City Safety....hmmm

[Clan]

I doubt it as the camera is more sensitive with a higher resolution than the old 640 x 480 VGA one for one thing .. and probably a different radar pattern too , more powerful ABS pump etc etc ..

[John_C]

In response to your comments regarding your original post I have to say you had to expect some sort of reaction. What you post is my only way of judging your actions, I don't know you, I don't know how you drive, you may well generally be a safe and considerate driver, however going on your post it didn't seem that way.

No-one's perfect, and god knows I have on occasion done things which in retrospect I've thought "mmmm, not clever John, being a bit of an arsehole there weren't you?". I suspect most people have. To have one of those moments and then post about it on the forum in the context of how a safety system's response to my driving made my actions dangerous? No, I don't think I could expect to do that without a fairly vigorous reaction.

Your point about city safety not detecting that the object is moving out of your way is more than likely correct. I'd guess the system will just have detected an object in front of you which, if you didn't take avoiding action, you were going to hit. It doesn't know you're in control and intending to leave your braking late, it is all about mitigating or hopefully preventing low speed shunts due to driver inattention.

I do think your point is valid in that objects traversing across the front of you where you are moving towards them at low speed could be an undesirable situation for the city safety system to trigger, it's something people are going to have to learn about and adapt their driving accordingly. It's easy to say "you shouldn't have been so close to them" but I've never experienced the system kicking in so maybe you are right and it was oversensitive in that situation.

Regardless of how safe you feel the manoeuvre was, and whatever the limitations of city safety, the fact remains you intentionally drove a honking great 4x4 at another vehicle in an attempt to intimidate them/"teach them a lesson". The point you are making about the city safety system may well be valid and warrant further discussion, but it's that initial action which is indefensible and IMO it is that which is causing the reaction you are getting.

Cheers,
John

[ianu]

Hi all,
Interesting thread - and dare I say but there but for the grace of God...

It's an excellent example of machine v human and taking the control out of our hands ( I recall a plane that took a similar decision with disastrous results).
Anyway - thanks for sharing the experience Tangy - I think the point here is that Volvo tend to be selling this as a system that will typically avoid the low speed 'rear end' type collisions (there but for the grace...etc.) that are all too common on roundabouts and T junctions etc. - but we should not forget that the thing is always awake and it sees things fairly black or white. If the object in front isn't getting any further away - AND you're getting nearer AND it doesn't detect any input from you - IT will take over.. hmmm.

SO good lesson for all of here - if you're following an XC60 onto a roundabout or other junction - AND you're not in one yourself.... leave an extra few feet just in case it decides to stand itself on it's nose - thanks for sharing Tangy..

Cheers
Ia.

[rippedoffagain]

Originally Posted by ianu

SO good lesson for all of here - if you're following an XC60 onto a roundabout or other junction - AND you're not in one yourself.... leave an extra few feet just in case it decides to stand itself on it's nose - thanks for sharing Tangy..

I would say that doesn't just apply to XC60s, but applies to any vehicle. You should always allow enough room in front of you to stop with crashing, no matter what the car in front does. We must remember that people make mistakes, and I've seen some beauties over the years (and made a few myself), as I'm sure we all have. I bet most of us have, at least once, set off onto a roundabout thinking its clear, then at the last second realised the vehicle to your right is actually moving faster than you first thought, and had to jump on the brake to let him past. We must also not rule the very real possibility that the driver in front of us is a complete idiot. I've seen people randomly jam on their brakes for no apparent reason, or jam them on because they've suddenly realised that the turn off they've just past was the one they wanted, or they've spotted their friend walking along the pavement or whatever.

[andy_d]

To be honest here, as long as this "saftey" system puts the rear brake lights on i cant see a issue with its opperation. Its designed to stop the car with it hitting the one in front of it at lower speeds, "city traffic speeds" one would guess. Doesnt matter that the car in front is going With the direction of the car or accross its path it senses "distance closing, no driver input to brake, Min threshold reached = stop car".

i do have a "hum" tho, ABS when it came out was a saftey aid, then Certain types of driver started to use it so they can get away with going faster (inapropriately so) ,leaving there breaking to the last second then hammering them on, and causing metal/tin cars to bend in doing so. If this gets used by the same type as "well i dont have think the car will stop me", i can see there being a small issue or 3,especially if the system fails to function for which ever reason.

Guess im saying If its used in conjunction with sensible driving and awareness then it should be a good thing, abuse/rely on it in place of sensible driving and "oh dear" is going to happen.

Basically chap, orriginal poster, if you were That close to the car the system activated and stopped you, Good, stopped one more clown in a 4x4 bullying other road users. For that was your intent, to bully/teach a lesson. Please ammend your thought processes on this, for one day you Will meet a driver you bully like that and the outcome wont be "nice".
Please , feel free to be upset at me for saying "clown in a 4X4", your actions earnt you it so enjoy it .

[tangey]

I had a quick read of the city safety info in the manual, and it states that it only works fully when the object is travelling in the same direction as you. So it is indeed covered in the manual.

[wimorrison]

Originally Posted by John_C

In response to your comments regarding your original post I have to say you had to expect some sort of reaction. ......

.... Regardless of how safe you feel the manoeuvre was, and whatever the limitations of city safety, the fact remains you intentionally drove a honking great 4x4 at another vehicle in an attempt to intimidate them/"teach them a lesson". The point you are making about the city safety system may well be valid and warrant further discussion, but it's that initial action which is indefensible and IMO it is that which is causing the reaction you are getting.

Cheers,
John

John,

A very reasoned and well written response to the original post. I may have been strong in my original comment, that does not remove the sentiment that I felt, and I think that you have managed to put the point very succinctly.

As a fellow 4x4 driver I hear comments that we are irresponsible and bully others with the size and constructions of our cars and the driving style adopted by some people. Regreattably that statement is often true and I hope that I am considerate and never end up in that group of ignorant drivers, especially they ones that think they have a right to 'teach others a lesson'

Again, excellent response, hopefully the content will be taken as sound advice by the poster.

Iain

[NCS XC90]

Guys,
To turn this back into a technical subject rather than the choices made that led to this situation I have been thinking about this and “how should the car react”. The truth is that even with something passing in front of you the only reasonable response is to break at an appropriate rate to miss the object. In theory I guess it possible for a system to judge the speed of the object moving across your path and therefore only apply adequate breaking to allow the object to move out of your way and not apply too much deceleration. However what would happen if that object also decided to slow down as it crossed your path? I think you will find you end up hitting it even though there was enough space to safely stop if the correct action had been taken at the appropriate (earlier) decision point.
Understand this causes a problem for the car behind and I just hope they are a safe distance. I think it’s a great system and would have it on my xc90 any day. Don’t get me wrong I think it’s a “nice to have” but it would be on my shopping list.

Anyone see this differently?

Neil

[Pebble]

I guess it all depends on how long the vehicle in front is, as well as how fast it is moving. I agree no option other than for the system to see the distance to the object and how quickly you are closing in on it. Far too much guess work to estimate if it will have moved out of your way in time.

But also far better to avoid such incident, I hope I never need to use the system for real and try to drive so that I don't.

Originally Posted by NCS XC90

Guys,
To turn this back into a technical subject rather than the choices made that led to this situation I have been thinking about this and “how should the car react”. The truth is that even with something passing in front of you the only reasonable response is to break at an appropriate rate to miss the object. In theory I guess it possible for a system to judge the speed of the object moving across your path and therefore only apply adequate breaking to allow the object to move out of your way and not apply too much deceleration. However what would happen if that object also decided to slow down as it crossed your path? I think you will find you end up hitting it even though there was enough space to safely stop if the correct action had been taken at the appropriate (earlier) decision point.
Neil

[error-id10t]

Originally Posted by Clan

I doubt it as the camera is more sensitive with a higher resolution than the old 640 x 480 VGA one for one thing .. and probably a different radar pattern too , more powerful ABS pump etc etc ..

We'll ask during the next scheduled check-up. I can't see why the firmware upgrade wouldn't be able to enable most of the tech to work like the new one.

The ABS is there already and all the tech would need to do is engage it at 100% instead of whatever it is now (if that's one of the differences).

The current one already picks up motor-cycles and bikes etc, even though it's not meant to... anyway, it's nice to have and if it can be made 'better', all good.