Just read the below in Singapore Straits Times:
NEW YORK - German company Mercedes Benz has developed a system that senses when a vehicle accident is going to happen and makes quick adjustments to protect car occupants even before they react for themselves.
The firm's own accident researchers found that about two-thirds of accidents were preceded by skidding, emergency braking or sudden evasive moves, all of which took place a few seconds before an impact.
That small window of time is still enough to give the latest car computers time to detect the moves and respond.
If the Mercedes Pre-Safe system detects a driver braking with the sudden firmness characteristic of an emergency, or the car starts to fishtail, it tightens seat belts, moves seats and adjusts seat positions and backrests to the best possible positions for an impact.
If the car is in a severe skid, it closes the sunroof to protect occupants in case of a rollover.
Mercedes says its system can detect an imminent accident up to five seconds before it occurs.
Current safety systems such as air bags and seat belts with pre-tensioners that tighten upon impact deploy within milliseconds after an accident but do nothing beforehand.
Later versions of Pre-Safe might move bumpers or even monitor nearby cars - just to be on the safe side.
Do we really need a car that we just have to get into and point.
Are we abdicating proudly earned driving skills to the scientist
who will let us down with mechanically error and unreliability?
Mon dieu the mind boggles whats next?
DVD
PS. Anybody heard from our friend Growler from the Far East?
Hope he is OK.
|
|
And to which "proudly earned driving skills" displayed by the "sheep" do you refer?
|
It sure is... It's what happens when they go wrong which would bother me.
Not a job for the Kwik Fit man to look at.
|
Good Lord, now today my local rag reports pioneering car headlights that can "see round corners" are to be introduced by Vauxhall. The lights turn at a 90 degree angle for intersections and narrow corners and will feature on the Vectra and Signum models next year.
Now all I await is an announcement by Andrex????????
DVD
|
Andrex press release follows shortly I expect. The swivelling headlights will be no doubt " new - revolutionary - take yr pick of superlative description " ignoring the fact was on Citroen DS
yonks ago.
Incidentally Growler was posting a few days ago and IIRC mentioned was going to US of A. very shortly . May have already gone
Happy Motoring Phil I
|
|
It's well and good a car that minimises damage to occupants and car but .... a car that stops you getting into trouble in the first place - now that would be real progress.
|
|
|
|
didn't citroen have this on their cars in the 60s? They might not have had lights that saw around corners but didn't they moove with the steering wheel? Also think that MB has this.
If true then Vaux aren't really being that pioneering as the idea has been around for 40 years (maybe that is pioneering for Vauxhall!).
|
|
I thought the tuckers were the first to have these, in prototype at least
|
|
|
|
|
Given the company's underwhelming reputation for engineering excellence i can't help thinking that such a complex (and inevitably expensive) development will probably be a major source of revenue for their main dealers for years to come !
|
|
|
|
|
"Just read the below in Singapore Straits Times"
Hope you tip the paper boy........he must be cream-crackered.
"moves seats and adjusts seat positions and backrests to the best possible positions for an impact"
Well, that's going to do your car control a load of good, isn't it?
Or does it let you take the steering wheel with you into the recumbent position, simultaneously deploying the pop-up periscope?
I reckon this lost something in the translation. I would switch to the Phuket Echo if I were you. Much more reliable.
|
No DWD, it's all true. The same article also appeared in a recent edition of Automotive Engineer magazine.
NHTSA, Chrysler and Massachusetts Institute of Technology have also built a car stuffed full of sensors and electronic wizardry to try to predict accidents and help the driver avoid it.
|
It seems like a good thing to me, far too many people drive around with badly adjusted head restraints, a simple adjustment could help prevent significant injuries...
Can't see a problem with it at all, as I've said before, if I get myself into an accident, or another driver gets me into one. I would like to think that every available modern safety devide is waiting to activate. I'm sure people must have thought crumple zones were a bad idea, and I know that people thought seatbelts were a bad idea...
|
|
And don't ask HJ whether he thinks ABS, EBD and Brake Assist are all they're cracked up to be, either! (Nissan Micra test, 22 Nov)
|
BUT, HJ didn't actually critisize the brake system - as he says it brought them safely to a halt about 1 metre behind the Jag. It was the car behind that was following too close with no regard for the fact that newer cars always stop better than older cars - this has always been true.
Anyway HJ admits the driver knew the Jag had faulty lights. Paul Ripley has said on many occassions that if the car behind you is too close for your comfort then YOU should increase the distance to the car in front of you. Further, if you know the car in front has a problem then you should also increase your safety distance still further.
Technically the driver of the Fiat was at fault, but the driver of the Micra could have prevented the accident. This is not a critisism of the Micras systems.
|
Yep,
I'm not sure if this is what you meant, Cyd, but the Micra driver could have prevented the acident my following the brake-light free Jag at a sensible distance.
To paraphrase HJ, he stopped the Micra 1 metre behind the Jag with the full use of all the fancy electronic aids. This is far too close to a crash for safety.
If these aids are used, something is wrong and the driver had made an error of judgement. Because of his hard braking the Fiat slammed into the back of him. The Fiat was also therefore too close.
I wish I could see a simple way of drilling in to the majority of drivers the need to allow an adequate distance, min 2 seconds, between cars.
If I have misunderstood something I will stand corrected, but this is my interpretation.
|
I wish I could see a simple way of drilling in to the majority of drivers the need to allow an adequate distance, min 2 seconds, between cars.
I've always wondered how people can crash on a M-way and the only 2 reasons I can think of are (1) not looking in the mirrors/blind spot and (2) driving too close. I suspect that the latter makes up for 90%+ of all prangs on M-ways.
As for drilling into the majority of drivers this is going to be hard because of people's impatience. People undertaking and trying to cut in seems to be the main cause for other drivers driving too closely to each other.
|
I've always wondered how people can crash on a M-way and the only 2 reasons I can think of are (1) not looking in the mirrors/blind spot and (2) driving too close. I suspect that the latter makes up for 90%+ of all prangs on M-ways.
According to Roadcraft: "50% of rear end shunts are caused by the vehicle in front braking sharply and the vehicle behind not stopping in time."
I'd love to know what the other 50% are caused by. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
Situation isn't helped by all these 4x4s, MPVs and white vans. Always much easier driving when you can see thru the windscreen of the car in front.
|
|
|
Where the car in front is stopped at a roundabout and the car behind just doesn't react.
I know about this. :(
Blue
|
|
|
|
|
"I wish I could see a simple way of drilling in to the majority of drivers the need to allow an adequate distance, min 2 seconds, between cars. "
So do I.
Last Friday night, on a wet rural road, I was following a car which at 40 -50 mph had a maximum of two car lengths between it and the vehicle in front.
Maybe the only thing that stops some people tailgating is the experience of actually running into the vehicle in front.
|
|
I know its probably been said enough times already, but I find when you leave a large gap, on the motorway, first thing that happens is some t*** dives into it then jams on the anchors when he realises hes travelling faster than the car in front. So you end up dropping back some more and the same happens again
|
I know its probably been said enough times already, but I find when you leave a large gap, on the motorway, first thing that happens is some t*** dives into it then jams on the anchors when he realises hes travelling faster than the car in front. So you end up dropping back some more and the same happens again
So what?
Keep safely clear and let them fight amongst themselves.
|
|
|
|
The anti-car freaks always kick up when a car ad suggests a vehicle may actually be capable of a little performance. However, there is one current which depicts three cars proceeding with the second and third very near the one in front. That is more worthy of criticism, but I bet it is not noticed!
Tomo
|
|
Well spotted Tomo. Why don't you find out if it's possible to complain to the advertising watchdog via email? You send the first one and then copy it to the rest of us so we can send one too.
|
go to
www.itc.org.uk/how_can_we_help/complain/ad_complai...p
Tomo - I have seen this advert, but can you remind me which car it's for?
|
|
IIRC its for the Vauxhall Astra
|
Just saw it again, it's indeed the Astra.
Web address duly noted!
Tomo
|
But I suggest anyone responding makes their own entry on the form, so responses are not worded identically.
Tomo
|
Whilst it doesn't excuse the ad I suspect the logic behind this advert is a link to the GM sponsored test track ride in the Epcot theme park @ Walt Disney World.
The problem there is that the cars actually go round the track singly. Its quite a good ride BTW. Particularly when you have the mammoth avoidance of the wayward artic half way round.
Interesting to look at the cars when you get out into the obligatory gift shop after the ride. Seems as though USA will have to put up with a Vectra clone.
|
Didn't we do this before ?
However, I certainly will join in with a letter to the relevant idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
More stuff allowing us to have nice, safe accidents, I see.
If it can do all that, why can't it help avoid the accident in the first place (like a small electric shock to the driver if he gets too close) or apply a bit of opposite lock if it "starts to fishtail"?
|
I quote from my first response to this thread:
.....wizardry to try to predict accidents and help the driver avoid it.
|
|
.....which the driver should be doing in the first place.
|
|
|
|
