If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wimp)   How impressive is Volvo's newly designed truck collision warning system with emergency braking? Got a dime to put on the road?   (wimp.com) divider line 47
    More: Spiffy, Volvo, warnings, collisions  
•       •       •

3425 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Jan 2013 at 7:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-22 07:50:20 AM
Was the truck full or empty? I'm betting the load would make a big difference in those situations.
 
2013-01-22 07:55:02 AM
There is going to be a time that driving your own car is not only more dangerous than a computer it but as irresponsible as DWI.
 
2013-01-22 07:57:30 AM

Carth: There is going to be a time that driving your own car is not only more dangerous than a computer it but as irresponsible as DWI.


word,
and what What Surface Tension said.
 
2013-01-22 07:59:34 AM
Now if only they could get the drivers behind the semi to react that fast in their own cars.
 
2013-01-22 08:11:53 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-22 08:15:47 AM

Tenatra: Now if only they could get the drivers behind the semi to react that fast in their own cars.


Cars that aren't broken will stop faster than a semi.  Of course most cars haven't had their brakes properly checks on a computer ever.
There was a proposal to add a IR brake light to warn cars behind.  The problem is humans can't see IR light but their iris will react making it harder to see the truck in the front stopping.  Police lasers do the same thing.
 
2013-01-22 08:17:03 AM

Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 275x342]


Since this is sure to come up at some point, Volvo Trucks sold off Volvo cars back in 1999. Not that it's relevant to this pic (since that ad was well before 1999), I just wanted to point this out.
 
2013-01-22 08:21:10 AM

SurfaceTension: Was the truck full or empty? I'm betting the load would make a big difference in those situations.


I'm curious about this as well.

In any case, it's damn cool. I wonder how it reacts with less distance between the car and truck.
 
2013-01-22 08:48:24 AM
I suppose there's some reasonable amount of ballast to keep the trailer on the ground, but that its nowhere near gross weight.
 
2013-01-22 08:54:27 AM
The is a lot of promise with this sort of technology, but it will probably need quite a lot of work to get it correct - you could see someone drifting too close to the car in front, slamming on the brakes, and getting rear ended by a vehicle without this technology, causing an accident when possibly one wouldn't have without it. The problem is if these sorts of system come in early and softly people won't feel in control of their cars, but if they only come in heavily at the last moment it can make it difficult for human drivers around them (behind them mainly) to react fast enough. I am sure they will work out a good solution in the end, but it could take quite a few iterations, especially as each car company looks like they will solve the problems differently, so you could get weird emergent behavior problems that are hard to test every combination (so a v1.1 of the Ford version being followed by the latest Toyota which is followed by another Ford with v1.0 of the software causes a feedback loop ending in a crash if they get too close to each other)
 
2013-01-22 09:00:44 AM
How impressive is Volvo's newly designed truck collision warning system with emergency braking? Got a dime to put on the road?

In this economy? No.
 
2013-01-22 09:07:43 AM

DON.MAC: Tenatra: Now if only they could get the drivers behind the semi to react that fast in their own cars.

Cars that aren't broken will stop faster than a semi.  Of course most cars haven't had their brakes properly checks on a computer ever.
There was a proposal to add a IR brake light to warn cars behind.  The problem is humans can't see IR light but their iris will react making it harder to see the truck in the front stopping.  Police lasers do the same thing.


You don't really expect to come to a dead stop that fast in an otherwise smooth flow on a road. Even in stop - go - stop traffic jams I usually see multiple fender benders.
 
2013-01-22 09:19:31 AM
Promising technology but unless it's mandated, truckers will never opt for it if it adds any extra weight to the vehicle.

Some years ago someone came up with an emergency braking system that would deploy when a truck's brakes failed (consider a semi traveling down a mountain). It basically consisted of rolls of thick rubber secured to the truck frame mounted just in front of the rear tires. In an emergency, they would unroll, the tires would roll up onto the sheets and the truck would then skid on the rubber sheets until it stopped. It seemed pretty effective on video but owners poo-pooed the idea because it added a few hundred pounds of dead weight to the truck which meant they could carry less cargo. This was years ago. Perhaps such systems are mandated today. Who knows.
 
Xai
2013-01-22 09:21:09 AM

SurfaceTension: Was the truck full or empty? I'm betting the load would make a big difference in those situations.


I would still say that getting hit by a truck which had braked down to 20mph is much better than getting slammed by a sleepy trucker doing 55mph
 
2013-01-22 09:26:02 AM
The real question is, how does it do in traffic? Is the emergency braking system always going off in bumper to bumper traffic?

/Still neat to watch and is a step in the right direction
//Now, Volvo bring back the boxy Volvo I loved as a kid.
 
2013-01-22 09:49:14 AM
They should fill the trailer with 30-foot iron rods and watch them slice right through the cab when the brakes engage at full speed.
 
2013-01-22 10:00:49 AM

stuhayes2010: The real question is, how does it do in traffic? Is the emergency braking system always going off in bumper to bumper traffic?

/Still neat to watch and is a step in the right direction
//Now, Volvo bring back the boxy Volvo I loved as a kid.


I would imagine that the system only takes over if the driver is not braking on his own.
 
2013-01-22 10:11:03 AM
No snark here. That's just awesome as heck. Add in those new lane-drift elimination systems, and you're getting somewhere.
 
M-G
2013-01-22 10:37:39 AM

stuhayes2010: The real question is, how does it do in traffic? Is the emergency braking system always going off in bumper to bumper traffic?


It's going to be looking at distance and closing speed, so creeping along in traffic shouldn't cause a problem.
 
2013-01-22 11:56:44 AM

tillerman35: No snark here. That's just awesome as heck. Add in those new lane-drift elimination systems, and you're getting somewhere.


Volvo already has something similar to this that comes standard in all of their new cars (called City Safety). It operates at a lower speed (less than either 18 or 22 mph - I can't remember) but automatically stops the car if it detects a stopped car in front of you:

Link

They also have an option for a pedestrian detection system as well:

Link
 
2013-01-22 12:20:03 PM

stuhayes2010: //Now, Volvo bring back the boxy Volvo I loved as a kid.


Two different companies. AB Volvo (that makes the trucks) has nothing to do with Volvo cars.
 
2013-01-22 12:22:22 PM
The system would have algorithms to infer the total mass of the vehicle, which adapts the braking algorithm parameters. Load is a factor, but not an unaccounted for factor.
 
2013-01-22 12:33:52 PM
Watched the speedometer in the truck cab at the end of the video; looks like the truck went from 55mph (90kph?) down to nearly zero within a car length or so. That's impressive, but I've seen what happens to a truck cab when the load in the trailer shifts abruptly. Momentum and potential energy are not to be negotiated with.

/that's why truck escape ramps normally use pea gravel instead of sand
//sand rips the undercarriage off the truck and rams the load forward
///pea gravel doesn't
 
2013-01-22 12:40:19 PM

xria: and getting rear ended by a vehicle without this technology


I see that being a smidge problematic in real-life application.
 
2013-01-22 02:16:24 PM

SurfaceTension: Was the truck full or empty? I'm betting the load would make a big difference in those situations.


So you think the designers of a braking system on an 18 wheeler didn't take into account the driver may have a trailer filled with product? Are you confused by what those trucks are made for?
 
2013-01-22 02:29:13 PM

SurfaceTension: Was the truck full or empty? I'm betting the load would make a big difference in those situations.


And I'm betting that the system takes extra weight into account.

Regardless, that was totally awesome. Our own cars need that.
 
2013-01-22 02:30:57 PM

Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 275x342]


Absolutely love that movie. What was the Jaguar one? 'Jaguar, for men who want handjobs from beautiful women they don't even know' I think that was it.

As for "boxy", at least Volvo hired a freakin' design tem...
 
2013-01-22 02:34:08 PM

Wise_Guy: stuhayes2010: The real question is, how does it do in traffic? Is the emergency braking system always going off in bumper to bumper traffic?

/Still neat to watch and is a step in the right direction
//Now, Volvo bring back the boxy Volvo I loved as a kid.

I would imagine that the system only takes over if the driver is not braking on his own.


And probably only when travelling above a certain speed.
 
2013-01-22 02:34:51 PM
Cargasm. I imagine the autobraking system takes weight and closing-distance and remaining speed into account. It doesn't have to be a binary full-brake/no-brake approach.
 
2013-01-22 03:01:24 PM
The question is, was the trailer at max gross? Is there logic to manage the load dynamics and help keep the tractor aligned with the load? All the magic in the world won't help sliding jackknifed.
 
2013-01-22 03:49:53 PM

arcas: Promising technology but unless it's mandated, truckers will never opt for it if it adds any extra weight to the vehicle.

Some years ago someone came up with an emergency braking system that would deploy when a truck's brakes failed (consider a semi traveling down a mountain). It basically consisted of rolls of thick rubber secured to the truck frame mounted just in front of the rear tires. In an emergency, they would unroll, the tires would roll up onto the sheets and the truck would then skid on the rubber sheets until it stopped. It seemed pretty effective on video but owners poo-pooed the idea because it added a few hundred pounds of dead weight to the truck which meant they could carry less cargo. This was years ago. Perhaps such systems are mandated today. Who knows.


that sounds very clever, and should be mandatory for trucks running regularly in dangerous mountain areas. it makes sense that a trucking company running only mostly flat plains would not want such equipment.
 
2013-01-22 04:45:46 PM

KrispyKritter: arcas: Promising technology but unless it's mandated, truckers will never opt for it if it adds any extra weight to the vehicle.

Some years ago someone came up with an emergency braking system that would deploy when a truck's brakes failed (consider a semi traveling down a mountain). It basically consisted of rolls of thick rubber secured to the truck frame mounted just in front of the rear tires. In an emergency, they would unroll, the tires would roll up onto the sheets and the truck would then skid on the rubber sheets until it stopped. It seemed pretty effective on video but owners poo-pooed the idea because it added a few hundred pounds of dead weight to the truck which meant they could carry less cargo. This was years ago. Perhaps such systems are mandated today. Who knows.

that sounds very clever, and should be mandatory for trucks running regularly in dangerous mountain areas. it makes sense that a trucking company running only mostly flat plains would not want such equipment.


The rubber mats weighed hundreds of pounds. This technology adds a small radar unit and uses the existing anti-lock computer and brakes.
 
2013-01-22 04:50:40 PM
Or we could just, like, go back to using rail and avoid this problem.
 
Al!
2013-01-22 05:52:29 PM

MrEricSir: Or we could just, like, go back to using rail and avoid this problem.


If there is one thing I am certain about, it is the immutable fact that trains never crash.
 
2013-01-22 06:12:27 PM

Al!: MrEricSir: Or we could just, like, go back to using rail and avoid this problem.

If there is one thing I am certain about, it is the immutable fact that trains never crash.


Trains only crash if you're foolish enough to let humans drive them. Fortunately that's quickly becoming a thing of the past.
 
Al!
2013-01-22 07:00:02 PM

MrEricSir: Al!: MrEricSir: Or we could just, like, go back to using rail and avoid this problem.

If there is one thing I am certain about, it is the immutable fact that trains never crash.

Trains only crash if you're foolish enough to let humans drive them. Fortunately that's quickly becoming a thing of the past.


That's preposterous. Are you saying that the only possible cause for a train wreck is human error?
 
2013-01-22 07:06:10 PM

Al!: MrEricSir: Al!: MrEricSir: Or we could just, like, go back to using rail and avoid this problem.

If there is one thing I am certain about, it is the immutable fact that trains never crash.

Trains only crash if you're foolish enough to let humans drive them. Fortunately that's quickly becoming a thing of the past.

That's preposterous. Are you saying that the only possible cause for a train wreck is human error?


Not sure what you mean here. The only possible cause for ANY wreck is human error. That's kind of a pointless distinction.
 
2013-01-22 07:42:06 PM

jack21221: Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 275x342]

Since this is sure to come up at some point, Volvo Trucks sold off Volvo cars back in 1999. Not that it's relevant to this pic (since that ad was well before 1999), I just wanted to point this out.


jack21221: stuhayes2010: //Now, Volvo bring back the boxy Volvo I loved as a kid.

Two different companies. AB Volvo (that makes the trucks) has nothing to do with Volvo cars.


Point found
 
Al!
2013-01-22 08:37:25 PM

MrEricSir: Al!: MrEricSir: Al!: MrEricSir: Or we could just, like, go back to using rail and avoid this problem.

If there is one thing I am certain about, it is the immutable fact that trains never crash.

Trains only crash if you're foolish enough to let humans drive them. Fortunately that's quickly becoming a thing of the past.

That's preposterous. Are you saying that the only possible cause for a train wreck is human error?

Not sure what you mean here. The only possible cause for ANY wreck is human error. That's kind of a pointless distinction.


So mechanical failure would be human error? Or is the error building the vehicle in the first place? What about natural disasters? Would an earthquake causing a vehicle to drive off of an overhead highway be human error? How can a human possibly account for the road shifting 15 feet? Or maybe a sinkhole suddenly opens under your vehicle? What about if someone dies while in control of a motor vehicle? Would the resulting crash be human error? Your assertion is so undeniably wrong that you must be a safety manager. Let me guess: All accidents and illnesses are preventable?

Or you're trolling.
 
2013-01-22 08:53:56 PM

Al!: So mechanical failure would be human error? Or is the error building the vehicle in the first place? What about natural disasters? Would an earthquake causing a vehicle to drive off of an overhead highway be human error? How can a human possibly account for the road shifting 15 feet? Or maybe a sinkhole suddenly opens under your vehicle? What about if someone dies while in control of a motor vehicle? Would the resulting crash be human error? Your assertion is so undeniably wrong that you must be a safety manager. Let me guess: All accidents and illnesses are preventable?

Or you're trolling.


Speaking of trolling, in your hysterical rant you seem to have answered your own question. I've done you the favor of highlighting this for you.
 
Al!
2013-01-22 09:36:13 PM

MrEricSir: Al!: So mechanical failure would be human error? Or is the error building the vehicle in the first place? What about natural disasters? Would an earthquake causing a vehicle to drive off of an overhead highway be human error? How can a human possibly account for the road shifting 15 feet? Or maybe a sinkhole suddenly opens under your vehicle? What about if someone dies while in control of a motor vehicle? Would the resulting crash be human error? Your assertion is so undeniably wrong that you must be a safety manager. Let me guess: All accidents and illnesses are preventable?

Or you're trolling.

Speaking of trolling, in your hysterical rant you seem to have answered your own question. I've done you the favor of highlighting this for you.


I see. So the mechanical failure that a tree experiences when it is sundered by a tornado is human error. And the original human error is building the vehicle, which, of course, is preventable because the vehicle could just not be built. You do have a point. As long as you are willing to define the creation of tools to suit our needs as an error, human error is the root cause of every single vehicular mishap.
 
2013-01-22 09:52:17 PM

Al!: I see. So the mechanical failure that a tree experiences when it is sundered by a tornado is human error. And the original human error is building the vehicle, which, of course, is preventable because the vehicle could just not be built. You do have a point. As long as you are willing to define the creation of tools to suit our needs as an error, human error is the root cause of every single vehicular mishap.


No, I never said that. But as long as you're willing to define "wreck" to "anything that's necessary to make myself feel correct" then yes, you're correct. Have a cookie, winner!
 
2013-01-22 10:05:27 PM
One thing that Volvo will have to do is equip every car following this truck with the same tech or there will be a lot of collisions behind this truck.
 
2013-01-23 08:19:05 AM

SurfaceTension: Was the truck full or empty? I'm betting the load would make a big difference in those situations.


yah and pray it was tied down well or its ending up in your cabin
 
2013-01-23 08:43:16 AM

bel4sucks: SurfaceTension: Was the truck full or empty? I'm betting the load would make a big difference in those situations.

So you think the designers of a braking system on an 18 wheeler didn't take into account the driver may have a trailer filled with product? Are you confused by what those trucks are made for?


No, but I've seen enough systems designed to work well under testing and in marketing, but they fail miserably under real world situations.
 
2013-01-23 02:12:55 PM
That's going to play hell with my hyper-mileage drafting technique
 
2013-01-24 01:58:10 AM

stuhayes2010: The real question is, how does it do in traffic? Is the emergency braking system always going off in bumper to bumper traffic?


Did you not watch the video? The thing flashed a light, then beeped, then when there was literally no other option than to slam on the brakes, slammed on the brakes with only the smallest of safety margins. If it had waited another second to brake it would have hit the obstacle; clearly it was considering the stopping distance of the truck to determine when emergency braking was necessary.

The question the video did not answer is how well it handles a loaded trailer; there's information available about trailer mass from the normal operation of the antilock sensors (i.e. braking power vs. stopping distance) so it's certainly possible to get a decent estimate, but it's another layer of complication on top of the demonstrated system. Presumably Volvo knows this, and for all we know has already dealt with the problem, but it's not something clearly demonstrated in the video.

But the question of whether or not the system is aware of traffic conditions is clearly addressed; they demonstrated both fully-stopped and slow-moving obstacles and showed the system's reaction to both scenarios with a consistently sized and quite small margin of avoidance. Even if they're faking it a bit for the video (with tweaked parameters or somesuch), clearly they are addressing the issue you raise.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report