[Jeroen]

Oops, back to the drawing board!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8nnhUCtcO8

Originally Posted by Digital Trends

The incident was caught on camera, something that is seemingly inevitable in today’s world. The 30-second video shows the XC60 slowly backing up, stopping for a few seconds, then surging toward participants and hitting two of them head-on. Luckily, according to the blog that uploaded the footage, the two men were “bruised but OK.” There’s no word on what shape the XC60 is in.

Volvo, a company known for building some of the world’s safest cars, was quick to respond to the incident. A spokesperson told the website DailyMail that the most likely scenario is that the XC60 used during the demonstration was quite simply not equipped with Pedestrian Detection.

The company added that, for safety reasons, it’s possible to override the Pedestrian Detection system by accelerating, which is precisely what the driver did in the video. Finally, Volvo points out that it’s never a good idea to tests safety systems on human beings.

Source

[Vid6639]

Volvo issued a clarification on the same.

http://overdrive.in/news/volvo-issue...own-man-video/

A film has been circulated online that claims to show a demonstration of a “Self-Driving” or “Self-Parking” Volvo XC60. This is factually incorrect

· This car was being driven by a human being. Moreover, this vehicle was not fitted with Pedestrian Detection, a Volvo safety system designed to identify pedestrians and apply a vehicle’s brakes

· Instead, this vehicle was fitted with a feature called City Safety, which is standard in all Volvos

· This system contributes to safer driving in heavy city traffic by avoiding or mitigating rear end collisions with other vehicles in low speeds by braking

· There was nothing wrong with the car itself. The unfortunate incident happened only due to human error

[Raosaheb Desai]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Volvo issued a clarification on the same.

http://overdrive.in/news/volvo-issue...own-man-video/

Thanks for sharing the clarification.
City safety system does work perfectly and saved me once from knocking a biker who crossed abruptly!!!
IMO this safety feature is too sensitive for our kind of traffic.So instead of switching it off ,I now drive with more care and keep safe distance from vehicle ahead.

[Rehaan]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Volvo issued a clarification on the same.

There was nothing wrong with the car itself. The unfortunate incident happened only due to human error

What about marketing error?

It's one of those marketing dilemmas where you don't want to make one feature sound worse than the other, so you try and make them both sound very capable.

I feel like a lot of people (auto-journalists included) have run into problems when testing Volvos -- mostly because they didn't understand what systems the car had, what exactly the system did, or how they operated.

I'm not blaming Volvo here, but it certainly is food for thought.

[msdivy]

Really brave of the man to volunteer as test mule.

[sumeethaldankar]

"Bruised but ok", the guy seemed hit pretty bad. I really wonder why they did not use something like a mannequin or cardboard cut out to test out the feature which was thought to be present in the car.

[Rehaan]

Originally Posted by sumeethaldankar

"Bruised but ok", the guy seemed hit pretty bad.

True!

This is a testament to the effectiveness of pedestrian safety norms!

• Plastic bumpers (metal ones would have broken his femur in this case)
• No sharp edges on the front end or elsewhere (maximizes contact area, reduces point-pressure and therefore injury)
• No 'pop-up' headlamps (Sorry NSX :'( )
• Hood must be raised X cm above all engine components beneath (acts as a great impact absorbent, like a metal trampoline)
• Plastic lens headlamps (softer, no glass injuries or pieces left on the road)
• Wipers tucked behind the bonnet edge (rather than being exposed in their earlier cranium-puncturing position)
• The list goes on....

If the volunteer was hit by a Padmini or Tata Sierra, he probably wouldn't have gotten off so easy


PS - There's even pop-up hoods & under-the-hood airbags for pedestrians!

source

And the FUTURE of pedestrian safety design! Announced on April 1st

source

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by sumeethaldankar

I really wonder why they did not use something like a mannequin or cardboard cut out to test out the feature which was thought to be present in the car.

I think they took the concept of "Human trials" rather seriously.

If they didn't try it on real humans, then it is not real.

[GTO]

Reminds me of the Mercedes auto-brake fiasco.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYY7OfQ4-5A

Mercedes-Benz has been left red-faced and a German motoring journalist has been sacked following revelations that they conspired to doctor a crash-avoidance test to gain exposure on one of Germany's highest rating television programs.

Source

Originally Posted by Rehaan

I feel like a lot of people (auto-journalists included) have run into problems when testing Volvos -- mostly because they didn't understand what systems the car had, what exactly the system did, or how they operated.

Volvo too failed to understand its own systems here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jClxcSBNwcw

[TwentyDeewar]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Oops, back to the drawing board!

Incidents like this sometimes make me wonder if there is an over-reliance on technology in the name of safety. I mean, sure, Volvo has clarified that the car wasn't equipped with the system which would have made it stop - but the point is, will drivers behave differently if they believe that they are invincible? For example, will I speed up in a situation I would normally slow down, believing that the car will take care of any exigency? Will this quest for building "the safest car" spawn unsafe drivers?

[psispace]

Thats' a very popular video doing rounds of the internet.

It is unfortunate that they tested it without checking the car. After seeing the impact I was sure that guy must be having a couple of broken bones at least. Surprised that he escaped with only bruises.

Like Rehaan said, its' a testament to the pedestrian safety norms that were introduced years ago.

The anti-collision feature requires it to be activated via the In Car menu.



This comes selected 'on' as default but can be temporarily deactivated for 'unique' purposes if required.

It is also possible to switch it off via a button on the center console.One can actually hit this button inadvertently while putting the gear in 'P' mode.



I initially thought it must have been one such error that caused this crash.
Its' appalling that according to Volvo's response, the showroom people didn't know that this particular car didn't have Pedestrian detection. (Or they must be just covering their tracks). I certainly hope that video was not being taken by a Volvo executive.

Rest assured, that poor guy is not going to go near any Volvo any time soon.

I saw those 4 year old video bloopers ( that GTO has posted above) after I had booked the car in 2011 and was quite apprehensive then.

I also subsequently saw this reassuring video after I had purchased the car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ZNG8cmnlw

I am now indeed relieved that they are all functional and have saved me on many an occasion. Au contraire, they have also intervened when I didn't want them to.

Whatever active safety systems we put in cars, they are not idiot proof. If the guy behind the wheel is not careful, these systems can only limit the damage.

It has also to be considered that these systems are not as effective at night. The lights on our roads are sometimes not enough for the on-board cameras to detect vehicles and pedestrian shapes to activate the auto brake. This warning is highlighted in the user manual. I guess you need infrared cameras for that.

I even very often get the 'radar blocked' warning when it rains, in which situation one cannot use the adaptive cruise control either.

These systems give you an added range of security. However one should not drive with a sense of complete security.

There is no substitute for alertness and intuition.
(Until they bring out the fully automated cars. Ah, now there lies another topic for discussion!)

[V.Narayan]

The automatic city safety has got triggered in my driving life, with the XC60, three times in a little over 5200 kms. On each occasion it was in slow merging from three directions sort of traffic (at below 20 kmph) with some chap with a train to catch cutting in ahead all of a sudden. The system works quite well. It is not a substitute for careful driving but an aid to better safety. Why would someone deliberately de-activate the City Safety first and then do a demonstration on a live person. Common sense would indicate that a de-activated system will not work unless the objective was to slander Volvo.

[Kenneth Keymer]

Moral of the story; Be alert, Drive Safe because no matter how much you may shell out for safety's sake or whatever your fate and the fate of those around you rests in your Hands.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by TwentyDeewar

but the point is, will drivers behave differently if they believe that they are invincible? For example, will I speed up in a situation I would normally slow down, believing that the car will take care of any exigency? Will this quest for building "the safest car" spawn unsafe drivers?

There is some evidence that adding safety features does lead to drivers taking some more risks. Be it settles, ABS, airbags etc.

I guess it is all down how vulnerable you feel on the road. I used to have an old Citroen 2CV. Small, light car. Lots of fun, but in modern day traffic you would definitely feel vulnerable. Never feel vulnerable in say my Jeep Cherokee, or my Jaguar.

Mind you, when I look around me on the Indian roads there appears to be plenty of drivers that are at least behaving as if they are completely and utterly invincible already! No matter what they drive.

So there is probably some cultural, if not also religious, part to how one behaves irrespective of technology.

Jeroen

[W.A.G.7]

Too much control handed over to the machines I say! While driving, I wouldn't want the car to be in control of my driving. With so much techno-gadgetry, I feel it takes the fun out of driving the car. I would rely on my own instincts rather than rely on that pedestrian safety system installed in the car.

Going by the situation on Indian roads, where every few meters, a couple of people come very near to bumping into you; activating this system in the car, and if it works correctly; could result in the car auto braking constantly! Try driving that car in a congested market area in India and they would have to do a lot of improvements to their own well designed systems!