Volvo introduces airbags for pedestrians(inhabitat.com)
inhabitat.com
Volvo introduces airbags for pedestrians
http://inhabitat.com/volvo-introduces-the-worlds-first-pedestrian-airbag-equipped-car/
61 comments
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.
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.
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.
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?
I don't think it's either or. I think most people try to drive carefully but we make mistakes, and so do pedestrians. For those situations it would be nice with a reduced risk.
Now, there are other reasons I wouldn't want to buy a Volvo but if this system works it might be installed in other cars as well :-)
Now, there are other reasons I wouldn't want to buy a Volvo but if this system works it might be installed in other cars as well :-)
Well, I agree that it is a nice system and that safety systems that protect pedestrians are worthwhile. But millions of vehicles are marketed based on how economical they are. How do you spread the usage of such a system into those vehicles and convince an economy-minded purchaser to shell out the extra money to equip it?
> and the person paying for it (the driver) derives minimal (no) benefit from it.
If you're a psychopath maybe.
If you're a psychopath maybe.
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?
Then why are normal airbags so popular? I understand that most people value their own life above that of others, but obviously people don't believe that they will not be in an accident (whether through their own fault or the fault of others). Therefore this:
> and the person paying for it (the driver) derives minimal (no) benefit from it.
Can only be true if you value the lives of others very low. There are plenty of people who do not value the lives of others very low, so there is most likely a market for this. Besides, even if you are purely selfish there are good reasons why you don't want to kill somebody in an accident.
> and the person paying for it (the driver) derives minimal (no) benefit from it.
Can only be true if you value the lives of others very low. There are plenty of people who do not value the lives of others very low, so there is most likely a market for this. Besides, even if you are purely selfish there are good reasons why you don't want to kill somebody in an accident.
Interior airbags are mandated by regulation, you don't actually have a choice about it oftentimes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Regulatory_specification...
Plenty of people value the lives of others very lowly - or, really, they just don't think about it. How often do you see people speed, run red lights, tailgate, etc? I don't think that I've ever taken a journey without seeing at least some of these behaviours. That doesn't make those drivers psychopaths! Just distracted, pressed for time or worrying about something else. In the same way, not fitting this system doesn't make you a bad person...maybe you just don't have the $500 (or however much it costs) to fit it as an optional extra.
Just to be clear - I don't think this is a bad system. I'm curious how to go about marketing it to the average driver who is economically-minded. Does it have to be regulation, can it be insurance premiums, or is there some other mechanism to encourage uptake?
Plenty of people value the lives of others very lowly - or, really, they just don't think about it. How often do you see people speed, run red lights, tailgate, etc? I don't think that I've ever taken a journey without seeing at least some of these behaviours. That doesn't make those drivers psychopaths! Just distracted, pressed for time or worrying about something else. In the same way, not fitting this system doesn't make you a bad person...maybe you just don't have the $500 (or however much it costs) to fit it as an optional extra.
Just to be clear - I don't think this is a bad system. I'm curious how to go about marketing it to the average driver who is economically-minded. Does it have to be regulation, can it be insurance premiums, or is there some other mechanism to encourage uptake?
> or is there some other mechanism to encourage uptake?
Yes, that's what I'm saying: empathy. There are plenty of ladies and gentlemen who do have it. I know a lot of people besides myself who would like an external airbag, if it is shown to be effective at reducing the severity of injuries and preventing death. If you really want to have a purely Randian viewpoint, consider this: empathy is something that people have evolved to have because it benefits them, and we're stuck with it even if not having it would be a benefit to themself in a particular situation, just like we're stuck with the tendency to become fat even though it may not be the best for you nowadays (not that I'm saying that empathy has become less evolutionarily useful over time -- just that humans do not make optimal selfish decisions all the time).
Yes, that's what I'm saying: empathy. There are plenty of ladies and gentlemen who do have it. I know a lot of people besides myself who would like an external airbag, if it is shown to be effective at reducing the severity of injuries and preventing death. If you really want to have a purely Randian viewpoint, consider this: empathy is something that people have evolved to have because it benefits them, and we're stuck with it even if not having it would be a benefit to themself in a particular situation, just like we're stuck with the tendency to become fat even though it may not be the best for you nowadays (not that I'm saying that empathy has become less evolutionarily useful over time -- just that humans do not make optimal selfish decisions all the time).
I wouldn't buy this particular car, but that's because I detest microchips. In general I would - and do - pay money for products or features to decrease my chance of hurting other people; I see this as a fundamental part of living in society, a simple consequence of the Golden Rule.
You are Capt. Quinton D'Arcy, J. P. Sevenoaks, and I claim my five pounds of small potatoes.
Very interesting - I've had the 'you are x and I claim my five pounds' applied to me before, but the good captain is new to me. Having been to school an hour from Sevenoaks, I at first suspected someone who knows me, but thanks to google I see I can rest easy. Thanks for prompting an amusing bit of reading.
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.
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!
Let's say I'm a rich Dad who has two children, ages 15 and 16 who will begin driving soon. I want them to be less neurotic when they're driving and minimize the chance that they'll have to experience the traumatic event of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian. Then this car/option might be very appealing to me.
But on top of that, the reason this is on the frontpage of HN isn't because the system is installed in a Volvo V40. It's that this system is now a reality and might soon become part of standard safety systems. I personally had never heard of this system and think it's a fantastic idea. And news coverage and consumer interest/awareness could result in this system being installed in more and more cars.
But on top of that, the reason this is on the frontpage of HN isn't because the system is installed in a Volvo V40. It's that this system is now a reality and might soon become part of standard safety systems. I personally had never heard of this system and think it's a fantastic idea. And news coverage and consumer interest/awareness could result in this system being installed in more and more cars.
> Let's say I'm a rich Dad...
And if we don't want to limit this option to a tiny segment of the population, how do we encourage its uptake for the millions of vehicles that are marketed on the basis of economy and not on protecting the psyches of teenage drivers who are being given, and not choosing, their own cars?
And if we don't want to limit this option to a tiny segment of the population, how do we encourage its uptake for the millions of vehicles that are marketed on the basis of economy and not on protecting the psyches of teenage drivers who are being given, and not choosing, their own cars?
Many many product features start out on the high end models and gradually trickle down to the other, economy units if the feature is popular enough. Look at I-Pod/External media jacks in cars. At first only the expensive cars had them. Now many new vehicles have them. There are countless examples of this. But it often starts with the high-end model, and if there is interest, then more production/installations are done and in the process cheaper production methods are often discovered/engineered.
Yes, but the vast majority of these benefit the purchaser immediately. This system doesn't. It seems (to me) to have limited potential for crossing over in the same way as audio jacks, heated seats, HUDs, parking sensors, active lighting, sat navs, etc. All of those systems can be demonstrated by the salesman to benefit the purchaser. This system doesn't have that. To sell it, you need to talk about protecting strangers - which strikes me as difficult. So how else can you encourage its uptake?
As others have said, I think you're selling peace of mind to the purchaser. Buying a Hybrid doesn't actually help you personally (the gas savings numbers tend to be iffy at most), but it does help the environment an ever so slight amount. But what you're selling really is a sense that you're helping the world (which in includes other people) in some way. And I think the relative success of hybrids shows that there is a market for that type of selling.
That really depends on why you think Priuses (Priusi?) sell. Certainly some sold because they 'help the planet', but I would wager that a lot sold because a Prius was an external statement about a fashionable cause. Brad Pitt drove one! Look how responsible I am! Etc.
A hybrid is immediately obvious from the outside: a Prius is obviously recognisable. This feature is completely concealed, which takes a lot of the social cachet and signalling away from it.
Musk recognised that, to really sell electric cars, you can't rely on the altruistic goodwill of a purchaser who wants to help reduce dependence on oil and reduce emissions. You have to make the absolute best car. So, how do you sell this without relying on altruism (which some do have, but not all)? I think reduced car tax and reduced insurance rates may be good guesses.
A hybrid is immediately obvious from the outside: a Prius is obviously recognisable. This feature is completely concealed, which takes a lot of the social cachet and signalling away from it.
Musk recognised that, to really sell electric cars, you can't rely on the altruistic goodwill of a purchaser who wants to help reduce dependence on oil and reduce emissions. You have to make the absolute best car. So, how do you sell this without relying on altruism (which some do have, but not all)? I think reduced car tax and reduced insurance rates may be good guesses.
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.
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.
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?
What about branding/marketing? Volvos are known for their safety features. This certainly is an extension of that. It could be seen as a competitive advantage, regardless of its utility/impact on insurance premiums. If it is a competitive advantage, certainly other brands would want to catch up.
It's not immediately obvious from the exterior that the feature exists or not. You'd have to market the hell out of it and that costs money, which puts the price up, etc.
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.
I don't fully understand the thinking behind your question.
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.
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.
But any normal person wouldn't want to hurt others if it's easily avoidable?
Sure, but people are only limitedly altruistic (see the tragedy of the commons). If this system was free, then it should undoubtedly receive a huge uptake. But it's not free! So is there a way to encourage uptake without compulsion? Reduced insurance premiums could be one way. Are there others? Reduced car tax on vehicles with pedestrian-safety features installed?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Still, less people are dying in road accidents now than before safety features were common.
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.
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.
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
But remember this is a fallacy: http://forums.theregister.co.uk/post/259350
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
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.
As a motorcycle driver I know I drive a lot more devensive when I'm on two wheels.
We had that from the 1900's until something like the 1960's.
All it did was cause a lot of unnecessary deaths.
All it did was cause a lot of unnecessary deaths.
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.
I don't necessarily agree that it's everything but it's still interesting.
You know, I can't possibly imagine why they'd have more deaths despite better cars ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9w7SODzoa8
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.
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.
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!
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;
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;
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.
This sounds like it will be a lot of fun once those sensors start to wear out and malfunction.
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.
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.
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.
But one would hope the car wouldn't be going fast enough to lose control.
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
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
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.
and they've compensated for that, by allowing the driver to still see once the airbags have deployed.
Car-jacking as car-hacking? You want to stop a driver to get his car? Drop a mannequin in front of it.
There's a video on youtube of the the pedestrian airbags in action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4d9dqaMDxI&feature=play...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4d9dqaMDxI&feature=play...
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.
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.
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.
Next up, people wearing helmets when they go for a walk.
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.
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.
Zooming is a core feature of mobile browsers. Please cut this extraneous stuff out.
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?