Slashdot Mirror
Six Cities Named For Vehicle2Vehicle Communications Trial
thecarchik writes "We all know about the growing popularity of collision avoidance systems. As recently as this week, we've even heard about developments on the autonomous car front. Problem is, most of those systems depend on vehicles going it alone, using radar and other technology to avoid hazards in their way. But what if cars could talk to one another and the surrounding infrastructure? Wouldn't that be even better — and safer? The US Department of Transportation thinks so, and it's hoping to prove it in a new series of 'talking car' experiments taking place in six locales across the US. These technologies may potentially address up to 82 percent of crash scenarios with unimpaired drivers, preventing tens of thousands of vehicle crashes every year (further research [PDF] will incorporate heavy vehicle crashes including buses, motor carriers, and rail)."
This sig left unintentionally blank.
Please include heavy encryption other wise it will be a tool to use in murder of whistle blowers / honest hard working people.
Will this system work if less than 100% of the cars are equipped to communicate?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
There have been reports of anti-lock brake systems failing when near powerful transmitters, sensor malfunctions leading to brakes seizing or the engine cutting out (leading to a loss of power steering), acceleration controls becoming locked, etc.
Guys, if the modern car can't even talk to itself without going beserk, why are we considering networking them? Worse, what's going to happen when somebody figures out how to make your car think you're about to hit something, and it slams on the brakes to avoid hitting the imaginary object, only to have you rear-ended by the very real object behind you? Or, raising privacy concerns... how about law enforcement (read: anyone with the right equipment) can remote kill or stop your vehicle?
Frankly, the engineering just isn't there yet.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
There are only 6 cities, would it have been so hard to include them in the summary?
The V2V tests will begin in six U.S. locales: Blacksburg, VA; Brooklyn, MI; Dallas, TX; Minneapolis, MN; Orlando, FL; and San Francisco, CA. Testing will continue through 2012, and the DOT hopes to make a full report -- with recommendations -- to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2013.
Hey you.Yes, you. I'm talking to you, blue Mazda. The road continues ahead smoothly for the next 2 kilometers. The sharp turn you see in 200 meters doesn't exist. Ignore it.
how is babby formed?
Hubris, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Mischievous hackers are going to have a field day with this one. They will really be able to crash the devices. Popup on the console... "Please accept this paypal transaction to avoid going off the cliff in front of you."
And I am also sure that the US Government wont eventually try to get other things added to this package, like the ability to track you or for the police to be able to stop your car by remote. /end S/
I'm wondering how many people our wonderful Government has right now thinking of ways to use this to violate our rights? I would say at least 60.
A great way to address most crash scenarios is to pull your head out of your ass as a driver. Are we so lazy that we cannot accept doing chores as adults? God forbid we spend any amount of time not being entertained.
In this scheme, known as a âoeswoop-and-squat,â one or more drivers in âoeswoopâ cars force an unsuspecting driver into position behind a âoesquatâ car. This squat car, which is usually filled with several passengers, then slows abruptly, forcing the driver of the chosen car to collide with the squat car. he passengers in the squat car then file a claim with the other driverâ(TM)s insurance company. This claim often includes bills for medical treatments that were not necessary or not received
The squatter could program their car to transmit a "all safe" message to other cars thereby fooling them into causing the crash... The car that crashed (the victim) could them claim their system was malfunctioning thereby suing more people...
I will point out that as a driving system, humans are already pretty terrible. We have distractions, both external and self-inflicted, limited field of view, slow reaction time, short attention span, and a variety of possible impairments. If these parameters were averaged and a machine created that mimicked those error rates, no sane human would climb into a car driven by that machine. However, we accept the significant accident rate because of two prevailing and fallacious lines of thought: "It's okay because we're in control", and "It's okay because I'm a much better driver than average". In other words, it's very likely that even *with* the risk of hacking, malfunctions, errors and such, an auto-drive, networked type of system will be orders of magnitude better than a human-managed driving system.
One of the benefits of testing in Dallas is that is already a common occurrence to be cut off by someone driving 100 mph on a wet road while flailing wildly and screaming obscenities out the window.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Why not implement some of these systems in a non-automated fashion first? I can't tell you how many times I've tried to find some sort of inexpensive RADAR for my car.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
While I'm not terrible keen on vehicles being able to affect the behavior of one another, there is one releated technology that should be implemented:
Given the noise isolation of many automotive cabins, cars should be equipped with a transponder receiver that will receive signals from approaching emergency vehicles and cut into the stereo with an announcement about the approaching vehicle indicating the direction it is coming from.
There may be exceptions for cases like soft top convertibles that don't have any sound isolation. (while I'd like to exempt all cheaper cars that don't have much in the way of sound isolation, the prevalence of ricemobiles with loud stereos argues against it)
Yeah, I've already got all the V2V communications I need packed into my middle finger.
See figure one.
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
The lawyers will love the lawsuits!
I want V2V so I can try to get that hot chicks phone number in the car next to me... well ok.. so I won't actually get it.. and .. well, she'll probably crush and decimate my ego.. and laugh at me... and my crappy car. Stupid V2V technology... who thought of this crap?
Interesting, but ultimately pointless until we have cars that can talk to soccer balls. You know . . . like when your human eyes/mind sees a soccer ball roll into the street, and you knows to slow down because, seeing the ball, you know a child might just come running along behind it . . . Seriously, its good work that needs to be done, but unless we're going to drive cars in isolated pathways, there are just too many non-automotive things that can spring out from the road side to make this alone the wonder solution.
No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
If autonomous systems become the norm, old cars without the functionality will not be allowed on the major roads, directly impacting the working poor, already on the margins of oblivion.
I wrote this a while back, before I even heard about what Google was up to. Anyone who has ever played Pod Racer with the graphics off can see how a 3D construct of the higway could be compared with sensor input and that taken with data from other cars to keep the flow optimized. Of course, there are always the problems that "retros" bring:
http://www.soopergrape.com/kathleen.html