steering wheel if you really hit something hard. That would greatly reduce accidents.

flexie3• 13 years ago

Yes, some studies have shown that people take more chances when they feel more protected by safety measures. This is called risk compensation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Still, less people are dying in road accidents now than before safety features were common.

nodata• 13 years ago

I think you're quoting Steven Landsburg: http://stuartbuck.blogspot.nl/2008/08/spikes-and-steering-wh...

But remember this is a fallacy: http://forums.theregister.co.uk/post/259350

digitalengineer2• 13 years ago

Thank you for the links. There's a link to a great book in there: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Accidents-Prevent-J-J-Leeming/d...

As a motorcycle driver I know I drive a lot more devensive when I'm on two wheels.

rgbrenner• 13 years ago

I think this is a better link to prove it's wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in...

  Deaths in 1980: 51,091
  Deaths in 2011: 32,367

And that's w/ 90m more people, and nearly double the number of miles driven. Clearly safety improvements DO work.

Swizec2• 13 years ago

We had that from the 1900's until something like the 1960's.

All it did was cause a lot of unnecessary deaths.

Gravityloss3• 13 years ago

I've heard the argumentation that in developing countries the rate of death per kilometer driven or some such is currently the same as it was earlier in developed countries, despite better safety features in newer cars in developing countries. And that it's in part a cultural issue...

I don't necessarily agree that it's everything but it's still interesting.

barrkel• 13 years ago

Risk compensation isn't linear, and it can't be considered in isolation.

If there was a long spike on the steering wheel, most likely it would be chopped off by end users; otherwise the vehicle wouldn't be driven at all.

ABS is associated with a decrease in motorcycle injuries even though riders ride faster with it, especially in the wet. But ABS on a bike has a bigger value, because a slight slip on a bike is a very serious problem; a sliding front will cause an accident almost immediately, while a sliding rear when cornering may cause a serious high-side.

prawks3• 13 years ago

Once a pedestrian steps in front of the vehicle, the car’s brakes apply automatically if the driver doesn’t react fast enough. If the sensors detect an imminent collision with a pedestrian while driving at high speed, the airbag pops-up and inflates in a U-shape.

This sounds like it will be a lot of fun once those sensors start to wear out and malfunction.

objclxt• 13 years ago

What's the worst that can happen if they do malfunction? Presumably no airbag, but you're no worse off than being hit by a car without pedestrian airbags.

I suppose the other type of malfunction would be accidentally discharge, but this is a) exceedingly rare, and b) no riskier than the airbags already in the car

prawks3• 13 years ago

Meh, I was thinking more of the latter. First generation sensors I'd imagine would be more prone to erroneous readings, including false positives. Randomly having the car force you to a stop in traffic could be a little annoying.

robgough• 13 years ago

and they've compensated for that, by allowing the driver to still see once the airbags have deployed.

yk• 13 years ago

Or if a leaf is flying in front of the sensor.

Now I wonder which sensors they use, if they use a camera and some people detection algorithm, it can probably be fooled by a plastic toy. And of course a car which activates the brakes automatically can be quite dangerous depending on the situation, especially if the driver is not prepared for a malfunction. So I wonder who is actually responsible when the car decides to activate the brakes and the driver loses control.

prawks3• 13 years ago

I'm wondering along the same lines, at what speed does the car decide to deploy airbags, and at what speed to automatically brake? And how hard is the braking? I'd imagine it would be pretty hard braking to prevent the car from hitting something.

But one would hope the car wouldn't be going fast enough to lose control.

sageikosa• 13 years ago

Car-jacking as car-hacking? You want to stop a driver to get his car? Drop a mannequin in front of it.

vincentkriek• 13 years ago

I don't mind reposts of old stuff when it is interesting, but this has been introduced about a year ago? The streets are filled with the Volvo V40 (first model that has it, and every V40 has it standard) over here, so to speak.

atarashi• 13 years ago

There's a video on youtube of the the pedestrian airbags in action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4d9dqaMDxI&feature=play...

westicle• 13 years ago

In Australia Volvo drivers are stereotyped as terrible, unaware drivers (possibly due to the tank-like nature of early-model Volvos). So much so that the phrase "Bloody Volvo driver" is a commonly understood phrase.

And now Volvo itself doesn't trust its drivers to brake before driving into pedestrians. Perhaps even Volvo is embracing the "Bloody volvo driver" stereotype.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IYKdzNUd1A

Edit: I should admit that I drive one myself.

tomgallard• 13 years ago

interesting- in the UK, Volvo drivers tend to be thought of as left-wing, cautious, careful, slow. The brand is also associated with the left-leaning newspaper 'The Guardian' as well as museli and wearing socks with sandals!

snogglethorpe• 13 years ago

Hmm, in the U.S., they seem to have aspects of both these stereotypes (at least at one time; I haven't lived in the U.S. in many years): cautious, slow, sandal-wearing, but also self-centered and kind of clueless, blithely mowing down pedestrians despite their avowed support for all living beings... ><

p.s. I've actually known some Volvo owners in the UK, and they really did read the Guardian!

p.p.s. I'm totally left wing, wear socks with my sandals, and eat tons of muesli... oO;

nagrom16• 13 years ago

Hm. This seems odd to me - the system certainly costs some money to install, and the person paying for it (the driver) derives minimal (no) benefit from it. Why would the driver pay for this system if not forced to by a regulator? Does it result in lower insurance premiums?

I understand that it is nice to drive a car that is more safe for other people in the case of an accident, but you can do that cheaper by driving more slowly and more carefully, surely? I would think that if you are the type of driver who cares enough about potentially injuring others to pay several hundred dollars for this safety system, you're not the kind of driver who is recklessly endangering other people's lives and thus requiring it.

EDIT: I don't understand this being downvoted at all. I'm not saying it is a bad or pointless system. I'm saying that the people most likely to need it are not likely to pay for it! Is the solution to enforce usage by regulation, to reduce insurance premiums for cars that have this system fitted or something else?

xyzzyz• 13 years ago

Your post suffers from fundamental attribution error, where you assume that the driver who hits the pedestrian must be reckless and dangerous driver. For example, I am a very inexperienced driver, and while I try to be as careful as I possibly can, to the point where people sometimes ridicule me, I still probably have higher probability of causing accident in near future than some slightly reckless, but much more experienced drivers.

nagrom16• 13 years ago

Hm. My point was that I cannot see that the people most likely to use this system are also the people most likely to pay for it. I don't deny that inexperienced careful drivers may be interested - but the majority of careful, inexperienced drivers do not drive brand new Volvo V40 cars, and the addition of a pedestrian safety system won't make them do so!

flexie3• 13 years ago

The risk of hitting someone is one of the worst things about driving. I would gladly pay a bit to minimize the risk of killing someone.

nagrom16• 13 years ago

Enough to sway you towards the Volvo at a cost of (guessing) $500? Would you not be better served to deliberately drive more slowly and carefully at points in journeys that are the riskiest and/or to go on an advanced driving awareness course?

jules3• 13 years ago

> and the person paying for it (the driver) derives minimal (no) benefit from it.

If you're a psychopath maybe.

nagrom16• 13 years ago

No, not at all. The majority of drivers think that they are better than average and very few ever expect to be in a crash. Of course it is entirely likely that you wish that you would have fitted this system after the fact, but how many people are, given the option, willing to pay up front to fit it?

paddy_m• 13 years ago

The liability insurance rates for a car like this should be lower. Especially in a heavy populated area like NYC. Personal injury lawsuits are very expensive.

nagrom16• 13 years ago

Best response to my comment so far :-) I would think that Volvo would look to work with insurers to show that the V40 should benefit from preferred premiums that payback the cost of this system in X years, based on some typical profile.

Gravityloss3• 13 years ago

What about airbags protecting the driver? It'd be cheaper to just drive slower and not use any airbags whatsoever? Yet driver and passenger airbags have proliferated.

I don't fully understand the thinking behind your question.

nagrom16• 13 years ago

Driver and passenger airbags directly protect the purchaser, or the family of the purchaser. The purchaser cares specifically about these people and will be more likely to pay to increase their safety. In a sense, it's an easy sell.

This system doesn't increase the safety of someone dear to the purchaser and therefore seems to be less attractive, unless there is some other compensation, e.g reduced insurance rates.

bradleyland• 13 years ago

You're looking at the problem from only one perspective: injury. It is true that this system offers no protection from injury for occupants of the automobile, but any time you strike someone or something, there's the additional matter of liability.

If a system like this is widely available, and it proves effective, then there will it will provide the benefit of reduced injury. Reduced injury means lower medical bills for the injured and lower settlement payouts.

Insurance premiums are tightly modeled. Lower risk and incident costs mean lower rates. That's one potential benefit to the purchaser.

You also have to consider regulation. Humans are poor judges of risk. There was a time not too long ago when consumers would choose "cheap" over "safe" if given a choice. I don't mean to say that consumers would walk in to a dealership and say, "Give me the cheapest car you have, safety be damned!" I mean to say that car manufacturers would say, "Oh yeah, of course it's safe," and consumers would take their claims at face value. That proved to be a poor choice.

Enter government regulation. At some point, it became clear that automakers and consumers weren't going to make cars sufficiently safe on their own. The first steps in safety were things like mandatory fitment of seat belts, then compulsory wearing. Airbags followed, then ABS.

Now we're seeing an increase in regulations related to pedestrian safety. There are already some pretty significant laws on the books in the EU related to pedestrian safety. Car and Driver, of course, takes the perspective of how this effects automobile design:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/taking-the-hit-how-pede...

Volvo has a pretty long history of pioneering safety systems that are later made compulsory by legislation. I suspect we may be seeing the same thing here.

nagrom16• 13 years ago

Oh, I'm plentifully aware of the possibility of the possibility of regulation (see other comments). I guess, having debated this back and forth up and down the thread, my underlying question is: are there mechanisms other than insurance reductions and regulation to encourage the uptake of such a system?

offdrey• 13 years ago

Could be for the personal pleasure of knowing that you drive a car that is safer for others. I think it's quite similar to people who drive hybrids because they pollute less.

jeroen• 13 years ago

march 9, 2012: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/volvo-introduces...

darxius• 13 years ago

Very cool, but I'm not sure how I feel about the brakes being applied immediately. Maybe I'm missing some information. Do the brakes remain engaged as long as there is something in front of the car? If so, this could become dangerous for the driver. A criminal would just have to have his criminal buddy stand in front of a stopped car and the driver now can't get away because of the automatic brakes.

nagrom16• 13 years ago

The automatic braking system is likely turned off below a certain speed. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to reverse out of a parking space that faces a wall.

lttlrck• 13 years ago

It's just as likely to disengage when you reverse.

duck• 13 years ago

Next up, people wearing helmets when they go for a walk.

stcredzero• 13 years ago

Inhabitant: is it really necessary to add your own zooming code for tablets? Yours doesn't work as well as Apple's. It's not as smooth, and why would I want to zoom and simultaneously twist my page 31.7 degrees to the left!? I never want to do that, which Apple engineers understood.

Zooming is a core feature of mobile browsers. Please cut this extraneous stuff out.

jack-r-abbit• 13 years ago

I'm surprised that the air bag in that location is even that effective. Before the pedestrian encounters the airbag, they have already been struck in the lower body by the very front of the car, then roll up the hood before hitting the windshield. And while this may prevent them from hitting their head on the windshield or A-pillar, they are still likely to be thrown off the hood before everything is settled. So I guess in a situation that involved 4 impact points... making one of them softer is better. But this surprises me.

Also, not every body even rolls up onto the hood. Depending on the speed, height, etc... pedestrians often just get launched out in front of the vehicle.

Volvo introduces airbags for pedestrians

Related Stories