In the 2007 Quentin Tarantino movie " Death Proof , " a maniac driver named Stuntman Mike boasts that his1970 Chevrolet Novais exactly what the film ’s title suggests : It ’s death - proof . In the hands of a base hit - conscious gadget driver , this would be a good thing . But Stuntman Mike is n’t all that concerned with safety – not his passengers ' or any hapless people who frustrate his route .
Mike has outfitted the number one wood ’s side of his machine with a cage and five - pointseat beltto ensure his own survival when he hit other cars at high-pitched speeds . This is a skillful safeguard on Stuntman Mike ’s part because he enjoys doing just that – with gory result .
While the movie is fictitious , it does arouse the question : Could a car really be death - test copy ? Would it be likeStuntmanMike ’s Nova , reinforced with steel beam and shatter - proof trash ? That likely would n’t be the case . Instead , what ’s forrader in the future of car safety – including what may eventually emerge as a demise - proof car – is more in line with technical ingenuity than sure-enough - fashioned brutal strength .
The best agency to survive a car accident is to stave off it . So auto engineers are hard at work coming up with cars that protect passengers not so much by reinforce steel cages ( although most vehicles have those , too ) , but rather with technology that facilitate driver avoid collisions all in all .
Stuntman Mike ’s Chevy Nova is pretty cool . But the death - proof cars of the future will plausibly search a lot more like high - death Volvos , BMWs and Lexuses than a classic Detroitmuscle railroad car . And Volvo may be up first . As a working member of thePReVENTsafety research chemical group , the car producer has promised an injury - test copy car by 2020 [ reference : Reuters ] . Those who can afford the luxury automobile will benefit first ; it ’ll take some time for these carving - edge safety gadget features to make their room into economy cable car .
Many of the features that will constitute accident bar system in the time to come already exist . The challenge will be bind these components together .
Why will these system be able-bodied to palm accidents better than a car ’s driver ? observe out on the next Thomas Nelson Page .
The Death-proof car
When humans arescared , our trunk freeze in the face of danger . This holds peculiarly rightful when it arrive to motorcar collision . enquiry shows that the average number one wood takes about 1.1 seconds to respond to an accident before braking [ beginning : Fambro , et al ] . This may not vocalise like muchtime , but considering that a reduction of 10 mph before a crash could cut the rate of death in highway accidents by 50 percent , that one minute can be significant [ source : Reuters ] . What ’s more , in one-half of all rear - end collision , thebrakesare never even applied by the oncoming driver [ informant : Volvo ] .
Auto safety engineers are working under the premise that if cars are making deliberate decision about an close at hand collision , accident rates will go down . By taking humans ' emotional reaction ( or lack therefrom ) out of the equation , technologist may be closing in on a decease - proof car .
Of naturally , the terminal figure " destruction - proof " may not be entirely accurate . Even the good systems conk out . But engineer at the PReVENT undertaking are researching how to make the most expiry - validation car possible . They ’re reimagining some rubber feature of speech usable in today’sdigital cable car . Instead of using these systems to provide drivers with selective information to forfend a collapse , the goal is getting the systems to mean for the driver .
One existing condom lineament is theprecollision bar system . It useslasers , infrared sensing element and cameras to find obstacle ahead in the road . A warning light and an alarm alert number one wood to the impending peril . The car then organise for the accident by tighteningseatbelts , engagingairbagsand increasing brake insistence ( and in some case , hold the brakes on its own ) . Another system in situation isblind spot spotting . These keep an eye on other cars the number one wood ca n’t see , allow him or her acknowledge other cars are there .
These feature sign to a driver that a potential problem is near . PReVENT is working on using these feature to actually take over when that trouble goes from a potential threat to a literal danger . The group is engineering well-informed car systems that analyse the close at hand situation from all angles – literally . So while the equipment driver ’s frozen in affright , the car ’s navigating out of an accident .
PReVENT ’s visual sensation of a safer car is one that use data fromsatellitenavigational maps to discover hairy road conditions – like hairpin curved shape . The organization will supervise blind blot for the presence of other cars , pedestrian and obstacles , tracking the speed and direction of each . With all of this information , the motorcar ’s onboard electronic computer will calculate the unspoilt course of study of action to take , whether it ’s applying the brakes , swerving or both [ source : ICT result ] . In the future tense , car sailing algorithms may make jeopardy assessments – like find out that run over a squirrel to the left field is preferable to hitting a woman pushing a perambulator to the right .
While there may never be a truly end - proof automobile , an automobile that aims to protect against injury is quite plausible . More citizenry are injure in car wrecks than are killed ; auto fatalities reach about 1.2 million globally each year , while there are about 50 million injury around the world [ source : Reuters ] . If the technology being make grow by PReVENT is refined and widely introduced , both of those statistics may dramatically lessen in the near hereafter .
For more entropy on autos and other related to topics , visit the next varlet .
