A Car That Detects Cyclists and Brakes for Them?

Image courtesy Volvo Car Group

For those of you who don't follow the news in the automotive world, you should know the Geneva Motorshow is going on right now. Geneva always features some big launches that make the show quite exciting and this year is no exception. We have seen the unveiling of Ferrari's new supercar, Volkswagen's new incredibly fuel-efficient vehicle and a new safety technology from Volvo that's caught the world by surprise.

Image courtesy Volvo Car Group

Lately Volvo Car Group has been moving and shaking something fierce. You likely have seen the S60 wolf commercials and have wondered when the company turned so aggressive. Has Volvo shed its boxy and safety-forward image?

Yes to the former and when hell freezes over to the latter.

2013 Volvo V40. Image courtesy Volvo Car Group

Volvo cars are looking more curvacious and downright attractive, while at the same time they are still leading the world in safety. The car company that invented the three-point seat belt, the airbag and the backup camera has shocked the world with another first: a detection system not only for pedestrians but cyclists as well!

Every year cyclists are seriously injured or killed by careless drivers, which is why this technology is sorely needed. There are a growing number of cyclists on the roads in recent years as people try to cut commuting costs, stay in shape and avoid road congestion. Volvo's detection system not only sees cyclists, but it also has the ability to stop the car to avoid a collision. Check out the video below to see the technology in action.

Car Saftey Technology

Mercedes-Benz wrong-way alert technology

To me, car safety technology is one of the most important features I look at when vehicle shopping.

Since my wife and baby were in a car accident several years ago, where the other driver shot out into traffic without looking both right and left, I've become a huge safety advocate. The car they were driving was totaled when the other car t-boned it, setting off the front airbags (it was a while ago, so no side curtain or side seat airbags). The car was not equipped with a sensor in the front passenger seat, so the airbag on that side deployed. Stupidly, the airbag was positioned so it smashed into the windshield, sending the glass spraying throughout the cabin of the car.



For those of you who don't know, in most collisions where a windshield breaks, the safety film on the glass actually holds all of the shards of glass in place. After that car accident, my wife found shards of glass sitting on our baby's neck. They both were fortunate enough to not be seriously injured in the accident, one that could easily have been much worse.

Back when Volvo first developed the seat belt, the Swedish automaker decided to broadcast the results of crash tests using a dummy strapped in with a seat belt and one that did not have one. The results, of course, were sobering. Volvo went one step further and broadcast the video on national television in the United States, causing an uproar among car owners. Back then, the Big Three tried to accuse Volvo of causing unnecessary panic in the public, among other things. Fortunately, most automakers today have started to realize the value of safety technology, to one extent or another.

Mercedes-Benz is one of the leaders in safety tech (Volvo is still one, along with BMW, the VW group and others). Safety technology often is introduced near the top of the car food chain on models like the Mercedes S-Class or the BMW 7 Series, like the infrared and night vision technologies available on those cars Mercedes has announced the new S-Class and E-Class will both be outfitted with a system that will issue audible and visual warnings to drivers if they are traveling the wrong way on a road or freeway entrance. Sometimes people get turned around, especially in confusing downtown areas, and they don't see the "Wrong Way" signs. The car is outfitted with cameras that recognize such signs, literally reading them.

Self-driving cars are becoming more of a reality, which I view as just another piece of safety technology. Many of these cars will likely just enhance a driver's performance, stepping in when a driver doesn't react to an obstacle in time. There are quite a few cars on the market today that detect an impending collision and move the brake pads so they are almost touching the rotors, give the driver an audible and visual warning about the impending impact or even stop the car for the driver. Self-driving cars and other safety technology also means elderly drivers and those with medical conditions that impair their senses can still get around, but without putting everyone on the roads (and unfortunately sidewalks) at risk. I only see good in this technology.

Bad Personal Experiences with Turbos

One of my very bad turbo experiences

I have officially owned three turbocharged vehicles up to this point in life. In reality I have some complex emotions about turbochargers, which are mostly negative in nature. Allow me to explain.

The first real experience I had with a turbocharged vehicle was when my oldest brother bought a 1997 Eagle Talon TSi. It came with all-wheel-drive and a large hump in the hood that supposedly was put there to make room for the turbocharger. Through the Talon's force-fed setup, it was able to produce 210 horsepower, making it a pretty fun and sporty car to drive. About a year later I was riding with my brother one hot summer night in Tempe, Arizona when steam started pouring out from under the Talon's hood. He pulled over to a gas station and popped the hood, allowing even more of the evaporated coolant to escape.

"Need some help?" two guys in a Civic quipped. I don't remember the exact response my brother shot at them, but it was pointed to say the least.

Fast forward several years, and I have owned two problematic turbocharged vehicles. Both of them were Volvos, which after finally consulting with a mechanic worth his salt about the second one, I have decided were both really bad ideas. Supposedly the first turbo Volvo was a lemon, as I had mechanics and Volvo aficionados swear to me that turbo Swede bricks often went to 300,000 miles or more without major mechanical problems.

The first turbo Volvo was horrible. The car drove fine at first, but eventually it started to spew out steam from evaporated coolant. I added coolant to the car constantly, but it regularly would threaten to overheat. I had a mechanic try to track down coolant leaks on multiple occasions, but it was to no avail. And then I started to notice the car's exhaust was white all the time--the surefire sign of a blown cylinder head. I didn't have the cash for a new head gasket, and then the car started to overheat all the time. It started running sluggishly. Rather than shoulder the huge repair bill it was sure to need, I dumped the car as quickly as possible.

The second turbo Volvo kindly waited until we were in the stretch of desert between Las Vegas and Los Angeles to manifest its forced induction problems. More specifically, smoke plumed out from the undercarriage, the result of an oil leak that traveled along the underside of the car until it reached the catalytic converter. As if that weren't enough, oil also spewed in tiny droplets out of the tailpipe, spraying all over the back window. The back window's wiper couldn't clear the sticky mess away, leaving the driver to look through a distorted and sickly yellow film to view traffic from behind. After many repair bills trying to track down the oil leaks, which seemed to crop up in new places after the old ones were fixed, I finally escorted the car to automotive heaven.
   
If it had been up to just these experiences, I wouldn't be conflicted at all about turbos. I would swear off ever, ever owning another forced induction vehicle. The fact of the matter was these two turbocharged Volvos happened to be a lot of fun to drive, when they were running at least reasonably well. Even though neither one had a large engine, they both accelerated strongly and provided a large power band. I live around large mountains with steep canyon roads, and both vehicles pulled strong up the steep inclines. The fact they had turbos also meant I didn't have to shell out a bunch of money for gas.

What made me feel even more conflicted about turbochargers was owning my Saab. Not too long after having purchased my Saab I realized its turbocharger system was much more advanced than the ones included in either of my Volvos. The turbo response was much faster, and the turbo pulled the car harder. Even better, I didn't have to deal with oil or coolant leaks, overheating or any of the other problems my turbo Volvos had almost from the get-go. The Saab was also a lot more fun to drive.

My turbo Saab

As I watch with great interest a sudden surge in turbocharger use by manufacturers such as Ford and BMW part of me gets excited while another part of me shrinks back in terror. Are these turbochargers like the one I had in my Saab (which was the newest of the three vehicles) or are they like the horrible ones in my Volvos? I know with any turbocharged vehicle you have to watch the coolant and oil levels like a hawk, but I also know from experience that being faithful about watching the car's fluids doesn't mean the turbocharger won't give you major headaches.

Let's just put it this way: I have declared to my wife that if I do buy another turbocharged car it won't be a Volvo and it will be a hobby car.