Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Communications Privacy Technology

DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications 261

Posted by Soulskill
from the car-talk dept.
schwit1 sends word that the Dept. of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has given notice of a proposal (PDF) for a new car safety standard that would require vehicle-to-vehicle communication equipment in all new passenger cars and light trucks. The NHTSA thinks this will facilitate the development of new safety software for vehicles. They estimate it could prevent over 500,000 crashes (PDF) each year. "Some crash warning V2V applications, like Intersection Movement Assist and Left Turn Assist, rely on V2V-based messages to obtain information to detect and then warn drivers of possible safety risks in situations where other technologies have less capability. ... NHTSA believes that V2V capability will not develop absent regulation, because there would not be any immediate safety benefits for consumers who are early adopters of V2V." The submitter notes that this V2V communication would include transmission of a vehicle's location, which comes with privacy concerns.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications

Comments Filter:
  • by arit (1338477) on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @02:40PM (#47768365)
    This will simply open up new attack surfaces on unsuspecting vehicles [blackhat.com].
  • by ganjadude (952775) on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @02:44PM (#47768421) Homepage
    That would be good, but just make sure you remember to stop weaving in and out of traffic with no blinker, or drive between cars in their lanes because they are going to slow for you.

    I know this sounds like a knock at bike riders but its not, i ride myself, but far to many bikers (more often than not on crotch rockets) tend to ignore traffic laws just as much
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @02:47PM (#47768463)

    They will, or you assume they will? There's a difference...

    Besides, who cares how your speeding is detected? If you're speeding you're speeding. There's no "it's ok as long as I don't get caught"-clause.

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @03:09PM (#47768727) Journal
    What's wrong with hitting the brakes in an unexpected emergency to assess the actual danger, exactly? If the person behind collides with them, they were following too closely for the speed the person behind was going in the first place. That's not the fault of the person who slowed down or stopped their car.
  • by laie_techie (883464) on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @03:09PM (#47768733)

    Besides, who cares how your speeding is detected? If you're speeding you're speeding. There's no "it's ok as long as I don't get caught"-clause.

    I agree with you 98%. The system must detect if it's on public roads or private property, and also the flow of traffic (if traffic is going fast, you probably should go fast, too). I agree that our laws need to be obeyed even if there's little chance of getting caught.

  • by OhPlz (168413) on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @03:25PM (#47768935)

    Democracy demands that at least 50% plus one agree with you.

    This is going to make vehicles even more expensive. It's not clear how effective these systems will be. It's not clear how exploitable these systems will be. I don't want the authorities to have a simple way of ordering vehicles to do things that the driver does not agree to. I don't trust software to take control away from the driver. Then you're still going to have older vehicles (which will suddenly be worth a lot more money), bicycles, motorcycles, equestrians, etc that won't be participating in this V2V conversation.

    Then, is this going to encourage drivers to be even more inattentive? I already cringe at the commercials that show drivers futzing with things in the back seat or picking stuff off the floor and the collision avoidance saves them. Great, but that doesn't mean you're now free to be inattentive! If anything, cars should be less safe and speed limits higher to force people to pay attention, or else.

  • by profplump (309017) <zach-slashjunk@kotlarek.com> on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @03:57PM (#47769265)

    You've got this 100% backwards. Deciding to drive slower than everyone else makes you a much bigger risk than the people driving the same speed. If the speed at which most drivers are comfortable on a road is too high for safety the road system itself (which includes signage and surroundings) has been designed incorrectly and should be corrected.

  • by Em Adespoton (792954) <slashdotonly.1.adespoton@spamgourmet.com> on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @05:18PM (#47770001) Homepage Journal

    You've got this 100% backwards. Deciding to drive slower than everyone else makes you a much bigger risk than the people driving the same speed. If the speed at which most drivers are comfortable on a road is too high for safety the road system itself (which includes signage and surroundings) has been designed incorrectly and should be corrected.

    Correct -- the problem occurs when that person at the front of the line suddenly drives slower, due to hitting something, not being able to react in time, seeing the traffic light at the last minute, etc.

    There are a few things that affect how fast people SHOULD drive -- intersection timings (get rid of intersections, they're unsafe, and there are better soltuions), road engineering, weather, driver alertness/reflexes, chances of some obstruction such as a child suddenly veering onto the road, and people doing stupid things.

    Unfortunately, you can't fix the last one.

    What gets me is NOT people driving over the limit, but people rushing to the next intersection when it's obvious they'll stop at the same light I will, people inside my 2 second react-time zone (that means if you're going faster than the limit, you should be giving other cars MORE room, not less), and people who just don't understand the laws of physics.

    When you speed up a car, damage on impact is exponential, not linear. Also, cars react differently on different surfaces when braking, and people's reaction times have a limit. Many cities are lazy with their speed limits, and you can often find roads that, barring stupid drivers, are safe to drive at significantly higher speeds.

    But again, you can't fix stupid, so the limits get normalized. It doesn't matter how good a driver you are, the limits are there to protect you from the intersection of your reaction speed and vehicle's mass+coefficient of friction, and the other person who did something idiotic that you didn't expect.

    There are often reasons road speeds are set low that are way beyond how safe the road surface is for traffic to drive on at higher speeds, and those other reasons often can't be corrected, whereas a speed limit can be easily adjusted.

  • by Catbeller (118204) on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @07:26PM (#47770863) Homepage

    Forget the happy horseshit about super-safe robot cars. We don't have those, and they won't work when we do. This is about the ability to track all the vehicles in the world, either by private entities who will backdoor the info to government and political groups, or straight-up security force tracking. Not just here, but all over the world. We are building turnkey police state infrastructure. If you can't grasp this, you might want to contemplate how privileged you are not to ever feel endangered by cops or polical opponents like Scientology or the Moonies. Do not give the monkeys the key to the banana plantation. Once you are in a worldwide prison, there is no escape.

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...