Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Government wants to require all new cars "talk" to each other

Posted on 8/18/14 at 1:28 pm
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61434 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 1:28 pm
quote:

A research report released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that the technology could eventually prevent 592,000 left-turn and intersection crashes a year, saving 1,083 lives. The agency said it will begin drafting rules to require the technology in new vehicles.

The technology uses a radio signal to continually transmit a vehicle's position, heading, speed and other information. Similarly equipped cars and trucks would receive the same information, and their computers would alert drivers to an impending collision.

A car would "see" when another car or truck equipped with the same technology was about to run a red light, even if that vehicle were hidden around a corner. A car would also know when a car several vehicles ahead in a line of traffic had made a sudden stop and alert the driver even before the brake lights of the vehicle directly in front illuminate. The technology works up to about 300 yards away.

If communities choose to invest in the technology, roadways and traffic lights could start talking to cars, as well, sending warnings of traffic congestion or road hazards ahead in time for drivers to take a detour.

The technology is separate from automated safety features using sensors and radar that are already being built into some high-end vehicles today and which are seen as the basis for future self-driving cars. But government and industry officials see the two technologies as compatible. If continuous conversations between cars make driving safer, then self-driving cars would become safer as well.

...Adding the technology to new vehicles or retrofitting existing ones is expected to cost about $100 to $200 per vehicle.


LINK

Big Brother/Slippery Slope concerns aside, this seems pretty worthwhile, especially as drivers get more distracted. I'm surprised there was no mention of a technology name or standard though.
Posted by colorchangintiger
Dan Carlin
Member since Nov 2005
30979 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 1:31 pm to
Good idea in theory, I don't think a government mandated solution is the best option though. Really needs to come from a private consortium IMO (IBM, Google, et al.)

ETA: I would not be opposed to the NHTSB asking the major tech & auto players to come up with something.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 1:33 pm
Posted by ZereauxSum
Lot 23E
Member since Nov 2008
10176 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 1:43 pm to
As long as the data isn't being stored long term (I could see keeping it for a couple of days just in case you need to determine fault in a crash) this seems like a great idea.

It will save a lot of lives and millions in property damage.
Posted by colorchangintiger
Dan Carlin
Member since Nov 2005
30979 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 2:02 pm to
quote:

As long as the data isn't being stored long term (I could see keeping it for a couple of days just in case you need to determine fault in a crash) this seems like a great idea.


If it is a possibility that the data can be kept, it will be kept.
Posted by ZereauxSum
Lot 23E
Member since Nov 2008
10176 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 2:13 pm to
quote:

If it is a possibility that the data can be kept, it will be kept.


That's what I'm afraid of

As far as making this crash-avoidance program work, there is no need to keep it but someone will come up with some reason why it needs to be stored.

Honestly, as long as there are reasonable safeguards for privacy I would still be in favor of it. I don't expect anyone to promise an entity like the NSA won't get the data, but I wouldn't want to learn that local law enforcement knows exactly where I've been and how fast I got there.
Posted by Larry
Collierville, TN
Member since Jul 2004
5454 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 2:19 pm to
quote:

As long as the data isn't being stored long term (I could see keeping it for a couple of days just in case you need to determine fault in a crash) this seems like a great idea.


Your car already keeps up with a lot of this information, and a lot of people don't know it exists.

Black Box

This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 2:20 pm
Posted by BruslyTiger
Waiting on 420...
Member since Oct 2003
4608 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 3:00 pm to
If it is radio transmitted, there won't be much to stop anyone from intercepting this data or manipulating the data. Also seem like a hell of a good new and improved way to send you a red light ticket.
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61434 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 3:05 pm to
quote:

If it is radio transmitted, there won't be much to stop anyone from intercepting this data or manipulating the data.


What would be the point of that though? I suppose terrorists could send out false data to try and create wrecks but that seems like a bit of a stretch.

quote:

Also seem like a hell of a good new and improved way to send you a red light ticket.


If it's anonymously transmitted like they say, then you'd need visual data to make any sense of it, and if you have visual data you can already give out red light and speeding tickets.
Posted by LSUtigerME
Walker, LA
Member since Oct 2012
3789 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 3:10 pm to
Awesome. Been a long time coming.

At only $100-200/car, seems like a slam dunk. Been looking for something like this ever since some of the first self driving cars utilized sensors implanted in the streets.
Posted by TigerFanatic99
South Bend, Indiana
Member since Jan 2007
27464 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 3:13 pm to
quote:


...Adding the technology to new vehicles or retrofitting existing ones is expected to cost about $100 to $200 per vehicle.


Which will then be multiplied by a factor of at least five before it hits the consumer level. All this new technology is great, until the majority of the population can no longer afford vehicles.

Next government subsidy incoming!
Posted by colorchangintiger
Dan Carlin
Member since Nov 2005
30979 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 3:17 pm to
quote:

If it is radio transmitted, there won't be much to stop anyone from intercepting this data or manipulating the data. Also seem like a hell of a good new and improved way to send you a red light ticket.


Wifi, bluetooth, and any cellular data connection are radios that can be encrypted.
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61434 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 3:45 pm to
quote:

Which will then be multiplied by a factor of at least five before it hits the consumer level. All this new technology is great, until the majority of the population can no longer afford vehicles.


If this is as effective as they're claiming, that $1000 retail should be easily made back within the lifetime of the vehicle because of lower insurance premiums.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 3:45 pm
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28702 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 3:51 pm to
quote:

Wifi, bluetooth, and any cellular data connection are radios that can be encrypted.
But encrypted connections need to be negotiated, and milliseconds count when you're traveling at highway speeds and you're within 300 yards before communication even begins.

But encrypted or not, it seems like it would be relatively easy for someone with the right skills to broadcast erroneous data. You could make every car within 300 yards think it's about to wreck.
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61434 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 3:57 pm to
quote:

encrypted or not, it seems like it would be relatively easy for someone with the right skills to broadcast erroneous data. You could make every car within 300 yards think it's about to wreck.



If you can't get around this then just alert the driver like the newer side view mirrors using radar do. An alert alone could be a big difference maker.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28702 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 4:01 pm to
quote:

If you can't get around this then just alert the driver like the newer side view mirrors using radar do. An alert alone could be a big difference maker.

I thought that all this was intended for was alerting the driver. I just meant that simultaneously making every car around you alert their drivers to impending wrecks would surely wreak havoc. How many would slam their brakes, and how many accidents would that cause?
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61434 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 4:17 pm to
quote:

I thought that all this was intended for was alerting the driver.


I was assuming that if we're going this direction it would get added to automated systems. Messing with the signal would probably be criminalized enough that everything would be fine unless it was an actual terrorist attack. I think this would be one of those things where the perceived benefit outweighed the potential risk until an event actually happens and forced us to pay the price to make it a more secure technology.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28702 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 4:46 pm to
quote:

I was assuming that if we're going this direction it would get added to automated systems.
Yeah, but I wouldn't trust something like this over visual/radar systems. The cost difference is obviously huge, though.
quote:

Messing with the signal would probably be criminalized enough that everything would be fine unless it was an actual terrorist attack.
The problem with criminalizing it is that it would be next to impossible to figure out who is doing it. You could turn the signal on and off instantly, and just continue driving away.
quote:

I think this would be one of those things where the perceived benefit outweighed the potential risk until an event actually happens and forced us to pay the price to make it a more secure technology.
And you know that if a "hack" is possible, it will be done, and instructions will be posted online instantly. I really don't see how such a technology could be effectively secured, anyway. Encrypting the signal would introduce huge delays in communication, and it wouldn't even solve anything as every nearby car would need all available information anyway. What's the point of encrypting a signal if you actually want every car around to know what you're saying? I think the only way to avoid "hacks" is to have a central authority system that verifies that a signal is legit, and the only way for that to work is to add a ton of cost to the project, and for each car to maintain its own copy of the database of legit signals (since realtime verification would be too slow). This introduces a whole new set of problems.
Posted by Tigah in the ATL
Atlanta
Member since Feb 2005
27539 posts
Posted on 8/18/14 at 6:43 pm to
quote:

I don't think a government mandated solution is the best option though
some of the best things in autos have come through mandates.

Pollution control, airbags, gas mileage
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram