Slashdot Mirror


When Will the Automotive Internet Arrive?

DeviceGuru writes "European researchers are developing a cooperative traffic system, known CVIS (Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems), comprised of vehicle-, roadside-, and central infrastructure-based communications hardware and software, including vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) wireless. Among other capabilities, cars communicate with each other and with 'smart traffic signals' to smooth the flow of traffic and avoid accidents, or with 'smart traffic signs' to avoid dangerous driving conditions. The CVIS project is in the midst of undergoing field trials in Europe, and Audi has recently deployed 15 test vehicles in a similar project. The ambitious vision of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) includes goals such as reduced traffic congestion and fuel consumption, enhanced safety, and improved driver and passenger comfort. Ultimately, the developers envision a sort of Automotive Internet."

23 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Vehicular anti-virus.... by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

    I sense a great disturbance in the force, as if dozens of anti-virus executives where salivating all at once.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  2. IPV6 by stavrica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they're smart, they'll build it out on IPV6.

    (Those who consider this to be obvious should remember that the government is involved.)

    1. Re:IPV6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      They use IPV6 and linux.

      In CVIS, the standard network protocol for 2G/3G communication is IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6). In case no native IPv6 is available via 2G/3G, IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnelling can be accomplished via a CVIS-specific tunnel device driver and some sort of tunnelling software like OpenVPN.

      The Operating System is the key foundation of the CVIS platform. The choice of operating system fundamentally affects portability, stability and extendibility of the whole CVIS system. Linux was chosen as it is freely available, has good quality, industry-standard development
      tools and its license arrangements require access to source code.

      Quotes from http://www.cvisproject.org/download/ERT_CVIS_FinalProject_Bro_06_WEB.pdf (page 10 and 11)

    2. Re:IPV6 by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh come now. Everyone knows IPv4s are more fuel efficient.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:IPV6 by ascari · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anything less than ipV8 in a car would be decidedly un-American.

  3. there is a problem by papabob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    there is a small problem with the current aproach: until "every" car gets the system installed, it's nearly useless. The protocol need to "know" that every other vehicle is going to act accordingly its specification. The false sense of security these devices can provide is very dangerous in case a car break the rules (not only by malice, just think in a malfuction like the infamous toyota) because the react time will be reduced ("The car from the back is too near, lets send a message to brake", "Ups, no response, maybe an interference, lets try again", "wow, its must be broken, lets speed up, i'll send a message to the front car to speed too", "Ups, no r...CARRIER LOST"),

    1. Re:there is a problem by Urkki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      there is a small problem with the current aproach: until "every" car gets the system installed, it's nearly useless.

      I don't think so. I mean, even if a single car had this, and then there were roadside sensors, that single car could benefit from the sensor network. Now replace roadside sensors with just a few percent of the cars having sensors, and benefits should be pretty clear.

      And once something like half of the cars would have the system, the behaviour of the other half could be predicted quite nicely within certain limits. After all, a car driving between two cars will normally (ie. until it overtakes or turns) stay between those two cars and behave very predictably.

    2. Re:there is a problem by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      there is a small problem with the current aproach: until "every" car gets the system installed, it's nearly useless. The protocol need to "know" that every other vehicle is going to act accordingly its specification.

      That's far from true. For one thing, even if every car were to have the system installed, that's no protection against bad actors.

      If the developers have even half a brain they are designing the system to operate defensively rather than trustingly. That principle will limit what the system can achieve, but it also means that it will be resistant to deliberate attacks as well as accidents and non-participating vehicles. Considering that failures in the system will result in lives lost, I'd say that there is no other way to design it but defensively.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  4. Hopefully Never by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope the Automotive Internet never arrives. Why? Because of three issues: privacy, security and bugs. First, this system is basically a giant handout to authoritarians and fascists world wide. One of the goals of all governments that don't care about privacy is to track every private car. They know that measure has to be phased in gradually, so we need to fight against every step of the way. Second, security is a huge issue. We know that we can never provide a %100 percent secure desktop platform - so how in the world are we going to provide a secure automotive platform? Third, bugs are going to be a huge problem - see the Toyota situation. If we have 100 million lines of code, and we have 1-2 bugs per thousand lines, we get 100-200 hundred thousand bugs in the car's software. It's surprising that we don't have more cars flying down the highway uncontrollably. I hope we have less computers in cars in the future, maybe even none if we really could. It'll be tough but it would save a lot of money and a lot of hassle.

    --
    Responsibility is an addiction
    Virtue is a temptation
    Community is a cartel
  5. Cost effective? by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At some point, it might make more sense to reduce congestion by building enough roads with enough lanes for the cars.

    1. Re:Cost effective? by dodobh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cars don't scale. Mass transit scales better.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    2. Re:Cost effective? by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    3. Re:Cost effective? by MollyB · · Score: 3, Informative

      The link you provided shows that cars use more BTUs per passenger mile than anything but two light rail systems. Other mass transit systems (bus, jet, commuter train, etc.) all beat the automobile. Usually one provides links to buttress one's argument, or am I just too old-fashioned? (already know the answer...)

    4. Re:Cost effective? by IrquiM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There isn't enough room for more lanes everywhere.

      --
      This is blinging
    5. Re:Cost effective? by PPH · · Score: 3

      Mass transit is like delivering e-mail using the old bang path notation via UUCP.

      There. I've used a bad Internet analogy to explain cars.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  6. iPhone by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or just the small bit of programming that lets my iPhone know when it is in my car?
    Then it can give me all that data and I don't have to buy the expensive, soon obsolete hardware in the car.

  7. Finally by goodtrick · · Score: 3, Funny

    Our car analogies will become apt!

  8. Hopefully NEVER. by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hopefully NEVER.

    For everything good that could come out of this, several somethings BAD will come out of it. Speed tracking for automatic tickets and insurance increases, and - NO TIN FOIL NEEDED - government tracking. The Brits will be the first to require this.

    As soon as it's possible, the insurance companies will require this and jack your rates through the roof without it. As well, if your driving does not fit their statistical profile, your rates will goe up. As technology improves, if you take those right-turn-on-reds too fast, your rates will go up. Spend too much time in the "wrong" part of town? Your rates will go up.

    The government will for sure figure out a way to leverage the information from this technology for some sort of tax increase.

    There is no real benefit to having an Internet connected auto. Flying cars are a fantasy, road / highway technology has reached it's zenith.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  9. Re:Don't need to have every car! Brilliant by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In fact, if you just drove a line of cars side by side along the freeway at the speed limit so that nobody could pass them, and just kept such barriers every 10 or 20 or 30 miles, then I think it would help to eliminate the incentive for everyone to act so crazy to gain 30 seconds' advantage, thereby causing congestion. I've always thought it was the lange changes and sudden maneuvers that cause the most problems in traffic.

          In a way, you are right. Idiots running side by side at the same speed causes people to figure out ways to get around them. Multiple-lane highways exist for a reason, and the *right* lane is the *slow lane* and the *left lane* is the fast lane. As near as I can tell doing as you suggest is a violation in all 50 states of the union.

              BTW, truckers passing through Kentucky on I-75 (and probably elsewhere) were protesting the different speed limit for trucks and cars by lining up side by side at the border, and running exactly the speed limit all the way across. That resulted in absolute carnage as people tried to pass on the shoulder, and lined up for miles behind them. If your proposal were implemented, I would expect a huge increase in accidents as people got around the "blocker cars".

              Traffic accidents are not caused by excessive speed to any great extent, they are caused by bad driving and discourteous driving - and your proposal is a classic example of both.

            Brett

  10. whatcouldpossiblygowrong by tylersoze · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If any article deserves that tag, you think it'd be this one.

  11. Re:I can't wait. by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I worked on fighters with electronic flight controls (F-16A/B/C/D) for years.

    They are built far better than automobiles, which are and will remain consumer junk by comparison.

    BTW, even the F-15 and F-16 engines have a stopcock mechanical throttle just in case of an auto-acceleration.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  12. Re:Don't need to have every car! Brilliant by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually the right lane is the default lane and the left lane is for passing. If you aren't passing anyone or preparing for a left exit you shouldn't be in the left lane. It is a violation to do otherwise.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  13. But seriously... Big Brothermobile? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If something like this were to be implemented, your location would always be known. If not to the public, at least to the "authorities".

    I just do not see a practical way to keep the Big Brother aspects out of it, unless they were to build some kind of filter so that "the authorities" could not see personal information without a warrant or something. Heck, they could even set up a totally automated system to mail out speeding tickets. No police cars required.

    I'll pass, thanks very much.