Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Volvo teams up with POC for collision avoiding helmet that 'talks' to cars

Swedish car manufacturer claims world first in road safety with wearable technology aimed at avoiding collisions

Volvo has teamed up with POC and mobile communications specialist Ericsson to unveil wearable technology that will alert cyclists and car drivers to each other’s presence by enabling cars to ‘talk’ to cycle helmets.

The technology, claimed to be a world first, will be unveiled at next month’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nevada.

According to the Sweden-based car manufacturer, “The technology consists of a connected car and helmet prototype that will establish 2-way communication offering proximity alerts to Volvo drivers and cyclists and thereby avoid accidents.”

A smartphone app enables the precise location of cyclists and vehicles to be logged on Volvo's cloud database. When a collision is deemed imminent, a head-up display warns the driver, while a warning light on the helmet also alerts the cyclist.

Volvo adds: “No car manufacturer has previously put a stake in the ground to help address the problem by using Connected Safety technology – until now.”

Clearly there are limitations to the real-world application of the technology. Not everyone chooses to wear a cycle helmet – let alone one made by POC – and Volvo has a tiny share of the car market in countries such as the UK.

Moreover, it may be doubtful, given current limitations in GPS technology and smartphone data speeds, whether such warnings could come in time to prevent a crash happening.

But, it’s certainly an indication of the way technology aimed at preventing road traffic collisions could be going in the coming years.

We certainly wouldn’t discount the notion that a few years down the line, cars could be equipped with non-proprietary technology that intervenes when a cyclist or pedestrian is at risk of a collision.

Meanwhile, products aimed at warning cyclists of the presence of vehicles behind them are already being developed, such as this one from York University.

So to have the two communicating with one another - outside the confines of a single system - wouldn’t seem to be too much of a stretch.

For its part, Volvo has a vision of zero serious injuries or deaths of occupants of its vehicles by 2020, and also of reducing casualties among vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians.

The vehicle manufacturer puts technology firmly at the centre of that philosophy, and its Volvo Trucks division, for example has previously announced it is working on systems to detect cyclists and pedestrians.

The company’s focus on a technological approach to reduce road casualties, however, is believed to be partly behind the resistance on Sweden’s part – the country is home to both Volvo and Scania – to changes to EU regulations that would permit the design of lorries that campaigners say would be safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

37 comments

Avatar
Matt eaton | 9 years ago
0 likes

I tend to agree that there is not much foundation for fears about automated vehicles in the real world. Any thoughts on how these vehicles might change our lives is purely speculation and, as you point out, the technology is a long way from being ready to release in a production vehicle. I think that my concerns are somewhat valid but they are undermined by the fact that it will be so long before any self-drive technology actually reaches our roads.

By the time we have self-driving cars we might be in a situation where cycling on the road is a thing of the past anyway.

Avatar
jacknorell | 9 years ago
0 likes

Just to clarify, when I say car sharing I mean like Zip Car, not neighbours pooling their car/s. Sort of an on-demand fractional ownership or rental from a pool of vehicles. I.e. a taxi without the driver.

I agree with the issue of drivers becoming impatient, though likely the same pool of psychos who already endanger vulnerable road users because it's their road tax privilege...!

In any case, will be interesting to see what comes of it.

Avatar
Matt eaton | 9 years ago
0 likes

Good points, and I should be clear in saying that I'm not fundementally opposed to driverless cars and I concede the inevitibility of them becoming commonplace. The technology is both interesting and useful. I do hope that the reality is that they improve the world we live in rather than the opposite.

I do disagree with a coulple of your points. Firstly, on car sharing. I don't think that self-driving cars will encourage people to car-share in the current sense of the term. People don't lean away from car sharing because it's difficult but because they wish to be independant. They don't want to have to consider a car-share buddy in their plans for the day. I can envisage the posibility of a household sharing a single car instead of having multiple vehicles e.g. Mr. Bloggs takes the car to work and sends it home for Mrs. Bloggs to take to the shops who sends it back to pick up Mr. Bloggs from work at the end of the day. This could mean fewer cars in total but might actually increase the number on the roads at any given time as they drive around with nobody in them.

I agree that whilst non-automated vehicles are common it's unlikely that speed limits would increase but in the longer term I think that it would be inevitable as the level of self-driving vehicles got close to 100%, especially out of town.

I would make the assumption that self-driving vehicles would be programmed to operate safely around vunerable road users. This might be a good thing as you suggest but it could also cause conflicts, particuarally whilst there is a mix of self-driving and non-automated vehicles. If a motorists percieve a delay due to being 'stuck' behind a self-driving vehicle that is waiting patiently for a safe opportunity to pass a bike I would expect their frustration to be directed at the cyclist (and cyclists in general). Some drivers would follow the good example of the driverless car but others would be more inclined to punishment passes etc.

Avatar
jacknorell | 9 years ago
0 likes

Thanks Matt, that does make sense.

I'm not sure it would work out that way, but I may be a bit idealistic here, or at least more positive about it knowing how bad people are at driving metal boxes at speed.

Yes, the car would be an even more appealing choice: But at least we'd not deal with drivers who'd rather be eating food or browsing the internet... because currently they end up doing both!

Not sure we'd need larger roads, in part because what you say about following distance etc. Also, car sharing is going to be much more appealing (automated pickup for example) and parking can be done in a more compact way as well.

I don't think speed limits would increase, there's no benefit in urban areas and a smooth traffic flow is actually faster anyway. There'd be non-automated cars for a long time, so a smooth predictable flow would have to be prioritised.

As far as following distance and bikes etc, it would be utterly trivial to program the vehicles to give more space to vulnerable users. That would also be consistent, so I'd think it'd be better, not worse. There's also mimicry; I'm sure you've noticed that when one driver gives you plenty of room, the next couple or so do as well before the rest revert to closer distances. Human drivers would behave the same following a self-driven car.

The general attitude to active travel: Maybe, maybe not. If cycling feels safer (I think it definitely would be objectively) then a lot of people really enjoy cycling, not just us 'nutters' who do it now. Nice weather days I'd say would be busier, while proper cold or rain may see even fewer than now (again, easy car-sharing with possible multi-pickup for several people sharing part/whole journeys).

One thing's for sure, this will happen. Urban areas first, then lorries, then everywhere.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 9 years ago
0 likes

I suspect if we ever get the 'self driving cars' that some (mistakenly in my view) think would be a good idea, helmets like this will quickly become compulsory.

Avatar
kie7077 replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 9 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I suspect if we ever get the 'self driving cars' that some (mistakenly in my view) think would be a good idea, helmets like this will quickly become compulsory.

Why do you think self driving cars are not good?

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to kie7077 | 9 years ago
0 likes
kie7077 wrote:
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I suspect if we ever get the 'self driving cars' that some (mistakenly in my view) think would be a good idea, helmets like this will quickly become compulsory.

Why do you think self driving cars are not good?

I share the view that self-driving cars might not be all they are cracked up to be.

I've no objection to the technology itself and if we consider it in isolation, assuming that driving habits/patterns will not change then it looks good. If we take a more realistic view and consider how self-driving cars might impact our transport choices, infrastructure design,road laws and general attitude to travel it's easy to see how this technology might make the roads more hostile for cyclists (and other road users).

Getting back to this particular article, it's worth pointing out that this technolgy is smart-phone based rather than helmet-based. There's probably a certain strength of feeling because of the 'helmet' element but in reality the helmet only provides a place to mount a light. The same technology could be applied to a handlebar mounted light or even a pair of glasses.

Avatar
jacknorell replied to Matt eaton | 9 years ago
0 likes
Matt eaton wrote:

I've no objection to the technology itself and if we consider it in isolation, assuming that driving habits/patterns will not change then it looks good. If we take a more realistic view and consider how self-driving cars might impact our transport choices, infrastructure design,road laws and general attitude to travel it's easy to see how this technology might make the roads more hostile for cyclists (and other road users).

Taking this proprietary tech out of consideration first.

Then, how is it 'easy to see' that self-driving cars may make the roads more hostile for vulnerable road users?

Humans driving are terrible at it already, computers don't have lapses of concentration or aggressive reactions. As Google's cars pool their learning, they already have many decades of accident-free driving experience, others will gain the same benefits.

At least I can't see the issues you do, so could you please outline them?

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to jacknorell | 9 years ago
0 likes
jacknorell wrote:
Matt eaton wrote:

I've no objection to the technology itself and if we consider it in isolation, assuming that driving habits/patterns will not change then it looks good. If we take a more realistic view and consider how self-driving cars might impact our transport choices, infrastructure design,road laws and general attitude to travel it's easy to see how this technology might make the roads more hostile for cyclists (and other road users).

Taking this proprietary tech out of consideration first.

Then, how is it 'easy to see' that self-driving cars may make the roads more hostile for vulnerable road users?

Humans driving are terrible at it already, computers don't have lapses of concentration or aggressive reactions. As Google's cars pool their learning, they already have many decades of accident-free driving experience, others will gain the same benefits.

At least I can't see the issues you do, so could you please outline them?

OK, I'll have a try.

I'll expand on the examples I gave before:
Transport choices - the car would become an even easier choice than it is already for many people. The ability to sleep, eat, work etc. in the car would make the car an even more attractive option. I'm not sure that I want to see more cars on the streets, even if they are perfectly driven.

Infrastructure design - more cars means more/larger roads and more multi-lane traffic systems. This type of infrastructure is not generally considered ideal for cyclists.

Road laws - With the development and adoption of this technology we could see an increase in speed limits and reduction in following distance. Just getting on to a busy commuter route on a bike could become very intimidating. I can also imagine bikes being banned from more roads to allow the benefits of this technology to be realised.

General attitude to travel - once we've all got self-driving cars that run on massive, complicated infrastructure and travelling safely at speeds well beyond current limits I can only imagine that active transport options will be even less actractive than they are now.

As I said before, if we were to assume that the only change in a move to self-driving cars would be that the driver would be eliminated then great, I'm all for it. I do think, however, that this assumption is naive.

Avatar
kie7077 replied to Matt eaton | 9 years ago
0 likes

@ Matt

I think these are mostly unfounded fears, if one hypothesises enough then yes autonomous cars can look bad.

Gaps between cars: Some cars already have breaking distance twice as good as other cars, because of this an autonomous car would have to assume the car in front has great breaks and hence leave a large gap - quite possibly bigger than the gap commonly seen between cars right now.

Speed: The only place I see the speed limit changing is on motorways. Speed kills - it kills just the same whether being hit by a normal car or an autonomous car. Autonomous car manufacturers replace the driver as being responsible for any deaths, they won't want a bad image and won't want their cars driving fast in areas where that will lead to people dying.

We aren't going to see fully autonomous cars anytime soon, the best prototype is the google car. The google car only works with every last detail being mapped so that the car can drive through it's virtual map (plus sensor data). The routes the google car drive are mapped repeatedly. Google have stated that this is prohibitively expensive and they would not be mapping countries in this way. Google don't have a prototype that doesn't work without this mapping as far as I know. Even with the extensive 3D mapping, the google car can't handle snow or rain.

Without a highly detailed virtual map, the autonomous car essentially has to create it's own virtual map on the fly, that means determining where every curb and road marking is. It would need to tell the difference between a sign, a person, a post box, a bush, parked car, a dog, a forklift etc etc, this sounds easy - it's not. Whilst some recognition systems may be into the 90% success range for recognising what objects are, in ideal conditions with a limited set of pre-determined objects, this clearly is nowhere near good enough. This rate of recognition is the result of several decades of research, it will most likely take several more decades for the recognition rate be good enough and fast enough to be suitable for autonomous cars.

They current hype about autonomous cars is exactly that - hype, by people who don't understand the underlying technologies.

Avatar
arowland | 9 years ago
0 likes

How long before a cyclist victim is regarded as partly to blame for own injuries/death because the batteries in his or her helmet were flat? Or s/he wasn't wearing one?

Cyclists should not have to have technology like this to make them safe. And as with so many so-called safety measures, it will have the opposite effect to the one intended as drivers come to rely on it rather than remaining alert. It would make the roads more dangerous for the majority of everyday cyclists who don't possess this junk.

Avatar
Matt eaton | 9 years ago
0 likes

Perhaps I'm thinking too small but I honestly can't work out how this would work in the real world.

I've been in two collisions with cars in the last couple of years, both due to drivers failing to give way on roundabouts. Would this technology give drivers a signal every time they approached a roundabout that had a cyclist on it or would the design assume that the driver would look properly and give way as required? Would the cyclist be notified of every car joining the roundabout or only those going too fast to stop in time?

Perhaps the notifications would only pop up if speeds and tradjectories indicated that a crash was inevitable, in which case it's difficult to see how anybody could take any avoiding action.

It seems to me that it would be very challenging to design a system that didn't either
a) notify users contantly that there are other vehicles close to them, resulting in the notifications being ignored
or
b) only notify users when its already too late to avoid a collision

Avatar
kie7077 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Ok, so you've forked out £300 for your car awareness hat, it beeps, then what? Dive off of the bike? Veer to the left sharply whilst mentally praying to god you don't get tun over?

Also note that since this isn't tech seperate from the helmet you have to pay for it every time you get a new helmet.

I'd like to hear an explanation from POC, Ericsson and Volvo explaining why the cyclists needs to be notified that there is a Volvo car in the vicinity, cyclists expect there to be cars on the road, how does this hat change anything for the cyclist?

Avatar
severs1966 replied to kie7077 | 9 years ago
0 likes
kie7077 wrote:

I'd like to hear an explanation from POC, Ericsson and Volvo explaining why the cyclists needs to be notified that there is a Volvo car in the vicinity

Motor manufacturers very much want to reinforce the myth that when a driver slams into you, it's your fault. And if you don't dress as they tell you to, it's even more your fault.

And the police and courts already agree, so expect the current norm (of being criticised for your poor choice of clothing, by a cop, as you lie on the floor intertwined with your smashed bike) to continue. Or the equivalent of this metaphor, where a court, A&E doctor or local newspaper does the same.

SMIDSY will be replaced by "I didn't see you mate, you are wearing the 'wrong' helmet". Gotta keep one excuse up on those pesky bike riders.

Avatar
Tony | 9 years ago
0 likes

Of course helmets will have to then be made mandatory for cyclists or the poor hard done by Volvo motorist won't stand a chance of avoiding them.  29

Avatar
severs1966 | 9 years ago
0 likes

How is anyone taking this seriously? Check the calendar, it must be April Fool's Day. A "please don't kill me hat"?

It's now a major lorry manufacturer's assumption that anyone on a bike has to wear an active motor-vehicle-repelling beacon? And if you don't wear one and the driver is not alerted to your existence, then it is assumed that running you over is just an inevitable consequence of not wearing their helmet?

It seems to me that this is similar to a major food company poisoning everyone in the country, and then selling frozen ready-meals that contain the antidote.

Avatar
kie7077 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Driver: He had a POC Helmet, he should have got out of the way.

Avatar
leewalton | 9 years ago
0 likes

So, the article states:

Quote:

A smartphone app enables the precise location of cyclists and vehicles to be logged on Volvo's cloud database. When a collision is deemed imminent, a head-up display warns the driver, while a warning light on the helmet also alerts the cyclist.

Given that a lot of accidents happens in rural areas, and cell coverage can be intermittent or non-existent in these areas, especially for data, this system would appear to be flawed.

Whilst the idea in principle is sound, it needs to work independently to be at all useful in the real world.

Avatar
The _Kaner | 9 years ago
0 likes

"When a collision is deemed imminent, a head-up display warns the driver, while a warning light on the helmet also alerts the cyclist"

If you take the literal meaning - about to happen...and not, 'may be about to happen' - Does this not imply that it is unavoidable? Therefore, it will happen - regardless...?

Also isn't that what the two vehicle operators brains are for...to think, act/react to prevent it happening...?

It's not a crystal ball... 'it' can't possibly foresee every action/reaction from the parties directly and indirectly involved
To me, the technology 'may' be a factor in changing people's attitude toward each other...making them more carefree/careless as opposed to more careful...?

Putting the onus on some electronics to safeguard 'my' life in this type of situation and not the vehicle operator can't be a good thing...
'I expected my gizmo to prevent the accident...it didn't so how can I be liable....?' Sue the manufacturer....
Better to prevent certain types of behaviour through human learning/practice/experience than to put all your eggs in one basket and hope a miracle cure is around the next bend...much less a techno freaking super computer hell bent on human destruction... AI/HAL...indeed!!!

Avatar
Fifth Gear | 9 years ago
0 likes

I don't think there is much point alerting a cyclist that a motorist is about to impact from behind or to informing a motorist of what he can plainly see with his own eyes but has chosen to ignore. Segregated infrastructure, automatic sensors and driverless cars are a much better answer.

Avatar
Travis | 9 years ago
0 likes

" When a collision is deemed imminent, a head-up display warns the driver, while a warning light on the helmet also alerts the cyclist."
Great... you get to see a light letting you know that someone is going to hit you.
Wonder how that would feel?  39

Avatar
ronin | 9 years ago
0 likes

Well, we have proximity sensors on cars to prevent them crashing into other cars or walls when reversing (not wanting to damage those expensive cars).

Why not not have similar sensors or radar that inform drivers that there are other road users around them?

Or better still, why not just deal with drivers that hit cyclist more seriously. No technology needed (apart from a brain upgrade for some judges).

Avatar
gazza_d | 9 years ago
0 likes

Jesus f*cking Christ, this is like something from Black Mirror.

I've an idea. why don't we put people in charge of the vehicles then they can look out for people on bikes and avoid them instead of relying on the car and bike both having sensors and communicating.

Avatar
mrmo replied to gazza_d | 9 years ago
0 likes
gazza_d wrote:

why don't we put people in charge of the vehicles then they can look out for people on bikes and avoid them instead of relying on the car and bike both having sensors and communicating.

We have been doing this for over 100 years and people have proven they are the last thing that should be in charge of cars. Sooner we get people out of the loop the better!

Avatar
antonio | 9 years ago
0 likes

'Sorry Mate I Didn't Hear You' doesn't have the same ring as 'Sorry Mate I Didn't See You'

Avatar
mrmo | 9 years ago
0 likes

to be honest if this is used correctly it could be a step in the right direction, but the major step won't happen until cars no longer rely on the driver for instructions.

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 9 years ago
0 likes

better if they just allowed safer lorries, then we wouldn't be so dependent on gizmos.

Avatar
joemmo | 9 years ago
0 likes

Just had a thought. You could have an app that you link to your social media accounts and when the collision detector sees you are about to be hit, it could play a quick montage of highlights from Facebook up on the HUD. You could literally have your life flash before your eyes before you die.

It could even have rider facing camera and take a selfie of your final moments and tweet it to the driver. #smidsy

Kickstarter here I come.

Avatar
whatter | 9 years ago
0 likes

Isn't this just legitimising drivers not doing the low-tech stuff properly, like, you know, looking through the windscreen and in their mirrors, instead of checking their phone and satnav?

Avatar
joemmo | 9 years ago
0 likes

I was just thinking that things have gone a bit quiet from Smart Hat. Have POC picked up the rights?

Pages

Latest Comments