Follow this blog:
RSS

With driverless cars, Volvo seeks injury-free cars by 2020

By | December 3, 2012, 1:11 PM PST

It’s a Titanic-like claim (you know, the “unsinkable ship”), but one that, if it comes true, could have major safety implications for drivers.

Volvo believes that with the driverless car technology it’s developing, we could see virtually zero car deaths, at least in cars with the technology, The Wall Street Journal reports:

The 85-year-old company believes it can produce an accident free vehicle in just seven years. “Our vision is that no one is killed or injured in a new Volvo by 2020,” said Anders Eugensson, Volvo’s head of government affairs. [...]

The company says it is preparing to launch in 2014 its first batch of autonomous vehicles capable of driving up to 31 miles per hour. The limited speed reflects the technology’s expected initial use in heavy traffic. Volvo says it is working on higher-speed autonomous driving, but isn’t yet disclosing when it would be available. Its prototypes have run thousands of miles of test drives on public roads in Spain and on the company’s test track in western Sweden.

“We are convinced this is the future and we want to get there first,” Marcus Rothoff, head of developing Volvo’s driver assistance technology, said during a recent autonomous-driving event at a track in Hallered.

The initial autonomous car technology that the company will release in 2014 will essentially be traffic jam assistance. Instead of stomping on the brake in frustration as you inch along the highway, you’ll be able to let the car take over while you do something else. And earlier this year, the company completed it’s first test of a “road train,” in Spain.

As for the possibility of Volvo’s cars being injury-free by 2020, there is some precedent from Google’s driverless car. According to Google, their driverless car has been driven 300,000 miles under computer control without being involved in an accident. (It’s was in an accident once when under human control.) That cars will cease to pose danger, though, is quite presumptuous, especially with other cars on the road that will lack the technology.

The Swedish car maker has been in a slide recently with only 436,000 vehicles sold last year and this year expected to be in the red, according to the WSJ. So it’s not surprising that the company has high hopes for the technology. It could be these innovations that turn the company around.

Volvo Stakes Its Claim to Driverless Vehicles [Wall Street Journal]

Image: Volvo

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Tyler Falk

About Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Contributing Editor

Tyler Falk freelance journalist based in Washington, D.C. Previously, he was with Smart Growth America and Grist. He holds a degree from Goshen College.

Follow him on Twitter.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Tyler does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
55
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-1 Votes
+ -
laughable aspiration
"The 85-year-old company believes it can produce an accident free vehicle in just seven years. Our vision is that no one is killed or injured in a new Volvo by 2020, said Anders Eugensson, Volvos head of government affairs"

I'm sorry, this is a crock, unless the small print exempt getting hit by another vehicle like a 40 ton truck. Even with a rigid safety cell, like Smart, your organ's will burst at high enough g-force from an impact.

This is a ludicrous aspiration, as cannot be met. Unless that are rounding 0.249999% deaths and injuries and below --> 0%.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
Updated - 4th Dec
+4 Votes
+ -
You speak loudly, without thought.
No 'reasonable person' the standard used by courts to determine false product claims, could expect at the current levels of technology, nor, to any level we aspire, the ability to guarantee such a claim. But if they manage to make their vehicles 10% safer, that's a step towards the goal.

In fact, 'merely' automating the major freeways--a task which was easily possible in the 80's--would have save countless lives and billions of dollars in damages, roadway maintenance and billions more in lessened stress.

Automation is TODAY capable of driving over 95% of the terrain people actually drive with a much higher safety record than humans. Fact is, humans are bloody slow, and few situations actually require thought which is good, since though is even slower. The fact is, humans don't communicate between drivers well, and such communications are usually quite routine (turning, braking etc.)

Humans react at least one order of magnitude slower than even a cheap controller.

Using humans, it's 'reasonably safe' to run vehicles 2-4 seconds apart, depending upon vehicle mass, road conditions etc. In general, distances under 1 second are ~8x more likely to result in a fatal accident. Under most traffic conditions, spacing will be under 2 seconds, often under 1/2 second. vehicles spaced 2 seconds apart permit 30 vehicles per minute per lane.

Cars can communicate in microseconds...and know the current conditions of all neighboring vehicles from tires up. Automated vehicles can be run safely at less than 250 milliseconds apart. Four per second per lane or 240 per minute per lane--8 times the volume.

This reduces need for infrastructure expansion while increasing safety and fuel efficiency as well as permitting efficient roadway maintenance and emergency response.

It can be done without infrastructure modifications, although there are some small things which would help in early adoption phases. For cars currently manufactured, it requires few additional components...notably a controller and software (available free,) many newer cars are partially automated already and everything since 1986 has some sort of instrument and control bus...the wiring harness is in place. Add wi-fi/bluetooth/radio and the basics are there. And for most purposes, the fancy and expensive location gear used on the early prototypes is not necessary to create a system orders of magnitude better at ordinary driving than the majority of humans.

I expect that consumer self-drive kits will be available very soon, if not already, and that by early in 2013 they will be on highways in the West--legally or illegally.

You want to drive for pleasure? Sit inside the car and drive a video game.

We have almost exactly NO accurate information about the physical and mental conditions of the human operators--what little we have suggests that they are, at best, in 'poor' operating condition, and poorly adapted or trained to deal with situations which require close attention for long periods while nothing happens...a skil which is a perfect fit for an automated system.
Posted by wizoddg
4th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
Have at it
No thanks, I don't want to "drive a video game" anymore than I want to settle for virtual sex. Seriously, you need to save these Philip K Dick, "wouldn't it be neat-o to live in the future- where everything's automatic and everyone's a drone?" fantasies for your next dungeons and dragons party.
Posted by ddferrari
4th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Their futures lost
32,885 motor vehicle deaths in the U.S. in 2010.
Old, young, children... they have no futures.
I want the future of the self-driving car and tens of thousands of fewer vehicle fatalities.
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
4th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Cause ?
You quote a statistic, but no causal effects.

In a large number of cases, driving like a dick and causing an accident through your own negligence is the answer. Sport mode 'on', 'assisted driving, off'.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
4th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
Turns out
Just navigating intersections is a major cause and "driving like a dick" is about a 10% factor.
A good read is "National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey Report to Congress"
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
5th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
no fun at all
If I have to sit and be a passenger on a long trip, THAT will kill me. I like to drive. I hate to ride. On top of all that, machines fail, sometimes in subtle, but deadly, ways. Unless you are monitoring the machine, you may not react in time to save yourself.
Posted by ExViperDriver
4th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
Like to drive, can't afford extra bells and whistles
Regard ExViper Driver
I too love to drive. I can't imagine any car driving itself on many of the roads I have to traverse, it's just not going to happen. Besides that this whole proposition of making cars safer and safer is going insane. Yes it can be done at a cost. We are gradually evolving in a highly delineated population of haves and have nots. Who the heck will be able to afford these cars with all these bells and whistles. Now we have cars that can park themselves, up goes the price. Anti skid, anti sway, traction control, backup radar/sonar, HUD infra red fog penetration viewing, electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles. Where will it all end and who can afford it?
Posted by radiodog4@...
4th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Fortunately
The do-ers of the world do not suffer from your imagination deficiency.
Any road you can drive a self-driving car can navigate with less chance of accident.
Change change change, most of it for the better, stop stop stop I don't want change. Sorry pal the world just doesn't work that way.

to quote Douglas Adams...
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when youre born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when youre fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

and yes the answer is 42
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
5th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
You want to drive for pleasure? Sit inside the car and drive a video game.
...don't bring your slow reflexes, physical and mental problems on the road near me & risk my life for your 'pleasure.' Take it to a closed course full of others of your ilk.

Most humans 'monitoring' complex equipment which fails at high speed...say aircraft..have about enough time to react and say 'what was that noise?'

Most people ROUTINELY drive unsafely. Most have little idea how to determine what is wrong, and no conditioned reflexes to handle ordinary situations.
EVERYTHING 'sometimes fails' the germane question is: Are automated vehicles safer? More efficient? Faster? More comfortable? etc than the alternative human controlled systems. The answer to that has been 'yes' for 30 years under certain circumstances, and is today under the vast majority of urban and interurban transport.

You don't have to 'be a passenger' in an automated vehicle, automation frees up lots of internal design. Lay in a lounger--or bed or whatever. You don't need to worry about driver line-of-sight, so the structure can be simpler yet stronger. In fact, you don't need windows, since external cameras and internal monitors are safer. Watch a movie, get tan, get laid, read a book, eat brunch, do some paperwork, make some calls...it's three hours from Minneapolis to Chicago. What you do with it is up to you--but please, let the car drive!
Posted by wizoddg
4th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
Paranoid?
Don't cross the street- you might get run over. Don't go bowling- you might slip and fall. In fact, just hide in your basement- there may be a wasp outside.

Getting the point yet? There are only two certainties in life: 1) We all die, and 2) You will never be mistaken for Chuck Norris.
Posted by ddferrari
4th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
Driverless cars
To seat back and relax... I always dreamed of a chauffeured limousine and here it is!!
Posted by David Traversa
4th Dec
+4 Votes
+ -
What? I'm just getting used to my radio...
They put windscreens on cars and the people said it was a lousy idea: you couldn't feel the speed.
They put radios in cars and people said it was dangerous: you wouldn't put your attention into driving if someone was always talking.
They enclosed the cars and people said it was even more dangerous: you couldn't hear what was going on outside.
They invented cell phones and used them when driving. People said that was dangerous.
Now they want to take the most erratic and dangerous element out of a car: The driver, and people say that it's dangerous...
No more drunk drivers, no more asleep at the wheel, no more joy riders, no more car theft (only works when the owner is in the car).
I'm 60+ years old. I'll live to see a requirement for a special license to be able to drive your vehicle.
It's about time.
Posted by dar1p
4th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
Remember this?
Computer says: "This vehicle is controlled by a perfect AI."
"absolutely nothing can go wrong...can go wrong....can go wrong.........."

Are you willing bet your life on a transistor?
Posted by bill1514@...
4th Dec
+4 Votes
+ -
That can be overcome with redundancy, which would require that,
the control system or the auto-driving system, would have more than one processor available, and each talking to the other(s), each making sure that, if one of the others did stop functioning or didn't function correctly, that, it or one of the others would take over for the non-functioning or malfunctioning processor or component. An automated-driverless car would have to be controlled a massively parallel, non-stop, fault-tolerant machine.
Posted by adornoe
4th Dec
-4 Votes
+ -
Outlaw cars and be done with it
Why not outlaw cars altoghether if you and Volvo feel that people can't be trusted with driving their own car?
Posted by rocketman67
4th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
Horses
You'll get the Health and Safety police quoting deaths through horse-riding as a reason not to do this happy

Driving has inherent hazards, but the risk is relatively low with a well maintained car, sensible driving manner on well maintained streets and highways.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
4th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Really?
Relatively low? 1 person per 10,000 killed each year in the U.S.
Would you use an elevator with that level of safety?
In a company I once worked for such elevators would kill 3 employees each year.
And for teenagers vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death.
For 19 year old males 4.7 per 10,000 are killed each year.
What is more precious than the lives of our children and grand children.
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
5th Dec
-3 Votes
+ -
Liberals and progressives won't ever allow this driverless
capability on cars, because, it has the potential to eliminate millions of jobs in the U.S. alone.
Posted by adornoe
4th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
No matter how many "dislikes" my post gets, the facts are irrefutable,
and neither the unions nor the liberals will be very accepting of a driverless car.
Posted by adornoe
5th Dec
+3 Votes
+ -
autodrive for vehicles about time
We have autopilot for aircraft we have autonav for ships. It`s about time we had a autodrive for vehicles all vehicles trucks cars buses etc etc.
Posted by tonyg52
4th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
Imagine the possibilities of fully self-driving vehicles
My car drives me to work, drops me at the front door and goes off somewhere, parks itself and waits for my call.

Everyone can travel by car... the young, elderly, physically challenged, blind... the DRUNK

Trucks can drive 24 hrs/day, no operator... shipping should be cheaper.

Imagine small electric delivery vehicles for local delivery... Fedex, UPS, pizza, groceries.
Your local retail store delivers your item 30 minutes after your on-line purchase.

Any person or business can send a package a short distance in minutes, hours depending.

Vacation time... we all pile in the car at night and sleep or whatever while the car drives 500 miles.
It becomes practical to do weekend getaways that are in the range of 500 miles or more each way.

And do I need to own a vehicle or would pay per use be cost effective.
Owning a vehicle today is expensive.
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
4th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
I've been saying the same thing here many times, and think of the savings..
No need for auto insurance and all that it brings, such as insurance agents and insurance adjusters.

No need for highway patrol offices, and no more "gotcha" cameras catching people going through a red light or stop sign. In fact, no need anymore for any traffic cops or road blocks or any government intervention with our driving.

No more need for driver licenses, since, the automobile would be the driver. We'd need just a certificate of ownership, but, even that might not be necessary, since...

There would be no need to own a car, which can be owned by a limousine type service, which would be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of a fleet of vehicles, which would be available at a moment's notice to anyone that desired any vehicle to get them from point-a to point-b, and back if necessary.

Then, there would be no need for gas stations, since, the fueling would be done at the limousine service stations.

We'd also benefit by not having to purchase a new vehicle every 3 to 8-10 years, which would be major savings.

There would be almost no accidents, and not many deaths and/or injuries, if any.

No more bills for auto repairs and no more need for auto parts stores, no more fueling up and no more wasted time at the repair shop and on stopping to fuel-up.. Major savings right there.

Another big reward from driverless cars would be that, no more injuries and deaths from car accidents, would do away with the need for so many lawyers and traffic courts. Also, many, if not most, of the traffic laws in the books could disappear or become null-and-void.

Driverless cars would also not need to be designed to look good, and only the interior would need to be nice and comfortable.

A driverless car would also allow a person to do more work while traveling to a destination, and productive work always equals more money earned.

Also, much bigger savings could be had if people didn't have to own a car, which would translate to homes not needing one or two car garages, and no garage would equal to more affordable housing. A smaller house would equal more money left over in people's pockets or bank accounts.

On another front, with fewer or no accidents, medical insurance rates could be cut tremendously, which would make medical insurance a lot more affordable.

I'm pretty sure that are a lot other areas where not owning a car could save a lot of money, but the above alone could equal many thousands of dollars of saving per year for each person who no longer needs to have a car.

But, since those "benefits" would necessarily kill millions of jobs in the U.S. alone, it aint' going to happen, since the unions and liberals would kill off the idea.
Posted by adornoe
4th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Do I detect irony (or is it sarcasm)
@adornoe
You had a good post up until the nonsense in the last sentence.

"No one can resist an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
Updated - 4th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
It's neither irony nor sarcasm, and, everything I said, includig the last
sentence, would be true in the real world we inhabit.

Unions and the liberal ideology wouldn't be accepting of the ideas/benefits I mentioned above.

To every positive and good idea, there will always be someone or some group that will find fault with it/them
Posted by adornoe
5th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Nope
Last sentence was just bias and ignorance
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
5th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
You must be deliberately posting stupidity, because,
nothing you've posted thus far has made any sense or contributes anything.

So, what the heck is biased or ignorant about what I posted?

The one demonstrating bias and ignorance thus far, has been YOU!
Posted by adornoe
6th Dec
+3 Votes
+ -
The future glimpse
This is very useful in long drives, where it's easy to fall asleep. Volvo is a highly underrated innovator in Europe.
Posted by WINSTON982
4th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Driverless cars
still can't avoid drunk drivers... one of which just killed two of my daughter's highschool students.
Posted by bb_apptix
4th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Just the opposite
Self-driving cars have collision detection and avoidance far superior to human reaction times.
Motor vehicle fatality is the leading cause of death to teenagers, representing over one-third of all deaths.
All deaths averaged 16,375 from 1996 to 2006
The above is from the National Vital Statistics System-Mortality
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
Updated - 4th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
Parhaps on a test track
Perhaps on a test track. Chuck one into the real world, and it will be a pile-up.

Same reason you do not have robot shelf-stackers in Walmart.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
4th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
No, in the real world
The Google project has driven 300,000 miles in the real world. No accidents.

Self-driving cars will progress in a manner similar to the aviation industry.
In aviation each accident is studied and often a needed improvement is found.
Today aviation is very safe. Of interest is that the majority of accidents are attributed to pilot error.
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
5th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
Really
and what happens to the Google driverless car when a drunk going 65mph hits it? Do you think it's smart enough to avoid that accident?
Posted by bb_apptix
5th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Yes really
To a high speed computer a car going 65 MPH is a snail. Plenty of time to look for and begin avoidance / evasive action or at least optimally deploy air bags, seat belt tensioners and perhaps newer safety devices.

Come on get some understanding of what is possible.
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
5th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Volvo: The car for people who don't want to die!
remember the movie (Crazy People) where a bunch of autistic spectrum people put together brutally honest commercials among which was the line in the above subject line? Looks as if they can recycle the commercial soon!
Posted by xrayangiodoc
4th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
Stupidity
Volvo's claim is downright dumb. First, you would have to have roads populated only by the Volvos with this capability. Secondly, having used computers often enough, I've seen enough crashes. Obviously the countrol system for this mythical Volvo would be computer controlled. And there would be no failures??? There may be some automation possible in the future but ridiculous claims like this are just plain PR BS.
Posted by northca707@...
4th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Failures would be miinimal, and with redundancy, might never even happen,
and, in the event that something truly wrong does happen, the car might be able to bring itself to a stop on the side of the road before any other thing does go wrong.

On the whole, a driverless car, Volvo or whatever, would be many times more safe than a human-driven vehicle, and that by itself would make the driverles car very desirable and perhaps even mandated.
Posted by adornoe
5th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
It's time has come
The technology is ready, people will slowly accept the idea of driverless cars (in South Florida you see many cars with just 2 hands and a steering wheel) but we should also take note of what the defense dept did in the past week.... Made rules to prevent unmanned weapons making strike decisions on their own. As a boater I know when I use the autopilot/ GPS does not mean I leave the helm. I still have to monitor for the safety of myself, passengers and others who I share the waters with. I see this being the same for future auto drive cars. And never forget the infamous words "Open the pod bay doors, HAL."
Posted by edll@...
4th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Ironic
For a technology blog there seems to be a lot of Luddite responses.
Posted by harrim47
5th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
duh
Debating a claim does not make one a Luddite.
Posted by bb_apptix
5th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
I agree
@harrim47
remember some of these folks
deny climate change
think climate scientists are all cheats and liars
believe the earth is 5000 yrs old (the progressive ones say 9000)
deny evolution
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
Updated - 5th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
IGNORANT to the max!
The people you call "deniers" are the folks who do defend real science, and will not accept the junk science of global warming with it's very faulty practice of "science". What those people practice is the opposite of science, and what they really want is the advancement of their agenda and not the science.

So, go back to school if you can, and learn what real science is about. But, don't go to a liberal university or the public school system, because, they'll be trying to sell you on the principles of "junk science".
Posted by adornoe
5th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Wow
@adornoe
Wow you are so detached from the rational world.
You said...
"don't go to a liberal university or the public school system, because,
they'll be trying to sell you on the principles of "junk science" "

Do you not see how crazy that sounds?

Goodbye
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
5th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
Not crazy at all, since that's where the indoctrination of our children
starts to happen.

When the school's systems have been taken over by liberals, and our college/university system is about 90-95% liberal controlled, you have to see a pattern. The pattern is manifested by the large number of "scientists" and "researchers" who work to promote the global warming science, or junk science. Those people need to promote their junk in order to receive the funding to keep them and their universities going. And, they'll do whatever it takes to get their way, including lying to the people with their "science".

The "rational" world you perceive, is not as rational as you are being led to believe.

So, wake up, stop being in denial, and start thinking for a change.
Posted by adornoe
6th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
You ever get that feeling
@adornoe
that only you know the truth and if only the rest of the world would realize.

I sure hope your influence is limited to the postings you do all over Smartplanet.
I especially hope that no young impressionable minds are exposed to your distorted view of the world.
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
6th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
Actually, you are like the crazy person in an insane asylum,
who believes that, he's the only sane person in the world, while the rest of the world is crazy.

You describe me the same way that I feel about your ways of thinking. No matter how much you debate or counter my comments, the facts can't be changed.

You are like the liberals in a liberal bubble, who will never understand how anyone can ever think differently from them. But, the people in the liberal bubble are the ones who have never stepped out side of their boundaries to try to understand the rest of the world, or the real world. A liberal will ask the question: "How could Bush have won the election if I never knew anyone who voted for him?". The world is a lot bigger than one world-view, and it's quite possible that, your world-view is not the one that is most prevalent. You just have to step outside of your bubble to start noticing that, the world is not as simple as what you thought.

And, to answer you asinine question...

No, I'm not the only one with the truth, because, I know that there are millions of other people who believe the way I do.

I could pose the same question to you as you posed to me. And I would be more correct in stating that, your version of the truth is not what most rational thinking people believe in.

Here's a question for you: In what part of history, or in what part of the world, has socialism ever been successful?
Posted by adornoe
8th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
BTW, what part of evolution can be "proven"?
Charts and jumping to conclusions because of anecdotal observations, is not "settled" science, and evolution is just a theory with no proof and it's got many holes, which many never be filled.
Posted by adornoe
5th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
correcton: "which may never be filled"
n/t
Posted by adornoe
5th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
And yet, you were unable to come up with any contribution of your own.
Fact is that, the Luddites are the far-left leaning posters, who will defend the intervention of government at every step in people's lives. The word "progressive" is a misnomer for the liberals, who can't stand the advancement of technology if it means that some people might have to lose their jobs to more productive methods. Progress is not what they're about.
Posted by adornoe
5th Dec
Posted by Hates Idiots
5th Dec
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!