DoT Grants $15M To Test Car-To-Car Communication

itwbennett writes "Car-to-car communications is about to get its first large-scale, real-world test in Ann Arbor, Mich., where the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute will be putting as many as 3,000 cars equipped with short-range radio on the roads, thanks to a $14.9 million grant it just got from the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. DoT reports predict that up to 82 percent of serious accidents among unimpaired drivers can be eliminated or reduced by a little car-to-car negotiation, or an early warning that a sedan three cars ahead just hit the brakes even though you can't see it through the giant SUV directly in front of you."

Comments

Giant SUV's

[iteyoidar]

"or an early warning that a sedan three cars ahead just hit the brakes even though you can't see it through the giant SUV directly in front of you.""

Maybe it would be cheaper to just mandate transparent SUV's

Re:Giant SUV's

[nomel]

Or, you know, drive so you can stop in time no matter what happens in front of you. Oddly enough, this doesn't involve maintaining a 5 foot distance to the car in front of you that's going 70mph.

I see this as a much needed remedy to fix the problem of *absolutely horrible* drivers that are on our roads. Think of this as a prosthetic driving ability.

Re:Giant SUV's

[madhatter256]

Or just tell people to stop following too closely... Majority of people in these accidents are doing two of the three: 1) following too closely; 2) texting/talking on the phone 3)eating while driving.

And I've seen all three being done at the same time commuting to work...

That $15million could have been spent better in road improvement projects than this... but that's just my opinion...

Re:Giant SUV's

[roc97007]

The problem is, if you put adequate distance between you and the car in front of you for your rate of speed, another driver sees this as an opportunity to squeeze in, which is arguably *more* dangerous. So even drivers who *know* they're following too close in rush hour don't have much choice.

Re:Giant SUV's

[cayenne8]

Yes...a soon to be mandated addition to your car...which eventually will find new uses to invade your privacy.

But hey...let's also include GPS in it too...that will make this proposed system even more accurate. Oh, and then....it can help them with taxation (darned cars getting better gas mileage)...and of course, to eventually just 'know where you've been' if there is a crime in the area..gather a list of all cars around there.

I guess it will be ok with me as long as it isn't against the law to disable it like I do with OnStar and the like.

I'm sure that legality won't last long...after all...this would be GREAT information for tracking terrorists!!!

Re:Giant SUV's

[0123456]

The problem is, if you put adequate distance between you and the car in front of you for your rate of speed, another driver sees this as an opportunity to squeeze in, which is arguably *more* dangerous. So even drivers who *know* they're following too close in rush hour don't have much choice.

Used to work when I lived in the UK, where the 'two second rule' was bashed into pretty much everyone when they were learning to drive in the 80s and 90s. I see vastly more idiotic behaviour on this side of the Atlantic than I did there, though idiot tailgaters were starting to become common before I left.

Re:Giant SUV's

[Mordermi]

There's also the fact that you could leave a safe distance but be cut off by some jerk right before rush hour traffic decides to come to a halt. It happened to me. I always try to maintain a safe distance but sometimes you don't have much control over it.

Re:Giant SUV's

[bgat]

That $15million could have been spent better in road improvement projects than this... but that's just my opinion...

I totally disagree. The sooner we can get humans out from behind the wheel, the better. Driver error (for reasons you cite and many more) are at the root of the overwhelming majority of traffic accidents. Computers can be made better drivers than humans, if apply resources towards that.

$15M sounds like a lot of money, until you look at the expense of a few traffic accidents. Particularly those involving fatalities and/or commercial vehicles. In that light, $15M is basically "free". This investment is a no-brainer.

And besides, if I can trust a computer to drive then I can get some decent work done during my commute. At the moment, my best alternative is a teenager...

Re:Giant SUV's

[cayenne8]

Or just tell people to stop following too closely... Majority of people in these accidents are doing two of the three: 1) following too closely; 2) texting/talking on the phone 3)eating while driving.

Geez, the kids today...just can't multi-task drive.

I mean, how hard is it to:

Shift

Eat

Adjust the stereo

Smoke a cigarette

And not spill the beer held between your legs.

Do they not teach the kids today these basics of driving before they let them out on the roads??

:)

Re:Giant SUV's

[AvitarX]

Hell, with a bluetooth ear piece that's four things, and I'm sure there's people doing all four at once.

Re:Giant SUV's

[rotide]

This is exactly my problem. I would love to leave a nice safe gap in between me and the car in front of me so if _anything_ happens, I have time to stop gracefully. The problem is that if I do that, some schmuck will just slide right in. Sounds fine, why not just leave ample space behind the new guy? Because someone else will do the same, and then another, and another. If I were to leave a few second gap each time someone slid right in, I might as well just park because I'll be slowing down every few seconds. While I love the freedom of driving (purposely drive stick just because I like to have _more_ control, not less) I welcome fully automatic controls. The stress of dealing with tons of morons during my two rush hour drives each day isn't worth the "freedom" to avoid them anymore.

Re:Giant SUV's

[rubycodez]

You must live in the boonies, that desn't work around large urban areas. You put an adequate stopping distance between yourself and the next car on the Dan Ryan or Kennedy expressway near Chicago, and two cars and a truck will wedge themselves in that space. Then as you try to back off of that configuration, people will zoom up behind you within two feet and blast their horn and cuss at you for being an impediment, and roar around you swinging back into your new gap. Your chances of an accident thus going up by a factor of at least ten.

Re:Giant SUV's

[PPH]

Yep. Demonize the evil SUV. I've seen people who will freak when a RAV4 is following 2 seconds behind them. And then think nothing of cutting in front of a loaded semi or bus.

Re:Giant SUV's

[trum4n]

This should be mandated anyway. SOCCER MOMS!

Re:Giant SUV's

[Hatta]

Or stop following so closely that you can't avoid hitting the person in front of you in an emergency. Yes, people will sneak in front of you in heavy traffic. Let them. Maintain sufficient distance between you and them too.

Re:Giant SUV's

[Hatta]

Because someone else will do the same, and then another, and another. If I were to leave a few second gap each time someone slid right in, I might as well just park because I'll be slowing down every few seconds

No, you reach equilibrium before you come to a stop. You need less distance the slower you move, and the slower you move the faster the people in front of you pull away from you.

Re:Giant SUV's

[icebike]

The problem is, if you put adequate distance between you and the car in front of you for your rate of speed, another driver sees this as an opportunity to squeeze in, which is arguably *more* dangerous.

So what? One more guy ahead of you. Big deal. So F'ing What if someone sneaks in between you and the next car. Did your manhood just get dissed?

Its this "I can't let anyone ahead of me" mentality that is so totally insane, especially when you are in a 40 mile stream of traffic, that is at the heart of some of the stupidest driving you see on the road today.

And, No, it is not arguable more dangerous than flying down the road at 50mph with 8 feet off someone's bumper. Don't even go there.

Re:Giant SUV's

[Anonymous Coward]

I only hope the system warns people when they are in the fast lane, doing 10 under, with 4 football fields of open road in front of them until the next car.

If your plan is to stay back and not really drive (to save your breaks or something, I've heard wild excuses as to why), perhaps you belong over there in the slow lane.

The problem with rush hour is that the roads are never "full" in the sense that we're all just waiting on the next car in front of us. (common misconception)

In reality, the roads are just as empty as other times of the day. Sure there's more cars, but the road capacity *easily* can handle it. If you ever managed to weave and swerve through traffic, you'll find a huge wide open parking lot in front of the group, and a row of cars who all go the same speed without yielding.

Traffic congestion is almost exclusively caused by people going under the speed limit, in the fast lane, without any sense to yield. People on their cell phones are happy to sit behind these slow drivers and they don't pressure them to move or speed up by tailgating. Since no one is tailgating the slow cars, they never speed up or move. Because of all the people on their cell phones, the line is now so large no one can easily get past. At that point it looks like "the road ahead is 100% blocked" but in reality it's quite empty and free and you're just waiting on a bunch of retards.

Try watching traffic from a helicopter. You can *easily* see entire traffic jams of hundreds of cars, all stuck behind a few minivans blocking an otherwise completely empty road.

These people need to be shot, or severely fined. Almost every 4 lane road could have been a 3 lane road with proper yielding and lack of idiots. They cost us so much money by wasting all the lanes causing people to think we just need more. So now instead of 4 idiots required to block the road, we only need 5. And thats why roads even with lane additions are still slow. People just signal into the new lane and block that one too.

All traffic problems are caused mostly by slow drivers. People act dangerous behind them to try to pass because they never yield. But their small brains can only comprehend "Faster = less safe". I just wish they made the connection that "Staying at home = Safest" and we can go out and take some risk to live our lives.

Re:Giant SUV's

[royallthefourth]

I totally disagree. The sooner we can get humans out from behind the wheel, the better. Driver error (for reasons you cite and many more) are at the root of the overwhelming majority of traffic accidents.

It's ridiculous that we must risk our lives (car wrecks are the leading cause of death for people in my age group) just to go somewhere, when there's other modes of transportation that are obvious and are being done well in nearly every other first world country besides the USA.

The state should stop wasting money on new highway projects, return extraneous bypasses to nature, and build bike infrastructure in the cities and competent passenger rail between them. It's cheaper both in dollars and human cost than to keep on with what we're doing, but very few places are bothering to try.

Re:Giant SUV's

[idontgno]

And, that, my lobsterback friend, is at the heart of the Great American Revolution: the freedom to behave in as dangerous and irresponsible fashion as we free red-blooded Americans damn well please.

"Pay your taxes. Drink your tea. Observe your two-second following distance."

SCREW YOU, "YOUR MAJESTY!". We'll shoot our Constitutionally-protected guns in the air (and at each other) as we mess up your language and drive bumper-to-bumper for miles (not kilometers) at highway (not motorway) speeds.

(I wonder how many humorless slashbots will fail to recognize one joke in this? Even if it somewhat accurately reflects the uglier facets of the American Spirit.)

Re:Giant SUV's

[pixelpusher220]

where the 'two second rule' was bashed into pretty much everyone

You assume that we actually 'train' people how to drive in the US. Mostly we make them do stupid 3 pt turns and think they're ready for the Indy 500. Teaching people *when* to do a 3 pt turn is far more important than 'how' to do it. But we don't really care about that type of thing.

Nor do we enforce traffic laws without any sense of consistency, so nobody even tries to follow the rules anyway.

Re:Giant SUV's

[h4rr4r]

Can we also kill anyone who hangs out in the passing lane doing less than the speed limit, or not currently passing?

Re:Giant SUV's

[msauve]

"$15M sounds like a lot of money, until you look at the expense of a few traffic accidents. Particularly those involving fatalities and/or commercial vehicles. In that light, $15M is basically "free". This investment is a no-brainer."

If it's all so obvious, then why aren't the insurance companies, who bear the bulk of those costs, funding it instead of the government?

Re:Giant SUV's

[idontgno]

It's not attitude. I can deal with one, maybe two, sliding into the gap. But eventually, you'll have no choice but to drive approximately 1/2 the speed of surrounding traffic, in order to continually preserve the cushion in front of you from every damn car on the road that cuts into it. And then, you'll just have intermittent cushion, since every car that cuts in front of you won't do so with good following distance in mind, so until the speed differential between him and you opens the gap back up, you're too close.

So, what you are proposing is... drive massively slower than traffic around you, creating a far greater hazard than following at less than optimal distance, while with the concordant risk of getting road-raged, rear-ended, or side-swiped.

And, No, it is not arguable more dangerous than flying down the road at 50mph with 8 feet off someone's bumper. Don't even go there.

Sorry, I don't take orders from random slashbots, even if they really really don't want me to tell them how horribly mistaken they are. Nice try.

Re:Giant SUV's

[icebike]

Having an on-board automated system that would tell my wife she's following too closely would certainly end a lot of marital strife. Something about an impartial third party makes advice easier to accept.

Having something that actually reduced vehicle speed to maintain a safe following distance would be even better. With a technology enforced save following distance, some of the other human failures can be compensated for, as well as any problems introduced by the system itself inducing speed reductions. Sure, there is the problem of a mixed fleet, with some vehicles having it, and some not. But that problem solves itself in a few years.

Re:Giant SUV's

[interval1066]

Many people I know or have known tailgate. People see a safe gap between two cars as an "opportunity", not a safety margin.

Re:Giant SUV's

[TemporalBeing]

The problem is, if you put adequate distance between you and the car in front of you for your rate of speed, another driver sees this as an opportunity to squeeze in, which is arguably *more* dangerous. So even drivers who *know* they're following too close in rush hour don't have much choice.

Used to work when I lived in the UK, where the 'two second rule' was bashed into pretty much everyone when they were learning to drive in the 80s and 90s. I see vastly more idiotic behaviour on this side of the Atlantic than I did there, though idiot tailgaters were starting to become common before I left.

They bash a two-to-three second rule into you here in the US. Doesn't do you any good though.

Re:Giant SUV's

[rotide]

That argument works fine if it's just 3 cars on the road, you, the guy in front of you and the one guy who is going to slip into the safety zone. Now put 10,000 impatient fools on the same road and try to leave a safe gap without each and every driver within reach trying to fill it. The horrible truth is, either you leave the smallest possible gap you can (within _your_ safety margin) or the car in the next lane will force themselves into your safe gap.

Re:Giant SUV's

[atrain728]

Horrible ideas, all of them!

Re:Giant SUV's

[egburr]

The problem is not someone pulling in front of you. the problem is that it is impossible to leave the proper amount of space, because it will be filled no matter what. Either you slow down more and more to keep re-opening the space, or you end up on the bumper of the last person who squeezed in. There is no middle ground.

If people would stop weaving in/out of lanes trying to get another car-length ahead of everyone else in traffic, you wouldn't have traffic keep slowing down. We could all maintain a safe speed and distance and all get home that much quicker. Some days, I'm amazed I actually reach home intact.

Re:Giant SUV's

[interval1066]

I recall with immense fondness a west end gaffer with the thickest cockneyed black-country speech lecture me on how we Americans have bastardized the English language while in London a few years ago. I simply smiled and nodded, and drank my bitter. Be kind to our elders I was taught...

Re:Giant SUV's

[jeffmeden]

The problem is, if you put adequate distance between you and the car in front of you for your rate of speed, another driver sees this as an opportunity to squeeze in, which is arguably *more* dangerous.

So what? One more guy ahead of you. Big deal. So F'ing What if someone sneaks in between you and the next car. Did your manhood just get dissed?

Its this "I can't let anyone ahead of me" mentality that is so totally insane, especially when you are in a 40 mile stream of traffic, that is at the heart of some of the stupidest driving you see on the road today.

And, No, it is not arguable more dangerous than flying down the road at 50mph with 8 feet off someone's bumper. Don't even go there.

Go ahead and think for about 3 more seconds... There you go, you get it! If you were to say "anyone can go in front of me who is willing to leave half as much of a safe distance as I" you will quickly find yourself at a dead standstill as 90% of other cars on the road shoot in front of you. Its not about someone getting ahead of you, it's about *everyone* getting ahead of you.

Re:Giant SUV's

[atrain728]

They'll fund the implementation, in part, when it becomes a reality and is proven a safer option through insurance discounts for automated drivers. Funding the research makes little sense as there is no competitive advantage.

Re:Giant SUV's

[Fred IV]

So what? One more guy ahead of you. Big deal. So F'ing What if someone sneaks in between you and the next car. Did your manhood just get dissed?

Well, no, but then you slow down more to put a comfortable amount of distance between yourself and the new car in front of you...which causes everyone behind you to brake and/or pass you on the right. Rinse and repeat as soon as there's room in front of you again. The ongoing chain of braking/acceleration/lane changing of all the cars behind you with each iteration is more of a problem than a lane full of people who are all moving at a constant speed and paying attention, especially when a number of the cars behind you are being driven by someone more interested in their smartphone than they are in what's happening in front of them.

I try to opt out by staying in a lane that's appropriate to my driving habits. I'd rather be cruising along with room in front of me in the right or middle lane than try to make the fast lane conform to some ideal of safe driving that just isn't practiced by most of the people who spend all their time there.

Re:Giant SUV's

[egburr]

The insurance don't bear the bulk of those costs. Any "cost" they have to pay out is reflected in a rate increase for everyone else. They never lose. Insurance is one of the biggest scams around. When you pay for insurance, you are essentially placing a bet that you will have an accident. If you don't have an accident, you lose and are out that month's wager. If you do have an accident, you "win" and recover most (but never all) of the costs of dealing with the accident.

The insurance just lets you spread out the cost of the accident across months/years ahead of time, so that when it does eventually occur you're not hit with an unbearable giant debt.

Re:Giant SUV's

[bill_mcgonigle]

Having an on-board automated system that would tell my wife she's following too closely would certainly end a lot of marital strife. Something about an impartial third party makes advice easier to accept.

So true. I've set our TomTom to moo at 80MPH.

Re:Giant SUV's

[X0563511]

No, because the original guy isn't going any faster than you. Which means there is less space, which means you have to slow down to recover it. Which will:
1. Allow another idiot to slip in perpetuating the process
2. Piss off everyone behind you

Re:Giant SUV's

[ShavedOrangutan]

Sounds fine, why not just leave ample space behind the new guy? Because someone else will do the same, and then another, and another.

It's really just those few drivers who feel the need to weave through traffic. They're only in front of you for a few seconds before they're off into the next lane.

That's illegal, of course, but the police aren't enforcing those laws or any of the laws that would actually make driving safer. It's too easy for them to park and radar the fast lane.

Re:Giant SUV's

[X0563511]

In my experience, the drivers in the front simply don't notice or deliberately don't respond to you. Tailgating, even headlight-flashing doesn't do the job.

Re:Giant SUV's

[X0563511]

Yea, because I'm going to bike 5 miles to work in the snow and ice.

Re:Giant SUV's

[roc97007]

> So what? One more guy ahead of you. Big deal. So F'ing What if someone sneaks in between you and the next car. Did your manhood just get dissed?

I have to wear a medical bracelet now because of someone who made an abrupt lane change in front of me, in traffic that, unbeknownst to him, was rapidly coming to a stop, so I can tell you with certitude that my manhood is not in any danger of being dissed. I'm just trying to get to work in an alive and uninjured state.

So, as others have pointed out, someone squeezes in, and then you slow down some more and another squeezes in and you slow down some more and another squeezes in and you slow down some more and in a very short time you might as well pull over and stop, because people with a different idea of what a safe following distance is, will be the only ones on the road. Haven't you ever driven in rush hour? The kind of rush hour the article is talking about?

If I could work a shift that didn't require driving in rush hour, or if I could work at home on a regular basis (I'm allowed one day a week) I would certainly do that. But we can't always do that.

Re:Giant SUV's

[X0563511]

I think the idea is that truck and bus transport have actual reasons to be huge and obstructive.

Re:Giant SUV's

[X0563511]

Great! So all the pissed off people behind me can make the situation worse, or get pissed off more and go cause an accident themselves.

Re:Giant SUV's

[roc97007]

> Its not about someone getting ahead of you, it's about *everyone* getting ahead of you.

This is my new favorite saying.

Re:Giant SUV's

[icebike]

That argument works fine if it's just 3 cars on the road, you, the guy in front of you and the one guy who is going to slip into the safety zone. Now put 10,000 impatient fools on the same road and try to leave a safe gap without each and every driver within reach trying to fill it. The horrible truth is, either you leave the smallest possible gap you can (within _your_ safety margin) or the car in the next lane will force themselves into your safe gap.

Actually, that has been pretty much debunked as well. It simply does not happen in any meaningful way.

All it takes is a FEW cars on the road with proper inter-car gaps to totally shut down the behavior you (rationally) fear.

See this: http://trafficwaves.org/trafexp.html

Imagine a FEW cars on the road, say 5%, that had a proper distance enforcing technology. They would naturally be randomly dispersed in all lanes. These would tend to block the impatient fools. They couldn't get to you to cut in front of you (well maybe a small hand full could) because all traffic would be flowing smoothly at safe following distances, and the fools would be more or less stuck where they are.

Re:Giant SUV's

[roc97007]

> as we mess up your language

'ang on, 'ang on, I've seen My Fair Lady, I 'ave! Rubbish 'at is!

Re:Giant SUV's

[icebike]

Sorry, it just does not happen that way in real life. You made it up.

It only takes a few people dispersed in all lanes to follow safe following rules to totally shut down that type of behavior. Even if 80% of the drivers ignore the rules, a tiny percentage of users behaving properly would shut them down.

http://trafficwaves.org/trafexp.html read it.

Re:Giant SUV's

[roc97007]

> They couldn't get to you to cut in front of you (well maybe a small hand full could) because all traffic would be flowing smoothly at safe following distances,

This proves it -- you really haven't driven in rush hour traffic. Traffic flows smoothly at safe following distances in computer simulations because computer simulations behave in a rational and controlled fashion.

Re:Giant SUV's

[digitalsolo]

I have this exact issue, and it's rather maddening. Now I try to follow just close enough that no one will try to squeeze in. It's far closer than I would like to be, but it appears to be the lesser of two evils.

Re:Giant SUV's

[icebike]

Well, no, but then you slow down more to put a comfortable amount of distance between yourself and the new car in front of you...which causes everyone behind you to brake and/or pass you on the right.

It CAUSES no such thing.
Further, with the majority of cars carrying technology to enforce safe following distance there would be no advantage to squeezing in because your car would slow you down to a safe following distance anyway. Infact, a truly well designed system would squawk the instant you tried to squeeze into a slot too small, and slow your vehicle.

Re:Giant SUV's

[icebike]

soooo redundant. Do you never read a thread before you jump in to respond?

Re:Giant SUV's

[digitalsolo]

There is a bit more to it than that, considering something like 90% of the country is too sprawled for this to function well. I live in a rural area and commute around 30 miles each way to the office. Due to the rural location, implementing public transport would add 2-3 hours to my daily commute. Not exactly efficient.

The entire infrastructure of the country would have to be completely rethought and a pretty massive amount of the population relocated.

Re:Giant SUV's

[element-o.p.]

And verily, dost thou thinketh he wouldst fare much the same in yon olden days when King James' manner of speaking wast most proper? Forsooth, I thinketh not.

Re:Giant SUV's

[icebike]

So, as others have pointed out, someone squeezes in, and then you slow down some more and another squeezes in and you slow down some more and another squeezes in and you slow down some more and in a very short time you might as well pull over and stop,

And as I have pointed in this thread, this is pure bunk without a shred of scientific evidence to support it.
It does not happen in real life. When was the last time you found yourself parked at the side of the road because you let one car or 5 cars change into your lane? It doesn't happen in the real world except where unexpected lane closures force vehicles into single file.

All it takes is a FEW people in each lane with proper following distance to shut down this behavior.

Look, people STOP POSTING NONSENSE.

This has been studied to death by people who actually know something about traffic patterns.

Any system that can enforce a safe following distance totally shuts down this type of behavior, and eliminates any incentive to sneak into a too small slot.

Re:Giant SUV's

[X0563511]

No, you're the one who didn't, else I wouldn't need to repeat the grandparent.

Re:Giant SUV's

[Mindcontrolled]

You smoke while eating? How utterly disgusting. Now rolling the next spliff while you gobble down a sandwich against the munchies all while not spilling the beer between your legs and fumbling for that damn Grateful Dead tape - that's how we learned to drive. Shifting doesn't even get into the picture, that somehow sits deep in the kinetic memory ;)

Re:Giant SUV's

[roc97007]

I've tried this on the motorcycle precisely because of the high personal cost of slamming into the guy in front of me and/or being sandwiched in from behind. And guess what -- it DOES NOT work. The more room you leave in front of you, the higher probability that the guy in the slower lane next to you will pull in. A single data point on a website does not make it so.

I think what these theories do not take into account is the stratification of traffic. For a given overall flow rate, the left lane (in the US) is usually the fastest. The right lane, where people merge on and off, is usually the slowest. And the middle lane, where most lane transitions take place, is somewhere in between.

During long commutes, roughly half the people in the middle lane have a ways to go before they get off, so they want to be in the left (fastest) lane. If you are in the left lane and you give them an opportunity to do so they're going to take it. This doesn't make them evil, they just want to get to work the same as the rest of us.

Since your lane is averaging faster than the lane to the right of you (again, in the US; your mileage may vary) the gap you are leaving in front of you slides past the slower lane, giving more and more people the opportunity to try to enter it. Inevitably, someone will. And then you have to slow down to maintain the gap. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Now, in very specialized circumstances, where traffic is going *so* slow that a safe following distance is not practically large enough for a car to fit, or if traffic is bunched up in a long area with no on/off ramps so all lanes are going closer to the same speed, the technique may work. But in real life urban rush hour traffic, no, not for any reasonable amount of time.

Re:Giant SUV's

[icebike]

This proves it -- you really haven't driven in rush hour traffic.

You did NOT just say that. Seriously, who HASN'T driven in rush hour traffic?

Traffic flows smoothly at safe following distances in computer simulations because computer simulations behave in a rational and controlled fashion.

Computer simulations that simulated a non-real-world traffic pattern would be useless don't you think? And the engineers building these sims are sooooo much dumber than you that they would never notice this, unlike you, with all your real world experience, because they live under their desk and never drive anywhere. Right?

The truth of the matter is engineers have probably given up trying to educate people like you, and are now looking for systems that will force you to be safer inspite of yourself. And that's what this system is all about:

V2V communications enables a vehicle to: sense threats and hazards with a 360 degree awareness of the position of other vehicles and the threat or hazard they present; calculate risk; issue driver advisories or warnings; or take pre-emptive actions to avoid and mitigate crashes.

See: http://www.its.dot.gov/research/v2v.htm

Re:Giant SUV's

[SleazyRidr]

Move somewhere with a climate suitable for human habitation?

Re:Giant SUV's

[DNS-and-BIND]

the freedom to behave in as dangerous and irresponsible fashion as we free red-blooded Americans damn well please.

Implicit in the idea of "freedom" is the freedom of choice. That choice includes the "wrong" decisions. Who decides what's wrong and what's right? You? Of course! Society's betters are always correct, this has been proven thousands of times by history. Oh, wait, history is full of contrary examples. Damn you, facts! The narrative is always right!

Even if it somewhat accurately reflects the uglier facets of the American Spirit.

So, is it accurate or not? Stop joking and state a solid viewpoint. If you're anti-American, get right out there and say it. There's nothing to be ashamed about! You're in good company with Che Guevara, Janeane Garofalo, Moammar Ghadaffi, Oliver Stone, Hugo Chavez, NPR CEO and President Vivian Schiller, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What's to be ashamed of? Why so serious?

Re:Giant SUV's

[Bob the Super Hamste]

And that is why I like driving my crap beater vehicle, people give it a lot of room. I think it is more out of fear of fall parts than anything else.

Re:Giant SUV's

[rednip]

Each time you move into the other lane you leave a hole in traffic that isn't filled anywhere near a quickly as the hole that you create in the other lane. Weaving in an out of traffic below the speed limit destroys traffic, and above the speed limit, it can be the very start of a traffic jam, especially if they think you a little too threatening and slow down. Sure it down't 'hurt' you, but most times when stuck in traffic an aggressive weaver is often the start of the problems. When the fast lane comes to a complete stop, it's because people are jumping into the slow lane and then back into the fast lane, even if it stops traffic (or merging basically strait into the 'fast lane' from an on-ramp)

My best effort is to go as quickly as I can in the fast lane, until I come within two car lengths of another car in the fast lane. I pass at first opportunity, any gapper who is bigger than 4 car lengths in the fast lane.

Re:Giant SUV's

[roc97007]

> And as I have pointed in this thread, this is pure bunk without a shred of scientific evidence to support it.

And again, saying that doesn't make it so. The phenomenon being described is easily observable. I proved it again on the way to work this morning, by leaving a car and a half distance in front of me and seeing a guy in the middle lane pulling into it. I slowed down and a guy two cars further back in the middle lane pulled into the gap. It happens, we've seen it happen. It happens because the lane we are in is going faster than the lane to the right of us (in the US, perhaps different in other countries), and any driver who isn't trying to exit is naturally trying to get into the faster lane. We see it happen every morning and every evening Monday through Friday, so it's somewhat of a cognitive dissonance for someone to insist that it can't possibly happen. Where do you drive, mars?

Re:Giant SUV's

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well maybe if you don't have idiots passing on shoulders. Or psychos on motorcycles weaving through traffic at about 100. Every time I see these I think I should make up some stop sticks to pitch out the window onto the shoulder, or just open the car door right in front of the biker.

Re:Giant SUV's

[element-o.p.]

Problem is, the two second rule only works when you assume the guy ahead of you will decelerate to a stop. However, if he runs into a stationary object, you're screwed if you are only two seconds behind him. At 55 MPH, you are traveling ~81 feet per second, which means a two second following distance puts you ~162 feet behind the car ahead of you. A commonly quoted statistic is that it takes about three tenths of a second to react to stimuli -- for example, brake lights on the car ahead of you. So that means you have 1.7 seconds to stop if you see the car ahead of you has suddenly come to a full and complete stop, for example, if they impacted a stopped car ahead of them. That leaves you with just over 137 feet to stop before you hit them. To decelerate from ~81 fps to 0 fps in 1.7 seconds, you will need to decelerate at 47.5 fpsps. Just to be clear, a 1G deceleration is only 32 fpsps. That means in order to be able to come to a complete stop in 1.7 seconds, you need to decelerate at roughly 1.5g . That's some mighty impressive braking performance. I doubt most cars on the road can get even close to that level of braking performance, even with new tires on a perfect road (and the roads where I live are far from perfect).

Re:Giant SUV's

[icebike]

And those two guys prevented you from getting to work, and made it necessary to pull over and stop because you couldn't maintain a safe following distance?

Oh, wait, you DID make it to work, didn't you.

I never said people wouldn't pull in front of you, I said it didn't matter, except to your mistaken sense of manhood.
You GOT TO WORK. You weren't late.

Re:Giant SUV's

[internerdj]

For the same reason that my health insurance doesn't pay for a gym membership, or cut me a check when I eat a salad versus a cheeseburger?

Re:Giant SUV's

[Bob the Super Hamste]

No, because the original guy isn't going any faster than you. Which means there is less space, which means you have to slow down to recover it. Which will: 1. Allow another idiot to slip in perpetuating the process 2. Piss off everyone behind you

So that is why I have a horn, and I don't care about the people behind me. If they are following too closely and rear end me my car will get fixed and their insurance will go up. Every car accident I have ever been in has been someone else hitting me, the first was some drug addict who was so high he didn't know where he was and the second was a high schooler that merged into the rear end of my car while I was turning. Apparently the high school girl didn't like that traffic ahead of her was slowing down (the cars behind me as I was making a right hand turn) and sped up past them and them merged back into the lane I was turning out of hitting the rear of my car and spinning it into a fire hydrant.

Re:Giant SUV's

[_0xd0ad]

The person in front of you will always decelerate to a stop. There are no discontinuities in the function of velocity. Momentary acceleration cannot be infinite.

An object needs to be more than just stationary to "instantly" stop a vehicle traveling at highway speeds. It needs to be either very immobile or very massive (or both). The energy has to go somewhere.

Very immobile and very massive objects also tend to be very visible.

Re:Giant SUV's

[icebike]

Thats all part of the same problem.

People feel that is some one sneaks ahead, by what ever means, that their manhood is somehow besmirched.

I don't condone passing on the shoulders or the lane-splitting motorcyclist. But I'm content to let them get the hell away from me before they crack up. I never feel some how belittled just because some one managed to get in front of me.

Oddly, an amazingly small number of them do crack up, but most of the don't. The only reason most people don't drive that way is because its against the law in most places.

Re:Giant SUV's

[roc97007]

> You did NOT just say that. Seriously, who HASN'T driven in rush hour traffic?

I did say that, just now. For one thing, it depends entirely on what you mean by "rush hour traffic". I've driven in rush hour in San Francisco Bay Area, in Newark New Jersey, Boston, and LA. Now, Boston... *they* have Rush Hour Traffic (caps are intended). The people in the SF Bay Area... they think they have rush hours. If they could spend a couple weeks in Boston they'd LONG for the day they could get back to their rush hours. Similarly, Bay Area commuters would laugh at what we call "traffic" up here in Portland.

> Computer simulations that simulated a non-real-world traffic pattern would be useless don't you think?

Yep. And if theories don't match readily observable reality, how can the simulation be simulating real-world traffic patterns? I mean, in areas where I'm likely to actually drive, next to the real-world drivers that are trying to share the freeway (and sometimes my own personal space) with me.

Re:Giant SUV's

[jigamo]

There's also the problem of someone following you too closely. In that case, even if you've left yourself enough room to stop, you get rammed from behind by the person riding your bumper.

Re:Giant SUV's

[element-o.p.]

This is something that concerns me. I try to drive safely and considerately, and consequently, when I'm not either actively passing someone or approaching an on-ramp where traffic will be merging into the right-hand lane from an intersecting road, I stay in the right hand lane so that faster traffic can get past me. However, I seem to be the exception rather than the rule. I cannot count how many times I have cruised down the highway behind some complete freaking moron who is pacing the car to his right at 5-10mph below the speed limit on a beautiful, clear, summer day, despite the 50 miles of open highway ahead of him and the line of traffic stacking up behind him. Consequently, yes, I sometimes look like I am "weaving" in and out of traffic because when I get a chance to get around the aforementioned moron, I will -- even if it means passing in the right hand lane because Clueless absolutely refuses to move to the "slow lane" on the right. And when I reach the line of traffic in the RH lane ahead, I'll move left again to pass them, then move back to the RH lane so others who want to go even faster can get past me. Am I being unsafe? Not intentionally, and I'd argue that my actions are safer than the idiot who is holding back -- and pissing off -- traffic behind him in the left lane.

Re:Giant SUV's

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever actually driven with a gap in front of you? Every other car doesn't switch into your lane. If your lane is moving faster, they don't have a chance. If it's slower, they don't want to. This obviously changes a bit near exits, but it's not as horrifying as you make out to be.

Re:Giant SUV's

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You have never driven on 494 through Bloomington/Richfield in Minnesota during rush hour. I have seen people stop in their lane so that they can get over thus blocking traffic. Apparently the people who study traffic patterns have never seen people:
1. stop at the end of on ramps
2. stop in traffic so they can wait for an opening in the other lane wile the road in front of them is now open and clear now
3. cut across 3 lanes of traffic to get off on the ramp they are about to pass
4. ride the breaks
5. drive 10 to 15 mph under the speed limit when the weather is fine on a sunny summer day
6. drive 10 mph over the speed limit when the roads are covered in ice and snow
7. be unable to stay in their own damn lane (like they are drunk or need their phone shoved up their ass)
8. pass on the shoulders
9. drive the car like it has only 2 settings, speed up or slow down, my sister drives like this the car is either accelerating or slowing down even when there is not traffic around
10. weave through traffic on a motorcycle


So tell me o wise one how does your magical system correct for all of these deficient drivers. Personally I think we need German style traffic enforcement and driver training that would solve most of these problems.

Re:Giant SUV's

[element-o.p.]

So you're telling me that you are just fine driving at 15 mph slower than prevailing traffic because people keep pulling into your safety cushion ahead of you? It's not always about competition; quite honestly, I couldn't care less if you pass me. In fact, I kind of like having a "front door". However, if you keep letting people in ahead of you because you have a large space cushion, you will inevitably end up driving slower than the flow of traffic. And if you are driving slower than the flow of traffic, you will have all the other drivers behind you (who are now pissed off at you because you are going so slow) passing and pulling in ahead of you...making the problem worse.

So, yeah. Driving with 8 feet between you and the car ahead at 50mph on a 40mile commute is stupid. But driving significantly slower than traffic around you because you are trying to keep enough space to land a Super Cub between you and the car ahead is stupid, too. There's a middle ground, and it can sometimes force you to drive closer than maybe you'd like. Most of the time, that's fine because there's a better than even chance that you won't need to panic stop in traffic. But when you find that you are in such a situation, you'd better stack the odds in your favor by having an "out" if you do have to stop, and by paying more attention than usual to what's going on around you.

Re:Giant SUV's

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I believe that this already exists. I think some MBs have it. It allows the cruse control to keep a safe distance from the car in front of it.

Re:Giant SUV's

[element-o.p.]

And, No, it is not arguable more dangerous than flying down the road at 50mph with 8 feet off someone's bumper. Don't even go there.

Sorry, I don't take orders from random slashbots, even if they really really don't want me to tell them how horribly mistaken they are. Nice try.

That was very well said. :thumb_up:

Re:Giant SUV's

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I laugh at those people. My wife tailgates everyone but the moment she things she is being tailgated she screams and yells.

Re:Giant SUV's

[element-o.p.]

2. Piss off everyone behind you

Yep. And at that point, they pass you, pull into the space ahead of you, and make the entire situation even worse. Rinse, repeat, do not profit!!!

Re:Giant SUV's

[element-o.p.]

Pretty please???

Re:Giant SUV's

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Why the hell should you care what the people behind you think. If you really wanted to get them to not follow you so closely run a vacuum hose into the passenger compartment and have a valve connected to a bottle of oil, then when they get too close just open the valve and they will back off. Either that or just drive a really crappy car with a wood bumper a 6x2 bolted on does wonders for getting people to stop following you.

Re:Giant SUV's

[CastrTroy]

Get some studded tires, some nice warm clothes, are you're set. Maybe even cross country ski.

Re:Giant SUV's

[msauve]

"For the same reason that my health insurance doesn't pay for a gym membership"

Actually, some do pay for gym memberships, weight loss programs, and/or smoking cessation programs.

Re:Giant SUV's

[shawn(at)fsu]

If you have enough distance between you and the car in front of you then their should be room for another car to get between you and you sill have time to increase the distance between you and the newer car in front of you. Also if you're going around the speed limit someone in front of you in a big hurry wont be close to you for long anyway.

And what's wrong with someone that gets in front of you anyway? It's not a race. I've noticed when I keep plenty of room between me and the next car in front of me I didn't have the problem that you describe over the long term and this is in DC with the worst drivers in the country. If you leave enough space for some one to merge the system as a whole works better.

Re:Giant SUV's

[element-o.p.]

Agreed, but the vehicle *can* decelerate at a rate much greater than what brakes alone could normally do. BTDT. Fortunately, the cop who investigated the accident agreed that the other guy primarily to blame, although he did cite me for "exceeding safe speeds for conditions" (it was winter, and I was already going 10mph slower than the posted speed limit, ).

Re:Giant SUV's

[asylumx]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Nice guys finish last, especially when driving in heavy traffic.

Re:Giant SUV's

[chronoglass]

i've often imagined.. especially while stuck in traffic. a system of railcars that you could just drive onto and get sped to a city.. drive across it, and hop on the next train until you get to your destination, or the city before your destination and drive the last leg.

seems as easy to lay rail where our highways are now...

course things like this always SEEM easy.. and really, nothing like destroying the roadside diner again eh? ha ha

Re:Giant SUV's

[TemporalBeing]

However, if he runs into a stationary object, you're screwed if you are only two seconds behind him.

About the only stationary objects that would not move upon being hit are buildings and bridge abutments - something that you ought to be able to see coming even if you're 2 inches off a semi. Anything else will move the object forward at least a little, and thus you still have more distance than you are talking about.

And I'm sure most vehicles can manage more than 1.5g decelerations. Most safety tests certainly do a lot worse by using actual stationary objects (posts, large concrete blocks, etc.) to verify the safety of the passengers (roll cage, seat belts, etc) - going from 55mph (or better) to a dead stop. They also typically test opposing traffic - both stationary and dynamic - for the same things - which will yield both accelerations and decelerations of greater than 1.5g's as the vehicles swing about in various directions based on the dynamics of the impacts.

And of course the vehicle is fully capable of doing more than your body can withstand; but you're not capable of making it do so.

Re:Giant SUV's

[X0563511]

I'm 33 degrees North. It's hardly the frozen north. But it still gets cold in the winter.

Re:Giant SUV's

[roc97007]

> And those two guys prevented you from getting to work, and made it necessary to pull over and stop because you couldn't maintain a safe following distance?

Um no, they caused me to tighten up the distance to the bumper in front of me so no others could pull that maneuver. Because I had been reminded yet again why trying to leave what I consider to be an adequate distance is ultimately self-defeating. And hence, here I am. Traffic must be a lot nicer, or at least more straightforward, in your world. Unfortunately, I have to live in mine.

Re:Giant SUV's

[roc97007]

...and if I had been trying to protect my manhood, I certainly wouldn't have driven daughter's beetle into work today, with the clown on the antenna, the dancing cow on the dashboard and the very feminine vanity plate.

Re:Giant SUV's

[X0563511]

True enough, but to be honest I'd rather not go through the trouble (and risk of actual serious injury) just to prove a (minor, really) point.

Re:Giant SUV's

[X0563511]

You missed the "can make the situation worse" and "go cause an accident themselves" part did you? That's only my entire post.

Re:Giant SUV's

[jafiwam]

Also note, the gap in front of you is an indication (to the tailgating moron behind you) that he needs to further charge up in hopes you will close the gap, thus making the both of you get to your destination (perhaps, still 100 miles away) faster.

Driving should be a daily reminder that people are stupid. Forget about anybody else's safety but your own.

Let them take the gap, just back off again. The gap-jumpers often get right back out when they continue their quest for that one lane that is free of traffic.

Re:Giant SUV's

[jafiwam]

Settle in behind a truck. Problem solved. The idiots that jump from lane to lane know trucks are "slow" (even though they are somewhat, the drivers try to not slow down if possible and are usually in the easy flowing lane) despite the fact they end up at the same place at the same ramp light a lot of times. Then you can make whatever gap you want, don't have to brake as hard (because the truck just plowed through whomever it was and can't stop as fast as you can), AND you can get slightly better gas mileage from the slipstream sometimes.

Consider going the speed limit for a while, and all this dick-size-comparison driving becomes pointless.

Re:Giant SUV's

[jafiwam]

That's his problem, and under his control. There is nothing in the world you can do to make the person behind you do anything different (aside from brake checking them, which is more dangerous for everybody involved for a number of reasons). He's probably going to jump out of your lane in a few seconds anyway, so ignore him.

Re:Giant SUV's

[Fned]

I've driven in rush hour in San Francisco Bay Area

I drive in one twice a day, and you are full of shit.

NO ONE is going at freeway speeds at those times when a safe following gap is untenable. The rest of the time, you just make a space. It's easy to do.

You just suck at doing it. Therefore, it must be other people's fault, and/or impossible. Dunning-Krueger effect.

Re:Giant SUV's

[Thing 1]

Nor do we enforce traffic laws without any sense of consistency, so nobody even tries to follow the rules anyway.

Or logic rules, apparently.

Re:Giant SUV's

[tlhIngan]

I would love to leave a nice safe gap in between me and the car in front of me so if _anything_ happens, I have time to stop gracefully. The problem is that if I do that, some schmuck will just slide right in. Sounds fine, why not just leave ample space behind the new guy? Because someone else will do the same, and then another, and another.

Even worse when they cut you off. You can leave a nice big gap, but instead of going ahead, then cutting in, they cut in right in front of you, causing you to slam on your brakes (because he may brake suddenly). Compound that with the inability for them to speed up, and what was a nice safe gap for you becomes their nice gap, and you're havingto slam on the brakes. Then the guy behind you has to brake as well...

End result - those mysterious waves where traffic comes to a standstill then start up again, all because one idiot decided they wanted to have a nice gap in front of them, screwing you into making a gap just to avoid riding their bumper.

Re:Giant SUV's

[Thing 1]

I'm sure that legality won't last long...after all...this would be GREAT information for tracking terrorists!!!

Exactly. When "terrorists" == "people against the current regime."

Re:Giant SUV's

[roc97007]

Ok ok ok... I see how this works. I can do this. Um, your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries. I'm right and any direct personal proof you have is delusion. I'm supposed to insert another insult here but I can't think of one.

Hey, this is kinda fun. I can see why you like it.

Re:Giant SUV's

[rocket rancher]

Sounds fine, why not just leave ample space behind the new guy? Because someone else will do the same, and then another, and another.

It's really just those few drivers who feel the need to weave through traffic. They're only in front of you for a few seconds before they're off into the next lane. That's illegal, of course, but the police aren't enforcing those laws or any of the laws that would actually make driving safer. It's too easy for them to park and radar the fast lane.

Why is it illegal? Even in areas that have lane change laws (ours is 100 feet before you can legally change lanes) "a few seconds" is all it takes to travel the requisite distance. Fwiw, here in Arizona at this time of year, the snowbirds start arriving, and they add to our already considerable traffic problems by being tentative and slow. It's way better to change lanes and get these people in your review mirror as soon as possible. Since not everybody drives at the speed limit, and indeed an appreciable fraction actually drive slower than conditions warrant, why should it be illegal to pass them? I'm really curious about the traffic laws in your area.

Re:Giant SUV's

[element-o.p.]

Settle in behind a truck. Problem solved. The idiots that jump from lane to lane know trucks are "slow" (even though they are somewhat, the drivers try to not slow down if possible and are usually in the easy flowing lane) despite the fact they end up at the same place at the same ramp light a lot of times. Then you can make whatever gap you want, don't have to brake as hard (because the truck just plowed through whomever it was and can't stop as fast as you can), AND you can get slightly better gas mileage from the slipstream sometimes.

Sweet -- that may be one of the most intelligent suggestions in this entire thread :)

Consider going the speed limit for a while...

I just wish people would actually reach the speed limit where I live. While my tendency might be to go about 5-10 MPH faster than the posted limit, I just suck it up when I'm behind someone who is doing the posted limit. I understand that others are trying to obey the law, so I can handle that. What pisses me off is when you've got some yahoo blocking traffic at 10 MPH or more below the speed limit when there's absolutely no weather or road condition that requires such a low speed. Since I've usually got far more to do than time in which to do it, wasting time behind slow, inconsiderate drivers is excruciating for me...but maybe I should just switch to decaff :)

Re:Giant SUV's

[geekoid]

Go to L.A.. The It's not uncommon for their to be bumper to bumper traffic traveling at 70+ MPH.
And yes, if there is a one car gap, the moment you got slightly faster then the lane next to you, some assholes moves in.

Sure, if we could get everyone to drive the same speed, have a good gap, and have it spaces so there sin't room to do it the problem would go away.

But that's a hell of a lot harder then creating a system to alert people of dangerous.

Not to mention what it would do to congestion to suddenly need 2-3 times more room on the freeway.

Re:Giant SUV's

[jamesh]

where the 'two second rule' was bashed into pretty much everyone

You assume that we actually 'train' people how to drive in the US. Mostly we make them do stupid 3 pt turns and think they're ready for the Indy 500. Teaching people *when* to do a 3 pt turn is far more important than 'how' to do it. But we don't really care about that type of thing.

It's actually an improvement on 40 years ago where you'd go for a spin around the block with the policeman sitting in the back doing his crossword. In Australia you have to log something like 200 hours of driving before they'll issue you a probationary license. While that means you'll be more likely to have encountered tricky situations with an experienced driver sitting next to you, it doesn't actually reduce the number of dickheads on the road.

Nor do we enforce traffic laws without any sense of consistency, so nobody even tries to follow the rules anyway.

It seems like we don't either - there just aren't enough police on the road. On my commute to work it seems like every second car is being driven by someone with a phone to their ear (whether it's unsafe or not, it's illegal in Australia), and half the rest are texting (unquestionably unsafe and stupid, and definitely illegal). Maybe we should start a "if you see someone driving while using a phone hold down your horn button until they stop" facebook group.

Re:Giant SUV's

[jamesh]

I was listening to some people chatting about a recent car accident that someones daughter had. It seems that a kangaroo had jumped out in front of a car resulting in the next 3 or 4 cars crashing into the car in front. The daughter had been driving the second or third car. One of the comments made was something like "I don't understand why she was fined, it wasn't her fault". Stupid.

Re:Giant SUV's

[jamesh]

I just leave the gap and occasionally curse at the dickheads who pull in front if i'm having a bad day. Nobody else is going to make me tailgate.

One day i'll install a horn that will make their windows shake :)

Re:Giant SUV's

[NoMaster]

"In Australia you have to log something like 200 hours of driving before they'll issue you a probationary license. While that means you'll be more likely to have encountered tricky situations with an experienced driver sitting next to you, it doesn't actually reduce the number of dickheads on the road."

I think it's only 100 hours (in Qld at least; may be different elsewhere), and the 'experienced driver' needs only have held an open license for 12 months or more.

Which goes a long way to explaining the number of dickheads on the road. Far from having an 'experienced driver' beside them, chances are they had just another dickhead sitting next to them for most of those 100 hours...

Re:Giant SUV's

[jamesh]

"In Australia you have to log something like 200 hours of driving before they'll issue you a probationary license. While that means you'll be more likely to have encountered tricky situations with an experienced driver sitting next to you, it doesn't actually reduce the number of dickheads on the road."

I think it's only 100 hours (in Qld at least; may be different elsewhere), and the 'experienced driver' needs only have held an open license for 12 months or more.

Which goes a long way to explaining the number of dickheads on the road. Far from having an 'experienced driver' beside them, chances are they had just another dickhead sitting next to them for most of those 100 hours...

I just checked and in Victoria it's 120 hours (not the 200 I said first), and 10 of those must be at night. With your Learners permit you have to be supervised by someone with a full license (eg not on probationary license) which means they've held a license for at least 3 years. Generally speaking, people are quite a bit more sensible at 21 than they are at 18, although some still have a way to go even at 21.

But that still does nothing to stop people being stupid on the road if they are so inclined, what it does (in theory) is reduce the number of situations a new driver would encounter that they haven't encountered before.

I certainly hold no illusions that there are any more or less dickheads on the road in Victoria vs Queensland :)

Re:Giant SUV's

[roc97007]

> Go to L.A.. The It's not uncommon for their to be bumper to bumper traffic traveling at 70+ MPH.

I've driven there, yes, and I've been in that kind of traffic.

> And yes, if there is a one car gap, the moment you got slightly faster then the lane next to you, some assholes moves in.

Said asshole often tries to move into a gap smaller than their actual car, intimidating you into slowing down and letting them in. Last time I was there, LA drivers were starting to imitate the Boston Defense, which is to move up closer to the car in front of them while simultaneously blowing their horn, to say "you're not getting in here".

It's a jungle out there. I wish it could be all rainbows and unicorns, and traffic patterns would stick to computer simulations, and individuals could make a difference, but it's not realistic. That engineer talk show host in California.... on KGO... Bill Waterson? I don't think I have the name right. He explained at length that if everyone maintained a reasonable distance in front of them, you wouldn't get the accordion in-and-out effect and traffic would move faster on the average. And you know what? I believe him. But the key word there is "everyone".

Brakes already have a signal

[Smallpond]

I want:

- Driver is texting
- Driver is lost and about to stop in the middle of the road, then turn left without signalling or checking their mirror
- Driver just spilled hot coffee
- Spider just descended in front of driver
- Driver is sexting

Re:Brakes already have a signal

[sconeu]

Yeah, Brakes have a signal. A signal you can't see when the braking car is being tailgated by the H2 in front of you.

Re:Brakes already have a signal

[0123456]

Yeah, Brakes have a signal. A signal you can't see when the braking car is being tailgated by the H2 in front of you.

If the car in front of you is tailgating the car that's braking, then you'll get plenty of warning when they smash into that car.

So long as you aren't tailgating too, of course.

Re:Brakes already have a signal

[X0563511]

Clearly you've not been around very many H2s. The shockwave from the douchexplosion can take you out a thousand feet away. (a joke. I agree with you.)

Backseat Driving

[rwv]

Just what we need... a robotic voice to do automatic back-seat driving. Unless the plan is to have the car react automatically to radio signals? In which case they better put safe-guards in place for people who want to jam those signals.

Re:Backseat Driving

[bgat]

Agreed. Our track record for producing devices that can do good things while at the same time not doing bad things isn't so great. A part of me sees this project as being "3000 cars on the road with wide open wireless security issues", sadly. And even with undeployed systems, decent security isn't something you can simply add on at the end--- you have to plan for it from the beginning.

SURELY the UMich guys understand this and have security dealt with from the get-go, right? ...Right? Please say I'm right!

Re:Backseat Driving

[jeffeb3]

You might see the warned car beeping, but it might just do things you won't notice.

For example, in that two seconds where it thinks there might be a problem, it could increase the gain on the brakes, and reduce the gain on acceleration. So if you are accelerating towards a stopping vehicle, it will not accelerate as fast, and if you start to brake, it could brake harder. Alternatively, there could be subtle gains to be had as well. In a hybrid vehicle, it might prepare to regenerate the batteries, or if you are in cruise control it could change the speed. There are a lot of complicated things happening under the hood of a modern automobile, and you'd be surprised how little it could take in a lot of cases to reduce fatalities.

Re:Backseat Driving

[icebike]

Agreed. Our track record for producing devices that can do good things while at the same time not doing bad things isn't so great. !

Actually that's an unwarrantedly pessimistic view.

First, in this area (transportation) there are very few precedents for such a system, and even fewer that "at the same time did bad things".
In fact most new systems from any field of endeavor have the existing bad things designed out of them at the get go.

Its easy enough to point to hacking and viruses of today's computer systems and say, oh, look at the "bad things" computers bring, without admitting that these "bad things" didn't show up for 20 years, until all of these computers were connected to a network.

In fact MOST "bad things" come along only later, when the conditions of use change drastically, and historically that is where the problems arise.

Its only reasonable to expect any new system to take into account current and easily foreseeable situations and add security for these.
But its impossible to predict all possible "bad things" that might occur in the future when a system operational for many years, and someone hangs new functionality on it, or starts using it in unexpected ways.

Its unreasonable to pin this on a bad "track record".

Re:Backseat Driving

[X0563511]

You might see the warned car beeping, but it might just do things you won't notice.

and if you start to brake, it could brake harder.

A good way to get someone killed. People generally don't lack for foot-power when they panic, and amplifying it can exacerbate issues when the road conditions are less than ideal.

Re:Backseat Driving

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You have never driven a vehicle without power assisted breaks. The braking force one applies is trivial compared to the power assist that the break booster provides. If you want to see for you self, go drive up to the top of a hill, shut your car off pump the breaks 3-4 times to purge the vacuum ball until the break pedal becomes firm, now put the car into neutral (it is still not running) and let it roll down the hill. Now see how hard you have to press to get the car to stop. The same thing applies to power steering only that isn't vacuum assist, try turning the steering wheel of a vehicle that is not running.

Re:Backseat Driving

[X0563511]

I have power assisted brakes. (Brake, not break). In fact, I even have a CVT. My navigation system has a freakin' gyro in it. My car is pretty damn modern.

The point is that first press is amplified consistently (unless something is broken. you have to admin in such case all bets are off). Having the system arbitrarily decide (good reason or no) to change that behavior greatly increases the risk of something stupid or harmful happening because it deviates from the operator's expectation.

Here's a proof of concept. When you turn your computer on it turns on normally, correct? Imagine if it detected something off (make something up) and instead of turning on it flew three feet in the air with a loud noise. I imagine you would react to this quite strongly, and probably not for the better of anything you were holding/manipulating at the time.

Re:Backseat Driving

[geekoid]

Are track record is excellent,. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

Re:Nero Fiddling

[xclr8r]

Who is going to stop the moron on his/her smart phone texting with eyes off the road. I'd rather have him/her not driving at all but if this can stop some accidents from happening good deal. This just shouldn't be mandated or forced on older cars.

Drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Since making people drive 100% responsibly/undistracted will never happen, let alone 100% of people, anything that can snap someone to attention right away should be a big help.

Re:Drivers

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Then do I have the device for you it is a spring loaded 2x4 that will smack them upside the head when a driver is not paying attention to the road or driving poorly.

Hear it comes

[Adustust]

If they want to make roads safer, then they need to work on better automated driving. Vehicle to Vehicle communication is just going to be used to tell others exactly how shitty their driving is. If you think road rage is bad now, think about what it'll be like when someone can talk back and tell you to go fuck yourself and stay the same speed in front of you.

Re:Hear it comes

[ColdWetDog]

If they want to make roads safer, then they need to work on better automated driving. Vehicle to Vehicle communication is just going to be used to tell others exactly how shitty their driving is. If you think road rage is bad now, think about what it'll be like when someone can talk back and tell you to go fuck yourself and stay the same speed in front of you.

Besides, we've done this already. CB radios didn't help.

Re:Hear it comes

[Migraineman]

What, the currently-implemented hand signals aren't effective enough?

Re:Hear it comes

[cayenne8]

Besides, we've done this already. CB radios didn't help.

Actually, they still help.....great for finding out where cops are, or accidents, etc. Truckers are great for information out on the road.

And the nice thing is...you don't have to get a license for a CB now like you did in the 70's.

Re:Hear it comes

[atrain728]

Vehicle to vehicle communication will most likely be used to augment automated driving, more than augment manual driving. A vehicle may be able to be driven in traffic by it's own sensors, but it would do far better with the added sensory data points of dozens of vehicles around it. Better still if it knows the intentions of the vehicles around it (specifically their exit# or next turn).

Re:Hear it comes

[geekoid]

IN 1997 I built a system that cross reference license plate, to driver, and then found their telephone number. So you could enter a license plate number, and most of the time get that person phone number.
It tested pretty good. 90% hit rate... then I just set it aside. I figured it would be about a year before some got killed.

Now, if I could invent something the made it so people couldn't post unless they had read the article, people like you wouldn't make posts that make them seem stupid.

Something we should add...

[bmo]

Virtual "asshole" stickers, to be electronically tagged to aggressive / stupid / texting / drinking / inattentive drivers.

Get enough Asshole stickers and you get a ticket.

--
BMO

Re:Something we should add...

[bill_mcgonigle]

Get enough Asshole stickers and you get a ticket.

This is unnecessary. Just the social stigma of everybody around you being informed that you're an asshole is enough to get all but the most psychopathic to behave.

Transparency > retribution.

Re:Something we should add...

[lonelytrail]

Just remember "aggressive" isn't only the guy who finally gets pissed because you won't get out of the passing lane. The people in the passing lane are being just as aggressive by not getting out of the improper lane. That "aggressive" guy has been trying to get around for 5 minutes and finally does something stupid to get around.

Speeding up to keep someone from merging is just as aggressive.
Riding the merge lane to the very end, around everybody else, is just as aggressive.
Etc.

Re:Something we should add...

[chronoglass]

Riding the merge lane to the very end, around everybody else, is just as aggressive.

actually.. exiting the merge lane early can be just as bad..
let the lane do it's job and shuffle together like a deck of cards.

but no, people just won't do that because at that last moment someone on one side or the other will always screw it up and go out of turn.

or someone will stop traffic so they can merge early...

Re:Something we should add...

[jayme0227]

Get enough Asshole stickers and you get a ticket.

Also, give enough Asshole stickers and you get a ticket. My anecdotal evidence suggests that the people who complain the most about bad drivers tend to be pretty terrible drivers themselves. That would mean that the ones going crazy giving out tickets would likely be causing the other drivers around them to seem like they are driving poorly.

Re:Something we should add...

[bmo]

I like this.

An asshole rating like a credit rating...

We'd even have shows on NPR or PRI about it just like the money shows.

--
BMO

Re:Something we should add...

[bill_mcgonigle]

An asshole rating like a credit rating...

Absolutely. eBay has this, essentially, though it's a bit more narrowly focused.

We'd even have shows on NPR or PRI about it just like the money shows.

Heh, "Welcome to Michael in Cincinnati. / Uh, yeah, I have a really bad asshole score. / OK, here's what you do Michael: stop being an asshole. Our next caller is Bob in Milwaukee."

I hope it can prevent tailgating

[yog]

I hate tailgaters (not the kind who picnic off the tailgate of their pickup, but the kind who like to drive with their nose up your tailpipe).

If you had car-to-car communication that would warn the car directly behind to increase its safety zone (as if the driver even knows what that is) then maybe they'd at least have a clue to back off. If they persist in aggressively tailing you at a dangerous speed (anything over 5 mph) then the system could notify the nearest patrol officer to come intervene. Of course, in some places like Boston or NYC, that would be virtually everybody.

A few extra meters between cars will give everybody more visibility and more time to react to sudden situations such as a child running into the road or a motorist suddenly turning, or someone running a red light. With the razor-thin margin of error that many drivers employ these days, it's just more likely that something bad will happen.

I'd also like to see an inexpensive, automated vehicle surveillance camera system. It would help cut down on aggressive driving when someone knows that their idiotic behavior is being captured and streamed to some distant server for possible use in court if not uploading to Youtube's Idiot Driver of the Day contest. Many's the time I've needed such a device. May have to set something up myself, hmm.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[0123456]

Troll rating: 1/10. Must try harder next time.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hope such a system would also notify officers to come intervene when the lead car has decided that passing lane be damned - they're going to meander down the highway in whatever lane they please at whatever speed they please.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[X0563511]

Generally a slow deceleration will get rid of most tailgaters. If you want to be nice, just let off the gas and let friction/gravity do the job, and if you do so gentle enough they might not even get mad (it just pushes them out of the impatient area and into the actively-avoid area). If you want to send a message, a couple gentle (GENTLE!) taps on your brake to pulse your lights usually does the job, though this tends to make them angry at the same time.

That said, if someone's tailgating you there's generally a reason. Check your speed and lane to make sure YOU aren't being the jerk.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[X0563511]

You know why they do that? Because your plates are impossible to read, so they have to get extra super close so they can check them.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[element-o.p.]

I'd also like to see an inexpensive, automated vehicle surveillance camera system. It would help cut down on aggressive driving when someone knows that their idiotic behavior is being captured and streamed to some distant server for possible use in court if not uploading to Youtube's Idiot Driver of the Day contest. Many's the time I've needed such a device. May have to set something up myself, hmm.

Check out Daily Roads Voyager on the Android market. If you've got an iPhone or other smart phone, there's probably an equivalent.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[yog]

>>>>> That said, if someone's tailgating you there's generally a reason. Check your speed and lane to make sure YOU aren't being the jerk.

You obviously haven't driven in Massachusetts, where people tailgate no matter how fast you're going.

I tend to go the speed limit, or 5-10 mph above if conditions warrant it. Polite motorists keep their distance and pass if they need to. I work with them to let them pass, if they obviously want to get by.

When someone has their head up my tailpipe, though, I do exactly what you describe--gradually slow down. I don't want to be hitting the brakes to avoid a pedestrian or an animal or a bicyclist or a suddenly braking car in front, and have this guy/gal crumple my rear end, and maybe send us right into that obstacle.

When possible, I pull over to let them pass. To me, it's not a race, or a contest; I just want to get there safely. The anonymous cowards (posting anonymously because their attacks are so immature) cowardly go after a reasonable driver instead of the jerks breaking the law and tailgating. Yes, of course I stay out of the fast lanes if I'm slower than the other traffic. Even if someone's driving slowly in the passing lane, though, it's foolish to tailgate him. Just go around him.

Beyond that, what can one do?

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[element-o.p.]

Sure. I'd be glad to do that when I'm stuck behind the jerk in front of me. It's not always that simple, moron.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[element-o.p.]

That's when you "accidentally" downshift from 5th to 3rd and then sue the police department for their irresponsible actions. I actually did accidentally (honest!) miss 4th and hit 2nd when a dude on a Harley was riding my backside in traffic one day. He wasn't at all happy, but fortunately he was able to avoid me.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Or just drive a vehicle that looks like parts might fall off at any moment, or burns oil at a good clip. If you really wanted to get creative you could setup your own smoke screen setup and run a vacuum line into a valve attached to an oil bottle.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[webheaded]

I mean I see what you're trying to say, but um...no. Fuck all that. No one needs automated police alerts and we sure as hell don't need a camera recording our every action. Jesus christ. I don't even want that stupid "safe driver" program whatever insurance company does that where it records your driving habits. No thanks. I like my privacy and I'm not completely insane about my privacy like some of the tin foil hats here.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[jafiwam]

For a little fun, play "RoadKill Crack-The-Whip" See, you position your car window struts between the driver's head behind you and the roadkill, then, at the last second adjust your own car to miss, making them run right over it because they couldn't see. For a nice juicy 10 hours in the hot sun raccoon it's great fun. Sometimes the corps will even splash all over their undercarriage. Works for 2x4 stubs, hubcaps, potholes, anything on the road.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[BitZtream]

Of course, in some places like Boston or NYC, that would be virtually everybody.

Considering the actual speed you move in a car in those cities, all you need is 20-30 centimeters ti have plenty of stopping distance.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[geekoid]

It wound't want then, it would automatically slow then down... or wouldn't let them do it in the first place.

Re:I hope it can prevent tailgating

[geekoid]

Why do you think you should have any privacy regarding you vehicle actions when on a public road?

cars equipped with short-range radio

[rossdee]

Didn't they have that in the 70's

It was called CB

I think it was stopped because truckers used it to avoid speeding tickets

Big Ben this ears a rubber duck and I'm about to put the hammer down

Re:cars equipped with short-range radio

[cayenne8]

Didn't they have that in the 70's It was called CB I think it was stopped because truckers used it to avoid speeding tickets Big Ben this ears a rubber duck and I'm about to put the hammer down

Oh, they didn't go away....just that most people don't put them in their cars anymore.

All the truckers still have them, and I put one in my car a couple years back for fun with my driving club when we go on the road.

I talk to truckers all the time finding out where the 'bears' are...and most of the time, I know where speed traps are WAY before my radar detector goes off.

I did find one thing on CB has changed from the 70's...you don't call anyone "Good Buddy" any more.

Apparently that is slang for being gay...and that doesn't get you much help from most truckers out there...

Re:cars equipped with short-range radio

[FatAlb3rt]

I thought it was This here's Rubber Duck.

Re:cars equipped with short-range radio

[X0563511]

I prefer my handheld tribander. I can still talk on CB if I want, but it can do sooo much more (and it -is- a wideband receiver so you can listen to just about anything* that's unencrypted.)

* - Other than cellular phone frequencies (which are protected by FCC regs and Federal law) anything the antenna and electronics can pull from the air is fair game.

Re:cars equipped with short-range radio

[cayenne8]

Pretty cool!!!

I'm guessing you have to have a license to transmit on most of the signals this things works on?

Re:cars equipped with short-range radio

[X0563511]

Yes, you have to have an FCC Amateur license. It's free to have the actual license, and the test costs a whopping $15. Your license lasts for 10 years and can be renewed (for free) indefinitely (with a 2-year grace - renew within 12 years of getting it and you just have to fill out a form, no test).

As far as I'm aware your allowed to listen to just about anything, of course taking privacy laws and any local ordinances etc.

Re:cars equipped with short-range radio

[geekoid]

oh?
www.gaytruckersassn.org/

If the people that mostly used CB, i.e. trucker, have a special term for being gay, that means there is a need in that community for gay people to meet up.

Great idea....

[_0xd0ad]

For those moments when the horn, high beams, and middle finger just aren't enough.

Re:Great idea....

[rubycodez]

(handing revolver back), "reload for me dear, I'm going to change lanes!"

Re:Great idea....

[X0563511]

It's a shame they don't have rear-facing high beams and horns...

Re:Great idea....

[X0563511]

No, so you can try to clue in the dipshit who's had his flasher on for 2 miles, or the guy who hit his hi-beams when he last changed lanes and hasn't noticed yet.

this would be so fun to hack!

[peter303]

Take over the cars going in the cross direction so they let me through.
(We have enough people here with red light remote controls.)
(Urban legend has it that many auto functions are already remote control hackable.)

-1 Redundant

[GameMaster]

What's wrong with the sign language I already use?

Re:-1 Redundant

[characterZer0]

If the idiot in front of you did not see the red light he ran, the car he cut off, the cyclist he swiped, the pedestrian he ran over, or the lane markings he has been driving on, what makes you think he is going to see a 6cm by 1.5cm finger from a car length away?

Two birds, one stone

[Roger W Moore]

Who is going to stop the moron on his/her smart phone texting with eyes off the road.

This system could solve this too - just make the car-to-car communication operate on the same frequency as mobiles with enough power to block them and not only will you be able to tell the drive to brake (or just brake automatically) but the driver won't be able to receive or make calls/texts. However car drivers receiving/send texts is nothing - wait until you see an idiot cycling doing it! Although in this case I would imagine that, if given time, evolution will take care of it for us.

Finally

[ThatsNotPudding]

Wardriving soon to live up to its' name.

My plan...

[rAiNsT0rm]

My idea has always been that your license plate should be your phone number. That way people might be less apt to be complete asshats while driving since you could actually contact them directly. Wishful thinking.

What I would love to see worked on instead of more distractions than phones already are is some effort put into doing away with transmissions entirely. They are not needed any more with hybrids and electric motors there should be 1-2 motors directly to the wheels on a normal FWD/RWD and 2-4 on an AWD/4WD. Done. A massive reduction in weight, manufacturing, source of failure, etc. I refuse to buy an electric/hybrid car until this happens.

Re:My plan...

[dkleinsc]

The trouble with that plan is that an asshat driver will either:
A. Not answer the phone, or
B. Get even more distracted and asshat-ish because they have to answer the phone while driving.

Re:My plan...

[couchslug]

If you "know" they aren't "needed any more" than precisely which components (not vaporware, which make/model/part numbers!) should be fitted instead.

Precisely what does "1-2 motors directly to the wheels" actually MEAN?
It's in no way self-explanatory. Shaft drive? Hub motors? You've taken into account unsprung weight and maintenance? You are a mechanic with experience or an engineer?

You are excused if English isn't your first language, otherwise you are babbling.

Re:My plan...

[cayenne8]

My idea has always been that your license plate should be your phone number. That way people might be less apt to be complete asshats while driving since you could actually contact them directly. Wishful thinking.

GREAT!!!

I've got an unlisted number!!!

:D

Re:My plan...

[rAiNsT0rm]

Well, they managed to figure it out over 100+ years ago and, no, a transmission as found in every modern car is not needed, it is a legacy item. http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/jay-leno/vintage/4215940 There are so many options and ways to do away with many legacy parts not just the transmissions. And since you wanted to show off and be a smart-ass... I have worked on the bullet trains (Shinkansen) as well as some of the most advanced commuter rail cars in the US. So thanks, have a nice day.

Re:My plan...

[geekoid]

IF that;s true then you post is even more puzzling. Seriously, do you know what they have to do of they replace the transmission?
But it's nice to see you list a set of jobs that have nothing to do with this suggestion you post.

Re:My plan...

[rAiNsT0rm]

I think you are seriously confused or are entirely misunderstanding what I am saying. Either way I have zero interest in Internet fighting. I'd suggest you look into alternative/hybrid drivetrains pertaining to electric motors and vehicles, commonly used in many train applications (many electric) as well which you seem to think irrelevant.

No I am talking on my radio

[CDOS_CDOS run]

Imagine the trouble this will cause to people's cellphone conversations. When they are yelling on the radio to the driver in front of them while trying to hold a meaningless conversation on their cellphone. Not to mention, this will be just another distraction from eating a bagel while smoking and drinking a coffee.

I alrready Tested Car to Car Communication

[sycodon]

It was called the CB radio. And that was in the 70s.

Re:I alrready Tested Car to Car Communication

[Ksevio]

Really? Your car talked to another car using CB? Or do you mean that you tested Person to Person Communication in a car?

Day of the Tentacle

[capitalj]

Did anyone read this and think..... why is day of the tentacle granting $15M dollars away when they should clearly be working on a sequel?

Re:+1 for SUV bashing

[Nidi62]

I prefer SUVs and pickups simply because you CAN see through other cars. I like being able to see the car in front of me as well as the 2-3 cars in front of them. I like the higher field of view because I can see things that might make the car in front of me stop suddenly at the same time or possibly before the driver in front of me does.

Progression

[Vacuum Sux]

This is the way needed to go to make traffic safer, and it's a natural progression with the systems we have now. We already have collision avoidance systems in production cars today that help with braking to minimize injuries on both other cars and pedestrians. Using radar and cameras with image detection. Adding a communication channel where the computers in the cars can make other cars aware of their status is one of the next steps.

Bunch of Volvo driven pansies

[lonelytrail]

It seems like most comments here are only bashing people with places to go and people to see. I've got too much to do to drive 5 under with 50m of free space to the next guy. I've dreamt of this technology for decades. Antonymous driving would be a god-send.

Driving as overly cautiously as many of you describe is just as dangerous and creates the rage you project onto the other guy.
There are many factors here, many of them revolve around how people interact, not just how fast or close they drive.

Rudeness and disrespect (something /. seems to know more about than most places these days) have a huge impact on driving in general. Be nice to each other!

• Don't speed up so the next guy can't merge. Don't cut people off.
• Driving slow isn't any safer. Get over that. If it scares you to drive at highway speeds, stay on the back roads or move out of the city.
• Don't drive in the passing lane. Yes, lanes are designated. If there's no one in front of you and someone riding your ass, get outta the way and people won't do stupid/angry/offensive/sudden/aggressive things to get around you. It's not making the situation better. It's making it worse. Just slide over. I don't think less of you for it, I'll respect you for it and probably wave with a smile on my face.

Just driving slower isn't any safer. Just because I'm driving faster doesn't make you a "better" or me a "worse" driver. Seriously. Please detach slower from better. They have nothing in common. Have you ever taken a drivers course? I'm not talking about the "Safe Drivers" online course you took to get out of that ticket, but a real course taught by a professional. Competence and velocity are not synonymous.

Re:Safety

[kahoenurse]

I'm a coward no more

Google Cars

[BetaDays]

I was waiting for the self driving Google cars to come out so I can just be a passenger again. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/googles-self-driving-car/5445

Re:+1 for SUV bashing

[egburr]

Check out the rates for:
4-door sedan vs. 4-door sedan
SUV vs. SUV
4-door sedan vs. SUV

From what I've read over the years, sedan vs. sedan is a lot less dangerous than SUV vs. SUV. Unfortunately, the sedan vs. SUV makes people think SUVs are safer. As the numbers of SUVs out there keep growing, SUV vs. SUV is getting more and more common. So overall, the danger is growing, and the people in the sedans get to suffer for it.

Technology vs. Getting People to Drive Right

[jacksdl]

Is this an argument against trying this technology? That we would wouldn't need such safety technology if we all just drive responsibly?

Experience shows many more lives will be saved by applying technology than we could ever hope for by depending on people to behave properly.

Driver Ratings

[Cesaro]

I'd also like to see a driver rating floating above each car on a heads up display through my windscreen. One star?! Stay the hell away from that guy!

Looks like I'll be keeping the Miata

[PopeScott]

Having none of this new crap they'll be instituting, and being easy enough to repair. I should be able to keep it on the road indefinitely.
  How about we teach people to drive by making it harder to get a license?

It helps with fuel milege big-time too

[Marrow]

Following at a distance provides you with the ability to not only react in time, but it also allows you to react better. By easing off the accelerator instead of breaking, you can save a lot of gas. Braking means loss of energy and is almost always followed by a unnecessary burst of speed to catch back up. Accelerating your car is the most fuel intensive thing you can do.

Advanced Car-to-Car Protocol (ACCP)

[Ted Stoner]

I started work on what I called ACCP (Advanced Car-to-Car Protocol) in 2004. From the overview:

ACCP is a protocol for communication between two moving vehicles, to assist in making the driving task more efficient, and to make driver intentions explicitly known to those around them. The capabilities of this system advance upon the limited “communications” available today (turn signals and brake lights). Computers within each participating vehicle can talk wirelessly to vehicles near (adjacent) to them.

My intent was for things like signaling "I am looking for an address and don't see it" while driving slowly, and co-operatively determining target speed to aid in passing situations on single lane roads. I was wondering how long it would be before someone started doing something like this (although Michigan is more skewed to safety).

Over the last few years I've second-guessed myself on exactly how much of this I would really want to see. The opportunities for abuse are many and getting the implementation right would be difficult.

Re:+1 for SUV bashing

[Shatrat]

More of the "I need a mini-van but am too insecure" mentality, really.

I could have all kinds of fun hacking this

[RogueWarrior65]

Let's see now *rubs hands together and wearing an SEG*...

I could jam on the brakes for no reason and start a traffic wave 10 miles behind me.
I could send out messages to vehicles in front of me saying "Highway ahead blocked. Seek alternate route." and then enjoy a clear highway.
I could be more subtle about it and broadcast messages saying "Left lane closed ahead" and watch as the sheeple move over while I blow right past them.

Re:Safety

[CCarrot]

Isn't there some way cars can be made out of super dense rubber, so that they just bounce around instead of crashing?

Ooh, ooh, fun! Full-size bumper cars! Where can I get one??? ;o)

Seriously, though, I have often wondered why at least the vehicle bumpers aren't made from something that's elastic enough to deform to disperse impact energy, then bounce back to original shape. Something like your idea of dense rubber or (for less weight) super-dense foam coated in rubber...*shrugs*.

Guess that would just cut into the autobody profits from all those new drivers backing into dad's pickup while trying to get out of the driveway...

Re:Standing waves and worse

[CCarrot]

We all know the phenomena of standing waves in traffic. They have been observed to last for a long time (10's of minutes) from just one brake slam under certain heavy traffic flow conditions. ... More questionable yet is when this automatically triggers autonomous braking.

I guess you'd just better hope 'n pray that the driver behind you opted for the 'communication safety pack' add-on, too...and the driver behind him...and the driver behind him...

Manufacturers need to carefully study the differential equations of human interaction with traffic flow and perhaps develop a self tuning system to avoid big problems like this and the big lawsuits that will result from them.

I agree. Ambulance chasers will be positively drooling over this system...

Great!

[cvtan]

This improvement in communication will lead to car-to-car SPAM!