On both sides of the vehicle, angled slightly upwards, are cylinders of water. At the front end they have an array of tiny nozzles and a thin membrane. At the other is a piston, and an electrically-initiated propellant charge. They are solidly attached to the vehicle's structure, for reasons that will become clear.

If the system detects that the ABS has activated for several seconds but the vehicle is still approaching another object dangerously fast, the propellant fires.

The resulting backblast - akin to a recoilless rifle - slows the vehicle, forces the front wheels harder onto the road, and helps to reduce the risk of post-crash fire.

Optionally, the driver can apply the parking brake and then press the button marked "Ooops ! " to drench pedestrians, or even knock them over if they're close enough.
-- 8th of 7, Apr 24 2016

Agent-initiated vehicle re-vectoring. https://www.youtube...watch?v=cL1R77uPFEA
Kinda like that but with water? [Letsbuildafort, Apr 26 2016]

//If the system detects that the ABS has activated for several seconds// I think that if you are still moving after three seconds, it is very unlikely that any good will come of it.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 24 2016


"Well Officer, I was braking hard and thought I was going to stop in plenty of time but then skidded on the road which had suddenly become very wet..."
-- hippo, Apr 25 2016


//akin to a recoilless rifle// except for the actual "recoilless" bit, of course.
-- FlyingToaster, Apr 25 2016


Well, yes ... in this case, it's the recoil that's desired.
-- 8th of 7, Apr 25 2016


Carrying the extra mass of water and apparatus would, presumably, produce the need for the additional braking it provides.

Would it not make more sense to use the existing mass of the vehicle, and simply use pyrotechnics to jettison the engine in a forwardly direction?

Or, if your body mass is sufficiently adequate, you could save the entire car by propelling yourself through the windscreen at high speed.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 25 2016


Jettisoning the engine forward would work best if done by both cars in an impending head-on collision. It would have less desirable outcomes if just one car has this technology or if the impending collision was with a pedestrian.
-- hippo, Apr 26 2016


// less desirable outcomes ... if the impending collision was with a pedestrian. //

What, like you might miss them ?
-- 8th of 7, Apr 26 2016


// ...the propellant fires. //

Speaking of which, you might achieve better deceleratory performance by using small JATO bottles (JATO Junior, 55 lbs each) instead of the water. One could make a very flashy arrival.
-- whatrock, Apr 27 2016


Rather than carry extra water to use for this, why not just use the petrol (gasoline) carried in the car's fuel tank?
-- hippo, Apr 27 2016


We tried that, but then the UN added it to their list of Weapons Of Mass Destruction ...
-- 8th of 7, Apr 27 2016



random, halfbakery