Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Technology

Intelligent Transportation Systems 233

Posted by michael from the red-ball dept.
An anonymous reader sends us a link to this story about the U.S. Department of Transportation working on Intelligent Transportation Systems, a long-range plan to build various sorts of intelligence into the national road system. Likely this will result in better traffic monitoring, lots of traffic planning data to analyze to help prevent traffic jams, and less privacy for everyone. The article has a paranoid bent; although they're not wrong that the system will likely facilitate privacy abuses, I wish the author had been a bit more hopeful about possible system designs that would still help alleviate traffic problems without enabling snooping, because obviously such a system could be built if the political will was present to do so.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intelligent Transportation Systems More

Intelligent Transportation Systems

Comments Filter:

  • Gotta take the bad with the good sometimes... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:34PM (#10408988)
    Right now, "smart cars" that can drive themselves are confined to specially-designed test tracks because they're basically stuck operating in a vacuum of information... if cars and roads were able to communicate with each other, we'd be halfway there to having the car take over the highway driving of itself.

    Imagine stopping your car at the stop line on the way to the major highway, and simply inputing into the car that you'd like to be dropped off at exit 32A, and then relaxing as the car waits for a suitable break in the traffic flow to bring the car into the stream, and then at a rapid speed taking you to the exit while you're free to read a newspaper.

    Of course, the Minority Report scene where once your car is told to take you to the police, that's exactly what it'll do would become possible. However, if the police ever do have a warrant to arrest somebody wouldn't we want technology to tell the police where to find the person whenever possible? Afteral, warrants aren't random things, some judge has already seen enough proof of something illegal happening to warrant bringing the person in.

    • Re:Gotta take the bad with the good sometimes... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Stile 65 ( 722451 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:41PM (#10409062) Homepage Journal
      Sure, until some script kiddie breaks into the car of the 'h0t b4b3x0r' two blocks over and has it deliver her to some place where he and his greasy-faced little friends can do what they want with her.

      I like this idea already!

    • Re:Gotta take the bad with the good sometimes... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by justMichael ( 606509 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:44PM (#10409086) Homepage
      ...and then relaxing as the car waits for a suitable break in the traffic flow to bring the car into the stream...
      One of the best parts of this system, you don't need to wait for a spot to merge, the system will make an openeing for you to merge into.

      No more people on the freeway that don't understand that if you merge as a zipper, traffic continues to flow smoothly.

      -- Sex Toys... [secondnirvana.com]
      • No more people on the freeway that don't understand that if you merge as a zipper, traffic continues to flow smoothly.

        I see what you're saying. Unfortunately the zipper analogy is wasted on people that have trouble working Velcro(tm).

    • Re:Gotta take the bad with the good sometimes... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by chill ( 34294 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:44PM (#10409088) Journal
      The problem isn't with when the police have a warrant, it is when they DON'T have one.

      You know, like with the boxes attached to cell phone trunk points that allow the FBI to record any phone call. SUPPOSEDLY they need a warrant, but I've had several telco CO techs tell me there is no method for checking that. The FBI guy shows up, punches in numbers to his black box and they pick up the tape later. No one checks.

      Even if they asked for a warrant, they aren't qualified to tell if one is fake or not. Hell, a Japanese language insurance form may do the trick.

      -Charles
      • So what are you worried about? Evidence collected without a warrant is inadmissible in a court case. You're still in the clear.

        • Re:Gotta take the bad with the good sometimes... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by rainer_d ( 115765 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @05:49PM (#10409646) Homepage
          > So what are you worried about? Evidence
          > collected without a warrant is inadmissible in a
          > court case.

          Yeah. But what if there is no court ?

          http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html

          http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/usa-summary-en g

          "What worth is a phonecall Mr. Anderson, if you cannot speak"

          Rainer
          • Yeah. But what if there is no court ? Then you are screwed whether there is vehicle tracking or not. Meanwhile in the non-paraniod world, people realise that a world with more proof available on peoples actions is one where more innocent people can be excluded from suspicion, as well as more guilty people being caught.
            • > Meanwhile in the non-paraniod world, people
              > realise that a world with more proof available
              > on peoples actions is one where more innocent
              > people can be excluded from suspicion, as well
              > as more guilty people being caught.

              I would like to believe that, but I've got my doubts.
              I know the feeling when one's been the victim of a crime - you want to use all possibilites to draw-in leads to the criminals.
              Like when we had a physical break-in in the company I had worked with sometime ago.
              Due to th
      • Even if they asked for a warrant, they aren't qualified to tell if one is fake or not. Hell, a Japanese language insurance form may do the trick.

        Is it really that hard to determine if a warrant is valid? Each must be signed by a judge to be valid and I believe the judge also must list his/her phone number.

        Anyone out there who knows for sure?
    • Instead of a highway that communicates with the car, which would mean the car could only auto-drive on intelligent highways, I would rather put the money into making the cars smart enough to drive anywhere and let the roads be dumb.

      This goes along with the idea of making wheelchairs that can walk up and down stairs, and giving them out to handicapped people, rather than building freaking ramps everywhere.
    • Smart cars and roads can easily track movements, but what I want is to do away with most private vehicles in favor of many, many automated buses and taxis. Have a request button at city hubs and intersections. Have some sort of anonymous payment system.

      Every time I am on the highway, it seems like an awful waste for all the cars going one direction. If the passengers piled into fewer cars or buses, it would do a lot to help reduce emmissions and road costs. Having the cars automated lowers the operatin
    • Not necessarily the technological challenge. A highway is far from being a vacuum of information. It is a fairly standardised enviroment with many constraints and fairly predictable behaviour. Cars have been able since the late 90s [ed.ac.uk] to drive more than 90% of the time to drive amongst normal traffic.

      The main reason is, companies don't want to be liable for the risk.
    • they should put an RFID tag on every car in IRAQ yesturday - then we'd know who was kidnapping these people etc ...

      AIK
    • Afteral, warrants aren't random things, some judge has already seen enough proof of something illegal happening to warrant bringing the person in. Yes, but does the computer system actually read the warrant before issuing the command to re-route the car? Or does some police department employee type just type in the command? Problem is, even police employees have been known to stalk their ex's. The Inglewood police department ran a check and discovered that many of their dispatchers had outstanding warrants.
    • Great post LostCluster.

      I was thinking the exact same thing except I also wanted to bring up the driving in I Robot.

      I've been in love with the omnidirectional ball wheel system ever since I saw it in an anime, and then later read about MIT developing it. Personally, I'd like to see THAT in combination with the smart roads and the automagic cars. Heres why.

      If you have smart roads, they handle the primary navigation of the cars. The cars interact with the road and fine tune things based on the cars variable

  • White House (Score:3, Funny)

    by MikeMacK ( 788889 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:35PM (#10408998)
    a shadowy government agency that doesn't respond to public inquiries about its activities is coordinating a plan to use monitoring devices to catalogue the movements of every American driver

    The White House?

  • Total privacy ends at your doorstep... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:37PM (#10409018)
    Remember, your right to total privacy ends the moment you step out of the house. Your car already bears a linkable-to-its-owner token in teh form of a license plate. Many of us has willingly added another intentifying device in the form of an electronic toll payer such as EZ-Pass.
    • Technically you probably meant to say:

      Remember, your right to total privacy ends the moment you step into your car.

      At least (for the time being) you can still walk around with relative anonymity. Though I wonder how long until face recognition tied to cameras becomes a closer reality.

    • Re:Total privacy ends at your doorstep... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SydShamino ( 547793 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:58PM (#10409223)
      /again...

      You don't get to be "private" in public, per se, but I do feel it is important that you be able to be "anonymous" in many cases.

      "So, how can you be anonymous when you have a license plate?" you might ask.

      Simple, there are 300 million people in the country and, at any given time, no one -cares- to read your plate and track where you are. If you commit a crime, or if someone with a similar car committed a crime, then sure, a police officer might see your car and check your plates. But, if they don't match, the officer will move on. The event is eventually forgotten and there is no "proof" that the event ever happened.

      Cameras that record (or, in this case, machines that monitor your location electronically) change that. 25 years from now, someone can go back to a camera (computer checkpoint) and see who passed in front of it last night. This where anonymity is lost.

      Let's assume you buy pr0n from a shop. Your license plate is visible to all who care to look, but again, -no one cares-. Now add a "911 cam" with a tape recorder, and, at a later date or with the use of more computers, the names of every person who ever visited the store can be retrieved. There goes your political career.

      Let's assume you go to church. Again, outside of the church itself -no one cares-. But, add a camera, and the government knows everyone who visted a certain mosque, ever. Or, they know everyone who attended mass last weekend.

      In summary, yes, if there is reason to care, the government can already track you in public. But this takes the efforts of a human, which means it is rare, costly, and, most importantly, not permanent. Eliminate human involvement from the monitoring and it becomes routine, pervasive, and, worst of all, permanent.

      ------------

      One last thing:

      >> Many of us has willingly added another intentifying device in the form of an electronic toll payer such as EZ-Pass.

      Suppose there was a freeway exit in your town. The only thing at that exit was a pr0n shop. Would you use the EZ-Pass to pay the toll at that exit? Do you think everyone in the country would? Or would you prefer to pay cash for that spot?
      • Let's assume you buy pr0n from a shop. Your license plate is visible to all who care to look, but again, -no one cares-. Now add a "911 cam" with a tape recorder, and, at a later date or with the use of more computers, the names of every person who ever visited the store can be retrieved. There goes your political career.
        Since when did going to a porn store destroy one's political career? It would be a sad state if this were true.

        S
      • Simple, there are 300 million people in the country and, at any given time, no one -cares- to read your plate and track where you are. If you commit a crime, or if someone with a similar car committed a crime, then sure, a police officer might see your car and check your plates. But, if they don't match, the officer will move on. The event is eventually forgotten and there is no "proof" that the event ever happened.

        I don't see it as an advantage that people who commit crimes can get away with it.

    • Despite the assertations that EZ-Pass information wouldn't be divulged, it is apparently now routine that subpoenas are issued and that information handed out even for a simple divorce case. So am I supposed to believe that EZ-Pass users aren't tracked for a potentially sinister reason?

      As much as I'd like to trust politicians when they plan these things, they seem to break that trust as a matter of routine.
    • Yeah, but is it legal for me or you or anyone else to collect imagery of the vehicles, their occupants, plate numbers and locations?

      I'm not even suggesting tapping the state and creditor digital networks. Just tap into any public, high-resolution web cams, log the known whereabouts of any vehicle, look for repeat logs, interpolate or extrapolate the likely activities undertaken, and then display it for public consumption.

      Even without adding the "interpolate or extrapolate the likely activities undertaken"
      • Yeah, but is it legal for me or you or anyone else to collect imagery of the vehicles, their occupants, plate numbers and locations?

        Yes. You take a photograph, and it is yours to do with as you please. The subject has no right to stop you. Unless any other specific laws are being violated by doing so. Please feel free to aim a web cam at the street outside your house and pipe the output to your website.

    • Intelligent cars that can be programmed could be easily controlled by the government. In a worst case scenario this could effectively eliminate public protests and in and of itself could eliminate the remainder of what little we have of freedom of association. When the government can program your car, it can tell it where it can't go.
    • Remember, your right to total privacy ends the moment you step out of the house.

      Which is a far cry from your right to privacy totally ending the moment you step out of your house. That you have a reduced expectation of privacy does not mean you have none.

      Privacy is the result of what we let the government do, not the cause of what we don't let them do. We don't let them do certain things because they can be abused.

      Your car already bears a linkable-to-its-owner token in teh form of a license plate.

  • Unintelligent Idiot Systems (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:38PM (#10409025)
    see also: Slashdot

  • Mods, anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Tanktalus ( 794810 )

    Ok, typically I see people advertisng mods for their iPod, XBox, PS2, or refridgerator, and I shrug thinking I'd never bother doing that.

    However, this is quite different. If someone posted mods for their 2006 SAAB, I'd be more than interested in figuring out how to use that to patch my vehicle to become anonymous.

    <shudder>

  • ...the national transportation tracking system they're creating will be to travel on foot."

    This guy obviously has never heard of that newfangled device, the bicycle!

    (Not even going to mention Segways. Wait...! D'OH!)

    (And yes, I know the article is mainly about highways... but still... this is Slashdot, home of snarky comments!)

  • It will never work, because... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:42PM (#10409069) Homepage Journal
    People are behind the wheel, and people drive like idiots.

    In the ideal traffic network, everybody would drive at approximately the same speed with a fair cushion of space between each car and faster traffic in the left lane. That careful balance is destroyed with the first SUV driver that's constantly swerving from lane to lane trying to get an extra five or six seconds cut off the trip (not to mention that these large vehicles generally clog the road even when driven normally.)

    To improve traffic, we need to continue putting the emphasis on low-fuel consumption and on quality mass-transit. At least until we get robotic cars that operate according to some sort of centralized traffic planner.

    • ...is "The Gold Coast" by Kim Stanley Robinson. Parts of the book talk about the commuter society in Orange Co. California at the time, the traffic systems, etc.
      • Honorable mention should go to The Mote in God's Eye by Niven and Pournelle. Highways on the Mote planet have no lanes or traffic regulations, because the inhabitants are innately good at spur-of-the-moment decisions. Pedestrians walk right through traffic and it flows smoothly around them. When real cars become intelligent enough, they will be able to drive anywhere safely, with no help from the roadway.
    • The endgame in this is to have the cars driving themselves. And yes the govt can force you to use one of these devices if you wish to use public roads.
    • destroyed with the first SUV driver that's constantly swerving...

      Or the first drunk, crazed or inept driver of a fuel-efficient hybrid, motorcycle, hovercar, or any sort of vehicle whatsoever.

      Give up the SUV rant, it's just silly in this context.
    • To improve traffic, we need to continue putting the emphasis on low-fuel consumption and on quality mass-transit.

      Damn! What a great idea.. I bet some modernized public transportation would be CHEAPER too!

      Unfortunately, we'll never have a great alternative to the car. Not because people value the "freedom" of a car so much -- better public transportation != taking away your keys. It's just right now there's so much profit potential in consumption, and the government heeds lobbyists more than "planning f

    • Try not. Do or do not, there is no try. -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822.3.

      Wow, dude, why are you quoting a dead pediatrician who's quoting Yoda?

    • Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.

      I thought Yoda said that to Luke Skywalker... Didn't know that was originally a Spock quote...

  • Seattle has some smart freeways... (Score:4, Informative)

    by funny-jack ( 741994 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:44PM (#10409082) Homepage
    Anyone who lives in the Seattle area and doesn't check the traffic conditions [wa.gov] before they hit the freeways is missing out.

    It's a nice system, and they're constantly (although slowly) expanding it.

  • What about older cars? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TuxMelvin ( 97727 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:44PM (#10409083) Homepage
    How do they enforce this among drivers of older cars? What if I drive a 67 Mustang, or a 89 Grand Am? My car was made in 1995, and I love it... I'll drive it until it's undrivable. What do they do with me?

    Do they force me to buy a new car? What if I can't afford it? Do they force me to install this equipment on my car? Perhaps it might communicate with the onboard computer, but this doesn't solve the problems of older cars without one.

    I'm not really worried about people tracking my every move, to be honest. I'm mostly worried about the government tracking how fast I'm going. Most people don't really care about privacy issues, but people aren't going to buy new cars if they tattle on you every time you do 75 on the Interstate.
    • Do they force me to buy a new car? What if I can't afford it?

      Typically measures like this grandfather in older cars, but note that many of these grandfather clauses, particularly with respect to smog, are now being pulled back or eliminated. The bottom line is that the number of people driving cars older than X do not represent a voting bloc of any significance whatsoever.

      Driving is not a right, the government need not be concerned with your ability to afford a new vehicle. They will make the argument that

    • How do they enforce this among drivers of older cars? What if I drive a 67 Mustang, or a 89 Grand Am?

      Phase 1: New cars have some "smart" features such as automatically regulating car-to-car spacing and speed and picking up GPS or other data. We are seeing the beginning of this today in luxury cars.
      Phase 2: Some major arteries implement the equivalant of current "HOV" lanes you are forbidden to enter except with a new computer controlled auto-pilot car.
      Phase 3: Some major arteries go exclusively computeriz

  • Just better traffic lights please... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chris Carollo ( 251937 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:45PM (#10409092)
    Personally I'd be happy with traffic lights that were just a little bit smarter. Like:

    1. Not turning yellow when there is ONE more car remaining to make a left turn.
    2. Trying to prevent cars from waiting multiple cycles in general.
    3. Doing very short green lights when there are only a few cars waiting.
    4. Adjusting timing based on time-of-day and traffic patterns.

    There have been attempts to "smarten up" lights here in Austin, but half the time they just end up misreading the situation and doing something wacky like giving a special left turn green for 30 seconds when there's no one waiting to turn left. Couple that with some of the nation's longest red lights, and you get one of the nation's highest rates of red lights being run.

    Even a good web-based feedback mechanism where the public can point out poorly timed lights would be a huge benefit.

  • Doubt it (Score:3, Funny)

    by StevenHenderson ( 806391 ) <stevehenderson&gmail,com> on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:45PM (#10409093)
    Call me cynical, but they can't even sync up the stoplights in my city so I don't get stopped at every damn light.

    Fix that nuisance, and maybe I will believe something greater can be pulled off...

    • I'd say you're not cynical enough. They can sync up the stop lights in your city. Why do you think you get stopped at every damn light?

      If you think that is a nuisance, wait til the interstate BSODs at 5 pm on a Friday before a holiday weekend.
    • Call me cynical, but they can't even sync up the stoplights in my city so I don't get stopped at every damn light. That's 'cause the lights are timed for people driving 30mph, and you're driving 50!

  • driving slow in the passing lane, turn signal on (Score:3, Funny)

    by mcmonkey ( 96054 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:45PM (#10409094) Homepage
    the U.S. Department of Transportation working on Intelligent Transportation Systems, a long-range plan to build various sorts of intelligence into the national road system

    Instead of building it into the road, how about putting some intelligence behind the wheel? What we really need is *HONK* HEY! Watch it buddy! I'm trying to /. here!

    What was I saying?

    80% of Drivers think they are Above Average [aboveaveragedriver.com]

  • Mobility is important for economic well being (Score:5, Insightful)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:46PM (#10409108)
    Imagine a world in which employers could only hire people within walking distance of the company. The quality of the workforce would go down and many people would be stuck in jobs that suck. Imagine a world in which the only goods you could buy were those found at tiny neghborhood shops within walking distance. The selection and pricing would suck.

    The farther people can comfortably commute to work, the better the match between employer and employee. The farther people can comfortable travel to find goods and services, the better the selection and economies of scale. Current transportation systems (cars, buses, etc.) let people travel greater distances, but introduce stresses and uncertainties (traffic jams). If Intelligent Transportation System can increase the average speed of travel or reduce the uncertainties in travel times, people will enjoy less stress in life, find better jobs and find better goods and services.

    • Imagine a world in which employers could only hire people within walking distance of the company. The quality of the workforce would go down and many people would be stuck in jobs that suck.

      On the other hand, people would be forced to live close to their place of work. Traffic would be all but eliminated.

      Imagine a world in which the only goods you could buy were those found at tiny neghborhood shops within walking distance. The selection and pricing would suck.

      I'm gonna disagree on this one on the b

  • Right to Privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:46PM (#10409111)
    Sometimes I feel like the Right to Privacy groups infringe on my right to enjoy and take advantage of some truly incredible technology. If we can put together an intellingent roadway system that saves most of the 42,000 deaths a year, I am all for it. I am not trying to flame the discussion and I truly do understand the issues at hand. However, some of this technology is pretty good and we should consider, thoughtfully, the advantages before stomping the life out of it.
    • Some people also believe in personal accountability and freedoms. I also understand the other side of the coin, but I would much rather that 42,000 people die every year then the government track the movements on all of their citizens. I view this as a slippery slope scenario. First, they start tracking every one. Then, you can't buy cars that you can manually control any more. You have to conform to a system to even be able to survive in the future. Yes, my way will mean that more people will die. I

  • This is a good, forget privacy issues (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:49PM (#10409139)
    To all the nuts who cut me off, slam their brakes in front of me, drive at 150 MPH in a school zone or 30 MPH on the highway....I would gladly replace the lot of you with SkyNet and yes I don't mind if the government knows where I am going.

    As for the privacy nuts, recall that you have this little thing called a license plate that police can already use to pull down your life history from their cruiser, and this plate is being photographed already to stop red light runners etc.

    • To all the nuts who cut me off, slam their brakes in front of me, drive at 150 MPH in a school zone or 30 MPH on the highway....I would gladly replace the lot of you with SkyNet and yes I don't mind if the government knows where I am going.

      There are ways to prevent all of this that don't mean violating people's privacy. And that you are willing to doesn't make it right.

      As for the privacy nuts, recall that you have this little thing called a license plate that police can already use to pull down your li
      • What the police can get from your license plate is considerably less than what they can get from black boxes and the cop has to actually want to do it. That is, unless you're doing something to attract his attention, he likely won't care enough to bother.

        Not really. They can sit and run plates all day if they want and often do. My brother got pulled over once when we were on our way to our family cottage in a town about 45 minutes away from ours. There were 3 cars--I was driving the first one, my broth

        • Not really. They can sit and run plates all day if they want and often do.

          I did say he had to actually want to do it. But the fact is that even if his retrieving the information was questionable, he still had to stop the car and ask where your brother was going. With a black box system like the one in the article, he would not only have known that but also every time he had been there before. And you wouldn't even know it had happened.

          Anyway, the point being, that while I think that the tinfoil hat w

  • about privacy: hypothetically (Score:3, Interesting)

    by deathcloset ( 626704 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:50PM (#10409150) Journal
    Would you feel less worried about privacy if you could be guaranteed that certain information gathered would and could only be evaluated by a computer system - and would never pass before the eyes of an human individual or group of individuals?

    If, hypothetically this system were 100% secured with, oh say, perfect quantum encryption.

    this is hypothetical, ok.

    • Hypothetically, this would be ok. The problem is, that it can never happen. At some point the data will be abused. Now, as long as the punishment is severe enough that it scares any but the most determined away, and the system for tracking access if very good, it might still be palitable.
      For example, every time a person accesses the system, their name, and DNA/fingerprint/other biometric data is logged. If it is found that they are accessing the system without a warrant, or under false pretenses, etc.
  • ...because it doesn't address the REAL problem. The real problem isn't accidents and inefficient driving. The real problem is that there are simply too many drivers on too few roads. If ITS is purported to solve other problems, like fuel inefficiencies due to poor driving patterns and accidents, then great, but ITS is advertised as the solution to congestion. NOT

    Read a new study out from Deloitte research titled: "Combating Gridlock: How Road User Pricing Can Ease Suggestion". I won't try to summarize

  • What a waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:55PM (#10409202)
    U.S. Department of Transportation working on Intelligent Transportation Systems, a long-range plan to build various sorts of intelligence into the national road system.

    Translation for the car industry lobby-unaware:

    Many roads are filled to capacity. Most people don't have the physical ability to react quickly enough if they were asked to drive closer to each other, to cram more cars per mile and more car passages per hour. As a result, we auto-makers have lobbied the powers that be to start a program to develop a system to take away control of their vehicles from their human owners/drivers and into the hands of the car computers, or the USDOT's central computer.

    Of course, this will be ruinously expensive both to the government, to equip thousands of miles of thoroughfare with computer trackers (or whatever it'll be) and to the consumer, to equip their new "auto-autos" with the right tech wizardry, not to mention new raised roadtaxes etc... BUT BUT... we get to manufacture more cars, which means keeping jobs in the US and keeping the economy going (yeah, right...) and, more importantly, keeping the cash flow in our auto industry CEOs going.
    Hint: cars that drive very very close to each other, and follow a road to a tee, and consume very little compared to today's automobiles, and don't need a parking spot, and bring you right into most major cities, already exist: they're called a train, and they've been around forever.

    Europe, and most of the world proves that moving people by train is convenient, ubiquitous, and quite livable. The United States proves that lobbying from powerful industries can kill viable, more sustainable transportation solutions very effectively.
    • They don't need the hint, they've already been looking into trains for about 10 years.

      The same research done on ITS is done in the SAME building as light rail, maglev, and crashworthiness research.

    • ITS has many applications (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SirWhoopass ( 108232 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @05:15PM (#10409405)
      The problem with a train is that you need high population desnity along that route. This isn't all that common in the US, which is sparsely populated compared to much of the world.

      ITS applies to rural areas too. I work for the ITS Institute [umn.edu] at the University of Minnesota. It's not like ITS is a new thing. It's been around for more than a decade. There is a too. [itsa.org]

      An example of rural ITS work is driver assistance technologies (like heads-up-display) for snowplows [umn.edu] and emergency vehicles (police, ambulance). Driving across a rural farm road in a blizzard can be quite difficult. We developed a HUD system that projected an image of the road, based on DGPS location information.

      I'd like to add that I'm not against trains or mass transit. Certain areas of the US can utilize trains effectively, many already do. Personally, I think trains are great for urban areas. In Minnesota, we've finally opened our first urban rail line since the street cars disappeared 50+ years ago. It has surpassed all expectations for passenger levels. Now the people who claimed it would never have been used now claim that the expectations were artifically low. It isn't just the "car lobby". There are people out there who actually fear mass transit as if it's a plot to take away their cars.
      • The problem with a train is that you need high population desnity along that route. This isn't all that common in the US, which is sparsely populated compared to much of the world.

        Hmm, yes but surely the "autopilot" system the article talks about is being investigated as a solution to traffic jams on heavily used roads. Since I don't subscribe to the author's tinfoil vision of the world, why else would such a system be required?

        So therefore we're talking about the same thing: no need for this kludge when
        • We've done some of the autopilot systems here. They have a range of uses. Using them to help congested freeways is certainly one of them. It fits more into the sprawling metropolitan area (Atlanta, Minneapolis) than a truly dense urban area (New York). Trains do have the disadvantage of needing transit to and from the station, and a lot of growth in the US is in sparse sprawling suburbs. These areas require people to drive 20 miles from their house to the transit point, and then ride the transit the last 10
    • You forgot that a train only brings you from a place where you aren't to a place where you don't want to be. In other words, 2/3 of the trajectory is missing. Maybe not in distance but certainly in time, as the time lost due to transportation mode switches is staggering.

      E.g. the TGV between Brussels and Paris is awesome. The metro in Paris is well developed, and there is an extensive train network in Belgium. However, I need less time driving by car from my home to a typical destination in the Paris subur

    • A train is fine if you want to go from A straight down the line to B. If however, if they don't go where you want, you want to go from A to T with 2 changes in between, you'll spend hours buggering about waiting in stations for trains to arrive.

      Trains are also expensive and inefficient. They weigh at least 40 tonnes which requires significant, bloody expensive infrastructure like tunnels and bridges, they run to a schedule and this is the key, they run to a schedule whether they have any passengers or not.
  • From the way that article was written, you would believe that tin-foil is staple in that author's fashion wardrobe... Semi-Intelligent Transportation is a definate need for the future and the expanding populace desires to keep driving personal automobiles... Just how would this author suggest a realistic approach to the automation of high-density traffic routes to improve safety while reducing or maintaining timeliness? seriously now... "They'll know you're due for a transmission repair and that you've n
  • They know where 90% of the traffic problems are. Mostly just more lanes are needed.

    I'll wait for my check...
    • No, as soon as you build more lanes, people will move farther away from their jobs (where housing is cheaper) and you're right back where you started. San Francisco has a different idea -- they are trying to eliminate parking in the city to cut down on congestion!

  • All that's needed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The FooMiester ( 466716 ) <goimir@@@endlesshills...org> on Friday October 01, 2004 @05:01PM (#10409260) Homepage Journal
    All that's needed are some sensors in the roads to tell when they're occupied, just like at redlights. Count the cars as they go by; note the average speed. Do this over several miles of interstate, and you can predict where traffic is going to back up, at which exits and such. A drastic drop in speed indicates some sort of problem on the road.

    We don't need AI in cars driving us around, nor do we need rfid tags in our cars. We need intelligent planning as far as highways are concerned.

  • What of motorcycles? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @05:04PM (#10409287) Homepage Journal
    One thing that worries me, as a motorcycle rider, is where do we figure in? Are we lost in a world where a few seem hell bent on control at any cost?

    Granted riding on the slab isn't my ideal way of point A to point B but I have to question, just how many roads will I lose access to if "controlled" becomes the norm? (slab = interstate)

    I can deal with items like EZ-PASS and the like. I already have access to HOV lanes, regardless of the logic of it. I am just curious where bikes fit in.

  • This article is bull (Score:4, Informative)

    by smitty45 ( 657682 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @05:10PM (#10409356)
    At least, about how the DOT does ITS research in some sort of vaccuum.

    The research that has been going into ITS has been happening for years, and it's been going on in the same building as the rest of the DOT agencies research projects.

    I know, because I worked there.

    There are a LOT of things that the US government does with respect to transportation safety and efficiency, and no one pays attention to it. The fact is, the USDOT has been doing excellent research on a lot of topics that takes the (at least US) auto manufacturers *YEARS* to adopt or evaluate. Because it's like this:

    NHSTA and Federal Highway come up with very smart ideas and research. State budgets and car manufacturers fight these good ideas, tooth and nail, because they cost money.

    Lee Iacocca and Chrysler didn't come up with airbags, the USDOT did, years before.

  • Woo woo - Personal Rapid Transit (Score:4, Informative)

    by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @05:11PM (#10409367)
    Could be put in place today. Basically it's information theory applied to mass transit systems. It's the only public transport system which promises to ammeliorate traffic congestion on the roads at a remotely reasonable cost, though it isn't going to completely replace the car. The traditional mass transit systems are massively expensive, inefficient and inconvenient in comparison.

    Read up on it:
    http://www.gettherefast.org/
    http://www.cprt .org/
    http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/P RT/
    http://www.acprt.org/

    American PRT system:
    http://www.skywebexpress.com/

    UK PRT system:
    http://www.atsltd.co.uk/

    • PRT seems to be coming along well [cities21.org] in Cardiff, Wales.
      • Yeah, there's a 1.2km test system, which has demonstrated the cost and performance characteristics they wanted, but the politicians are scared of putting a full system in place.

        PRT suffers from a catch 22 problem at the moment all over the world, the politicians won't put a system in place because there are no fully working examples of a system, and there are no fully working examples because nobody will stump up the cash to put a system in place.

        PRT (Whichever actual system) has huge potential to reduce
    • Wonder how they handle security. I guess because you swipe your card, you are responsible for the car you're in.

      Something tells me some people aren't mature enough for a system like this. Neet idea though, I must admit...

  • Better idea? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by multimed ( 189254 ) <mrmultimedia@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Friday October 01, 2004 @05:16PM (#10409408)
    Why not just put the sensors on the roads instead of the cars. Make them solar powered with rechargable batteries, and communicate wirelessly via a mesh network. They shouldn't need that complex of circuitry and in mass production, should be relatively cheap. Closer together for more congested areas, say maybe every 1/8 mile and maybe every mile in lower traffic areas. You can track traffic flow, without having to track each individual vehicle. As far as the safety stuff--well the magic computer driving the cars is just stupid and won't happen for a very long time if ever.

    But it should be simple enough to have the sensors broadcast a signal when traffic flow drastically drops off. Hell you could have the things broadcasting constantly for a computer in cars to hear. You could instantly get a status of the next few miles and what the average speed is.

    As long as each sensor is only sensitive to read the number of vehicles that pass by it and not any further data about the vehicle (make, model, color or plate number) it could give pretty much all of the benefits of the system in the article without the privacy concerns.

  • Calm down, we're talking about the Government. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I actually work for one the state versions of these "Shadowy Government Agencies". ITS is just the monitoring of roadway conditions for the most part. They just use fairly simple techniques to record how many cars are on the road at any given point.

    We're not talking about RFID chips on vehicles, we're talking about simple magnetic loops that toggle as a car drives over it. Very simple.

    Some shipping trucks are tagged for fee purposes and such, but that's about it. Really you'd be blown away at how slow
  • Horses are quite an intelligent means of getting around. You can even ride a horse while drunk without getting cited for drunk driving [bbc.co.uk]. Makes a certain amount of sense too. A horse isn't going to let you go into the ditch at high speed, or allow you to wander onto a collision course with a truck.
  • Uh, how many of you drive cars with a cell phone turned on? With the location based services the phone companies have, it is easy to triangulate your position, speed, and heading. Overlay a map and they know where you are. Another reason to turn off that phone and drive. I think I should build a new car, and call it the TEMPEST [eskimo.com]. Either stop emitting all of your electronic signatures, or live your life like an open book.

Slashdot Top Deals

Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.

Close