Volvo goes for the crash-proof car

“Our aim for 2020 is that no one should be killed or injured in a Volvo car,” says Thomas Broberg, safety expert with the Swedish auto maker. So how can such a worthy goal be achieved? Broberg’s reply would be that Volvo is working on the world’s first accident-proof car.

And such a vehicle is not that far away. Next month, Volvo unveils its next-generation S60 mid-size sedan at the Detroit auto show. Although still a concept, it showcases many features that the production car (on sale in 2010) will have, such as Collision Warning with Full Auto Brake and pedestrian detection.

“Up until now, we have focused on helping the driver avoid collisions with other vehicles,” says Broberg. “Now we are taking a giant step forward with a system that also boosts safety for unprotected road users. New sensor technology also makes it possible to advance from 50% to full-automatic braking power.”

Radar and cameras are deployed to detect pesky things like pedestrians and other vehicles. If a collision is imminent, the system will first warn the driver and then, if no action has been taken, apply the brakes automatically. Even if there is an unfortunate coming-together, a reduced impact speed could result in a much happier outcome.

This news couldn’t have come at a more opportune time. With the auto industry as a whole in its current sorry state and Volvo looking a little shaky, this technology could help the company itself avoid a crash.

-- Colin Ryan

Photo: Volvo

Comments

[steve kindel]

Volvo's attempt at a crash-proof car is admirable, but it doesn't and can't take into account the sorry behavior of other drivers. Volvo's are priced high enough so that it is relatively certain that at least fiscally responsible drivers will own them, and has a mystique and ethos such that the socially responsible tend to own them. But then there are the other 99% of us, at least some of whom are irresponsible enough so that they still don't even wear their seat belts. Will the new Volvo have a net that springs out of the roof and catches these folks as they hurl through their windshields in a front end collision?Or perhaps a built-in alcohol sensor that allows the Volvo to swerve around drunk or drug-addled drivers, who seem to be prevalent in certain LA neighborhoods late into the night. Maybe a muzzle that spring out of the car to quiet someone like Mel Gibson when he is arrested, something that recognizes hate speech and silences it before it begins. But then, how could we expect less from Volvo, a vestige of Sweden's nanny state?

[Buck Ars]

Well Steve, it's hard to face. But Volvo is looking at the future while the domestic manufacturers are way behind.

[s. Eaton]

A worthy goal for Volvo. I'm sure as hard the engineers work to make better cars, Volvo's marketing departments are seeking new ways to reduce the price, offer 0% financing and find other ways to cheapen the brand.
Never in history has such a strong brand been undermined by such poor marketing.

[Martin L.]

Volvos are terrific cars and their safety worthiness has always been a distinguishing characteristic. It would be a shame if this fine automobile company is allowed to fail.

[Alex Insel]

I love Volvo, I own their older S70, and can only speak wonders for such a brand. hopefully this technology will help them become more competitive in the future. It doesnt help that they mind get dumped by Ford... hopefully they have a good new owner =)

[Brian Kent]

I appreciate it when we have vision to do something extraordinary. Why not go for it and see how far we can get?

[SparcEE]

Buck do you know where most of Volvo's advanced collision warning work is done? Right in Dearborn, MI. at the Ford Research and Advanced Engineering lab. Ford engineering did most of the core development of this and the braking features along with Delphi.

Take a drive by the back of the lot and see all the prototype Volvos with radar, cameras, etc. This development work was sponsored by Volvo, but conducted by Ford Sci Lab...take a look at who has the patents.

Sorry more uneducated people who think they know.

SparcEE

[P H D]

Now if they could just get it to park itself in the underground garage, go up to the sixth floor, and perform brain surgery, those who can afford it won't even have to work. Of course they'll need a second Volvo to drive out to the golf course instead.

[Dom]

How will the Volvo avoid some jackass running a red light and broadsiding the Volvo?

[Robert Laughing]

From the reviews we've read, Volvo SHOULD BE focusing on reliability and dependability to increase sales - few want all the high tech bells and whistles that cost alot, costly to maintain, and don't really come into play like fuel economy, reliability, resale.

[David]

Volvos are known not only for their safety, but their "reliability and dependability." I own a 2001 V70 with over 100,000 miles and it's been a very good car. Not only that, when they do require maintenance, they are a DREAM to service (I work on mine), engineered with the servicer in mind. I think they can afford to research into furthering their indisputable reputation for safety with a few "high tech bells and whistles."

That being said, I think it's quite audacious of Volvo to make the claim "no one should be killed or injured" while driving this car. As several people pointed out, it seems pretty unlikely they're going to be able to stop a collision such as someone running a red light.

[will]

if the car can stop faster then the car in front of it, what about the poor bastard that rear-ends this new volvo?

[Chris]

It sounds as though Volvo's new design assumes that failure to break when approaching an obstacle is the only reason accidents occur.

What about when a car is driven off the road into a ditch? That's surely lethal in many cases, but might not be detected by sensors until it's too late.

Similarly, if a car is stationary or in the process of turning and another car drives into it, a la T-bone, there is really nothing that could be gained from applying the brakes, and an automated voice or dashboard notification would really just be useless.

Good effort, but the project might be really only be relying on marketing hype for success.

[damien]

They need to make an SUV with this... as that's the biggest threat to me in my Corolla. : /

[Indrek]

Ahem, are all commentors here the owners of rivaling companies spilling bitter comments ? boohooo

If this invention can reduce the number of failure to brake collisions, I'd say it's worth it. You cannot be serious to demand protection from all dangers at once, it's just ridiculous and childish way of saying: we're alright with so many people dying from failure to brake collisions :P. Or: I'm happy that the car behing me did not have such feature and now my car is in a repair shop for a month :P.

If it gets implemented in more and more cars (and also in all other brands not just volvo) there will not be so much of killing rearside accidents ALSO because the other car driving into your car will ALSO break automatically and lessen the speed of collision, duhhhh.

If it gets widespread as the seatbelts are (and as I remember, very many people were against seatbelts also :P), I'm very happy if it saves me from few accidents. Few is always better than zero (saying it out loud for those who cannot calculate the numbers themselves ;) ).

I hope such things will be in standard equipment of cars soon, ideally for the time I'm buying my next car...

[Panos]

the Titanic was the vessel that would never sink either...

[Homer]

I think its admirable that Volvo is looking outside the square and developing measures that make driving safer. What most of you are forgetting is that once the technology has been developed, it wont take long for it to appear in other makes and models. Take airbags/mp3 players/central locking for example, it wasn't all that long ago that these "bells and whistles" were only available in luxury cars.

[Joe]

To the skeptics like Will:

It is true that no system can prevent absolutely every accident. Likewise, you cannot guarantee that a falling bit of space junk doesn't kill you at home in bed.

However, consider how we, as humans, are as drivers. We're distracted and often singleminded. We have limited reaction time. Now, consider what would be possible in ten or twenty years. It is already conceivable to outfit a car with a variety of sensors in all directions. We are learning to build systems that can adapt complex information into abstract concepts (reification, see project like Basil). When the car can maintain an accurate picture of all the activity in the local area, such as all other vehicles, obstacles, roads, and options, and it can be contemplating all the risks, not only can it drive itself and avoid doing things that it knows are risky, but it can also react to an "unexpected" event faster than a human. Further, because it doesn't have any task *besides* driving to do, and because it will be extremely fast, the car may be creating strategic plans for all sorts of unlikely events, multiple times per second, so that it doesn't get itself into a situation where there isn't an option to avoid some sort of incident. Imagine your own personal chauffeur, with 360 degree situational awareness at all times, lightning fast reflexes, integrated directly into the vehicle.

Future cars may not only *react* to avoid collisions, they are likely to drive using strategies that allow them to be virtually untouchable.

[Mike]

This car is going to take all the fun out of crossing the street.

[Brian]

Volvo should just go back to making the 240. They are tanks that are cheap to own and go forever. I own one with over 300 grand on the odometer.

[Reality Check]

Riiiiggght. Sure. No problem. Here's a scenario we see in metro Atlanta quite often: you're going town the freeway at 70 MPH. Another car comes across the median at 80 MPH and hits you head on. Automatic brakes and collision detectors would d o nothing in such a situation. You would die. Period. No car can withstand such an impact and keep the occupants from being killed. Why would Volvo make such a silly claim? They already build the safest cars on the road.

[Kevin Wright]

I'm very interested in the comments by some of you. It is as if you WANT more people to die or be injured in auto accidents. I personally don't like nanny vehicles but I drive a Saab 9-5 for its plethora of airbags (I've been T-boned on a motorcycle and don't wish to repeat that rehab) and kick in the pants acceleration with 30MPG highway. If Volvo wants to make a car that helps people avoid accidents why do you all complain? If you don't want a car without any regard for safety then buy a '79 Chrysler and cut the seat belts out of the thing.

I'm no Ralph Nader but I also don't have a problem with cars being safer. In fact I like to know that my wife (who is a good driver) has a better chance of avoiding an accident. Again this takes me to why I bought a Saab, better brakes, handling, visibility, and safety design than your average car. It is also a car made by GM. The only GM vehicle for sale today that I would consider. If Ford/Volvo continue to advance and GM continues to languish (the Volt isn't out yet) I'll be looking to Dearborn, Michigan for my next car.

[saywhat]

Wow...all I seem to be hearing is 'Since it is not 100% perfect and will not stop all collisions and car deaths, they should scrap the project!'
Sure...and an asteroid falling onto the car could wipe it out...oh and if a somebody has a tank, there are still many ways they could kill the occupants of a Volvo.
No, it will not make the driver immortal, but colisions involving the front of the car have to account for some percentage of automobile deaths. If this makes the car just a little bit safer, why not do it?

[tadpolesmom]

First, let me say that I agree with the writers of the above comments who point that this is a step in the right direction for all new car technology. As they rightly point out, what is accepted as standard today was once regarded as exotic or as features only for luxury cars.

And while I always, always wear my seat belt and require my passengers to do likewise, I am disappointed in states' meddling in their citizens' lives by legislating seat belt or helmet laws. Let Darwinism rule: the benefits of seat belts are well known and well publicized. If people opt to put some chlorine in their little corner of the gene pool by refusing to avail themselves of these non-invasive bits of safety equipment, who is the state to say otherwise? Rather, let the sale of a vehicle or the granting of a driver's license include a clause to the effect that by failing to use these items, users waive the right to any and all emergency rescue services and subsequent care. This may (and probably will, to many) sound harsh, but I have seen firsthand the consequences of undeserving individuals who were saved and absolved of all consequences to their victims, at the expense of the State.

Now if only Volvo made a super-high MPG version of this technology!

[Pelpet]

If I were to run over a pedestrian, I would not only buckle my hood but probably feel quite bad about it too. Having the car preventing me from that would be quite nice.