US To Require Cars to Communicate With Each Other

[FalloutJack]

I would define plexi/fiberglass as pliable, bendable, even flexible, but soft is reserved for my bed, my pillow, my fleece sweaters, and other things that involve fabric, cotton, or what-have-you. Flexible to me is more like rubber. May not actually be soft. It doesn't, on the whole, make me feel safer. Accordians are not exactly my style OR the state I really want my car in, per se. I'm Irish, so find me a bagpipe car!

I'm not arguing whether or not it makes you feel safer. I have less than zero influence on that, and don't particularly care.

Reality very rarely gives the slightest amount of fucks for what you feel though, and the fact is that you are safer in the cars with crumple zones.

Case not proven, also very rude. Gonna have to flag that.

 

[lacktheknack]

Neither do you.

<quote=OP>According to the press release, the current plan is for the communication systems to provide warnings to the human driver to respond to,

So if it gets hacked, the worst case scenario is that you get a bunch of warning signs.

So shush.

I am not going to get into a flame war with a clear attempt at insult. You do not know what I know or do not know. Nor do you know what I do or do not vote for. If you read my ENTIRE post

Please PLEASE lets add a built in WIFI TO each car that RUNS ON THE SAME SYSTEM! So if you know how to hack one then you know how to hack them all.

I was comentting on the addition of a mandatory wireless system that would be designed to communicate with all the other cars in the nearby area. To spell that out, putting a common system into each car on the road means that like all other wifi all somone would have to do is locate a weakness in the system and then exploit that to gain access to the entire network. In this case that would be the entire cars electrical components controlled by the CPU in the car. Like the antilock brakes or the steering as shown in the video.

That's very easily avoided: Host the Wi-Fi system on a different computer in the car.

EDIT: And before you ask, no, you CAN'T run backwards through inputs. It's a read-only situation, so the main system to signal the Wi-Fi system without risk.

I'm paying thousands of dollars for a car, they can easily fold in another $50 for a decent wiring plan and second microboard.

 

[lacktheknack]

On a side note, I just realized I've never heard of any other nine year-old who had a subscription to Popular Science.

I got my 60-year-old Dad a subscription for Christmas. Am I a bad son?

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

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.

Yep the US doesn't require ABS on new cars citing "concerns testing procedures and real-world crash data that failed to meet expectations." I've personally tested my 2 wheel ABS by driving on a slick surface while hitting the brakes hard with and without ABS. With the ABS fuse plugged in I stopped a lot sooner, even with the front wheels locked up. It helps even if only a little in some cases, but enough that new cars should have it, especially in snowy areas. Th EU has required it since 2007. Why can't my country enact legislation for a proven safety feature instead of wasting money telling people they need to buckle up, when idiots will still just ignore that message but can't ignore an automated vehicle feature?

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

Yeah, I don't trust any test results coming solely from the government. The Obama administration like others that have past and will come says things that make the general populace feel safe, so whoever in that administration can get brownie points for when they run for senator of president. We'll see what happens when independent testers try the system out in a city full of wifi, CB, cell, emergency, police radar, and other random signals along with materials that obstruct or reflect signals. The DOT article said the system doesn't even automatically apply the brakes or steering even in imminent collisions. So, reaction time still has a human element that will so it down. They can add at as on option on some vehicles or mandate it on just new vehicles and improve upon it, but don't make me pay(either up front or in taxes) for another stupid government sponsored deal when they haven't even acknowledge the benefits of ABS yet.

I think it would be really ironic if someone slowed down considerably because they saw a cop car with his radar gun out, then the guy behind him doesn't slow down in enough time and hits him since his V2V system had too much interference from the radar and other outside signals. Probably won't happen, but that's why I say we need more tests before they make it mandatory.

 

[loc978]

...that's not the cars' fault, it's the drivers'. Having lived in Europe, I can most certainly attest to this one. The US needs better driver education and harder to acquire licenses... instead we hand out a C-class to anyone who can remember to follow a few rules for an hour of their life. The Germans have a more complicated test for their 50cc moped license, nevermind the classes people need for an actual car license. We don't need to regulate for safer cars, we need to regulate for safer drivers. Don't ask, dictate.

But when you live in a country where most cities do not have adequate transit systems to move their people, I think it is reasonable to (at least for the medium-term while America gets its public transit systems together) legislate in a system which literally has almost zero downsides. And while I don't think it's true that Europeans have particularly more stringent driving standards, it's definitely true that European cities and towns are much, much better equipped to handle people without cars than American cities or towns are. And if you need people to use cars for your economy to function, what's the issue with trying to make sure those cars are safer? Heck, what's the issue with trying to make sure cars are safer in general?

Now, I can't speak first-hand about the licensing standards for any European country other than Germany (and by reputation, Finland)... but it takes easily ten times the training and ten times the money to get a German car license than it does a US state C-class.

Not that I think our economy will ever function without our flood of cars in its present configuration. Even if we had the public transit systems Germany has, people here just commute too far for buses and trains to be feasible on a daily basis. I admit my preferred solution is entirely selfish and would screw a very large portion of the population out of their jobs... so of course it's not at all feasible.

However, I do think you're overlooking one downside to our regulating for safer cars... that combines with our shitty fuel to create an atmosphere where any car that gets truly great gas mileage cannot operate here. Volkswagen Polo? Doesn't meet our crash safety standards, and the diesel model can't operate on our fuel. The Smart Coupe/Fourtwo, needed to add weight, height and length (at a small compromise to its already mediocre fuel economy) to meet US safety regulations.

To this day, the best gas mileage one can achieve in the US comes from 1990s Suzuki 1.0L or slightly modified Honda 1.3L engines (both are capable of around 60mpg in a car that weighs around 1 ton/tonne, ~2000lbs, ~800-1000kg running with a standard 5-speed manual transmission)... anything new enough to have a hybrid system or small displacement engine is simply too heavy to achieve that thanks to our safety regulations.

Not that I think there is a real-world solution to this. We won't ramp up our test standards thanks to previously mentioned economic reasons. We won't ever have shorter commutes, because we have 50 states averaging out to the size of a European country each. We won't relax crash safety regulations because we'll never stop moaning about the children. We'll never standardize the equipment in every car on the road, because we'll still have cars from the 1960s running as daily drivers the day that we stop burning fossil fuel in cars.

...all of that said, I actually think the subject of this thread is a nice idea. Bit of a fantasy, but nice.

 

[Strazdas]

Yeah i have a very high trust of the US government to not abuse this. Add on the fact that the US is considering taxing cars by the mile this will allow them to do it.

except this allows the government to do neither of those.

I sure hope this stays as an option and not a requirement.

I like driving. I like shifting manually and I like all the aspects of driving a car.

Just because the US cocked up basic licensing doesn't mean we should do a hardware workaround full stop (imagine a world without any analogue sportscars like the Mazda MX5 or the Toyota GT86. That'd be a truly joyless world).

the only joy in the world is driving fast in a dangerous car? the ONLY reason to still use manual shift is because manual gearbox is simply superior both in longevity and in reliability. once automatics become as good there will be no reason to do that.

Please PLEASE lets add a built in WIFI TO each car that RUNS ON THE SAME SYSTEM! So if you know how to hack one then you know how to hack them all. This is why we need to have a cut off for the age of the people running our country. The morons in charge do not even know what they are voting on....

maybe we also need to cut off the comment section for people who dont read the main article because this system will not be able to control cars speed in any way.

Any proof of that tax by the mile claim, because it sounds like something from a tabloid of a hoax site.

Its already a reality - its called taxes on fuel. The mroe you drive the more fuel you buy the more taxes you pay.

I would say the same in your case, but not as rudely. To a metal vehicle on the road, you are driving a toy. There is far less resistance in such a frame, compared to a metal car which is essentially armor plating. It takes more punishment, allowing the owner (more often than not) to live, AND the car is probably salvageable. A fiberglass car will definitely break, may not be salvageable, and may not be able to save your life.

This is not a videogame where armored car lasts longer. car breaking is GOOD because it absorbes inpact. what you want in a crash is to put inpact everywhere but the driver. meanwhile a metal car simply transfers the inpact force without absorbing it, yes, you guessed it, to the driver, making the driver die. breaking the car is what saves your life. a metal car coliding headon with a giverglass car will have a higher chance of passenger death.

you are obviously failing to take into account people like southern california drivers. I swear to god. ANYTHING happens and the entire southern part of the state slams on their brakes. Weather goes from sunny to slightly cloudy? slam on brakes. Few drops of water(even if it's from someone in front of you cleaning their windows and not having their jets aimed right) on your windshield? slam on brakes. Road curves slightly to left or right? slam on brakes. Road goes uphill/downhill? slam on brakes.

Heaven forbid you use your turn signal out here too....I can't count the amount of accidents I avoid daily because I swear to the gods, Southern Californians are stupid once you put them behind the wheel. Two days ago, I saw two cars almost hit two other cars. SAME FUCKING INSTANCE AND INTERSECTION. We are scary fucks on the road.


OT: I both like and dislike this idea. Dislike because as previously stated, my state has a bunch of dumbfucks with licenses and cars. I like the potential for it.

bad drivers means we need more security features, not less. And people that you decribed shouldnt be given the license to begin with. Then again i feel like a lot can be sovled by having at least partly working public transport system, so people who dont know or want to know how to drive would be able to not actually drive.

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.

Yep the US doesn't require ABS on new cars citing "concerns testing procedures and real-world crash data that failed to meet expectations." I've personally tested my 2 wheel ABS by driving on a slick surface while hitting the brakes hard with and without ABS. With the ABS fuse plugged in I stopped a lot sooner, even with the front wheels locked up. It helps even if only a little in some cases, but enough that new cars should have it, especially in snowy areas. Th EU has required it since 2007. Why can't my country enact legislation for a proven safety feature instead of wasting money telling people they need to buckle up, when idiots will still just ignore that message but can't ignore an automated vehicle feature?

no that wasnt my point. My point was that even without regulation, do they still manufacture cars without ABS that arent made to be racing ones to begin with? because every new car i see has ASB at least here in Europe. Thought if you say EU requires it that would explain it.
ASB certainly DOES work. I personally drive an old car without one, however when i drive my fathers car that has it you can feel it. Especially when you are literally sliding on a ice covered road. Though admittedly it feels scary when you are trying to stop behind a car and your break pedal keeps kicking up because ABS is preventing a slide and you feel like your about to crash. Without it i would have crashed though due to wheels locking up very likely, so ABS certainly saved me one.
That kinda brings the point of safety features not making you feel safer, because you feel like you have less control over the car, when in reality it helps, creating a dissonance between users expectations and reality.

Yeah, I don't trust any test results coming solely from the government.

the point was that argument of "it hasnt been tested" cannot be used by the government when they themselves tested it.

I think it would be really ironic if someone slowed down considerably because they saw a cop car with his radar gun out, then the guy behind him doesn't slow down in enough time and hits him since his V2V system had too much interference from the radar and other outside signals. Probably won't happen, but that's why I say we need more tests before they make it mandatory.

because if the system is introduced, the second driver looses all his ability to judgement or his eyesight? The system is there to HELP the driver, not to REPLACE it.

 

[Blow_Pop]

And people that you decribed shouldnt be given the license to begin with. Then again i feel like a lot can be sovled by having at least partly working public transport system, so people who dont know or want to know how to drive would be able to not actually drive.

My point with that was that 90% of the drivers in So Cal
a) DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT have a license to begin with or a car for that matter
b) freak out easily
c) really need to go back to driver's ed to properly learn but first we need our DMV to have competent workers who know how to drive

Also, if you aren't in San Diego, Los Angeles, or San Francisco there is no such thing as a partly working public transport system. Unless of course you have a day to spare. To go 5 miles by bus(which is our transport around the city and to neighbouring cities) it takes about an hour and a half to two hours. Which is ridiculous when I can make that drive in less than 10 minutes. And walk that fast. And that's from my end of the city to the other end of the city. But we can get brand new buses. Just can't hire more drivers and have the routes we use to. To where we didn't have to hike a mile to the nearest bus stop in the first place.

[sub][sub][sub][sub]I'm a bit bitter over the fact I'll ALWAYS have to deal with these assholes as I have no chance of moving due to my job[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Strazdas]

Also, if you aren't in San Diego, Los Angeles, or San Francisco there is no such thing as a partly working public transport system. Unless of course you have a day to spare. To go 5 miles by bus(which is our transport around the city and to neighbouring cities) it takes about an hour and a half to two hours. Which is ridiculous when I can make that drive in less than 10 minutes. And walk that fast. And that's from my end of the city to the other end of the city. But we can get brand new buses. Just can't hire more drivers and have the routes we use to. To where we didn't have to hike a mile to the nearest bus stop in the first place.

[sub][sub][sub][sub]I'm a bit bitter over the fact I'll ALWAYS have to deal with these assholes as I have no chance of moving due to my job[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

i ride a bus for an hour every day to work and back, so im definably familiar with "wating time". however due to congestion it would take as long to drive there by car as well and there would be no place to park as well. Not to mentino that bus is many times cheaper to begin with, causes no problems (dont need to change oil look after tires ect) and you can even read a book/watch a movie while at it, not something you can do while driving.
bus stop position definatelly was made worse here last year, but didnt cahnge anything to me personally. though some people that lost one route are apperently not humans and need to hike to other bus stops now.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I sure hope this stays as an option and not a requirement.

I like driving. I like shifting manually and I like all the aspects of driving a car.

Just because the US cocked up basic licensing doesn't mean we should do a hardware workaround full stop (imagine a world without any analogue sportscars like the Mazda MX5 or the Toyota GT86. That'd be a truly joyless world).

the only joy in the world is driving fast in a dangerous car? the ONLY reason to still use manual shift is because manual gearbox is simply superior both in longevity and in reliability. once automatics become as good there will be no reason to do that.

An MX5 or GT86 isn't dangerous.

Hell by all scientific merits a sportscar or supercar is actually safer than your standard dreery econobox (more grip, better brakes, lighter and stronger construction, stronger tolerances, you name it).

But alas, unfortunately Jeremy Clarkson was right in his Forza 4 intro. Car-fans are a dying breed. Exciting car design and incredible engineering is looked down upon, and we lovers of speed, handling and adrenaline are being stifled because people like Greenpeace and so on think a car is nothing more than a mode of transport.

And no. People use a manual transmission because it is exciting and it involves you in the action of actually driving the car.

Why do you think the MX5 or GT86 (both cheap, relatively low-powered, and barebones low luxury cars with RWD and a manual transmission. They're the picture in the encyclopedia-entry for driving-pleasure) has a manual while a perfectly viable Doubleclutch race-transmission was available? Because it is more fun and exciting.

Seriously you have my condolences if you think driving is a boring activity that could be relegated to software.

 

[Strazdas]

Hell by all scientific merits a sportscar or supercar is actually safer than your standard dreery econobox (more grip, better brakes, lighter and stronger construction, stronger tolerances, you name it).

But alas, unfortunately Jeremy Clarkson was right in his Forza 4 intro. Car-fans are a dying breed. Exciting car design and incredible engineering is looked down upon, and we lovers of speed, handling and adrenaline are being stifled because people like Greenpeace and so on think a car is nothing more than a mode of transport.

And no. People use a manual transmission because it is exciting and it involves you in the action of actually driving the car.

Why do you think the MX5 or GT86 (both cheap, relatively low-powered, and barebones low luxury cars with RWD and a manual transmission. They're the picture in the encyclopedia-entry for driving-pleasure) has a manual while a perfectly viable Doubleclutch race-transmission was available? Because it is more fun and exciting.

Seriously you have my condolences if you think driving is a boring activity that could be relegated to software.

more grip or better breaks does not make it safer in a crash. stronger construction actually makes it worse as been mentioned. the only thing you got is 5 point safety belt system that is a bull to put on but damn it works.

Cars ARE a mode of transport. Manual transmission is exciting? now thats a nice one. ill be sure to tell that to people who want to get to work by wasting as little fuel as possible.

Like i said, manual transmission is more reliable and last longer. it has nothing to do with "driving pleasure".

Driving is like work. you need to do it to get from point A to B. that is all it is.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Hell by all scientific merits a sportscar or supercar is actually safer than your standard dreery econobox (more grip, better brakes, lighter and stronger construction, stronger tolerances, you name it).

But alas, unfortunately Jeremy Clarkson was right in his Forza 4 intro. Car-fans are a dying breed. Exciting car design and incredible engineering is looked down upon, and we lovers of speed, handling and adrenaline are being stifled because people like Greenpeace and so on think a car is nothing more than a mode of transport.

And no. People use a manual transmission because it is exciting and it involves you in the action of actually driving the car.

Why do you think the MX5 or GT86 (both cheap, relatively low-powered, and barebones low luxury cars with RWD and a manual transmission. They're the picture in the encyclopedia-entry for driving-pleasure) has a manual while a perfectly viable Doubleclutch race-transmission was available? Because it is more fun and exciting.

Seriously you have my condolences if you think driving is a boring activity that could be relegated to software.

more grip or better breaks does not make it safer in a crash. stronger construction actually makes it worse as been mentioned. the only thing you got is 5 point safety belt system that is a bull to put on but damn it works.

Cars ARE a mode of transport. Manual transmission is exciting? now thats a nice one. ill be sure to tell that to people who want to get to work by wasting as little fuel as possible.

Like i said, manual transmission is more reliable and last longer. it has nothing to do with "driving pleasure".

Driving is like work. you need to do it to get from point A to B. that is all it is.

More grip and better brakes are safer proactively because they enable you to avoid a crash. A stronger construction will protect you in a crash because the construction wont cave in and squeeze you in place. Yes you need a deformable crumble zone and detachable panels to distribute the kinetic energy but you also need a rigid survival cell to protect the driver and passengers (in which case a 3-point seat-belt should do the trick assuming we're within motorway parameters of 130km/h).

Yes. Manual transmissions are exiting. Driving your car to 10/10ths, heel-toeing, hitting the proper braking points, nailing every shift (and with a good twisty mountain road you don't even have to be anywhere near the speed limit to have fun. You'd need a Ferrari to reach the speedlimit before you'd have to brake for the next hairpin). Yes it has everything to do with "driving pleasure". Take a look at all cars that are designed to be fun to drive (the Mazda MX5, the Toyota GT86, the Porsche Cayman, the Porsche 997 GT3, the Lotus Elise, the Caterham Super 7, the Chevrolet Corvette, the Nissan 370Z, the Wiesmann MF3, the Toyota AE86 Corolla), they're all cars with a manual transmission. Hell even the very best of all supercars to this date (the Ferrari F40) has a manual, and that manual is the reason people like it (even if double clutch transmissions would be faster and more reliable).

Driving is like work for a scarily large percentage I'll grant you that. But for petrolheads and car enthusiasts driving is life, driving is the perfect expression of your personality (are you precise and meticulous, or aggressive, or just plain boring?). Driving is my hobby, and driving is fun (and if you disagree then I pity you, because you're really missing out).

 

[misg]

Any proof of that tax by the mile claim, because it sounds like something from a tabloid of a hoax site.

Sadly it's not
http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post--some-states-want-to-tax-you-per-mile-you-drive
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-you-have-to-pay-a-tax-for-every-mile-you-travel/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100359287

These started showing up in Sep. 2013, but they are still showing up in the news latest one is from Jan. 2014, so it's not a one off thing.

 

[Glaice]

Good luck equipping 60s and 70s muscle cars with this sort of tech.

 

[Blow_Pop]

Also, if you aren't in San Diego, Los Angeles, or San Francisco there is no such thing as a partly working public transport system. Unless of course you have a day to spare. To go 5 miles by bus(which is our transport around the city and to neighbouring cities) it takes about an hour and a half to two hours. Which is ridiculous when I can make that drive in less than 10 minutes. And walk that fast. And that's from my end of the city to the other end of the city. But we can get brand new buses. Just can't hire more drivers and have the routes we use to. To where we didn't have to hike a mile to the nearest bus stop in the first place.

[sub][sub][sub][sub]I'm a bit bitter over the fact I'll ALWAYS have to deal with these assholes as I have no chance of moving due to my job[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

i ride a bus for an hour every day to work and back, so im definably familiar with "wating time". however due to congestion it would take as long to drive there by car as well and there would be no place to park as well. Not to mentino that bus is many times cheaper to begin with, causes no problems (dont need to change oil look after tires ect) and you can even read a book/watch a movie while at it, not something you can do while driving.
bus stop position definatelly was made worse here last year, but didnt cahnge anything to me personally. though some people that lost one route are apperently not humans and need to hike to other bus stops now.

This will actually be the last I say on this otherwise it will devolve into me whining and bitching.

Personal story time.

I use to work at disneyland. I didn't have a car back then. I took buses back and forth for a year. I had to leave about 4 or more hours before my shift started to get to work. It took 4 hours to get there. This is a 45 minute drive no traffic about an hour and a half with traffic. I probably spent close to what I would have for bus passes that I would have on gas alone. Once I got to orange county, they had the bus I needed running every 5-10 minutes. For my county, it is a minimum half hour wait for the busy routes. And I can't tell you how many guys almost got kicked off my bus for harassing me. Because men out here do not understand the phrases "no I don't want to talk to you", "please leave me alone", or "fuck off I am trying to read". The bus drivers usually had to intervene because of my discomfort with the guys and the fact that i was a young girl travelling by herself for long trips and I was always nice to them. Now, I love my car and still do a fair amount of walking. I honestly don't think these kinds of things are not going to help general human stupidity. So I think it's a good idea in theory but don't think it will be practical

 

[mxfox408]

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?

yeah right isnt that why they came up with the so called patriot act? If this is not to control then why is it a requirement?