Volvo's Next Step: Pedestrian Safety
Safe to say, when a distracted driver runs his car into a pedestrian, it's more than likely the pedestrian will suffer the most damage. So Volvo, the automaker best known for obsessing over the safety of its cars' occupants, is now focusing on protecting the people around its cars, as well.
Next fall, the redone 2011 Volvo S60 will be offered with a new technology tagged "Collision Warning with Full Auto Brake and Pedestrian Safety" - which not only predicts when a pedestrian is likely to cross into the car's path and warns the driver, but also takes over braking if the driver fails to respond. The aim is to have the car avoid hitting the pedestrian altogether, if possible, or at least to lessen the impact if a collision of car and person is inescapable.
Pedestrian Safety is the next practical step beyond Volvo's City Safety system now offered in the 2010 XC60, which automatically engages the brakes if it senses an impending low-speed collision with a vehicle ahead. Accordingly, Volvo has installed this new system in an XC60 "test mule vehicle," which we got to try out last week at the automaker's Rockleigh, NJ, headquarters, with a pedestrian dummy named Bob. And for better or worse, Pedestrian Safety worked exactly as it was supposed to - saving Bob's "life" when it could, but leaving him flattened when it could not.
Three devices make up the Pedestrian Safety system: a new dual-mode radar in the car's front grille that scans both far ahead (150-200 meters) and wide (60 degrees) to detect objects and measure the distance to them; a high-resolution camera behind the windshield that sees a shorter distance ahead (50 meters) and within a narrower field of view (45 degrees), and identifies the objects; and a control unit that analyzes the objects' movement patterns along with the driver's inputs, and directs the vehicle to react appropriately.
As many as 64 objects can be identified simultaneously, and besides pedestrians the system recognizes motorcyclists and bicyclists (but not animals).
Objects that aren't predicted to cross paths with the vehicle are ignored, while those that could are kept in sight by the system. When an object is in the vehicle's path, the driver is warned both audibly and visually with lights displayed on the windshield. If the driver then fails to react, the system takes control, automatically applying 100 percent of available braking power (1g of force) to try to stop the car in time to avoid an impact.
A collision can be averted at speeds between 2 mph and about 15 mph on dry, clean roads, Volvo says. Of course, stopping distance and therefore the system's effectiveness could vary on wet roads or with other adverse conditions.
The XC60 test mule is a European-spec model that we drove on a dry segment of Volvo's parking lot - successfully stopping short of Bob each time we approached him at speeds up to 25 km/h (15.5 mph). Predictably, higher speeds reduced our margin. With an initial approach speed over 25 km/h, we hit him, but the impact speed was slower.
To be sure, there are other pedestrian detection systems already available. BMW offers night vision with pedestrian detection in the 7 Series, and Lexus offers pedestrian detection with auto braking in the LS 600h L. But all have their limits. The BMW and Lexus systems won't stop their cars, while Volvo's camera could miss people obscured by darkness, indiscernible clothing or inclement weather.
So it appears, especially when careless pedestrians are hardest to see, there's still nothing better than staying alert. -- Robert E. Calem
I hate all this pedestrian safety crap on cars. Pedestrian safety should come from intelligent road design and good education of drivers and the public at large, not from bulging hoods that keep pedestrians safe from impacts and from things that beep at you and brake for you and basically just continue to take the responsibility of driving away from drivers. Clearly, I'm not suggesting cowcatchers on the front of cars, but whatever happened to the idea of just not running anyone over? Does anyone actually look at the contest between a two-ton car and a 150 pound person and say "yes, that is worth investing a lot of money into making sure that that is safe." It's flesh and bone up against steel! What a waste of everyone's money and time.
Clarkma5, you're looking at this the wrong way! This technology is not meant to replace pedestrian and driver diligence and good road design! It's meant to be an EXTRA step......maybe this technology might save a live in situations where a pedestrian or a diver is careless (which will always happen).....the pedestrian will not win the contest with a two-ton car, but the feature might result in injuries to the pedestrian instead of death.
Besides, this isn't a feature being mandated to be fitted on every car. It's an optional feature to be installed on what is (supposedly) a luxury car. How then can you logically call it a "waste of everyone's money and time"? I initially thought cameras on cellphones were a waste of money too......
If you're not watching for a pedestrian, you're not watching for someone tailgating you . . . where I live turning-out is usually a lot safer for all involved than hard braking.
I love the BSM system in my Mazda6, but I'd be hard pressed to want a "lane change prevention assist" feature . . .
Sensors and alarms are great - I think most everyone can benefit. Proactive braking . . . well I guess if people can't use a clutch the car might as well brake for you too.