US To Require Cars to Communicate With Each Other

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

US To Require Cars to Communicate With Each Other

The Department of Transportation announces plans to require cars to talk to each other.

In a press conference today, US Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx announced that the Obama administration intends to require automakers to equip new cars with vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication technology, as reported by Joan Lowy of the Associated Press. A Department of Transportation (DOT) press release quotes Foxx as saying, "Vehicle-to-vehicle technology represents the next generation of auto safety improvements, building on the life-saving achievements we've already seen with safety belts and air bags."

After researching the issue, the DOT believes that most two-vehicle crashes could be prevented with V2V communication. According to the press release, the current plan is for the communication systems to provide warnings to the human driver to respond to, likely merging with technology for the eventual automation of vehicle control further down the road. This would represent a step in the direction of a world of largely automated, networked vehicle fleets which futurists have long claimed would virtually eliminate traffic fatalities, while reducing congestion and transport times, and improving gas mileage.

The DOT conducted tests of V2V technology in both controlled and real world environments, including a 3,000 vehicle road test in Ann Arbor, MI. It also reports high levels of favorability and acceptance of the technology in public opinion studies. The DOT claims that V2V communications will enable vehicles to detect danger at ranges beyond the capabilities of onboard sensors, and that the technology will not identify vehicles or track their movements, but will incorporate "layers of security and privacy protection".

The DOT has not given any specific timeframe in which it anticipates this plan to be enacted, but stated that a more complete report would be forthcoming, and that "the signal this announcement sends to the market will significantly enhance development of this technology and pave the way for market penetration of V2V safety applications.

Source: AP, DOT

Permalink

This will be the bees knees, the biggest safety enhancement in years... until someone hacks it and uses it for nefarious purposes.

P.S. Thanks

So...is this just like having transponders in cars, so you know when you are too close (and the government can monitor your every movement)?

...

Eh, they tried legislating better and more fuel efficient cars a few years back, but that got shot down to to freedom.

Oh naiveté, how I adore thee. This eventually boils down to trolling and more efficient road rages. Which does mean
image

And in the future, hackers will cause the death of 40,000 people in a single month just for lulz.

This sounds incredibly expensive. and cars will require it? What about the millions of cars in circulation now that don't have this system? Will they be required to install it? will it be a direct cost to the people, or will we be given a new tax for it? Either way it sounds sketchy.

It's the end of the destruction derbies as we know them. Unless we eventually replace cars with mechs or something, that'd be fun.

dragongit:
This sounds incredibly expensive. and cars will require it? What about the millions of cars in circulation now that don't have this system? Will they be required to install it? will it be a direct cost to the people, or will we be given a new tax for it? Either way it sounds sketchy.

In cases like these I think you grandfather it in and think long term. Shouldn't be that big a cost for new vehicles, so even if you leave current cars on the road as they are within 20 years the majority of vehicles on the road will ave it. As well people could be given incentive to install them through insurance premiums.

Either way though it sounds like a step in the right direction but one that could still easily be screwed up. Make it an open source protocol that only does what it's intended to do and nothing else, and we'll be fined. Turn it into some closed off proprietary system that integrates with your Facebook and Twitter or whatever and it could be a disaster.

I was part of the Ann Arbor study; I drive University of Michigan transit buses. That damn system is incredibly annoying. It tells you when pedestrians are in the crosswalk! That you're stopped at! Which is controlled by a light! With an obnoxious flashing tablet mounted to your dash!

The day they took those damn sensors off of our good buses was one of the best days of my year.

I support making the automobile more autonomous. Yes, there are privacy concerns.

However, 30,000 + people die in america per year on the road.

Thats too many, and since expecting people to actually get better at driving while being less distracted is a completely unrealistic pipe dream, we tech our way out.

(yes, we know people CAN HACK. In a nonautonomous system though, it doesn't matter at all if someone is hacking it, because you're still driving the vehicle. An autonomous vehicle would need to have some separation from the intercommunication system and would also need to rely on its own measurements for making decisions first, rather than the incoming communications. If you think Google is pursuing the technology because they think it won't be adopted by the mass market, you are crazy)

This shit is going to get hacked! Hasn't the US government been watching Ghost in the Shell: Arise? COME ON, GUYS!

Get with it!

Oh hell no. I mean that in the most possible dire way. The potential for abuse is stunning and Government security against hacking? Give me a fucking break. Nevermind the 4th amendment violation potential for this. All in all good intent doesn't make good policy. Bad idea in the worst way possible.

They need to make ABS mandatory first, then the preventative automatic braking next, then this. I could image many people getting too careless with the extra safety cushion and hitting things that the system can't talk to and other object detection systems can't detect. I also could imagine failure in the communications protocol when it's needed most. A dropped signal because of a glitch, interference, or old rusty antenna connection at the right time would suck for the people involved. It be great if you could have two-way radio styled communication with the other drivers in a civilized manner, but that would immediately devolved into a CB channel dedicated to road rage.

RandV80:

dragongit:
This sounds incredibly expensive. and cars will require it? What about the millions of cars in circulation now that don't have this system? Will they be required to install it? will it be a direct cost to the people, or will we be given a new tax for it? Either way it sounds sketchy.

In cases like these I think you grandfather it in and think long term. Shouldn't be that big a cost for new vehicles, so even if you leave current cars on the road as they are within 20 years the majority of vehicles on the road will ave it. As well people could be given incentive to install them through insurance premiums.

Either way though it sounds like a step in the right direction but one that could still easily be screwed up. Make it an open source protocol that only does what it's intended to do and nothing else, and we'll be fined. Turn it into some closed off proprietary system that integrates with your Facebook and Twitter or whatever and it could be a disaster.

It might come out as standard on more expensive cars and commercial vehicles first, as an option on other cars, then made mandatory on everything later in a sequential order. Most safety features start as options and become standard as they are proven in real world situations. They need to test this out first before making consumers/taxpayers carry the cost of it. Though, knowing our current government, they might pool money into paying for retrofit kits on older cars before the system has been proven effective when the money could have gone to a better safety measure or, you know, schooling to teach kids about to learn how to drive what really happens in the 30 milliseconds your cars connect because you tried to answer a text at 40 MPH. The companies making and installing these systems would sure benefit, though.

Can we get less auto accidents? It can't cause more that's for sure. Less auto accidents MIGHT lead to lower insurance in the future. Lord knows I get tired of paying for other peoples retardation on the road, ie rolling stops, failure to yield to pedestrians, and failure to use a turn signal for everything.

Hopefully this new system include an automatic face palm to offenders of the above listed common traffic violations.

thiosk:
I support making the automobile more autonomous. Yes, there are privacy concerns.

However, 30,000 + people die in america per year on the road.

Thats too many, and since expecting people to actually get better at driving while being less distracted is a completely unrealistic pipe dream, we tech our way out.

(yes, we know people CAN HACK. In a nonautonomous system though, it doesn't matter at all if someone is hacking it, because you're still driving the vehicle. An autonomous vehicle would need to have some separation from the intercommunication system and would also need to rely on its own measurements for making decisions first, rather than the incoming communications. If you think Google is pursuing the technology because they think it won't be adopted by the mass market, you are crazy)

While for an average driver this may be the case some of us do know how to drive and can perform better than computers. Whenever I drive an automatic car I hate it because it's far too slow in changing gears and responding to changes (it takes too long to gear down when going up a hill) which is why I drive manual, I have the control and can be proactive. Even with sensors etc the computer will always be reactive and this is a disadvantage that won't be going away anytime soon. As I said for most drivers who are also reactive the computer will be better than them but not compared to everyone.

thiosk:
I support making the automobile more autonomous. Yes, there are privacy concerns.

However, 30,000 + people die in america per year on the road.

Thats too many, and since expecting people to actually get better at driving while being less distracted is a completely unrealistic pipe dream, we tech our way out.

(yes, we know people CAN HACK. In a nonautonomous system though, it doesn't matter at all if someone is hacking it, because you're still driving the vehicle. An autonomous vehicle would need to have some separation from the intercommunication system and would also need to rely on its own measurements for making decisions first, rather than the incoming communications. If you think Google is pursuing the technology because they think it won't be adopted by the mass market, you are crazy)

yepp this, I had to do a huge 30 page report on autonomous vehicle and electronic transportation feedback last summer, and there is a reason why autonomous support will be picked up, hell 3 states already have it LEGAL to drive autonomous vehicles around daily.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/08/15/googles-self-driving-car-passes-300000-miles/

I urge people to check stuff like this out before they judge it too harshly, safer driving and keeping everyone under the same mindset will save many more lives and make traffic-lights much more streamlined (which wont require cars to stop/start so much, it'll flow naturally with constant roundabouts at major points of intersection, which yes that already happens in many places, but you can't tell me human drivers don't make it fucking awful.)

Why is everyone freaking out?

Here's what this technology represents in the immediate future:

You go to merge from an on-ramp. There's someone coming up fast in your blind spot. The car beeps to warn you.

That's it. It's vehicle-to-vehicle communication, not fucking Skynet. Self-driving cars are still 10+ years away.

thiosk:
I support making the automobile more autonomous. Yes, there are privacy concerns.

However, 30,000 + people die in america per year on the road.

Thats too many, and since expecting people to actually get better at driving while being less distracted is a completely unrealistic pipe dream, we tech our way out.

No. The problem is that licensing drivers is expected. How about not licensing those who aren't skilled enough?

Covarr:
This will be the bees knees, the biggest safety enhancement in years... until someone hacks it and uses it for nefarious purposes.

P.S. Thanks

Of course the best part will be the law making it illegal to drive vehicles not equipped with this technology. Thanks Again!

teknoarcanist:
Why is everyone freaking out?

Here's what this technology represents in the immediate future:

You go to merge from an on-ramp. There's someone coming up fast in your blind spot. The car beeps to warn you.

That's it. It's vehicle-to-vehicle communication, not fucking Skynet. Self-driving cars are still 10+ years away.

Agreed in that as long as a person is still in control it's not a real issue. The only concern I'd have is that the communication technology being used had better be completely isolated from the computer controlling the cars inputs. The last thing we need is somebody hacking this stuff to disable the brakes or fully open the throttle regardless of pedal inputs.

FoolKiller:

thiosk:
I support making the automobile more autonomous. Yes, there are privacy concerns.

However, 30,000 + people die in america per year on the road.

Thats too many, and since expecting people to actually get better at driving while being less distracted is a completely unrealistic pipe dream, we tech our way out.

No. The problem is that licensing drivers is expected. How about not licensing those who aren't skilled enough?

Yes, how about changing the entire social paradigm on which the modern world is constructed. Please; while we're dreaming, I want a flying ridable panther. We cannot even agree as a society when its socially acceptable to discuss taking driving privileges away from illegal immigrants and the extreme elderly. Take the elderly, they're a pretty effective voting block, good luck winning when you've alienated them by passage of law.

Further, "skilled" is a functionally meaningless word. This isn't "'ey mate you be a mighty skilled driver eh wot." A driver is said to be "experienced" when they have booked 50,000 miles. An inexperienced driver is substantially more likely to have collisions. Forbidding inexperienced individuals from driving will not make more skilled drivers, it just raises the barrier to entry artificially, in a society where social mobility is innately linked to physical mobility and in which few alternatives exist to the automobile.

I hold that rising distractions and the spectre of impaired driving (drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep) are much more important than skill. People don't have many accidents because they turned the wheel left when they meant to turn right. They have accidents when they go to text "i luv u" to their special friend and smack into an old lady in a hoverround.

Autonomous driving is inevitable. I expect that you will need special training and simulator hours to be legally licensed to pilot a vehicle in otherwise automated traffic by 2050.

Idk sounds distracting. What do you do when it messes up and you have a beepathon in your car for no reason or someone
Lulz it up on the freeway making people react to false positives? One thing I seen is people overreacting and causing a bigger mess.

thiosk:

FoolKiller:

thiosk:
I support making the automobile more autonomous. Yes, there are privacy concerns.

However, 30,000 + people die in america per year on the road.

Thats too many, and since expecting people to actually get better at driving while being less distracted is a completely unrealistic pipe dream, we tech our way out.

No. The problem is that licensing drivers is expected. How about not licensing those who aren't skilled enough?

Yes, how about changing the entire social paradigm on which the modern world is constructed. Please; while we're dreaming, I want a flying ridable panther. We cannot even agree as a society when its socially acceptable to discuss taking driving privileges away from illegal immigrants and the extreme elderly. Take the elderly, they're a pretty effective voting block, good luck winning when you've alienated them by passage of law.

Excellent. Start your retort with nonsense. Always a good way to go.

And once again, you're focusing on the wrong thing. "Take the elderly"? Why? Age doesn't make you a bad driver. It does contribute to the deterioration of physical abilities required for driving but doesn't mean anything on its own. My father is 64 years old. He was racing competitively 3 years ago with people half his age. Age doesn't mean anything as it has no context.

thiosk:

Further, "skilled" is a functionally meaningless word. This isn't "'ey mate you be a mighty skilled driver eh wot." A driver is said to be "experienced" when they have booked 50,000 miles. An inexperienced driver is substantially more likely to have collisions. Forbidding inexperienced individuals from driving will not make more skilled drivers, it just raises the barrier to entry artificially, in a society where social mobility is innately linked to physical mobility and in which few alternatives exist to the automobile.

Skilled isn't meaningless. In fact, its the only thing that does matter. This isn't a video game. Experience does not necessarily result in skill development. I never said that you should forbid inexperienced drivers. I just think you should raise the bar for entry.

The testing required to become a licensed driver doesn't really test your skill on the road or your ability to control a motored vehicle. You want a better test than following stupid directions? How about giving someone a map and telling them the destination and they have to get there. No guidance or instruction from the proctor. They can then judge both your ability to plan and your ability to drive through a city without being told to turn left, right, etc. If you can't do it then you shouldn't be allowed to drive alone anyways.

thiosk:

I hold that rising distractions and the spectre of impaired driving (drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep) are much more important than skill. People don't have many accidents because they turned the wheel left when they meant to turn right. They have accidents when they go to text "i luv u" to their special friend and smack into an old lady in a hoverround.

Distracted/impaired driving and skill are two completely distinct things. You could be skilled but if you are a fucking idiot and text or drink and drive then skill is irrelevant. Accidents related to skill are not about knowing left from right, rather they are about how far to turn the wheel, how hard to push the brake, how much slower than the speed limit you should go because of reduced traction and visibility, paying attention to everything around you, knowing that signalling is meant to indicate a desire and doesn't automatically mean you can switch lanes and so on. It's knowing that you shouldn't drive beyond the abilities of the vehicle. It's knowing that you can't drive more aggressively just because you're in an SUV because while the car is bigger, heavier, and safer for the driver, the traction may just be as poor as a sedan in icy conditions.

Also, if you're guilty of distracted driving, then you should have stiffer penalties. Fuck a fine. Rather, suspend the license for 30 days AND take away the cell phone for the same period. If you start taking away phones people will suddenly stop using them while driving.

thiosk:

Autonomous driving is inevitable. I expect that you will need special training and simulator hours to be legally licensed to pilot a vehicle in otherwise automated traffic by 2050.

So are they all going to talk American? If so, which version (1980's, 2000, or the new PWN-SPK)? What about imports? We already have BWM issues with different languages in their systems.

In another news story, Iran and China have unofficially opened up the Won-X prize to see who can write the first virus to make Americans all stay at home. Driving while your car is beeping would invalidate insurance as you could not possibly know if it is safe. This could actually lead to fixing some of the pollution damage, so I am all for it. Then again, I run 1/2 marathons, so walking does not bother me. ;)

You know what this is going to do to drivers instead of warn them? Freak them out. How would you like an unexpected voice or buzz or beep from nowhere suddenly shouting out? That'll break the flow of concentration worse than another car you might not immediately see, one where you might react to avoid that problem instead of possibly being startled at the exact worst moment, which could cause you to get into a far worse wreck than you might've been in.

This will not be embraced without severe trouble. You need better drivers, not things that beep at us. The accident will only be made worse by a sudden distraction from the driving that we're doing, especially if the driver is not into this generation of technology. Oh, and you need to stop making fiberglass cars. They're SHATTER in a collision.

BS we all know its so the government can track you and keep an eye on people.

FalloutJack:
You know what this is going to do to drivers instead of warn them? Freak them out. How would you like an unexpected voice or buzz or beep from nowhere suddenly shouting out? That'll break the flow of concentration worse than another car you might not immediately see, one where you might react to avoid that problem instead of possibly being startled at the exact worst moment, which could cause you to get into a far worse wreck than you might've been in.

This will not be embraced without severe trouble. You need better drivers, not things that beep at us. The accident will only be made worse by a sudden distraction from the driving that we're doing, especially if the driver is not into this generation of technology. Oh, and you need to stop making fiberglass cars. They're SHATTER in a collision.

They use this technology today is some cars and it not bothering the drivers. And as for your last point, which would you rather jump down into from a 10 foot drop, a large block of steel, or a large block of foam. The steel won't budge, and it'll hurt. The foam is going to crumple and absorb the impact. Car that can crumple on impact have saved thousands of lives in the past 30 years.

It could be neat if they were to say; make your car automatically brake if it's about to hit another car. If it's just another thing on the dashboard, it still falls to the incompetent human inside to handle it.
Like half of drivers have no business being on the road. The sooner robo-cars become a thing, the better.

Yeah I think I will stick to my current car. I like them with as few sensors not needed to run the engine as possible.

teknoarcanist:
Why is everyone freaking out?

Here's what this technology represents in the immediate future:

You go to merge from an on-ramp. There's someone coming up fast in your blind spot. The car beeps to warn you.

That's it. It's vehicle-to-vehicle communication, not fucking Skynet. Self-driving cars are still 10+ years away.

Because this is the Escapist. Do you not remember that news article about a potential cure for AIDs? A fair amount of the posters were saying that they thought it was a bad idea because of overpopulation.

OT: Typical, the same month I finally get 'round to passing my driving test...

I like this idea - at least it means that if someone pulls an emergency stop on the motorway you're not wasting precious moments waiting for your brain to catch up before slamming on the brakes: same for the people behind you.

This has always seemed like a really stupid idea to me for one simple reason that I have yet to hear anyone address: if one of these cars gets in an accident, who's at fault?

Seriously, in a world filled with autonomous cars who's legally responsible for a collision? The driver? The manufacturer?

Maybe someone else has heard this question answered in some form, but I sure haven't.

This is a really good example of a favorite saying of mine. "They're reaching for the clouds with their asses stuck in the mud." It's a simple fact that even if this technology was relatively simply to install and the systems that regulate it were cheap too maintain, it'd still be a burden too heavy to bear on stretched budgets among state governments. The stark reality is that states barely have the money too maintain the traffic systems they -have- let alone entirely new ones, so unless the Federal Government will be backing this 100% forever, which it definitely won't, it has no chance.

watch dogs just became that much more real.....

dragongit:
This sounds incredibly expensive. and cars will require it? What about the millions of cars in circulation now that don't have this system? Will they be required to install it? will it be a direct cost to the people, or will we be given a new tax for it? Either way it sounds sketchy.

only new cars will be required to come with it preinstalled. and its not THAT expensive, not expensive at all compared to price of a new car.

amaranth_dru:
Oh hell no. I mean that in the most possible dire way. The potential for abuse is stunning and Government security against hacking? Give me a fucking break. Nevermind the 4th amendment violation potential for this. All in all good intent doesn't make good policy. Bad idea in the worst way possible.

"The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause."
Erm, how exactly this violates 4th amendment?

Hairless Mammoth:
They need to make ABS mandatory first, then the preventative automatic braking next, then this.

wait, there still are car manufacturers making cars without ABS? all new cars ive seen have it standard just like power steering with exception being cars made intentionally to be primrely racetrack cars.

It might come out as standard on more expensive cars and commercial vehicles first, as an option on other cars, then made mandatory on everything later in a sequential order. Most safety features start as options and become standard as they are proven in real world situations. They need to test this out first before making consumers/taxpayers carry the cost of it.

the article claism that it HAS BEEN thoroughly tested. and it works.

teknoarcanist:
Self-driving cars are still 10+ years away.

unless you look at google. http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/08/15/googles-self-driving-car-passes-300000-miles/

FalloutJack:
You know what this is going to do to drivers instead of warn them? Freak them out. How would you like an unexpected voice or buzz or beep from nowhere suddenly shouting out? That'll break the flow of concentration worse than another car you might not immediately see, one where you might react to avoid that problem instead of possibly being startled at the exact worst moment, which could cause you to get into a far worse wreck than you might've been in.

This will not be embraced without severe trouble. You need better drivers, not things that beep at us. The accident will only be made worse by a sudden distraction from the driving that we're doing, especially if the driver is not into this generation of technology. Oh, and you need to stop making fiberglass cars. They're SHATTER in a collision.

as a person who use the "dsitance monitor" that beeps once the front or back gets too close to another object (a godsend for parking in tight spaces since it actually shows the distance) i disagree about peopel freaking out about beeping. it may be true the first time, but once you get used to it you can determine the distance jut by beeping intensity without having to even look at it, its a helper not a hindrance.

Dimitriov:
This has always seemed like a really stupid idea to me for one simple reason that I have yet to hear anyone address: if one of these cars gets in an accident, who's at fault?

Seriously, in a world filled with autonomous cars who's legally responsible for a collision? The driver? The manufacturer?

Maybe someone else has heard this question answered in some form, but I sure haven't.

if one of cars now get into an accident, who is at fault? same answer is applied with cars that can beep about other cars too. this us not autonomous cars, merely signals that tell you your about to crash so better break.

Tradjus:
This is a really good example of a favorite saying of mine. "They're reaching for the clouds with their asses stuck in the mud." It's a simple fact that even if this technology was relatively simply to install and the systems that regulate it were cheap too maintain, it'd still be a burden too heavy to bear on stretched budgets among state governments. The stark reality is that states barely have the money too maintain the traffic systems they -have- let alone entirely new ones, so unless the Federal Government will be backing this 100% forever, which it definitely won't, it has no chance.

why would this need monetary backing? it will be up to manufacturers to install such systems and up to car owners to use them.

Stop with all these unnecessary driver aid.
Let people that like to drive drive and if you donīt like cars and the possible dangers of driving one take the train,Subway walk whatever but stop nannying car manufacturers.Look at Europe we havenīt all died from driving our unsafe cars for decades(I am serious some of the U.S car safety is just rubbish and ruin cars looks)

The intention is the cars are supposed to communicate, not control. Why is everyone freaking out? Have you ever put your credit card information on the computer?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here