5 ms·

A gun manufacturer handing out protective vests to school kids. Instead of this stunt, maybe they should focus on building cars and particularly trucks that ar

A gun manufacturer handing out protective vests to school kids. Instead of this stunt, maybe they should focus on building cars and particularly trucks that are not unsafe by default. All this talk of blind angle obscures the basic fact that this is first and foremost an engineering problem, and most importantly, you can not turn the defects of your vehicle into the responsibility of other road users. If your vehicle isn't safe, it can not be driven. The solution is certainly not to tell everyone else to just watch out because you can't see shit left and right and man is this thing large and heavy.

tormeh 11y ago
I believe Volvo's are some of the nicest cars you can collide with as a pedestrian/cyclist. Yes, a car is an insane concept, but I'm not sure you're barking up the right tree here.
- revelation 11y ago
  Oh really? http://www.euractiv.com/sections/transport/eu-truck-safety-and-efficiency-law-faces-delay-until-2019-310740 http://www.euractiv.com/sections/transport/eu-truck-safety-a... Volvo, for instance, began rolling out new designs in 2012, so it could be at a disadvantage if competitors introduce more up-to-date models in the near future. Wait guys, we just brought out these shitty unsafe trucks recently, we can't be making safe ones already! We'll take 10 years, thank you very much. Seriously, fuck them. They delay improved safety designs for trucks (with extremely mild changes, nonetheless) and then tell people to spray themselves with reflective plastic. In retrospect, the gun analogy was way too tame. Gun manufacturers don't want kids killed, but Volvo is pushing for more of them to be run over.
  - vomitcuddle 11y ago
    Volvo Car Corporation and Volvo Trucks are owned by different companies
    - revelation 11y ago
      You say this as if the particular organizational structure of a company has any bearing on the matter at hand. I think that's a ridiculous notion. If you're happy with your Volvo, feel free to replace that make with any other you don't like. All the same, really.
      - tormeh 11y ago
        Look, they're not the same thing. Volvo is a Swedish corporation that makes heavy vehicles and their engines, e.g. buses, trucks, construction equipment and ship engines. Volvo Car Corporation is a subsidiary of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group. They used to be owned by Ford or something. It's totally their fault that it's confusing, though, I'll give you that, but you're still wrong.
- bnegreve 11y ago
  > Volvo's are some of the nicest cars you can collide with as a pedestrian/cyclist What does this mean?
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    That many volvos have the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in mind in the design. Most of it of course to avoid colliding in the first place (such as cyclist and pedestrian detection systems), but the design has elements that protects pedestrians in a collision too, such as soft elements in the front of the car, a special hood and external airbag for pedestrians, and so on. http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2013-02/volvos-new-airbags-protect-pedestrians-too http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2013-02/volvos-new-airbag...
    - bnegreve 11y ago
      Ok thanks, I had no idea.
onion2k 11y ago
The solution is certainly not to tell everyone else to just watch out because you can't see shit left and right and man is this thing large and heavy. The compromise is technology to make things as safe as possible.
bnegreve 11y ago
To be honest, as long as we (citizens) accept to have vehicles driven by humans inside our cities, this has little to do with Volvo.
jsingleton 11y ago
Agreed. This feels like a sticking plaster when Volvo could do so much more to help safety. Like with the design of their vehicles. These Volvo SUVs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_XC90 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_XC90) are very popular where I live and they are huge, with poor driver visibility. I was almost reversed into by one only a few days ago. I was waiting for a gap in the traffic to pull out of a side road with another cyclist. The SUV turned in to the side road, discovered that this road was not passable for motor vehicles and attempted to reverse into us. Luckily I noticed what was occurring and intervened. I have no idea how they failed to see us when pulling in and in their mirrors.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  As far as SUV's go, you probably picked the absolutely safest one made on the planet for cyclists. It's the only car I know that has a cyclist detection system with auto breaking as standard equipment. It will never be as safe for pedestrians and cyclists as a small vehicle, but let's not blame manufacturers for making cars of different sizes. I think it's the job of legislators to tax the hell out of gas and large vehicles, then let the consumer decide. The job of the manufacturer is to make the product people want, and make it as safe as possible. I can't see where Volvo could do any better with the XC90 really. Do you?
alkonaut 11y ago
> Instead of this stunt, maybe they should focus on building cars and particularly trucks that are not unsafe by default. I'd say that in the last 10 years, the largest growth in car accessories in premium brands have been safety gadgets. Volvo is probably class leading in providing these things as standard on new models, rather than optional accessories. http://www.volvocars.com/us/about/our-innovations/intellisafe http://www.volvocars.com/us/about/our-innovations/intellisaf...
dceddia 11y ago
I'm continually dismayed by the lack of visibility in modern vehicles. It seems like every new model year increases size and weight while decreasing visibility. Take a look at cars from the 90s, and notice how much of their upper body is glass versus pillars or whatever. I drove a 1995 VW Golf for a number of years -- that thing was like driving around in a glass bubble compared to cars made today. Surely, safety concerns/regulations are partly to blame for bulkier pillars and body parts, but I get the feeling that manufacturers just aren't investing engineering dollars in better visibility.
- userbinator 11y ago
  Aerodynamics (and thus fuel efficiency) could be another factor - even with the Volvos, compare the boxier 240/740/850 vs the later, more rounded models; the sloping curves are more aerodynamic but definitely make it harder to see exactly where the edges of the car are and what's around it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%2780-%2782_Volvo_240DL_Sedan.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%2780-%2782_Volvo_240DL_S... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_Volvo_S60_--_NHTSA_1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_Volvo_S60_--_NHTSA_1...
  - dceddia 11y ago
    Fuel efficiency is another interesting stat that seems to not have improved much since the mid 90s. Tighter emissions standards are probably the reason, but it's funny to see new cars advertising "35mpg!" when 1995 VWs could pull that off easily.
    - scrumper 11y ago
      I don't think you're right there at all. Taking your specific example, a '95 Golf got about 24mpg (combined cycle). Today, the 2 liter gasoline engine gets ~36 combined. That's despite the '95 golf having a curb weight of around 2,500lbs, and the 2015 being over 3,000lbs. Don't forget that since the '90s, European and USA crash safety legislation has caused very large increases in vehicle mass. Airbags, collapsing structures, side impact beams, rollover protection all are required now. And finally (though you didn't mention this), the crappy visibility of today's cars is directly as a result of increases in crash safety standards: poor visibility is a function of thick A, B, and C pillars; they are thicker today because cars have to stand up to more. Edit to add: This video shows a 50+ year old Chevy Bel Air in a head on, offset collision with a modern Chevrolet grey box. No analysis, and I'm not putting it here to add weight to any point, but it does show that we have made some progress. http://oppositelock.kinja.com/classic-car-vs-modern-car-safety-1642008672 http://oppositelock.kinja.com/classic-car-vs-modern-car-safe...

tormeh 11y ago

I believe Volvo's are some of the nicest cars you can collide with as a pedestrian/cyclist. Yes, a car is an insane concept, but I'm not sure you're barking up the right tree here.

revelation 11y ago
Oh really? http://www.euractiv.com/sections/transport/eu-truck-safety-and-efficiency-law-faces-delay-until-2019-310740 http://www.euractiv.com/sections/transport/eu-truck-safety-a... Volvo, for instance, began rolling out new designs in 2012, so it could be at a disadvantage if competitors introduce more up-to-date models in the near future. Wait guys, we just brought out these shitty unsafe trucks recently, we can't be making safe ones already! We'll take 10 years, thank you very much. Seriously, fuck them. They delay improved safety designs for trucks (with extremely mild changes, nonetheless) and then tell people to spray themselves with reflective plastic. In retrospect, the gun analogy was way too tame. Gun manufacturers don't want kids killed, but Volvo is pushing for more of them to be run over.
- vomitcuddle 11y ago
  Volvo Car Corporation and Volvo Trucks are owned by different companies
  - revelation 11y ago
    You say this as if the particular organizational structure of a company has any bearing on the matter at hand. I think that's a ridiculous notion. If you're happy with your Volvo, feel free to replace that make with any other you don't like. All the same, really.
    - tormeh 11y ago
      Look, they're not the same thing. Volvo is a Swedish corporation that makes heavy vehicles and their engines, e.g. buses, trucks, construction equipment and ship engines. Volvo Car Corporation is a subsidiary of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group. They used to be owned by Ford or something. It's totally their fault that it's confusing, though, I'll give you that, but you're still wrong.
bnegreve 11y ago
> Volvo's are some of the nicest cars you can collide with as a pedestrian/cyclist What does this mean?
- alkonaut 11y ago
  That many volvos have the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in mind in the design. Most of it of course to avoid colliding in the first place (such as cyclist and pedestrian detection systems), but the design has elements that protects pedestrians in a collision too, such as soft elements in the front of the car, a special hood and external airbag for pedestrians, and so on. http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2013-02/volvos-new-airbags-protect-pedestrians-too http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2013-02/volvos-new-airbag...
  - bnegreve 11y ago
    Ok thanks, I had no idea.

onion2k 11y ago

The solution is certainly not to tell everyone else to just watch out because you can't see shit left and right and man is this thing large and heavy. The compromise is technology to make things as safe as possible.

bnegreve 11y ago

To be honest, as long as we (citizens) accept to have vehicles driven by humans inside our cities, this has little to do with Volvo.

jsingleton 11y ago

Agreed. This feels like a sticking plaster when Volvo could do so much more to help safety. Like with the design of their vehicles. These Volvo SUVs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_XC90 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_XC90) are very popular where I live and they are huge, with poor driver visibility. I was almost reversed into by one only a few days ago. I was waiting for a gap in the traffic to pull out of a side road with another cyclist. The SUV turned in to the side road, discovered that this road was not passable for motor vehicles and attempted to reverse into us. Luckily I noticed what was occurring and intervened. I have no idea how they failed to see us when pulling in and in their mirrors.

alkonaut 11y ago
As far as SUV's go, you probably picked the absolutely safest one made on the planet for cyclists. It's the only car I know that has a cyclist detection system with auto breaking as standard equipment. It will never be as safe for pedestrians and cyclists as a small vehicle, but let's not blame manufacturers for making cars of different sizes. I think it's the job of legislators to tax the hell out of gas and large vehicles, then let the consumer decide. The job of the manufacturer is to make the product people want, and make it as safe as possible. I can't see where Volvo could do any better with the XC90 really. Do you?

alkonaut 11y ago

> Instead of this stunt, maybe they should focus on building cars and particularly trucks that are not unsafe by default. I'd say that in the last 10 years, the largest growth in car accessories in premium brands have been safety gadgets. Volvo is probably class leading in providing these things as standard on new models, rather than optional accessories. http://www.volvocars.com/us/about/our-innovations/intellisafe http://www.volvocars.com/us/about/our-innovations/intellisaf...

dceddia 11y ago

I'm continually dismayed by the lack of visibility in modern vehicles. It seems like every new model year increases size and weight while decreasing visibility. Take a look at cars from the 90s, and notice how much of their upper body is glass versus pillars or whatever. I drove a 1995 VW Golf for a number of years -- that thing was like driving around in a glass bubble compared to cars made today. Surely, safety concerns/regulations are partly to blame for bulkier pillars and body parts, but I get the feeling that manufacturers just aren't investing engineering dollars in better visibility.

userbinator 11y ago
Aerodynamics (and thus fuel efficiency) could be another factor - even with the Volvos, compare the boxier 240/740/850 vs the later, more rounded models; the sloping curves are more aerodynamic but definitely make it harder to see exactly where the edges of the car are and what's around it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%2780-%2782_Volvo_240DL_Sedan.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%2780-%2782_Volvo_240DL_S... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_Volvo_S60_--_NHTSA_1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_Volvo_S60_--_NHTSA_1...
- dceddia 11y ago
  Fuel efficiency is another interesting stat that seems to not have improved much since the mid 90s. Tighter emissions standards are probably the reason, but it's funny to see new cars advertising "35mpg!" when 1995 VWs could pull that off easily.
  - scrumper 11y ago
    I don't think you're right there at all. Taking your specific example, a '95 Golf got about 24mpg (combined cycle). Today, the 2 liter gasoline engine gets ~36 combined. That's despite the '95 golf having a curb weight of around 2,500lbs, and the 2015 being over 3,000lbs. Don't forget that since the '90s, European and USA crash safety legislation has caused very large increases in vehicle mass. Airbags, collapsing structures, side impact beams, rollover protection all are required now. And finally (though you didn't mention this), the crappy visibility of today's cars is directly as a result of increases in crash safety standards: poor visibility is a function of thick A, B, and C pillars; they are thicker today because cars have to stand up to more. Edit to add: This video shows a 50+ year old Chevy Bel Air in a head on, offset collision with a modern Chevrolet grey box. No analysis, and I'm not putting it here to add weight to any point, but it does show that we have made some progress. http://oppositelock.kinja.com/classic-car-vs-modern-car-safety-1642008672 http://oppositelock.kinja.com/classic-car-vs-modern-car-safe...