Slashdot Mirror
NTSB Calls For Wireless Tech To Enable Vehicles To Talk To Each Other
Lucas123 writes "In the aftermath of a school bus accident last year, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) this week called for cars, trucks and buses to be equipped with machine-to-machine communications technology that could help vehicles avoid accidents by knowing what other vehicles are doing. In the bus accident, a Mack truck sped through an intersection slamming into the rear of the bus, killing one and injuring more than a dozen others. 'Systems such as connected vehicle technology could have provided an active warning to the school bus driver of the approaching truck as he began to cross the intersection,' the NTSB stated in its report. Among others, Intel is working with National Taiwan University on M2M technology that would allow vehicles the exchange of data, allowing each to know what's going on around them. 'We're even imagining that in the future cars would be able to ask other cars, "Hey, can I cut into your lane?" Then the other car would let you in,' said Jennifer Healey, a research scientist with Intel."
'We're even imagining that in the future cars would be able to ask other cars, "Hey, can I cut into your lane?" Then the other car would let you in,' said Jennifer Healey, a research scientist with Intel.
No cars that I know. The cars I know would speed up to tailgate the car in front of them, and then honk their horn in indignant aggression at the thought of someone trying to merge in front of them.
Here's why it won't work.
1) It won't work on cars that aren't fitted with the devices
2) Like hell are you going to retrofit the entire fleet with the devices
Hey, you know what else is really good at avoiding collisions? Trains. Let's replace our highway system with railroad tracks!
or, if you like
1a) If this thing doesn't have a manual override, software bugs will kill thousands.
1b) If this thing does have manual override, manual overrides will kill thousands.
2) Nobody wants to write software that will kill thousands.
And, last but not least
"Why are all these modern cars so expensive? I'll just buy a used one instead"
if an false positive comes up who is at fault? and who will pay the bills while this working though the courts?
You'd need a very very strong encryption method for this.... and even then...
And if anything thinks RFID security is 'good enough', *facepalm*
I look forward to the days when cars can effectively communicate.
The example of the Mack truck being notified as it was entering the intersection sounds like a convoluted way to pitch the idea as a lifesaving system.
Has this system been in place at the time it seems more likely the truck driver would have seen the alert at precisely the same instant the truck contacted the school bus.
About time!
Let's see... what are the first things we'll see this used for?
1. Automated speeding tickets.
2. Insurance company logging of all your activity as an excuse to jack your rates up.
3. Data subpenaed in lawsuits.
4. NSA will be all over it. Reporters will be plowing into palm trees all over the place.
5. Highschool kids rip the devices out of cars in junkyards and drop them from freeway overpasses during a busy holiday for fun.
6. Law enforcement can remotely turn off your car... a few months later criminals will have the same ability...
It doesn't sound like a fair trade to me.
Thats the problem with this... you can never tell WHAT a driver is going to do.
Second, the device doing the communication is only as good as its sensors. So if the sensors are clogged, or jammed, the message being sent out will be wrong.
That is why it isn't used in aircraft, other than as an advisory... confirmation is always by radar.
I think it would be great to start equipping all motor vehicles with (well-designed, forwards-compatible) systems like this so that in 20-30 years when driverless cars are a viable option on the road, there's the infrastructure in place to support it.
Bit of networking and cpu's in the cars also means we're just short of losing major choices. Soon you won't be ALLOWED to speed, waste gas or go where you are not allowed to go (what do you mean you want to drive across the country on vacation? Not if your car won't allow it...) First it will be for 'insurance reasons', then for the 'common good'. Say goodbye to more basic freedoms....
Should a sleepy bus driver...
A) Pay attention to the road?
B) Pay attention to a beeping gadget?
C) Not drive a bus full of little kids while sleepy?
Next question when NTSB calls for connected vechicle the following could reasonably be expected to result:
A) Unnecessary enrichment of industry lobbies
B) Hacking or denial of technology for fun or mischief
C) More regulation and costs for all
D) Reduced emphasis on paying attention to WTF it is your doing.
E) Enhanced surveillance state
F) No actual improvement in safety
G) All of the above
didn't some researchers post a few years back about being able to control a car with a smartphone (via the bluetooth connection)?
the only obstacle was that you had to pop the hood to get access to something (technical details are over rated)
now, i guess that won't be necessary?
great... now we'll have a mesh network sending your vehicle Id, driver Id, gps location, speed and small summary of last 5-10 seconds of driving info to the local cops (possibly alerts for certain detected conditions like getting stoned, being intoxicated, weaving, etc)
after that's established, you'll have tickets issued automatically (and, of course, real-time monitoring via the mesh... audio and video, two way if needed)
i could design and build that in no time. which means, they've already consider and expect to implement it
There is a 99% chance the proposed technology broadcasts a unique serial number everywhere it goes. It is bad enough that we have cameras at intersections logging the license plate of every car that passes through. We do not need people making logs of every car that drives past an accident scene. We don't need marketing firms building logs of every store each car goes to so they can determine who shops the competition and who just buys from the first place they go.
It is very possible to make this technology anonymous but I bet the current prototypes are not.
So, if both had such a system, the bus driver might have slammed on their brakes, and instead of the truck hitting the rear of the bus, it would have hit the front or middle. That's better how?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
How about lowering speed limits (and enforcing them) so drivers have time to react to unexpected events? Other than the cost of printing new signs, the costs would be minimal, safety improved, and dependency on oil reduced.
the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) this week called for cars, trucks and buses to be equipped with machine-to-machine communications technology that could help the government monitor your every movement and everything that you are doing
FTFY
Never trust the government, any government, ever.
We can only hope it wasn't a summer intern calling for this.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Yeah all this will be great when people are no longer in control of the cars/trucks. The bus drive might have had a warning but those don't exactly stop on a dime you know. Would you rather have had the accident hit the front or the middle of the bus because the drive slammed on the breaks?
The summary makes it sound like the truck was at fault, when in fact the school bus driver stopped "forward of the stop line" then proceeded into the intersection with the truck having the right of way.
Also misleading: The NTSB is not calling for wireless technology in vehicles. In fact, the report simply states (as a conclusion, not a recommendation) that such technology may have prevented the situation from occurring:
Connected vehicle technology could have provided active warnings to the school bus
driver of the approaching truck and possibly prevented the crash.
Oh, and no amount of "active warnings" would likely have helped an impaired driver. Nothing to see here, just more sensationalism.
How would this system account for a pedestrian crossing the street at the wrong time?
I drove a 99 corolla until recently... After I got hit this January by a stoner, I got a 2013 corolla... The enhancements are awesome: I can no longer see cars in my blindspot by simply turning my head - they moved the side support forward by about an inch and a half... The mirrors are an annoying cut-off shape that means I can no longer see the car 2 lanes over in the lower corner of my mirror... For no apparent reason, they raised the plastic in front of the wind screen so I can no longer comfortably see the front of my vehicle when parking... They also raised the trunk lid to the point that the windscreen is substantially smaller and I have poor rear visibility... And my favorite, they moved the cup holders behind the gear shift rather than keeping it in front, so I can't properly shift anymore if I have anything larger than a can in my car... so I can either drive de-hydrated or keep the drink between my legs, both sounds really safe. Oh, and my favorite, they also put a lid on top of the center console storage space just in the right place that I hit my funny bone when shifting into 4th gear.
So explain to me, why do I need to have a wireless car-to-car system if the manufacturer of the vehicle seems hell bent on making the vehicle as hard to drive as possible (they call it modern styling)? It adds to the cost of the car, increases the weight (my car, despite 8 more horses, is almost a second slower 0-60) and the end effect is questionable. There are so many cheaper and better ways to make cars safer...
Peter.
Once again, America shows it's ineptitude for dealing with social and behavioral problems by thinking it just smother the them with money for a quick fix and hope they go away.
Technology that allows us to be bad drivers is only going to encourage bad driving ... big surprise, I know. Creating excessive laws and punishments doesn't work either because people aren't thinking about the myriad of ways they could be in violation of some law in the split second it takes to commit such an infraction, accidentally or intentionally.
The way you fix bad drivers is by instituting more rigorous training standards, creating a cultural shift that causes people to take driving seriously, not just as that annoying, time-consuming thing you have to do to get from A to B. But nobody wants to do this, because it takes years to see results. We want to fix all of our nation's problems in one week and it better not affect Brawndo's profits!
NO. As in, FUCK NO.
The growing number of ECUs (electronic control units) mandated for commercial vehicles, and popular on ordinary cars as the technology becomes cheaper, led to a need for ever more sophisticated inter-unit communication and external monitoring. Manufactures started storing significant amounts of data gathered during a journey for later analysis (originally with no dark intent).
Now the government can aspire to mandating the so-called 'black box' on every new vehicle. At first, this is really the central computer that speaks to all the others, and collates their logging data. Clearly the government would be able to rip this data from your vehicle in real-time, whenever they desired. At this time, that is best done with a wireless interface that connects, requests and transmits data even as the vehicle is moving. Doesn't take a genius to figure out why this would be useful to government agencies.
Some of this is about spying. A tiny part is law enforcement. Some is what most drivers will hate to consider- the over-riding of their vehicle. Cars of the near future will, for instance, have the ability to have their maximum speed externally limited by wireless communication. In other words, 30 MPH will not be an instruction to the driver any more, but an instruction to the vehicle he/she is driving.
Google's driverless car project is ALL about this. It has nothing, in reality, to do with cars that drive themselves. Google is part of a grooming operation to train drivers to accept that they are NOT in charge of their vehicles.
In the near future, a massive part of court 'justice' will be based on removing the right of 'convicted' individuals to travel or drive, and I'm talking about people who break minor laws that have nothing to do with the road. The concept of 'tagging' and restricting movements of people will extend into all kinds of new directions.
Today, the road system works incredibly well in nations that have decent rules to punish the worst offenders. Robotised vehicles offer ZERO benefit to the citizen. The citizen benefits ONLY from better road infrastructure, or less traffic. Slashdot loves to push the idea of technology simply for technology's sake, and discourages people from asking - where's the benefit or improvement?
When the government is able to use technology to take intimate control of your lives, things NEVER improve. The filthy shill will say "a driver could be irresponsible, so it is GOOD that the government removes that possibility". Notice the line of argument. It is used by filthy shills to justify any furtherance of the police-state, or the technologies used to implement it.
A decent person will always back technology up to a point, but not beyond that point. Of course, for instance, it is good that nations like the USA attempt to prevent commercial drivers from doing too many hours behind the wheel without a proper sleep period. The Russian dash-cams are testimony to the kinds of accidents that happen when commercial drivers only consider issues of maximum earning. But we should ONLY aspire to make things as safe as possible on the road BEFORE excessive enforcement methods start to have serious negative consequences of their own. The last 5% is NEVER worth pursuing- the cost is alwsy far too high.
Do you really want to be the one sued for the software messing or maybe at the extreme involuntary manslaughter
Some kind of sensor issue can lead to a big mess or maybe even 2 or more cars each makeing a move that leads to crash.
So you get a ticket for speeding doing 65 in an 45 but you are on highway with a limit of 65 but the gps / ticket system thinks you are on the frontage road next to highway or even on C/D lanes with a lower limit
Impaired drivers still respond to stimulus, just like everyone else. It wouldn't necessarily have helped, but it's unlikely to have made things worse.
With a M2M network, you get a notice that a car is coming or not at an intersection; Therefore no need to slow down when you do not have a good visibility. This is bad news for bikes.
The summary makes it sound like the truck was at fault, when in fact the school bus driver stopped "forward of the stop line" then proceeded into the intersection with the truck having the right of way.
I see you are new to the earth. Buses carrying children are never at fault. Ever.
We had a school bus run into a house in a city in my state, and people were complaining that the house should never have been built where it was.
Actually, the prudent thing to do when you see a school bus on the road is to get anywhere but near it. Change roads, or get as far behind as possible. You don't want to be in an accident with it, see someone have an accident with it, or be within a mile of it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
NTSB and NHSTA have all the accident data at their disposal. Most of it says that intersection crossing rank very high in driver-error accidents. The problem is that this is still dwarfed by alcohol related deaths. If they were serious about accident prevention, they'd require breathalyzers in cars. Instead they push the industry for expensive research and vehicle add-ons that may or may not make a significant reduction in the fatalities/mile rate.
Kewl, with this and enough usage, it could end the need for stop lights. That way your car could slow you down, to avoid them.
Local, State and National Police will have the ability to remotely kill the occupants of an automobile at their discretion.
This is good. Ammo is expensive. Conserve ammo.
For instance. Obama has a habit of taking along his entourage of Secret Service types in big black SUVs on rides through
southeast D.C. around 2am to 4am. The object of the parade is to locate and capture a 1 to 2-year old male, black, for
Obama's sexual enjoyments and indulgences of cooking human flesh.
As has happen often enough, a resident or two see, i.e. witness the goings-on of Obama and his private army. This is not
good.
When this happens there is a chase, much mayhem and an eventual crash with fire and explosions and witnesses along the
way.
A way to limit the potential of witnesses is as described in the original article; the White House give approval.
Therefore allowing Obama to detonate automobiles at any distance from his big black SUV is a good thing to keep witnesses
at a minimum.
Chi ti Chi ti Bang Bang
'We're even imagining that in the future cars would be able to ask other cars, "Hey, can I cut into your lane?" Then the other car would let you in,' said Jennifer Healey, a research scientist with Intel."
(My emphasis)
Intel also makes parts for the CAN-bus. This is, so the car can say to the airbag "Ohoh, you better blow up now!"
They also make parts for weapons systems, but their research scientist said that you have to go to bed now, and they will explain that tomorrow using hand puppets.
The day that technology hits the streets is the day a lot of people will stop driving. The day a car yanks the wheel out of my hands is the day that car is going to the pound.
What would be enormously more beneficial, and cost virtually nothing, is if sensors were installed on all the light bulb circuits in cars to notify the driver when one of their bulbs is out.
The number of people that drive around with non functioning brake/tail/headlights/indicators completely unaware of the fact is frightening.
And the technology to solve this is about as simple as it gets.
I'm only putting this on my car if a person who wants into my space funds me with some bitcoins.
Heck, for a dollar I'll let anyone go ahead of me at a 4-way.
The NTSB also appears to not be considering that there are people on motorcycles, foot, and bicycle.
That's particularly poor, given that motor vehicle occupant safety has gone up, while pedestrian and cyclist safety has plunged. Why? Cars are increasingly safe for occupants, yet nothing is being done to stop drivers from plowing into other people.
All the safety has simply made people less careful. Why should they be careful? They're unlikely to be seriously injured, insurance will cover the damage and injuries, and they sure as hell aren't going to get charged with any crimes.
You can drive into a storefront and injure half a dozen people and not even get a ticket.
Kill a cyclist and the police will term it an "accident" - all you have to do is say the sun was in your eyes or you were changing the radio station. A little girl in Texas lost both her parents because a guy in a pickup truck slammed into her parents. His excuse: he'd looked down to change the station (and somehow drifted several feet onto the road shoulder.)
Please help metamoderate.
... at a more fundamental level, better driver education?? It seems ridiculous to me that rather than try to take the intelligence out of the driver and put in in the vehicle, that a more comprehensive driver ed and testing system can't be put in place? I'm not trying to be down on America here, but I've sat driving tests in four continents so far (easier than transferring my licence), and by far, the test I sat in the USA was the most basic (15 minutes from sitting in car to having licence).
Surely better driver skills would have easily prevented a Mack truck speeding through an intersection and slamming into the rear of the bus??
We'll just legislate that everybody has to have one and isn't allowed to turn'em off, and off we go. It may take a decade or more, but it'll happen. Also, apparently programmers looove to be in on big things. They also looove hierarchical solutions, so it'll be top-down, centrally registered, allowing for easy attachment of movement databases. Right in line with what law enforcement and the rest of the government likes.
I think it's much better to have a decentralised, anonymous(-capable) system with graceful fall-back. The ant-like interaction rules for self-organisation alone are pretty neat to work out. So for that reason alone I'd build it, test it, and work out how to make it resilient against failure, even malice. Then there's the security aspect, which simply legislating will not tackle because it adds an extra cost to the manufacturers. The basic reason why so many automated systems are unsafe but in wide use anyway.
I'm not saying this is a good idea, mind. But I'd much prefer turning people in their cars on the road into ants than into little centrally tracked puppets. Just to prevent that, we ought to be in on it.
Thanks to NTSB, wardriving will get a completely different meaning...
The implications here are profound. Imagine the capabilities of Dick cheney's vehicle.
The US government has had this tech for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#Death
Hey, you know what else is really good at avoiding collisions? Trains.
Let me remind you this .... http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/world/americas/canada-runaway-train/index.html
Train accidents are so rare that when they ahppen, they're fucking front-page news!
Only thing that will help most drivers is if I can howl "Puh-leeze pull over & quitely expire" into their car from my car!!!!
Surely some company trying to sell this tech is pushing it to the government somewhere.
Nothing at all could go wrong with Cars talking to each other.
Unless they get together and hold us all hostage in a gas station, forcing us to fuel their unending hunger.
This technology is in development for many years now. Mercedes has it's own Car-to-X system, other EU car manufacturers/governments are working on similar stuff. European Union made mandatory for all new cars produced after 2014 to have always-on emergency system installed called eCall. This supposed be used only to notify emergency services after collision takes place but the technology can be used in so many ways... Tautology is usual - "It is for your safety that we have to limit your privacy" It is very funny when you realize what are the odds of such a collision taking place when you can justify to mandatory installment of such a device in all new vehicles.
Given the other story up at the moment about hacking the brakes and throttle system of $SUVJUNKPILE$ so the driver can't slow down (oh really ; and how about just declutching and using the hand brake?), this sounds like a recipe for multiple backdoors opening up. Even without any security breaches, data spoofing and DoS attacks become possible.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"