- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
TECH NEWS
Ford Front Split View Camera (source Ford.co.uk)Ford rolling out tech that helps drivers "see round corners"
Technology being rolled out by Ford could mean fewer collisions caused by drivers pulling out of a junction while their view of the road they are joining is obstructed, with the motor giant fitting 180-degree cameras to some of its new models to effectively allow motorists to see round corners.
The camera lens is embedded in the front grille, with the driver pushing a button to see the footage it provides shown on an 8-inch screen on the dashboard, and that means that rather than edging out into the road and hope nothing is coming, they can check more easily that the coast is clear.
Here’s a video showing how the Ford Split View Front Camera, which will be available as an option to the company’s latest S-MAX and Galaxy vehicles as well as the Edge SUV which comes to the UK later this year, works.
Ford engineer Ronny Hause said: “We have all been there and it’s not just blind junctions that can be stressful, sometimes an overhanging tree, or bushes can be the problem.
“For some, simply driving off their own driveways is a challenge. This is one of those technologies that people will soon wonder how they managed without.”
The camera is yet another example of how car manufacturers and others are using technology to improve the safety of road users.
But while the likes of Google, with its self-driving car, and Volvo, with a system that detects vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians, are seeking to eliminate the human error element that is a factor in most collisions, Ford’s camera for now does not.
So in terms of the safety of cyclists, there is likely to be a degree of apprehension that some drivers using the technology will be looking primarily for cars and other vehicles, and fail to spot someone riding in a bike lane, say.
With the pace of technological innovation in automotive technology that is being driven by major players in the automotive market, it’s perhaps not too much of a stretch to hope that a few years down the line, devices that improve what motorists are able to see may be combined with collision avoidance systems and come as standard on new vehicles.
Ford itself has already outlined its “Vision for the Future” in which it envisages “automated vehicles that still keep the driver in the loop to take back control of the vehicle, if needed.”
However, it admitted that “this vision will likely not be realised for many years,” and that “many technological details remain to be worked out, and drivers will need to become comfortable with the idea of giving up some measure of driving control to their vehicle, which will not happen quickly.”
Keith Freeman, a quality training manager for the AA quoted in a post on the Ford Social website, said that Ford’s new camera would make it much easier for motorists to spot cyclists than is the case at present.
“Pulling out at a blind junction can be a tricky manoeuvre for new and experienced drivers alike,” said Mr Freeman, who is also involved in the Ford Driving Skills for Life initiative, which is aimed at training young drivers.
“The best approach has traditionally been to simply lean forward to get the best view whilst creeping forwards with the windows wound down to listen for approaching vehicles, but cyclists are a particular risk as they can’t be heard,” he went on.
“This technology will certainly make emerging from anywhere with a restricted view so much safer and the experience less nerve-wracking for those behind the wheel,” he added.
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.
Latest Comments
- ktache 3 hours 28 min ago
The small frame, the aggressive posture, lots of standover height.
- mctrials23 4 hours 24 min ago
As i've said before, the police should be sued for a lot of money when someone they have knowingly ignored has gone on to commit a serious crime....
- David9694 4 hours 31 min ago
'Bad parking' blocks firefighters multiple times on same emergency call-out...
- David9694 4 hours 35 min ago
Cambridgeshire boy, 13, crashes Audi into garden wall after taking it from home...
- Adam Sutton 5 hours 21 min ago
Good stuff. Now do it on cycleway C9 through Hammersmith to Chiswick.
- mark1a 5 hours 30 min ago
It's technically allowed but it's not known as "London's Orbital Car Park" for nothing.
- Dogless 6 hours 38 min ago
You're defending bombing hospitals and refugee camps and starving children.
- mattw 9 hours 18 min ago
Used car salesman is a complete attention-seeking plank....
- tubasti 9 hours 35 min ago
I don't know if they're any better, but they's certainly become more boring.
- FionaJJ 10 hours 1 min ago
At risk of being cynical, and stereotyping the police, it's so they don't have to leave the comfort of their panda cars and pursue on foot when...
Add new comment
50 comments
doubt it will happen, could involve law suits
Front end cameras aren't new - Jaguar / Land Rover have had them for a while.
Trickle down to cheaper cars might be news.
Good to see in this thread lots of people comparing apples with oranges - so much pointless noise.
Stop comparing technology that helps to prevent accidents with technology that protects the driver in the event of an accident.
The first is great for ALL road users, vulnerable or not. The second is only good for the driver, and possibly causes them to drive in a way that is more risky to other road users. Nothing new here, but people keep confusing the two.
This technology by Ford is designed to help prevent accidents, so stop comparing it to airbags and seatbelts; that's just dumb.
There is a difference, but the same factors do apply. A classic study into anti lock braking shows this. It fround that the German taxi divers given this safer braking technology braked later and harder. They absorbed the safety benefit as a performance benefit. If the technology does not change the tendency to take risks, then it will be negated by human behaviour.
There is no need to call those you disagree with dumb.
What did the report say about the effect on the majority of non-professional drivers ?
The report did not look at amateurs. Can you propose any credible reason why they might react differently to better brakes?
Don't think anyone is comparing these systems to seatbelts and airbags. The argument is simply that, if people must drive cars, the best safety interventions for others on the road would involve the removal of driver safety aids, and the installation of systems which hurt the driver in the event of a collision. Then drivers might actually be motivated to drive carefully. Instead we get an endless stream of pointless 'safety' aids whose only function is to generate good PR for people who make the killing machines.
It's pretty clever tech, I can't see it being a crap 1MP camera given how cheap good sensors are now. The counter argument is it's as useful as the driver is good, you can throw it onto every car but a driver still needs to use it and if they're too cocksure they'll just do the classic of 'getting their nose out'.
I live just off a reasonably busy road where the sight-lines are appalling to see oncoming traffic, something like this would make a big difference for being able to read the road better.
Why are people pissing and moaning about this? In other threads we have people saying there's not enough visibility in some vehicles, too many blind spots etc, then here we have some technology that completely eradicates a number of blind spots and people whine about it?
This is good technology. It doesn't have to be used, and obviously not all drivers will use it properly, but to many drivers (me included) this could be really useful.
Exactly!
its been said before but replace the airbags with a bads of nails and driving will improve over night.
No drivers seat belt or door, and a spike out of the centre of the steering wheel would sort it too.
I think these things would not change car occupant casualty rates but would improve things for cyclists and pedestrians. The opposite of seat belt compulsion which increased casualties amongst vulnerable road users as is admitted by the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transportb Safety.
"June 2008 article in Significance by Richard Allsop, Oliver Carsten, Andrew Evans, and Robert Gifford (all members of PACTS). See table below.
Significantly the Significance article did not make it into the Review’s list of key references on seat belts. A significant omission because the authors, all defenders of the seat belt law, acknowledge an effect of the law of important consequence to vulnerable road users. They say “the clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.” "
Your quotes would tend to indicate that this is not true.
My point is that the keen seat belt advocates in PACTS have been forced to admit that seat belt compulsion increased casualties in vulnerable users. Their belief that belts saved lives in car users is a different matter, and disputable. John Adams's books and website make a good case for this. He also talks about the Isles Report. Before the debate in Parliament which preceded the vote on compulsion, the DfT asked Isles to look into the effect of compulsion in the countries which had already passed seat belt laws. He concluded that no positive effect could be shown, The report was not published and only became public when leaked to New Scientist. The report is on Adams's website.
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/
Ahhhh Mr. Adams - let us hope his understanding of that report is better than his understanding of non-linear dynamic systems and climatology.
I think this is whar is known as ad hominem. His views on climate change are entirely unconected with his ideas on risk homeostasis, in which field he is an acknowledged expert.
You do not have to hope anything about his understanding of the Isles Report. You can read it for yourself on his website, and form your own view on what it says. I do not know Isles's views on climate change.
It's more like poisoning the well, though the two are sometimes closely related. Ad hominem is attacking the person delivering the message based on their character e.g. he's black/gay/Welsh/Conservative therefore you shouldn't listen to his argument against wind farms. Poisoning the well is attacking an argument by presenting other irrelevant information about things the person has said or done e.g. he once said that he doesn't believe in evolution therefore how can his views on Google's transfer pricing policy be trusted.
Without knowing his expertise, or otherwise, regarding the analysis of effects of mandating seatbelt usage, I think it is perfectly valid to wonder about methodology given what i've seen in another scientific analysis he was involved in. As felixcat has said, he is an expert in the field, so I no longer have to worry about that.
Again, you don't have to wonder about Adams's methodology, the discussion with Gifford on his site, and other postings are clear enough.
I refer to him not because I regard him as an unquestionable authority, but because his writings on the subject make so much sense to me, and posting his website address saves me paraphrasing at a length which is not suited to a discussion here.
Isles's expertise is unknown to me. Presumably PACTS regarded him as sufficiently expert to inform Parliament, and is is their misfortune that he produced the "wrong" result.
I suggest you get hold of Adams's book. It is an enlightening and entertaining read.
Not an ad hominem - I only really know the name from the climatology side - and, from what you've said the answer is 'yes'.
I am not clear on what "yes" is the answer to. Do you mean his understanding of Isles is better than his views on CC?
I was not aware he had any fame in the field of CC.
Indeed I do.
Not fame, but the discussion in the draft of Chapter 9 of Risk (found in a different search, and interesting and amusing in many parts) is missing a lot of science and concentrating on summary quotes a tad too much for my liking.
Great. Then you agree that Isles showed that seat belts did not cut car user casualties but increased vulnerable road user casualties in the previous seat belt compulsion countries? Because that is what Isles said, and what Adam's read him as saying. Isles is pretty explicit. I'm glad we can agree.
Nope, i've not read it yet so i'm not going to agree to anything. I just said there's clearly hope he's not missed important stuff as elsewhere.
Doesn't matter what high tech gubbins is fitted, if the driver doesn't *look*. Remember, cyclists are invisible even when in plain sight...
So the old line-of-sight style driving which ensured that both parties could see the upcoming interaction will be removed.
I'll be riding along and some dolt will mis-check their camera and suddenly bolt out from behind the hiding place of the bush they keep overhanging their driveway.
Lovely.
Ensured ? Ensured ? My arse.
"could" as opposed to "couldn't"
..except that in the 'old' style they couldn't see unless they had a clear line of sight at a junction or until they were already in lane/road.. so this turns a "couldn't" into a "could". There are some risk compensation/expectation issues, like having lights on at night, but to dismiss it out of hand strikes me as overly simplistic.
Pages