We wrote last week that while collision avoidance systems have had a beneficial effect on accident statistics in the US, collision avoidance systems appear to have had the opposote effect.

We wrote last week that while collision avoidance systems have had a beneficial effect on accident statistics in the US, collision avoidance systems appear to have had the opposote effect.

New technology being researched by MIT's Department of Mechanical Engineering in the US, however, combines these two approaches for even safer driving.

The system works a little like an aircraft autopilot in reverse. Commercial aircraft auto-pilot systems take control of flight under normal conditions and only hand control back to the pilot when a situation becomes too complex to handle — the presumption being that a human knows how to best handle extreme conditions.

MIT’s system, on the other hand, assumes the driver wants to control the vehicle under normal driving conditions and will only step in when it looks like they’re about to lose control — to avoid a collision, in other words.

The system uses an onboard camera and a laser rangefinder to identify hazards in a vehicle’s immediate environment and plot a ‘safe zone’. The system then acts as an intelligent ‘co-pilot’ and only takes an interest when it thinks the drive is about to leave the safe zone.


The system is being developed by Sterling Anderson, a PhD student in MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering, and Karl Iagnemma, a principal research scientist in MIT’s Robotic Mobility Group.

The difference with this system is that, unlike Google’s self-driving cars, it leaves the driver in full control of the vehicle. Nor does it attempt to detect road markings in order to determine when a vehicle is being driven safely.

Explaining this different approach, Anderson said: “When you and I drive, [we don’t] choose just one path and obsessively follow it. Typically you and I see a lane or a parking lot, and we say, ‘Here is the field of safe travel, here’s the entire region of the roadway I can use, and I’m not going to worry about remaining on a specific line, as long as I’m safely on the roadway and I avoid collisions.’”

More than 1,200 trials of the system have so far resulted in few collisions and most were the result of glitches with the vehicle’s camera failing to identify an obstacle.

This system also has the added advantage of being much simpler to implement than similar self-driving technologies being developed by car manufacturers.

“You could stick your cellphone on the dashboard, and it would use [its onboard sensors] to provide the feedback needed by the system,” Anderson said. “I think we’ll find better ways of doing it that will be simpler, cheaper and allow more users access to the technology.”


Share with friends

Follow us on

Most recent motorhome reviews

The Practical Motorhome Pilote Pacific P650U Sensation review – 1 - The Pilote Pacific P650U Sensation is a two-berth with four belted travel seats and an MTPLM of 3500kg (© Peter Baber/Practical Motorhome)
The Practical Motorhome Lunar Roadstar EL review – 1 - The Lunar Roadstar EL rides on the very manoeuvrable Renault Master and is powered by a 2.3-litre, Euro 6-compliant, turbodiesel engine with 128bhp (© Practical Motorhome)
The Practical Motorhome Bailey Autograph 68-2 review – 1 - This rear-lounge, 3500kg ’van is a pretty manageable 6.79m long – the wind-out awning is standard, too (© Practical Motorhome)

Tribute 680


The Practical Motorhome Tribute 680 review – 1 - The XL LWB Fiat Ducato-based Tribute 680 has a 25-litre underslung gas tank (© Practical Motorhome)
The Practical Motorhome Adria Sonic Supreme I 810 SC review – 1 - The 2017-season Adria Sonic Supreme I 810 SC is priced from £86,990 OTR, £98,739 as tested (© Practical Motorhome)
The Practical Motorhome Swift Rio 340 Black Edition review – 1 - Black cab detailing has been a hit in the Bolero and Kon-Tiki ranges, and has now come to the Rio (© Practical Motorhome)