Volvo, Mercedes and Honda get tested for collision prevention, everybody's a winner

We've heard the marketing babble, and pondered the possibilities of a hands-free drive to work, but do those radar-based collision prevention technologies actually work? The British Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre Thatcham seems to think so. BMIRPCT took a long hard look at Volvo City Safety, Mercedes Distronic Plus and Honda CMBS, and decided the technologies will have a major impact on slow speed accidents -- which account for 75% of accidents as it is -- and should prevent more than 125,000 injuries a year in Britain alone, according to this research.

[Via gizmag]

[Richard Lai @ Feb 18th 2008 10:20AM]

Good news indeed.

[dukemang @ Feb 18th 2008 10:21AM]

Unfortunately, when we went to lease our lexus they told us that our model no longer comes with optional radar collision avoidance and cruise control because they couldn't make enough of them. They were being saved for higher end models. Because like most kick ass safety features, if it works really well, its rare and not mandetory for at least 10 years.

[bhennan @ Feb 18th 2008 10:22AM]

This way people can concentrate on their text messaging and lattes instead of driving ;)

[Sergio @ Feb 18th 2008 10:47AM]

Man, I almost had a minor accident because of my freaking cell phone. The guy in front in me eased forward to close the gap between the car in front of him and himself at a red light, and I saw this and let go of the brakes, slammed on the brakes when I saw that it was still red and put my damn phone away.

[gt2378b @ Feb 18th 2008 12:37PM]

My radar-controlled anti-spill cupholder will bookend nicely with this trend toward further inattention!

[phanbouy @ Feb 18th 2008 4:04PM]

"im on teh hiwayz talegatin ur karz"

[Matt @ Feb 18th 2008 10:27AM]

"- and should prevent more than 125,000 injuries a year in Britain alone"

Is that number based on the assumption that we'll all be driving cars with that technology in them, or on the number of cars that have them/will have them fitted? :S

[Jimmy Jones @ Feb 18th 2008 10:26AM]

Passat also has that feature.....including its new Lane Assist feature which ACTUALLY steer the car back on the lane unlike similar features in other cars.

[Longhorn @ Feb 18th 2008 10:32AM]

Passats do tha!??!

Somehow I see that technology causing more problems than solving them... I like my EX's lane departure warning just fine. Not that I need it, but my girlfriend sure does...

[Ghen @ Feb 18th 2008 3:17PM]

What happens if you overcorrect the other way? How much pressure do you have to put on the steering wheel for it to determine you really really want to run off the road?

[Flashpoint @ Feb 18th 2008 10:37AM]

Mercedes S-class put a cruise control in their S550 which can track the speed of vehciles around it to speed up and slow down. The S-class can come to a complete stop and restart all by itself in fact if the guy ahead of you does so.
I'm currently leasing an S550 w/ 4 matic and the whole thing works GREAT.

The Cadillac STS has had a cruise control of this type since it was released and the 2008 Chrysler 300 just got it. The Japanese companies copied off of Daimler to add this technology to their Nissan Armada-Infiniti Q56 and newer models but unlike the S550, those models can't completely stop and restart by themselves.

[paragraph @ Feb 18th 2008 10:40AM]

Sorry, but i don't get the point of that... is it so hard to depress the brake/gas?

I'm all for automation, and laziness, but not in the car... there are certain things that you NEED to pay attention to... it only takes one idiot to ruin the technology...

[BrettB @ Feb 18th 2008 10:57AM]

I think this kind of tech is great, but I don't think I'd trust it enough to slow and stop for me like that. Cool that it can, but I'd probably just hit the brakes on my own before it kicked in. Then again, maybe I'd learn to trust it. If it malfunctions, does Mercedes pay to repair the damage???

[Passarinhuu @ Feb 18th 2008 5:36PM]

Mercedes will cast Ressurection on you and pay for all the damage done

[paragraph @ Feb 18th 2008 10:38AM]

Idea: Watch the god damned road...

Sorry, but is it so hard to pay attention to the road?

This is a nice bit of technology, but it will create complacent drivers, an end result that will probably hurt more than help.

Really, just pay attention to the road... you'll be fine... i promise...

[Michael @ Feb 18th 2008 11:08AM]

@ Flashpoint

I disagree. I think the Sync system is very cool for the music aspect. And I can see how talking on your phone while driving may sometimes be necessary. But in general, talking on phones in any form (handsfree, w/ hands, etc) increases driver distraction.

The reason why this is so dangerous is that the human brain isn't capable of true multitasking with complex activities. Numerous studies have shown that this is true. An individual can do several simple tasks with no problem (ironing a shirt while watching TV, for example), but we are simply not "wired" to do two or more complex activities at the same time.

Such activities that would fall into this category are carrying on a conversation, driving, writing, typing, etc.

Just something to think about. Try taking off your Bluetooth headset and listening to the radio for a change, you'll find you're a much more aware driver.

[Ghen @ Feb 18th 2008 3:18PM]

people have been rear ending each other in slow speed crashes well before the inventions for mobile distraction came out. Its just human nature to have your mind wander... Some more than others.

[Flashpoint @ Feb 18th 2008 10:43AM]

When cruise control was placed on cars in the beggining, alot of people had the same argument...

HAVE YOU SEEN MASSIVE PILEUPS DUE TO CRUISE CONTROL?

If anything causes driver complacency and ignorance, its talking on CELL PHONES. That's why I'm proud of Microsoft Sync, GM's Onstar and Chrysler's U-connect. We need to make cellphones integrate with cars so that hands-off talking is a reality. You can even text with voice texting.

[Flashpoint @ Feb 18th 2008 10:40AM]

The way I see it, EVERY CAR should come with colision avoidance even if it raises the price of the car.


Collision Avoidance and ultrasoinc backup sensors.

I've seen in real life people with Nissan pathfinders and other SUVs back right over the hood of smaller cars behind them - damage them- and then just drive off. Thats what happens when you get these small people behind the wheels of big SUVS. In addition to that, when they park next to you they actually use the kick panels to kick the door open and leave ugly dents/dings in your side. I'd liks to see technology made to prevent that too.

[Magallanes @ Feb 18th 2008 11:06AM]

And overtrusting on a system that give just a limited coverage?.

no way.

[Jimmy Jones @ Feb 18th 2008 10:51AM]

@Flashpoint "Thats what happens when you get these small people behind the wheels of big SUVS"

I agree with you on that point...the most I've seen are extremely short or tiny women who sit behind (may be their bf/husband's truck) Tundra or F-150-250 and etc and they drive like they can see every blind spot. I don't get how they can see if they're just too short. There should be a law for that..."if you're a women n this sooo tall, u can't drive this biggg truck cuz u can't see the back"

[Kelmon @ Feb 18th 2008 11:26AM]

Who cares about this? I was more impressed by the BMW that was capable of driving a full speed lap around the Top Gear test track, complete with Clarkson shitting his pants. I'm a control-freak and understand why he'd be terrified (I'd have been more so had the wife been driving, mind...) but the commute to work where you can let the car do the driving is getting ever closer. Just imagine the fun and games to be had with that technology, this, and GPS "issues"... Time to start walking.

[MacroEQ @ Feb 18th 2008 11:52AM]

The downside is that people may be more inclined to use their mobiles whilst at the wheel. This technology won't stop you running over a child or reversing over a little old lady.

[Graham @ Feb 18th 2008 12:13PM]

As a motorcyclist I'm accustomed to drivers not seeing me on the road, this technology is not likely to see me either.

[Peter @ Feb 18th 2008 1:50PM]

There's a major problem with a system like this that only monitors the car infront. Suppose there were 5 cars in a row. Driving a cars length between them. The 1st car steps on the breaks, then second car waits .25 seconds before its breaking system kicks and the next car waits .25 seconds after the second car breaks etc... by the time the last car reacts it reacts a full second behind the first.

Once people start thinking these things work great and there becomes a flux of people texting, calling, and reading we're in a lot of trouble.

[skulldriveshaft @ Feb 18th 2008 9:47PM]

When was the last time you saw X number of cars, 1 car length apart, at high speed on a public road?

You ever been behind a vehicle on an incline that has a manual transmission?

This is technology evolving to compensate for the designs of vehicles that have no regard for peripheral visibility, what was the last car you drove that gave you clear sight lines to all corners? For me it was a Mini Cooper, that's pretty much glass all around, the rear view mirrors though require some advanced positioning, their shape limits visibility, forcing shoulder checks, hence the clear sight lines I mentioned.

Personally I would like a car that avoids hitting other things, it kinda makes up for the person that's sitting behind the wheel who either doesn't care to learn, or is distracted to the point of endangering others and themselves. It would at least save cars from being bumped in tandem parking situations, cramped garages, and if the reaction time of the braking is faster than you, it could make the speed of impact low enough that you don't spend a few days in hospital.

What I'm looking for my vehicle is a back-up sensor related item, something that makes a sound when another vehicle is in front of me, and the distance between is not enough for the speed I am traveling, think ~1 second for every 10 clicks on the speedometer, now that would be worth it.

[Jim Bailey @ Feb 18th 2008 1:58PM]

We should pay more attention to the road, our speed and spacing (AKA situational awareness). While this new technology will be useful in cretin potential accidents, it will not be too useful until the car BEHIND you has it also.

I also am concerned that drivers may start to rely on the auto-braking system, instead of paying attention.

[tyecies @ Feb 18th 2008 2:17PM]

Another thing this article forgot to mention is that one of the largest causes of Traffic is drivers overbraking. The study I read mentioned that if 1 in 4 (or 1 in 5, can't remember) cars used this radar assisted cruise control system, Traffic could eased by 50% or something like that

[phanbouy @ Feb 18th 2008 3:41PM]

i'm always shocked by how much people abuse their breaks. i see people out on the freeway breaking for what seems like no reason. there needs to be questions about _coasting_ on driver license exams. there's more to do besides accelerate and hit the brakes people! leave some friggin following distance; you're slowing traffic.