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)."

Comments

Yeah, that'll work..

[YuppieScum]

... because no-one will *ever* try and spoof the data streams just to watch other people's cars take unrequired avoiding action at 60mph...

Re:Yeah, that'll work..

[badboy_tw2002]

You can also throw cinder blocks off overpasses. Ban cinderblocks! And overpasses!

Actually, lets just ban cars and roll around in giant plastic bubbles.

Safe now....so...safe...

Fix onboard computers first

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:Fix onboard computers first

[rrossman2]

"sensor malfunctions leading to brakes seizing"

Did a search, found nothing at all that mentions that (and if an ABS sensor malfunctions, the ABS system shuts down, but you still have your normal breaking system like on any car without ABS

"or the engine cutting out (leading to a loss of power steering)"

Big deal. It's not hard to steer a car without power steering. In fact, the faster you're moving the easier. Power steering really only helps when you're not moving or moving very slowly.

"anti-lock brake systems failing when near powerful transmitters"

The only thing I could really find was from Clemson University:

"Early ABS systems on both aircraft and automobiles were susceptible to EMI. Accidents occurred when brakes functioned improperly because EMI disrupted the ABS control system" ... "For automobile systems, the solution was to ensure, if EMI occurred, that the ABS system degrade gracefully to normal braking -- essentially an automatic version of the aircraft manual switch. Eventually, automobile ABS was qualified by EMI testing prior to procurement."
http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/pdf/nasa-rp1374.pdf , NASA Reference Publication 1374

I think more of what you said is hysteria, or you've never had a motor die for whatever reason while you're driving (which I have)

Re:Fix onboard computers first

[adolf]

Now, if only they can ban those annoying red lights that some cars have when they're driving, you know the ones that make it hard to tell if the driver has applied the brakes.

What -- you mean, rear fog lights? Some countries require cars to have them, and some imports (mostly of European origin) retain the function. The brake lights are separate.

And in times where they're intended to be used (heavy fog, rain, snow, or other times when visibility is limited), they work fine: They help show the driver behind you that you are, indeed, present. The rest of the time, they're meant to be off.

Of course, most stupid Americans (of which I am one) don't have any idea what they are, or whether they're on or off, or likely even where the switch controlling them is located. It's entirely likely that the only reason they ever got switched on in the first place was that the sod bumped the switch with their knee while wrangling two big McDonalds bags and drink carrier, while chatting on the phone with a dog on their lap and trying to fix their hair using the makeup mirror that is conveniently located at the top of the windshield between the visors.

All kidding aside: Yes, it's annoying, but abolishment of this useful safety feature isn't the answer; education is. Getting these ignorant folks to read the manual that came with their $80k Range Rover would be a good start, and making them standard equipment would help awareness even more.

Re:Fix onboard computers first

[Arterion]

Interesting concept, about jamming the technology.

Of course, it would be much easier to kill someone with a handgun, or damage their property with a sledgehammer. Or just run you over themselves.

That said, there are a lot of systems that you can interfere with, and in each case it's very illegal. Tampering with railroad tracks seems like a pretty good low tech example. I'm not naysaying security concerns, but they should be kept in context. I think we are all now used to assuming ultra-high hack-proof security as a necessity, what with whole industries built on DRM and cybercrimes more common. But really, none of us are terribly physically secure in our person, save that we rely on common law and social order, and a good bit of common sense, to keep us out of harm's way.

These technologies can save lives. They have vulnerabilities, but I would say the vulnerabilities are no greater than the ones that already exist.

There are only 6 cities

[hawguy]

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.

Plus side

[DaFallus]

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.

Re:laziness

[shutdown -p now]

Pulling your head out of your ass does not help much when others around you still drive with their heads in their asses. Even one guy doing so can cause a crash that several well-behaved drivers are dragged into.

Re:Easier to scam insurance companies...

[Zerth]

And that's why the car will use radar/optical sensors to detect the car and brake anyway, because when a dishwasher falls off a badly loaded truck, it doesn't transmit a "oh shit, I'm in the way" signal.

Re:P2P first?

[Zerth]

Your eyes allow constant 360 degree vision?

Thank your mother, they were more expensive than you think.

Re:Sounds great, but...

[abhi_beckert]

If none of the cars around you communicate, then it's exactly the same as not having the system. So nothing is lost.

If some or all the cars around you communicate then you get some extra safety.

It's a win/win situation.