Well, Russ didn't actually say that. He's too nice to say something like that. But, what he does say seems to refute Toyota's inference that IIHS selectively choose certain vehicles for testing and the insinuation that the IIHS was trying to mislead the public by only selecting three cars to fail an "extreme" test. Russ tells us

"Toyota was notified in January that roof strength would be a new test. The IIHS asked automakers to flag any vehicles they'd like to have included. Toyota had plenty of opportunity to flag other Toyota, Lexus or Scion models — including being present at roof strength tests at the IIHS facility — but choose not to. So IIHS assumed that there were no models that met the new guidelines. If there are other vehicles Toyota would want to include they were able to submit them at that time or at any time in the process — including right now."

So basically, bring it Toyota, don't sing it.

This doesn't refute Toyota's other contention that the new test is "extreme." As we said before, we're not sure whether or not the new roof-crush test is extreme, but we will point out again that not only did other automakers have vehicles that passed it, but the 'yota Camry passed it as well. We'll also reiterate we're not sure how far the argument of "it was too hard" will go with consumers and the general public.

Toyota would probably do more to show it stands by their vehicles ability to pass this new roof-crush test by flagging their entire lineup to allow the IIHS to test it. Unless, of course, they know the vehicles won't pass — which, in essence, proves the IIHS point.

Toyota's claiming the roof crush test — only applied to three Toyotas — the RAV4, Camry and Yaris — is harder than federal standards:

"This is the first year IIHS has included its own roof strength tests, which exceed federal standards, for TSP consideration. All Toyota vehicles meet or exceed Federal Safety Standards for frontal and side impact, roof crush resistance and rollover protection."

So, let's get this straight: you're upset because your cars don't meet a tougher standard than the federal guidelines — a standard other automakers are capable of meeting — and you expect the consumer to accept that argument? Really? Seriously?

But wait, there's also the fact that the Camry actually passed this much more difficult roof crash test. So why didn't the mid-size get a Top Safety Pick? Well, because, as the IIHS said in their press release late last night,

"The midsize Toyota Camry would have qualified with good ratings, except for its rear crash evaluation. This car's seats and head restraints are rated marginal for protection against whiplash injury. A change to good would have earned the Camry a Top Safety Pick for 2010."

Where's Toyota's explanation for why the Camry failed to garner a Top Safety Pick this year? It certainly wasn't the more-stringent roof crush test.

Full response from Toyota below:

2010 IIHS Top Safety Pick Awards Tells Just Part of the Story

On November 18, 2009, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) issued a news release headlined: "27 Winners of 2010 Top Safety Pick Award." Within the release, IIHS states: "Missing the mark: Not a single model from the world's biggest automaker by sales is represented among this year's winners. Toyota and its Lexus and Scion subsidiaries had a strong showing in 2009 with 11 winners but were shut out for 2010."

Toyota is confident its vehicles are among the safest on the road today and is committed to the highest levels of vehicle safety and quality.

In 2009, Toyota won more IIHS Top Safety Pick (TSP) awards than any other manufacturer. Toyota continues to improve vehicle passive and active safety, including improvement of past winners of IIHS TSP.

IIHS' statement that Toyota was shut out for 2010 is extreme and misleading, considering there are 38 Toyota, Lexus and Scion models, and only three were tested for roof strength by IIHS: Camry, RAV4 and Yaris.

This is the first year IIHS has included its own roof strength tests, which exceed federal standards, for TSP consideration. All Toyota vehicles meet or exceed Federal Safety Standards for frontal and side impact, roof crush resistance and rollover protection.

While passive collision protection is very important, Toyota also provides an array of active, passive, pre-collision and collision avoidance features. The "Star Safety System" is standard equipment on all Toyota and Lexus models.

The Insurance Institute's ratings are one of many vehicle safety and quality metrics.

Irv Miller
Group Vice President, Environmental and Public Affairs
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Previously, infrared cameras from companies like Mercedes have been able to identify pedestrians, but were only capable of drawing a driver's attention to them through a display screen. The Volvo Pedestrian Detection system adds an extra levels of capability to that — tracking their speed and direction and the ability to automatically apply the brakes — leading the Swedish brand to claim huge safety advances.

While over-protective parents and everything-is-someone-else's-fault Nazis will see a clear benefit in a car that removes a driver's ability to run over their spoiled, playing-in-the-street children, we're a bit more skeptical of the need for this technology. Surely the only 100% effective method of eliminating car/pedestrian interfaces is to separate roads from pedestrian areas. We'd much rather see more pedestrianized streets in city centers and barriers between sidewalks and streets than we would expensive, prone-to-failure technology. Like other safety aids-antilock brakes springs to mind as a good example-we can see drivers learning to rely on the Pedestrian Detection system over their own judgement and skill, then failing to pay attention at crucial moments. [via Facebook.com/Volvo]

The IIHS tested 2009 models of the Honda Accord, Hyundai Sonata, Mazda 6, Nissan Maxima and Chevrolet Malibu along with the 2010 Ford Fusion. Each car was was tested with low-speed corner and straight-ahead crashes in the front and the rear. Costs were estimated for each accident and averaged to determine how well each car did. The best of the bunch was the Mazda6, the only mid-size to score "acceptable" with a weighted average cost of $871. The worst was the Chevy Malibu, which will set you back more than $3,400 for a 6 MPH rear-ending. None of the vehicles scored a "Good" rating.

Click "next" to see how each of the cars performed overall as well as in individual tests.

[IIHS]

Ford Fusion
Overall: Poor
Front Full Cost: $2,529
Front Corner Cost: $1,889
Rear Full Cost: $2,610
Rear Corner Cost: $1,073
Weighted Average: $2,207

Mazda Mazda6
Overall: Acceptable
Front Full Cost: $742
Front Corner Cost: $1,437
Rear Full Cost: $768
Rear Corner Cost: $767
Weighted Average: $871

Honda Accord
Overall: Marginal
Front Full Cost: $941
Front Corner Cost: $1,461
Rear Full Cost: $974
Rear Corner Cost: $1,507
Weighted Average: $1,133

Hyundai Sonata
Overall: Marginal
Front Full Cost: $1,791
Front Corner Cost: $1,019
Rear Full Cost: $1,131
Rear Corner Cost: $729
Weighted Average: $1,265

Nissan Maxima
Overall: Poor
Front Full Cost: $997
Front Corner Cost: $1,787
Rear Full Cost: $2,494
Rear Corner Cost: $1,352
Weighted Average: $1,687

Chevrolet Malibu
Overall: Poor
Front Full Cost: $2,092
Front Corner Cost: $1,685
Rear Full Cost: $3,494
Rear Corner Cost: $1,116
Weighted Average: $2,329

This is a problem Ford had to answer when it began using a new type of crash detection sensor. Traditional airbag sensors are small accelerometers mounted to the B-pillar next to the drivers shoulder, and in the event of a crash, they send a signal to the computer warning of a crash event. Only problem is they aren't fast enough anymore. Tough new safety requirements laid down by the Feds and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety are forcing airbag deployment speeds to get much quicker.

So what to do. Ford decided to start using pressure wave detection. In this method, the sensor is placed inside the door on the outer skin of the car, it monitors the ambient air pressure in the door cavity and sends a signal to the crash computer. The crash computer interprets the data every few miliseconds, confirming it with what the other sensors scattered around the car tell it. What's the advantage? Fidelity. The signal coming from the pressure sensor has a much higher resolution than an accelerometer, which means it can tell the difference between a car hitting your door and say a shopping cart loaded with 110 lbs, hitting the door at 10 MPH. But before it can do that, engineers have to calibrate it to be able to tell the difference. This is where the shopping cart test comes in.

The strike from a shopping cart produces a short spike signal with relatively low amplitude. If it were a car striking the door panel, the crash computer would see a massive, sustained rise in pressure. This kind of simulation is also done with things which hit cars all the time in real life; a bicycle tire, a ball, you get the drift. Yes it smashes a very nice new Taurus door, put they just take it off and put on a new one to do it all over again, and because of this kind of testing, out in the real world, you have a door to fix and a soccer mom to yell at, but the expensive airbags stay thankfully unexploded.

The massive water cannon is the work of Ford's Active Safety Research and Advanced Engineering group, and it's designed to simulate the impact of another vehicle slamming into the side of a Volvo — without actually crashing another vehicle into it. The device analyzes how a moving vehicle reacts to being struck from the side, without putting test vehicles and drivers at risk of damage or injury. Researchers say the new test could prove useful in the development of next-generation stability control technology.

We got the chance to take a ride in the passenger seat with the systems mastermind, group manager Jeffery Rupp, who gave us the skinny on what makes it tick.

The system is built around a Martin Engineering Hurricane Cannon, a high pressure water cannon normally used in mining operations or for folks into pumpkin chuckin'. In this application it's been modified and mounted to a static frame which is attached to the cargo bay of a chopped up Volvo V70R. The big orange tank is pumped up with 135 PSI of shop air, the end of the silver tube is sealed up with a sheet of plastic and the safety gate is closed. In operation that gate is opened up and the plastic holds back the water, the gate is there to prevent anyone from being injured should the thing accidentally go off. That pipe is filled with ten gallons of water and everything is ready to go.

Out on the test area, Rupp opens up the safety gate the game is on. Once he gets clearance from the test track tower, it's on the Volvo's gas and we're quickly up to the 50 MPH test speed. Rupp hits the two thumb buttons on the steering wheel and a servo lets the blast of compressed air loose. With an effective explosive strike of 2 Gs it actually sounds and feels like we've just been hit from behind. Very cool.

Rupp tells us this system is their first run at this kind of testing. It doesn't fit very easily in a vehicle, it doesn't transport between cars very well, it throws off the center of gravity and it changes the inertial characteristics, but with a mad scientists glint in his eye he tells us they're already planning something smaller, portable and even more powerful. Its the kind of thing that'll be used in the future to make stability control in the event of a crash that much better. Plus it's just damn cool.

Using a Martin Engineering Hurricane Cannon, the test driver can pilot the car as normal and, with the push of a button, simulate the force of a car striking the back of the car. They then take the test data back, plug it into the computer, and devise new ways to tweak the stability control. Blah, blah blah.

We think this would be an awesome car-to-car weapon. Imagine someone in another car is trying to run you off the road with a PIT maneuver but, as they approach, you let the water cannon knock them into the ditch. This is the kind of fun you get to have when you're not encumbered by bankruptcy, we guess.

From Pumpkin Patch to Test Track
Ford researchers also use a water cannon test to analyze how a moving vehicle reacts to being struck from the side, without putting test vehicles and drivers at risk of damage or injury. Researchers say the new test could prove useful in the development of next-generation stability control technology.

In this highly coordinated maneuver, Ford engineers mount an air-powered cannon – a tool commonly used in mining operations and pumpkin-throwing contests – in the rear compartment of a test vehicle. The cannon blasts water outward, causing a recoil impulse that forces the vehicle into a skid. Engineers use the test data in computer simulations to help study how to enhance stability control technology, reducing risks to test drivers and damage to test vehicles.

"It's a very effective test that demonstrates the ingenuity of our engineering team to think outside the box," said Jeff Rupp, manager, Ford Active Safety Systems Engineering. "We know of no other automaker doing anything quite like it."

According to the 2008 New Vehicle Customer Study, safety features account for one of the top ten reasons why Ford buyers chose their vehicle. More than 53 percent of Ford buyers indicated that safety features are "extremely important" in their decision to purchase a Ford vehicle.

"Ford's efforts to advance vehicle safety are driving more car buyers to the brand," said Mike Harper, brand and tracking manager, Ford Market Research. "And their interest in safety continues to fuel innovation among our vehicle designers and engineers."

Both systems use GPS to determine the precise location and direction of travel of a vehicle, and then determine if a dangerous situation is imminent. In the case of the wrong way warning system, it’s simply a case of recording the position and direction of ramps in map databases, then equipping cars with some sort of warning device.

The pedestrian collision warning system is a bit more complicated, relying on those pedestrians carrying GPS-enabled cell phones. The location, direction and speed of those cell phones will be compared to the location, direction and speed of GPS-equipped cars, if the possibility of an impact is detected it will trigger an alert within the vehicle.

Technology already exists from other manufacturers to automatically slow cars when a potential collision with another vehicle is detected by on-board radar. Unfortunately, in the case of the Mercedes Fog system, it's not always successful. It’s conceivable that the two technologies could be combined to create virtually collision-proof cars. Indeed, that’s the direction automakers like Volvo are hoping to go in the future with vehicles that could do without any physical impact protection in favor of car-to-car, car-to-pedestrian and car-to-road communication. While previously manufactures saw that communication taking place directly via radio transmissions, this development could point towards GPS and communications satellites facilitating its implementation.

Us? We’ll just be keeping our eyes open.

The press release follows:

January 26, 2009

West NEXCO and Nissan Begin Joint Research on IT-Assisted Road Information System
- Research Alliance to Build a System for Accident Prevention and Road Information -

West Nippon Expressway Co., Ltd. (West NEXCO) and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. today announced a cooperative effort to research systems to help prevent accidents and furnish road information to drivers. West NEXCO, which operates expressways in western Japan, and Nissan will enhance and complement existing information systems using information technology (IT) to provide road and traffic condition information to help improve safety and driving comfort on expressways.

The joint project will take advantage of the widespread use and multi-functionality of today's cellular phones. The system will use the Global Positioning System (GPS) and a detailed map database to warn drivers about a number of potentially dangerous situations and conditions - including driving the wrong way on expressway ramps, which frequently causes serious accidents. Responding to frequent occurrences of wrong-way driving with the increase in senior citizen drivers, West NEXCO set up a project team in May 2008 to address this issue as it considered the possibility of joint research with automakers and others using information technology.

The IT-assisted road information system will also employ telematics to help warn drivers about unintended speed changes on ramps and long downhill stretches to help prevent accidents and congestion. Nissan and West NEXCO will also undertake research to assist drivers with probe data on traffic jams, part of West NEXCO's goal of working to help establish total road safety and comfort.

For its part, Nissan has been working extensively with its Intelligent Transportation Systems to halve the number of fatal and injury accidents involving Nissan cars between 1995 and 2015. Through its SKY project it is developing a vehicle communication system linked with traffic infrastructure to help reduce accidents at intersections. Nissan has been conducting large-scale testing of an information system that furnishes drivers with information on pedestrians using communications between vehicles and GPS cell phones held by pedestrians. It has also established a service that warns drivers of icy conditions ahead.

An outline of the joint research project follows:

Joint R&D Using GPS
A new computer application and detailed map data in the car navigation system will be combined with GPS data to help give the driver audio and visual warnings when the car is going the wrong way on a ramp near a service area or interchange.

Joint R&D Using Telematics
Text warnings will appear on the car's navigation display: "Beware of speeding" on long downhill stretches where accidents are common, and "Beware of slowing" near ramps prone to congestion.

Driver Assistance Using Probe Data
Probe data from road-control centers will be better utilized to provide value-added information to vehicles on expressways.

Press Demonstration on Wrong-Way Driving Detection Using GPS and Car Navigation System
The team will conduct experiments to test detection and reporting of wrong-way driving by reprogramming the existing Nissan navigation system and simulating driving the wrong way on a rest-area exit ramp. The experiment will also be open to the press, along with a driving demonstration. The details will be informed later.

The IIHS tested seven 2009 model-year small cars and discovered most carmakers are doing a better job of keeping people from dying in their compact offerings. Every vehicle received a "Good" rating in the front tests, though received mixed performances in the side and rear tests.

The best performer overall was the Suzuki SX4, which received a "Good" side rating and a "Marginal" rear crash rating, followed by the Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe. The 2009 Ford Focus was the only car to achieve a "Good" rating in the rear crash test.

The worst performer, not surprisingly, is the 2009 PT Cruiser. Having been abandoned with no new model on the horizon by a sinking company, the PT Cruiser hasn't been brought up to modern safety standards and achieved a "Poor" rating in both the side and rear tests. The verdict from the IIHS is quite strongly worded:

In the side test, measures recorded on the driver dummy indicate that in a real-world crash of similar severity, rib fractures and internal organ injuries would be likely, along with a possible pelvic fracture. The rear passenger dummy's head contacted the C-pillar during the test because this car doesn't have rear-seat side airbags. Measures recorded on the dummy indicate that serious neck injuries and a fractured pelvis would be possible in a crash of this severity.

If you're driving a PT Cruiser drive slowly or, actually, maybe a bit faster to avoid getting rear-ended.

The IIHS also tested the 2009 Mini Cooper, which is in a smaller car category. The new Cooper was awarded with a "Good" rating for both front and rear testing, but was merely "Adequate" in side impact ratings.

Full details in the press release below.

New crash tests of small cars: good ratings in frontal tests but many models need better side and rear crash protection

ARLINGTON, VA — Most new small cars now earn good ratings in frontal crash tests but not when it comes to side and rear crashes. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently completed front, side, and rear tests of seven 2009 model small cars: Chevrolet HHR, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra, Saturn Astra, Suzuki SX4, and Toyota Matrix. All earn the highest rating of good for occupant protection in frontal crashes. Only the SX4 and Matrix and its twin Pontiac Vibe also earn good ratings for protection in side crashes. Among seat/head restraints evaluated, only those in the Focus earn a good rating for protection in rear impacts. The Institute also tested the Mini Cooper, a minicar that earns good ratings for front and rear crashworthiness but not for side protection.

"Automakers have made big improvements to small cars to better protect people in frontal crashes," says Institute senior vice president Joe Nolan. "They've also added stronger structures and standard head-protecting side airbags to help in side crashes, which are tougher on smaller, lighter cars."

Eleven of the 21 current small car models the Institute has rated earn good ratings for side protection. "This is a huge improvement from our last comprehensive round of small car crashworthiness evaluations in 2006," Nolan says. "Then only 3 of the 19 tested earned a good rating in the side evaluation. Most earned a poor rating."

The Institute's side test is especially challenging for small cars because the barrier that strikes the test vehicle represents the front end of a pickup truck or SUV. Side airbags designed for head protection are crucial because the barrier crashes into the side of the car right at the head level of the two dummies that are positioned in the driver seat and in the rear seat behind the driver.

"Side airbags were mostly optional in the 2006 round of small car tests," Nolan says. "A major change is that side airbags are standard in all of the seven small cars we tested this time around."

Small cars have grown especially popular as gasoline prices fluctuate and consumers become more conservation-minded. Nolan cautions that even though current models do a better job of protecting people in front, side, and rear crashes than earlier ones, small cars inherently afford less crash protection than bigger, heavier vehicles. "There's no escaping the laws of physics," Nolan says. "People in larger, heavier cars fare better in crashes with other vehicles and in single-vehicle crashes than people in smaller ones."

PT Cruiser earns poor ratings for side, rear protection: The Chrysler PT Cruiser is the only small car in the recent test series to earn poor marks in both side and rear evaluations. In the side test, measures recorded on the driver dummy indicate that in a real-world crash of similar severity, rib fractures and internal organ injuries would be likely, along with a possible pelvic fracture. The rear passenger dummy's head contacted the C-pillar during the test because this car doesn't have rear-seat side airbags. Measures recorded on the dummy indicate that serious neck injuries and a fractured pelvis would be possible in a crash of this severity.

The PT Cruiser's seat/head restraints are the only ones the Institute tested this time around that earn the lowest rating of poor for occupant protection in rear crashes. The seat/head restraint combinations in the Chevrolet HHR and Suzuki SX4 earn the next lowest rating of marginal. Looking at the larger group of 21 current small car models the Institute has rated, the PT Cruiser still has the worst seat/head restraint rating.

"The PT Cruiser doesn't offer the same crash protection level as other small cars," Nolan says. "For consumers who want to drive small cars, there are many good alternatives to the PT Cruiser, including the six Top Safety Pick winners the Institute announced last month. There are lots of good choices, too, among midsize and large cars."

Top Safety Pick recognizes vehicles that do the best job of protecting people in front, side, and rear crashes based on good ratings in Institute tests. Winners also must have electronic stability control (ESC), which research shows significantly reduces crash risk. The 2009 small car winners are the Honda Civic 4-door (except the Si model), Mitsubishi Lancer, and Toyota Corolla, all with optional ESC, and the Scion xB, Subaru Impreza, and Volkswagen Rabbit 4-door, all with standard ESC.

ESC should be standard: Among the small cars in this round of tests, only the Chevrolet HHR and Pontiac Vibe have standard ESC. It isn't available at all on the PT Cruiser and optional on the rest, including the Vibe's twin Toyota Matrix. ESC helps reduce rollovers, especially fatal single-vehicle ones. When ESC senses a vehicle is becoming unstable, it automatically engages to help a driver regain control and put the vehicle back in the intended travel direction. ESC lowers fatal rollover crash risk by as much as 70 percent. "Cars aren't involved in rollovers as often as SUVs and pickups, but when they do roll the consequences can be deadly," Nolan notes. "The smallest cars that most need this crash avoidance feature often don't have it."

Rear crashworthiness needs improving: Many automakers haven't paid as much attention to protection in rear crashes, compared with front and side, Nolan points out. Good seat/head restraints are key to preventing whiplash injuries. Neck sprain or strain is the most frequently reported crash injury in US insurance claims. When a vehicle is struck in the rear and driven forward, its seats accelerate occupants' torsos forward. Unsupported, the head will lag behind the forward torso movement, and the differential motion causes the neck to bend and stretch. The higher the torso acceleration, the more sudden the motion, the higher the forces on the neck, and the more likely a neck injury is to occur. Keeping the head and torso moving together is crucial to reducing whiplash injury risk. To accomplish this, the geometry of a head restraint has to be adequate — high enough to be near the back of the head. Then the seat structure and stiffness characteristics must be designed to work in concert with the head restraint to support an occupant's neck and head, accelerating them with the torso as the vehicle is pushed forward.

"In stop and go commuter traffic, you're more likely to get in a rear-end collision than any other kind of crash," Nolan says. "It's not a major engineering feat to design seats and head restraints that afford good protection in these common crashes." For example, when Toyota redesigned the Corolla for 2009 it incorporated active head restraints to help guard against whiplash injuries. Active head restraints are designed to move closer to the backs of occupants' heads in rear-end crashes.

Mini Cooper results: This minicar was redesigned for the 2007 model year, and it earned a good rating for frontal crash protection in a previous test. New side and rear tests were conducted to assess further design changes made for the most recent models. This minicar earns a good rating for rear protection and an acceptable rating for side protection. Measures recorded on the driver dummy indicate that a fractured pelvis would be possible in a side crash of the same severity, but there's low risk that other significant injuries would occur to the driver. For the rear passenger, rib fractures and/or internal organ injuries would be possible. ESC is newly standard for the 2009 model year.

How vehicles are evaluated: The Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of 40 mph frontal offset crash tests. Each vehicle's overall evaluation is based on measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury measures recorded on a Hybrid III dummy in the driver seat, and analysis of slow-motion film to assess how well the restraint system controlled dummy movement during the test.

Side evaluations are based on performance in a crash test in which the side of a vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph. The barrier represents the front end of a pickup or SUV. Ratings reflect injury measures recorded on two instrumented SID-IIs dummies, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact.

Rear crash protection is rated according to a two-step procedure. Starting points for the ratings are measurements of head restraint geometry — the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man. Seat/ head restraints with good or acceptable geometry are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they can't be positioned to protect many people.

[IIHS]

From vision to reality: "Car-2-Car" communication put to the first road test
Wolfsburg / Dudenhofen, 23 October 2008 - A milestone on the way into the automotive future has been reached at the testing grounds in Dudenhofen, Germany. For the first time, several vehicle manufacturers jointly presented their latest developments in "Car-2-Car" communication using real vehicles. Volkswagen demonstrated tomorrow's technology in a Passat Variant TDI and a Golf GTI.

Research in "Car-2-Car" communication is being conducted to define a universal standard for communication between vehicles, as sharing information is expected to yield great improvements in road safety. For example, if a vehicle encounters an adverse condition such as a traffic jam, fog, an icy road surface or an accident, it will transmit this information to all potentially affected vehicles in the area. Approaching traffic is alerted, allowing drivers to adjust their driving to the upcoming situation.

In the tests at the testing grounds in Dudehofen, the Passat and the Golf acted as a sender, receiver and transmitter. ‘Ad-hoc networks’ based on wireless LAN technology exchanged data between the vehicles. The following situations were simulated in the demonstration: motorcycle at an intersection, stationary vehicle, construction site and police car in action.

Data access was provided by a ‘CarGate’ which creates an abstract of the vehicle data, thus allowing simple access to a multitude of information, e.g. road speed, engine speed, wheel speeds or status of the hazard flashers.

[VW; Photo: Disney/Pixar]

FORD’S LATEST SAFETY BRAKETHROUGH – COLLISION WARNING WITH BRAKE SUPPORT – COMING IN 2009
The new technologies build on Ford's leading number of top safety ratings.

* Ford to introduce new "active" safety radar warning system – Collision Warning with Brake Support – in 2009 to help drivers avoid rear-end accidents.

* Collision Warning with Brake Support uses radar to detect moving vehicles ahead and warns the driver of danger with an alarm and warning light. The system also automatically pre-charges brakes and engages an electronic brake assist system to help drivers stop more quickly.

* Collision Warning with Brake Support is one of three new radar-based active safety technologies Ford is launching in 2008 and 2009. The others are Adaptive Cruise Control and BLIS® (Blind Spot Information System) with Cross Traffic Alert.

DEARBORN, Mich., Oct. 6, 2008 – Ford Motor Company, building on its safety and technology leadership, announced it will offer a new advanced "active" collision-avoidance technology, Collision Warning with Brake Support, on certain Ford and Lincoln vehicles next year.

Collision Warning with Brake Support uses radar to detect moving vehicles directly ahead. When the danger of a collision is detected, the system warns the driver with an authoritative beep and a red warning light projected on the windshield above the instrument panel. The system also automatically pre-charges brakes and engages a brake-assist feature that helps drivers quickly reach maximum braking once the brakes are engaged.

Collision Warning with Brake Support is one of three new radar-based active safety and driver-aid technologies Ford is launching across a range of vehicles in 2008 and 2009. The others are Adaptive Cruise Control, launched this year, and BLIS® (Blind Spot Information System) with Cross Traffic Alert, which debuts in 2009. All three features use radar to detect the relative position of other vehicles and warn the driver with a combination of visual and audio alerts.

The new technologies build on Ford's leading number of top safety ratings, including the most 5-star government ratings of any automaker, and a leading number of Insurance Institute for Highway Safety "Top Safety Picks."

"The new Collision Warning with Brake Support technology puts us on the leading edge of active safety to help customers detect and avoid possible dangers," said Paul Mascarenas, Ford vice president of engineering, Global Product Development. "Ford will be the first to offer this technology on mainstream models that many families can afford."

Unexpected detected

Collision Warning with Brake Support builds on the basic function of Adaptive Cruise Control, a driver-assistance feature that Ford introduced on the 2009 Lincoln MKS. Adaptive Cruise Control uses radar to detect moving vehicles immediately ahead and modify cruising speed if necessary.

"Adaptive Cruise Control really marked the beginning of pre-emptive driver-assistance systems," said Jerry Engelman, Adaptive Cruise Control supervisor, Chassis Electronics. "Ford was able to use the radar technology and experience to develop the Collision Warning with Brake Support system."

Research indicates that Collision Warning with Brake Support could be particularly helpful in warning a driver who is distracted or drowsy. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the majority of accidents involve driver inattention. The agency's research found that one extra second of warning could prevent up to 90 percent of rear-end collisions. CWBS offers three programmable alert settings ranging from approximately 1.5 seconds to 2.5 seconds.

"It depends on the user's preference, because one person's false alarm may be another person's near miss, and it's important that drivers are comfortable with the system," said Tom Pilutti, technical expert, Ford Research and Advanced Engineering. "Some people have a slower reaction time, and the longer time setting may meet their needs better than the shorter setting. Our research shows that most drivers will prefer and feel more comfortable with the longer default setting."

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, forward collision warning systems like Collision Warning with Brake Support have the potential to help prevent the kind of rear-end crashes that occurred 2.3 million times per year from 2002-2006 – almost 40 percent of the total crashes reported to police each year in the U.S.

Clearer sight with science

BLISTM (Blind Spot Information System) with Cross Traffic Alert can help provide extra confidence to drivers in parking lots by alerting drivers sooner of nearby traffic while backing out. It uses two multiple beam radar modules, which are packaged in the rear quarter panels. The radar detects moving objects within a 65-foot range from either side of the vehicle. The radar identifies when a vehicle enters the defined blind spot zone and illuminates an indicator light on the corresponding side-view mirror providing a warning that a vehicle is approaching. An audible alert is sounded as well.

Researchers at Ford's North American advanced driving simulator, Virtual Test Track Experiment (VIRTTEX), dedicated most of the past few years studying how active safety technologies in vehicles may better alert drivers of potentially dangerous driving incidents.

"New technologies such as radar, cameras, lasers and GPS may enable us to offer more safety and convenience features in the future," said Jeff Rupp, manager, Active Safety, Research and Advanced Engineering at Ford's Research and Innovation Center. "A key is identifying the kinds of warnings that drivers will find both more effective and easier to understand."

For Collision Warning with Brake Support, VIRTTEX researchers learned drivers respond more quickly to certain audible alerts that are more authoritative. Their research also shows some preference for a combination of warnings – audio alerts backed up by a visual warning – such as those that will be offered with Collision Warning with Brake Support system.

Safety in demand

Vehicle safety technology is second only to fuel efficiency on customers purchase consideration lists, according to a recent study by RDA Group Global Market Research of Bloomfield Hills, Mich. According to the research, among consumers' top desires for safety features are collision warning and prevention, greater traction controls, entrapment prevention, and vehicle-to-vehicle communications.

"Over the past several years we've seen drivers' attitudes change regarding safety technology," said Jim Thomas, senior vice president, RDA. "It used to be that they didn't want to release control of the vehicle at all, but now they're looking for the vehicle to be more proactive."

[Ford]