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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

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.

-1 Redundant

[GameMaster]

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

Finally

[ThatsNotPudding]

Wardriving soon to live up to its' name.