Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

When Will the Automotive Internet Arrive?

Posted by timothy on from the heavy-traffic-for-better-throughput dept.

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."

6 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 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. 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 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. 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.