Moderator: Moderator Team
It is a system of cameras, radar, computers and software that work together to stop the car from hitting a cyclist. The cameras and radar allow the car computer to see cyclists and pedestrians on the road and identify them. They are tracked and if their trajectory and your car’s direction will result in a collision, then it will intervene.
http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/volvo ... nce-system
Personally I think like anything automated it will eventually deaden the senses and make us into worse drivers. As if it wasn't enough that cell phones, text devices, video games are not distracting enough as it is in a car.
Our closest competitors charge almost £2000 for Adaptive Cruise Control alone! You think about that. The Driver Support Package a great deal. And the systems have all been praised by EuroNCap.
YesNS wrote:So you are saying I could save 2k by not driving without due care and attention?
A lot of the things being introduced are already legally required safety features, or will be soon. Mostly due to huge percentage of the car buying public being idiots. Its far easier for a government to pressurise or penalise the auto manufacturers (mostly in foreign countries) to introduce safety features than it is to pressurise the car buying public to look where they are going, or penalise them properly for not looking. (Auto manufacturers don't get to vote, bad drivers do, and as you know, criticising a *real* mans driving is more offensive than telling him his wife looks like a pig..)
(FWIW, I work at Volvo too, and until fairly recently, probably in the same building as Sam.......)
Why did they let the XC90 become unbuyable due to the dated engines and dynamics?
Why did they give up on big estates? They should be making the Superb estate, not Skoda.
Why no MPV?
Why so long to introduce efficient engines?
Why priced above Audi?
Anyway, that aside, I like the idea. It might be an option now, but options today become standard tomorrow.
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!!
Why not put sensors on a bike an let the bike warn you of oncoming objects or let it modulate the brakes for you. Or maybe let it shift at the precise moment
We are half way there.
for starters, when you come across cyclists driving along each other in the middle of the road, first thing you do is horn. when you see someone doing something really stupid (like wobbling on a bike) and plain dangerous, you horn again or call police. when someone drives slower (like really slow..) you overtake him. but not in a Volvo. i don't know maybe it's some sort of a puzzle why on earth the driver chooses not to overtake this bunch of morons but wait till they, dunno, disappear. has he no skills at all and depends solely on a car? is that the kind of customers Volvo aims at?
i mean, i've had several bizzare encounters with cyclists while driving a car but i never ever witnessed such dumb situation as pictured here. the video shows two cyclists in the middle of the road suddenly turning right without any sign (in Sweden!). plus a retarded hipster who somehow tries to comply with rules (he tries to stick to the right) but his face shows some neverending loads of idiotism and a sure desire to do something crazy. and then, we have an open sewer. in the middle of the day. in Sweden! come on! but let's follow the plot. retarded idiot on a bike must have some eye deasese as he doesn't see the sewer till it's right in front of him. then he chooses to pass it from the left, rather than from the right side. the Volvo instantly stops and saves the day
some conclusions this film made me come to. a cyclist who can't control his bike, doesn't see furhter than 2 meters, has his ears covered, doesn't know or stick to the rules , shouldn't be out on the road. so, there should be some driving tests to pass for everyone who wishes to pedal along cars. and possibly a bike insurance to cover all the damages such staggering idiots are doomed to cause. the system itself stops the car when someone passes through the area in front of it. OK, but what IF i'm riding on a narrow road, behind a cyclist doing 30kmh, and, be it for lack of space or eg. traffic lights in front of us, i choose not to overtake the guy. if he then passes to the left (in order to, say, turn left at the lights) and crosses the 'area', despite my full control over the situation and no danger at all, my Volvo will STOP, very likely causing car behind me to hit me - and an emergency breake without real cause is not so safe or along the rules as Volvo seems to think it is
sefe driving is when all the vehicles, cyclists, pedestrian etc follow the rules and act reasonably and predictably. not when the road is full of idiots and i'm in a car that chooses to do something out of the box and i've no control over it.
and yes, Volvo makes some loony cars recently. they act as if it was 23rd century and the world is full of AI assisting mankind on a daily basis. the recent mishaps with Volvo systems (S60 crashing during a press event presenting the... automatic breaking system) and the quantity and quality of said systems (the beep-on-everything attitude) begs for a question - do they still want to make safe cars or just cars for idiots who apparently have no driving skills at all hence the neccessity to assist them at every single moment so they don't die or kill someone on the road?
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.
It's good to know that there's a serious cyclist on the project, so they won't assume that all cyclists are stationary or nearly so.
Cielo by Chris King Cross Racer
- Posts: 8609
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
I love my V70 T5. Sure it may be a bit over a decade old... but man, that 260bhp has been great, it handles well off road, is durable, and can transport my bikes without having to take off any wheels.
Less SUVs, get back to those estates/wagons please... at least in the North America market.
...and damnit, why can't we get that Diesel-Hybrid over here?? 125miles per gallon! 125!!! for an estate car!!
Why do the North America versions have a different (read: lower) standard?
Cos your fuel is rubbish. The road haulage associations resist the reduction of sulphur in diesel, (which will cost almost nothing to do, few fractions of a cent per gallon is what i've heard) so you can't use common rail/high pressure diesel injection systems without MASSIVE expenditure in sulphur resistant hardware, or two completely separate fuel supply networks across the entire US. And the market is tiny. US car buyers won't buy diesels in the sort of volume to make it worth anyone investing.prendrefeu wrote:Why do the North America versions have a different (read: lower) standard?
Then you have the emissions standards in certain (most) states. Visible smoke, particulates and so on. Again massive investment for minimal return. (Though newer, Euro VI emissions standards are similar) Costs a packet to meet these standards too. The whole emissions standards thing needs completely tearing up and starting again in my opinion, much of the 30 year old technology that is still mandated has been superceeded, but can't be removed, cos its mandated. So we have to drag kilos of junk round to meet some arbitrary standard, that can be met (and probably exceeded) without the junk.
I believe VW/Audi and Mercedes are all attempting to crack the US diesel problem, all of them are shifting a handful of units, probably at a significant loss. I understand warranty is costing them a packet too.
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 39 Replies
- 3783 Views
Last post by prototoast
Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:36 pm
- 0 Replies
- 447 Views
Last post by rynogee
Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:17 pm
- 17 Replies
- 2745 Views
Last post by stockae92
Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:56 pm
- 6 Replies
- 627 Views
Last post by jih
Wed May 09, 2018 5:45 pm
- 18 Replies
- 1270 Views
Last post by ms6073
Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:14 am