US To Require Cars to Communicate With Each Other

[Justin Boisvert]

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: DOT [http://bigstory.ap.org/article/feds-decide-car-car-communications]


Permalink

 

[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

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

 

[Auberon]

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

 

[RelexCryo]

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

 

[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.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

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.

 

[RandV80]

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.

 

[Eppy (Bored)]

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.

 

[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)

 

[Fappy]

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!

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

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.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

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.

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.

 

[XenoScifi]

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.

 

[RicoADF]

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.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

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.)

 

[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.

 

[FoolKiller]

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?

 

[Shoggoth2588]

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!

 

[Vivi22]

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.