US To Standardize Car App/communication Device Components

coondoggie writes "The U.S. Department of Transportation has high hopes of standardizing the way autos talk to each other and with other intelligent roadway systems of the future. The department recently issued a call for public and private researchers and experts to help it build what the DOT called 'a hypothetical four layer approach to connected vehicle devices and applications certification.'"

Comments

Could only be better if:

[bobstreo]

The UN creates a completely different standard, based on Russian Car Cams.

Re:Could only be better if:

[toastar]

But that seems less susceptible to jamming.

Re:Could only be better if:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The UN creates a completely different standard, based on Russian Car Cams.

Bollocks. The four-layer DOT model will be no less raging success than the seven-layer OSI model.

Re:Could only be better if:

[cayenne8]

Actually, my larger questions are:

1. How do I turn it off?

2. How do I disable it?

Re:Could only be better if:

[bobstreo]

Bollocks. The four-layer DOT model will be no less raging success than the seven-layer OSI model.

Ah networking memories, I remember going to a TCP/IP training session in 88/89 and the instructor saying
"Why are you bothering to learn TCP/IP? OSI will take over the world."

Re:Could only be better if:

[BitZtream]

Then he was an idiot. That doesn't even make sense. OSI is a logical way to think about networking. Its not an actual protocol.

Re:Could only be better if:

[bobstreo]

Then he was an idiot. That doesn't even make sense. OSI is a logical way to think about networking. Its not an actual protocol.

Well there were a nice pile of overengineered applications in the OSI definition as well.

http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/o/op/open_systems_interconnect.html

I still twitch when x.400 is mentioned.

Re:Could only be better if:

[davester666]

I just hope this standardized system requires that all systems of the car connect together, including any kind of drive-by-wire system, braking, and engine control.
And that everything is controllable remotely by accessing a single globally-accessible IP address.

Re:Could only be better if:

[davester666]

1. You can't, without disabling the car.
2. You can't, without disabling the car.

Just like the "black box" in your car, that is required to installed, but the contents of which are unlikely to be accessible by you.

Re:Could only be better if:

[RaceProUK]

On modern cars, all the systems are already connected to each other via CAN (or similar), so they're already halfway there. Then you can attach a Bluetooth OBDII device, and do the last step yourself ;)

Re:Could only be better if:

[cayenne8]

Just like the "black box" in your car, that is required to installed, but the contents of which are unlikely to be accessible by you.

Hmm...maybe a little thermite attached to it..rigged to be blown when you need to get rid of the black box.

What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for all

[Joe_Dragon]

What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for all us toll roads as well?

Not needed for drivers though.

[game kid]

This is probably not needed for their drivers though. The use of middle fingers and "FUCK YOU!" appears to have caught on just fine as an industry standard.

Re:Not needed for drivers though.

[sinij]

>>> This is probably not needed

I disagree. How would we otherwise establish a protocol for fully automated cars to flip each other for cutting off? There is no way around Turing Test for Strong AI, and this is key aspect of human behavior.

FTFY

[stewsters]

The U.S. National Securty Agency has high hopes of standardizing the way autos talk to each other and with other intelligent roadway systems of the future

Re:FTFY

[CanHasDIY]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar#Use_as_surveillance_device

Re:FTFY

[stewsters]

Wow, that's scary. Whoever is buying that data can just look who's garage you park at every night to figure out who you are. The same thing goes if you have a cell phone carrier that sells your location data.

"In 2011, OnStar did announce that it would start retaining all the information collected by the GPS and internal system, so that it could be sold to third parties (possibly insurance companies).[13] Although this data is supposed to be “anonymized”, it remains unclear exactly what they mean by this as it is extremely difficult to anonymize GPS data."

Re:FTFY

[CanHasDIY]

There's also the following, from OnStar's ToS:

18. WHAT IF YOUR CAR IS STOLEN? If your Car is stolen, we can try to locate it. Before we try to locate it, you’ll need to provide satisfactory identification, and the police must be treating the Car as stolen. Generally, we will only provide location information about stolen Cars to the police; however, in cases of crises or emergencies, we may, in our own judgment, provide you with information about the general area of your Car without police involvement. OnStar may be notified by an early warning system that your Car may have been stolen and, in some cases, you may also be notified by OnStar. We don’t have to continue to try to locate your Car after 48 hours from the time you first report it stolen, and we can’t guarantee that we’ll find it. We also aren’t required to try to find your Car for the purpose of locating someone.

Your Car may have Stolen Vehicle Slowdown capability that enables OnStar to slow down your stolen Car remotely and/or the capability that enables OnStar to stop your Car from starting to assist law enforcement in its recovery. OnStar may also slow down your Car or stop your Car from starting if required to comply with legal requirements, including valid court orders in criminal investigations and to protect the safety of you or others.

If you don’t want Stolen Vehicle Slowdown capability on your Car, you must contact OnStar by pressing the blue OnStar button in your Car and request that this capability be disabled. If you choose to disable this capability, it will not be available under any circumstances and can only be re-enabled at an authorized car dealership at your expense.

Emphasis added to highlight the scary.

Now, where the heck is that OnStar module in my truck, and how to remove/disable it...

Re:FTFY

[semi-extrinsic]

They're doing it wrong, though. I gave this some thought a couple of years back, when smart cars were first being touted. I believe that a good system would implement the following rules:
1. No car may ask another car about anything. All communication is one-way and voluntary.
2. Participating cars transmit a randomly chosen IPv6 address as a unique identifier. It is changed every morning when you start the car.
3. In addition to this address, cars transmit their intended destination.
4. Your car only knows the destination of other cars it has seen. By the law of large numbers, this should be sufficient.
5. All cars have a fast computer (i.e. a standard laptop) which stores where everyone else is going, and does all the computation.
6. All other communications (i.e. "there has been an accident/flood/construction work on Route 231") comes from a central dispatch manned by people.

is this obvious?

[MickyTheIdiot]

I for one welcome our automobile overlords.

Why Bother...

[jhfry]

Microsoft will just come along and break standard anyway.

Re:Why Bother...

[MickyTheIdiot]

yeah, it won't be compatible with the roadway, it won't play nicely with other cars, and they'll figure out a way to make the windscreen blue.

And the tech support page online about it will say "non-Microsoft cars don't follow industry standards" and that's about it.

Re:Why Bother...

[NatasRevol]

But it will be the RT version, and nobody will ever actually see those cars.

Re:Why Bother...

[Livius]

And before the air bag deploys in a crash, there will be a message asking "Are you sure?"

Re:Why Bother...

[Fnord666]

...and they'll figure out a way to make the windscreen blue.

But the windscreen will only turn blue in the case of a crash.

This is probably a good idea in the long run

[intermodal]

In the short run, the real question for me will not be how the cars communicate with each other, but how they handle the cars that do not communicate at all. Nobody wants to swap engine oil at 75MPH with the VW Bus going 55 just because the bus wasn't communicating. Just like how nobody wants to meet the driver of that car that had to stop short to avoid a hazard.

I think for me, the biggest feature I'd like to see is a HUD that gives me a relative speed on the cars around me along with warning indicators communicated from cars ahead when debris is noted on the road. Hate that last-minute slight swerve to dodge a thrown tyre-tread that I couldn't see until the swerve.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[PPH]

I think for me, the biggest feature I'd like to see is a HUD

Prior art: Windshield.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[intermodal]

the problem with the prior art is that the display of that HUD is really buggy.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what windshield wiper fluid is for.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[dgatwood]

In the short run, the real question for me will not be how the cars communicate with each other, but how they handle the cars that do not communicate at all. Nobody wants to swap engine oil at 75MPH with the VW Bus going 55 just because the bus wasn't communicating. Just like how nobody wants to meet the driver of that car that had to stop short to avoid a hazard.

All non-automated vehicles should be required to immediately be retrofitted with beacons that identify their GPS location, speed, and whether any indicators are illuminated (brake lights, turn signals). This enhancement could be added to any vehicle with a minimum amount of effort. This at least simplifies things somewhat.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[plover]

The security model should certainly include signed messages. I wouldn't want to see a repeat of the ADS-B debacle. However, I trust that nothing can't be spoofed or hacked by someone. The private keys could leak out, or even be selectively tampered with by someone with authority.

To solve this, I'd like to see a security model that included a crowd-sourced "validity" rating of the other nearby vehicles. It's not enough that each vehicle sends a signed message. Each vehicle should be comparing the messages it receives with the data it knows, or that it receives from other nearby vehicles. Consider that I'm traveling on a heading of 78 at 88kph. For the last 7 minutes I've been following two vehicles ahead of me, one is VIN#ABC123 and is 50m ahead at my 0 traveling at 88kph and one is VIN#DEF456 and is 43m away at my 5. VIN#123ABC has a blind-spot sensor, and it sends a message saying "My VIN# ABC123. My heading is 78, my speed is 88kph. My traffic: VIN #DEF456 is 3 meters away at 120", Now my computer has some measure of confidence in the reports of VIN#ABC123. My vehicle could then send a signed attestation that data from VIN#ABC123 has been self-consistent since 3:15PM.

But if it said something completely inconsistent, such as reporting its own speed as 110 kph, I could sign an "inconsistent speed" report, so other vehicles could know I am no longer trusting the data from VIN#123ABC.

It'd be like a little dynamic web-of-trust. As long as all the vehicles in my immediate area are transmitting self-consistent data, I'm pretty confident that my vehicle is, too. If one of the vehicles was spouting off nonsense, the other vehicles could still piece the corrupt vehicle's data together from the info each is sharing. The roadways would similarly have to be "reputable" in order to be trusted.

I figure any one vehicle or road segment can be spoofed or hacked. It's much less likely that all the vehicles around me were simultaneously hacked to produce a completely phantom image of the world to my vehicle. If this thing is responsible for keeping a safety bubble around me, I want to know that it's always acting in my best interests with accurate data.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[EvilSS]

Easy: The "smart" vehicle with track the dumb vehicle and maintain a safe distance. It will then communicate back to the USDOT and an automated drone strike will "retire" the obsolete vehicle.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[intermodal]

NAFTA and potential unit failures make your suggestion unacceptable. And that's not even including all the privacy concerns.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[Belial6]

How is that? They don't seem to be a problem with any other safety equipment requirements.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[intermodal]

Your wit deserves credit for its dryness.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[dgatwood]

Privacy concerns? You're kidding, right? Look, we're either going to automate the roads or we aren't. If we are, the devices have to be able to communicate, which means that a device is going to be uniquely identifiable for at least the duration of a single period of operation. That's unavoidable. And we need to eventually end the use of manually driven vehicles for safety reasons, so the privacy issues simply have to take a back seat in this case. If you want to protect privacy, make it a crime to intercept this data for any purpose other than what it is intended for, and limit (either through new laws or good judicial common sense) tracking by law enforcement to the same sorts of situations in which they would otherwise install a GPS tracker on your car. Require them to jump through the same hoops.

As for NAFTA, AFAIK, there's no reason that we can't require that vehicles brought into the United States comply with U.S. safety standards. Besides, the rest of the world should be working on similar initiatives anyway.

This is not to say that vehicles shouldn't be able to handle unexpected vehicles that aren't transmitting—there are always failure modes to take into account—but those should be the very rare exception rather than the rule, and the automated cars should handle it by giving that vehicle a wide berth.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[intermodal]

Personally, I'm against the automation of roads precisely because of the privacy concerns. I'm already concerned enough with simple license plate scanning databases.

As far as your safety argument, I reject the idea of giving up privacy and freedoms for safety. If we really need to argue as if safety were the real reason for this, we'd be building quality rail that actually goes places instead of building robocars.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[Kielistic]

You are either unsure of what "prior art", "windshield" or "heads up display" (HUD) means.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[dgatwood]

There's nothing that can be done with this sort of automation that couldn't be done with license plate scanning, so even in the worst case, it's a no-op privacy-wise, not a reduction.

Safety is the main reason for this, followed closely by the convenience of not having to waste your commute time paying attention to the road. The reason we don't build rails is that rails are infeasible in many places. There are remarkably low limits to how fast a rail-based system can climb (slope-wise), limits to their turning radius, limits to how quickly they can accelerate and decelerate, etc. that make them utterly impractical as a real-world alternative to roads. Yes, we could potentially change the definition of "rails" to get around those limits (e.g. tubes with wheels all around), but thus far, every suggestion I've seen along those lines ends up being drastically more expensive than roads.

We do need high-speed rail systems for long-distance travel. That would be far better than using air travel for everything. But replacing roads with rails? IMO, that just won't be feasible for the foreseeable future.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[Belial6]

So, babble, babble, babble...babble then?

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[intermodal]

Agreed! And that goes in routes that make sense. To go from Dallas to San Francisco (well, Oakland, really) by passenger rail, they essentially wanted to send me hundreds of miles south, all across the Mexican border to LA, and then up the coast.

It ended up being both faster and more economical to drive from early morning to about lunchtime in my car from Dallas to Albuquerque, park at the airport, hop a cab to the train station, get on the train, and still wait like 8 hours for my transfer in LA. And my understanding is that to go from Dallas to Denver, my route would have been basically the same with an extra change in Sacramento or so, or a similarly contrived detour through Chicago or something. It's ridiculous.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[intermodal]

I'm not talking about fully replacing roads, simply with having a reasonable and useful system of rail that actually goes places. In many areas, passenger trains have only a token presence of extremely limited utility.

As far as the license plate scanning database issue, I reject its usage (and that of similar usage) entirely no matter what the underlying technology.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[Fnord666]

Hate that last-minute slight swerve to dodge a thrown tyre-tread that I couldn't see until the swerve.

Here's a hint. You're following too closely.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[Fnord666]

... and limit (either through new laws or good judicial common sense) tracking by law enforcement to the same sorts of situations in which they would otherwise install a GPS tracker on your car.

Hell no! Based on recent events I would want a lot more protection that just this.

Re:This is probably a good idea in the long run

[intermodal]

You're absolutely right. The problem is, every time I back off, someone thinks it's an invitation and fills the gap. Incidentally, I'm also being tailgated and can't get into the next lane because it suffers from the same problem.

That's the unfortunate nature of driving on freeways here in Dallas/Fort Worth.

Re:What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for

[Anonymous Coward]

> What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for all us toll roads as well?

But if they do, the big, politically-connected corporation that pretends it's 50 different companies & charges extortionate extra fees to "out of state" drivers when they drive on some toll road in another state won't make as much money. Won't somebody please think of THEIR needs? They're people too!

Please, no more Java

[Jsutton1027w]

I think we've all suffered enough at this point...

Re:Please, no more Java

[kthreadd]

Just outsource the standardization to Apple.

Re:Please, no more Java

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just outsource the standardization to Apple."

No, WalMart. There were several RFID chip standards until WalMart settled on one for their inventory system. Now there is just the one.

Re:What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for

[sinij]

Standardized toll pass would allow cash-strapped counties to collect tolls from out of county residents. Just like "speeding" tickets, only there is no such thing as driving slowly to get around it.

Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" msg

[kannibal_klown]

Seriously, this is annoying as heck. Either because they're going under the speed limit, or they're going at the exact-speed as the guy in the next lane and blocking traffic. And the highways by me are plastered with "Left lane pass only" or "keep to right except to pass"

Under the speed limit is obvious...

But the same-speed thing bothers me. NOT when it's rush hour... there's nothing to be done about that.

But it's mid-day and some idiot decides to cruise on the left-lane at the EXACT speed as the guy in the next lane. Nobody in front of either of them as far as the eye can see. So traffic is building up and up behind them and causing congestion because nobody can pass these 2-or-3 cars in front of them.

If you want to be going as the same speed as the guy in the middle or right lane, then GET IN the middle or right lane!

ADDENDUM... especially when the left-lane idiot is going the same speed as the dump-truck next to him. So everyone is getting pelted with small pebbles and things and are unable to pass.

Re:My Tinfoil hat

[VortexCortex]

I've been told I have a big head. But I don't think my tinfoil hat will fit on the car.

PRISM for CARS?!

Secondly: WHERE DID YOU GET TINFOIL? It's all been replaced with useless Aluminum Foil. It's a conspiracy!

Some folks say Aluminum Foil is just as good because it's the "Foil" part that foils their plans.
They would say you're safe if you have an Air Foil or "Spoiler" to spoil the nefarious plots, Fools!

Standard

[PPH]

No problem. Just see what the EU and the rest of the world comes up with. Then do something else.

Just like ATSC.

Re:Standard

[viperidaenz]

DVB-T FTW.

Fail

[girlintraining]

First thing this proposal needs is a way to update the firmware of any such technology in a direct, physical, and only-by-the-driver fashion. Because if there's one thing I've learned about government-sponsored "standards" in technology... it's that they will fuck it up.

The best approach will probably be creating some kind of virtual stack with an API interface to applications; Keep it flexible so that as security vulnerabilities are discovered (they WILL be discovered), the network stack itself can be upgraded. It should also be mandatory that manufacturers support any device/vehicle for at least twenty years. None of this crap like we have with cell phones where only a few patches or upgrades are released and then "ha ha, that's it ... upgrade to our newer model now!" As well, every device should be required to be updated at least once a year; That all firmware has an expiration date, and newer versions of the protocol are intentionally only backwards compatible for one or two revisions prior.

This will ensure that (eventually) any vulnerable device or exploit is eventually totally removed from the road. Any such communication tech should also fail safe -- that is, if it isn't upgraded, or whatever... it just disables itself allowing for manual control. The operator should also have the option of immediately discontinuing connections to earlier versions of the protocol or disabling the device entirely (manual mode), and such options should be easily-accessible without any tools or special knowledge.

Lastly, all vehicles should have a prominent fail-safe button readily accessible by the driver without needing to take his/her eyes off the road, and should be tactile (not these capacitive buttons, but a real pushable button), which immediately disables all automation and computer control and resets all inputs to a "fail-safe" manual level to allow for immediate operation of the vehicle -- specifically to bring it to a stop as quickly and safely as possible. This button (ideally) will be located on the steering wheel or column and can be hit without taking hands off the wheel. Basically... and emergency kill switch that engages mechanical and direct linkage to critical vehicle inputs like steering, braking, and throttle.

Re:Fail

[dgatwood]

It should also be mandatory that manufacturers support any device/vehicle for at least twenty years.

No, because it is safe to assume that the manufacturers will lock down the device so that only they can create updates for it, and it is safe to assume that manual driving will become more and more restricted over time. Setting any specific time limit is thus equivalent to planned obsolescence on a nationwide scale.

Manufacturers should be required to update the firmware for as long as a single copy of that car is on the road. This encourages the manufacturers to standardize on a single set of software that applies to all of their vehicles over many, many model years, which has the added benefit of dramatically reducing the likelihood of coding errors. If the manufacturer goes out of business, they should be required to spin off a company that owns the source code and rights to do this maintenance. They should be required to set aside a portion of the purchase price of each vehicle in a special safety fund that is protected in the event of bankruptcy, specifically for the purpose of funding such a company, should it be required.

... it just disables itself allowing for manual control.

No, because some people will just not bother to update their firmware, and will just choose to drive manually. Then we'll be in the same position we're in now, having to maintain lots of unnecessary infrastructure (traffic lights, road signs, etc.) that we could otherwise eliminate entirely.

Except on specifically designated manual roads (e.g. scenic routes, long roads in the middle of the desert, etc.), manual control should be restricted to emergencies only (temporary in the event of a complete system failure, to drive it to the nearest spot on the shoulder that is wide enough to pull over so that a tow truck can tow it to a repair shop). Manual driving should be extremely rare, as it puts a significant strain on the traffic control systems.

Firmware should be OTA self-updating, should be signed by the manufacturer, and should be completely transparent to the user. The vehicle should have two boot partitions, and should always update the least recently updated partition. That way in the event of a failure, you can do some magic sequence involving the odometer button and the ignition key to revert a bad firmware install in the unlikely even that it happens. Also, this ensures that if the install fails for some reason, the car can safely wipe that boot partition, load a full copy (non-update) of the new version, and go on as though nothing had gone wrong.

The device should continue running the current version of the firmware until the next time you shut the vehicle off. Then, it should boot from any newly updated firmware. If the boot fails, it should fall back to the previous firmware, wipe the newly updated firmware, and download a fresh (full install) copy again.

The manufacturer should have the ability to push an "unsafe firmware" notice to the device. If the device sees that flag, it should immediately flag that version of the firmware as potentially dangerous. If it is currently booted from the unsafe version and if it has another version installed that is not flagged, it should immediately find a safe spot to pull over, pull over, reboot from the other version of the firmware, and continue the trip. If it does not have a safe version, it should immediately query the server, download a full, known-safe version, overwrite the version that it is not currently booted from, and then immediately find a safe spot to pull over, etc.

Re:Fail

[mpe]

The manufacturer should have the ability to push an "unsafe firmware" notice to the device. If the device sees that flag, it should immediately flag that version of the firmware as potentially dangerous. If it is currently booted from the unsafe version and if it has another version installed that is not flagged, it should immediately find a safe spot to pull over, pull over, reboot from the other version of the firmware, and continue the trip.

How do you stop someone maliciously sending out such a message? A "signing" mechanism has the problem that the relevent keys must be easily available to a large number of "authorised people".

Re:What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for

[Anonymous Coward]

Standardized toll pass would allow cash-strapped counties to collect tolls from out of county residents. Just like "speeding" tickets, only there is no such thing as driving slowly to get around it.

The Massachusetts Turnpike already does that without the EZ pass. Say you're an out-of-state driver who has never heard of the Mass Pike, so you turn onto a clearly-labeled interstate, follow a one-way road for a little bit, and BAM! Hit by a surprise toll. Better hope you've got cash, sucker, 'cause there's nowhere else to go!

Communication hazards

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as your car is communicating with other close cars and highway devices, it means your car will be telling the police your location and exactly how fast you are going. How long would it be until we have the equivalent of red light cameras mailing out speeding tickets to half the cars on the road?

Re:Communication hazards

[Belial6]

That is why I expect government agencies to be against auto drive cars. Just think of the funding they will lose when no one is committing traffic violations.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[dgatwood]

Truck speed limits are usually quite a bit slower than car speed limits, so it's a safe bet that if you're passing a truck and only going slightly faster than the truck, you're going 5–10 MPH under the posted car speed limit.

Can we not?

[sl4shd0rk]

I wish the DOT would just pick some already working open standards and improve where needed instead of re-inventing something by committee.

Re:Can we not?

[Trepidity]

Are there any solid open standards already in existence for this problem?

Re:Can we not?

[EvilSS]

Please provide link to said already working open standard for inter-vehicle communications.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[girlintraining]

ADDENDUM... especially when the left-lane idiot is going the same speed as the dump-truck next to him. So everyone is getting pelted with small pebbles and things and are unable to pass.

I don't need a new government standard to fix this. I already put a pair of pneumatically-driven TRAIN HORNS connected to a deep cycle marine battery and isolated with a big honking 1 farad capacitor and an industrial-grade current limiter under the hood. It's good for about 20 seconds of SWEET MOTHER OF GOD sound before it spends the next half hour recharging off the alternator.

Believe me... people get out of the way when their car is literally shaking from the noise behind them. And yes, I did dynamat the entire passenger compartment, even the firewall... which makes for whisper-quiet drives until HORN OF DEATH is activated. I have four sets of industrial-grade ear protection and a pack of disposable ear plugs in the glove box, because I measured the SPL at over 120dB even with all the sound-dampening. Unfortunately, the windshield itself transmits a significant amount of vibration through it and there's no practical way to fix that problem...

I've only had to use this weapons-grade horn a couple of times, but let me say, the effects were immediate. Make sure you have plenty of distance between the vehicle in front of you when you hit the button... people have a funny habit of standing on the brakes when their world turns a vibrating shade of red.

I personally guarantee you though... you'll be able to pass anyone after pushing the big blue button.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[krovisser]

Lots of states have laws that state you can't hold up traffic behind you in the left lane, no matter what speed you are going at.

Speed Checked by Internet

[maharvey]

How long before your car spies on you and auto-reports traffic violations to the local authority?

Re:Speed Checked by Internet

[DougOtto]

Many traffic management systems sniff for the MAC address on your bluetooth and use it to monitor traffic flow. It wouldn't be a stretch to expand on that by shipping vehicles with preset, and registered, addresses.

Re:Speed Checked by Internet

[cusco]

Your car already auto-reports on you and reports to your insurance company and the manufacturer in the event of an accident. Assuming your car has been manufactured since the turn of the century it probably has a black box that records the last X-many seconds of driving behavior (and since memory is getting cheaper that X has been growing). Currently the black box is only accessible from a hard connection, but I would not be at all surprised to see them start to dump their data to roadside APs in exchange for a lower insurance price.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[krovisser]

No, I think most don't realize they are a) in the so-called fast lane, b) don't realize that they are only supposed to be there to pass, c) don't realize that you can break (b) if you don't go fast enough (including over the speed limit) and c) don't realize or utilize their rear view mirrors.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[Anubis IV]

You do realize that he's complaining about people engaging in illegal practices, right? Where I live, cops regularly enforce the "Left lane for passing only" signs that were posted within the last year on our main freeway. If you're in the left lane and not passing the guy next to you, you'll earn yourself a citation pretty quickly because what you're doing is not only illegal, it also endangers everyone else on the road by causing cars to pile up behind you, thus increasing the likelihood of an accident significantly.

Your chief calling while driving is not to abide by the law, but to drive safely. Following the law is the best way to drive safely in about 99% of situations, but the laws are inadequate at times, and it is not your responsibility to try and enforce them against others, since your doing so will more often than not result in a more dangerous situation than if you had left the other driver alone. Every cop I know will tell you that it's okay to speed up beyond the limit in order to pass someone if doing so will result in a safer driving situation for the people involved. And at least where I live, failing to do so means that you need to drop back and get out of the left lane if you want to be law-abiding. Either way, it's safer for everyone involved.

Re:Control...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, criminals would find a way to abuse/hack it. That way, one can tell cars to stop on remote stretches of I-10, remove and dispose of the vehicle's occupants, re-enable the vehicle, and the car can go across the border, or visit a local chop shop.

If white-hats (Feds, LEOs, etc.) can kill it, eventually so can the black-hats.

It's a good thing.

[Konowl]

Once things are standardized, we can commence the march towards autonomous cars. Nothing would make traffic move smoother than cars driving themselves that can communicate with each other.

Re:It's a good thing.

[EvilSS]

I'm all for anything that removes the driver from the equation as much as possible.

Re:It's a good thing.

[mbkennel]

Where Do You Want To Go Today?
<xxx>
Do you mean _Wally Mart_? There are Many Attractive Offers of Name-Brand Merchandise today.
No!
Got It. Wally Mart has a fine selection of store-brand items at major discounts, perfect for your .... h.e.m.m.o.r.r.h.o.i.d. ... interest. We'll be there in about 17 minutes.
Stop !
I'm sorry, I'm afraid I can't do that, we are not at our destination.

Re:It's a good thing.

[iggymanz]

and if the government wants to remove you from the equation permanently with a traffic accident?

Re:It's a good thing.

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, having your car drive you to a remote parking lot where you have to buy male enhancement products to regain control of your vehicle is a GREAT idea.

Re:It's a good thing.

[EvilSS]

Please. Traffic accident, "tragic mistake" by SWAT team, drone strike. Dead is dead. But if I don't have to put up with rubber-necking morons on my way to my doom then I'll take it.

Re:Control...

[The Grim Reefer]

This is just another step in the scheme of controlling the population. Can you imagine if the NSA forced all the developers to insert a backdoor which would allow law enforcement to shut down your car with the click of a button? /tin-foil-hat

In some ways that seems better than the current methods using stop sticks or a barrage of 12 gauge slugs. Or the periodically re-invented EMP guns. At least the back door could be designed in such a way that the vehicle is not destroyed permanently or as dangerously. It always sucks when the police kill the wrong person in a hail of gunfire. With a kill switch, your car could at least be turned back on and you can avoid an early trip to the morgue.

It's certainly better to have a kill switch in your car if they use an EMP while you're wearing your foil hat. Unless you prefer to have your head cooked to extra crispy

I'm not sure why you are bringing the NSA up though. They would be more likely to want a backdoor to get the GPS data or covertly use a built in microphone to listen in on conversations within the car.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like them to implement the ability a given vehicle to receive warning messages from nearby drivers. Things I have in mind include:
- Your $CORNER tire is dangerously low
- Your $BRAKELIGHT is burned out
- If vehicle is a generation III Jetta: The adhesive tape that secures the body moulding to your $CORNER door has failed.

Other more personal messages might be:
- your dress is hanging out of your door, and soaking up all the grime for the last 20 miles
- there hasn't been a turn or lane change in the last $DISTANCE, and yet your turn indicator persists in blinking
- don't brake hard; your $ITEM is still on your roof

CAPTCHA: "orgasm"

NSA Involvement?

[craigminah]

Fantastic, then the NSA can monitor where we go, where we stop, and if we change the oil on schedule. If we are "suspected of being a terrorist" the CIA can direct our car over a cliff, into a fireworks stand, or into a farming combine to make it look like an accident.

Re:Control...

[viperidaenz]

It's not the white hats and black hats you need to worry about.
Its the red-white-and-blue hats.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[cusco]

I was set to purchase a set of semi truck air horns and the rig to run them when my wife asked, "What is that?" I told her, and that was the end of that project. Should have waited until she left for work. . .

It is sure to be.........

[X-Ray Artist]

One of the most "non-standard" standards. The government will be involved. Corporations will be involved each trying to make their product unique while still meeting the "Standard" making communication difficult. It will be like the medical electronic records. Everything meeting the HL7 and DICOM standards and still not communicating with other systems that meet the same "Standard". If this has any chance of success, they will have to follow the Banking model. Banks communicate well with other (or at least that has been my experience). Besides, you can mess with people's health, life, and safety, but you do NOT mess with their money!

Re:What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for

[mjr167]

Anyone else notice how terrible an acronym US is? Specifically when people are too lazy to capitalize it.

Obligatory XKCD

[chuckinator]

http://xkcd.com/927/

Obligatory /\

[gnupun]

It's a trap! The prism folks want a standard interface to your cars, so their tenterhooks into your car can not only monitor your activity but also manipulate your car.

Headstart

[chinton]

They want to get out in front of any standards so they can design in any API that the NSA needs. Those things are notoriously hard to get right after the fact.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[chuckinator]

You're not the NASCAR pace car. You are not entitled to the authority of policing the speeds of other drivers. Blocking the left lane for faster traffic is a misdemeanor moving violation in nearly all US municipalities regardless to the oncoming driver's speed.

tl;dr; You don't get to police the roads unless you've legally got blue strobe lights on your car.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[real gumby]

A similar technique is quite effective for tailgaters. If you want to go faster than me I'm happy to let you pass, but sometimes that can't happen because it's one lane, it's icy, or I just have to get past the even slower guys to my right. You don't need to kiss my car in these situations -- I know you're there!

So in high school I rigged a dashboard switch to the brake lights. If an annoying tailgater decided to touch the back of my car I simply held down the switch...which never failed to open up some space!

Surely illegal (your horns probably aren't), but the statute of limitations must have expired by now.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, don't stop there, champ. Please, tell us more about the badass things you do on the Imagination Freeway.

Re:What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for

[real gumby]

Actually you have hit on an important point. The EZ-pass systems can easily be implemented in a privacy-protecting fashion (allowing you to buy them anonymously and pay cash) but somehow never are. Hmm.

I think we can be pretty sure that however these protocols are designed, privacy and security will not be taken into account.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[plover]

At a crosswalk I once held out my arm in front of a jaywalker. He had his head down in his phone with his earbuds in, he was following the tail of a crowd across a normally not-busy street, he didn't realize the light had completely changed, and he apparently didn't notice there was traffic approaching rapidly from his left. Did I interfere with his right to jaywalk? Yes, intentionally. What would it say about me as a person if I hadn't limited that guy from passing me, and let him step into that street?

Is the guy in the left lane simply inattentive, or is he just a jerk who likes angering drivers that are behind him? Could he be actively driving that way to block people from speeding? Maybe or his radar detector is going off because there's a state trooper in the car ahead of him. Maybe he sees an emergency vehicle on the shoulder ahead, and is avoiding them per state law?

Not everybody's motives are clear, especially when they're driving and you can't ask them why they're going slow in the left lane. But usually, it's because they're inattentive jackasses.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[Anubis IV]

No one said you had to dodge back into the right lane immediately after every single car. Once you pass a car, if you're going faster than the next car in the right lane then you're still in the process of passing, so you'd be perfectly fine in staying in the right lane, and even you must have enough common sense to recognize that. You're doing a disservice to yourself by playing the fool.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[EvilSS]

You do realize that he's complaining about people engaging in illegal practices, right? Where I live, cops regularly enforce the "Left lane for passing only" signs that were posted within the last year on our main freeway.

Can you send me some of your cops? One of the states that borders where I live (Missouri) I think they teach them in drivers ed that they are supposed to hang in the left lane. It's illegal where I live but I've never seen it enforced.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[girlintraining]

So in high school I rigged a dashboard switch to the brake lights. If an annoying tailgater decided to touch the back of my car I simply held down the switch...which never failed to open up some space!

You don't really need to do that. Most vehicle brakes light before any significant pressure is applied -- you can usually trip it with just a light touch (not enough to affect speed). Unless your car is very new or the brakes were just replaced, there's usually enough play to get the light to come on.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[EvilSS]

You... are my hero.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[Anubis IV]

Sorry, meant to say that "you'd be perfectly fine staying in the left lane".

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[CaptainStumpy]

You do realize that he's complaining about people engaging in illegal practices, right? Where I live, cops regularly enforce the "Left lane for passing only" signs that were posted within the last year on our main freeway. If you're in the left lane and not passing the guy next to you, you'll earn yourself a citation pretty quickly because what you're doing is not only illegal, it also endangers everyone else on the road by causing cars to pile up behind you, thus increasing the likelihood of an accident significantly.

Your chief calling while driving is not to abide by the law, but to drive safely. Following the law is the best way to drive safely in about 99% of situations, but the laws are inadequate at times, and it is not your responsibility to try and enforce them against others, since your doing so will more often than not result in a more dangerous situation than if you had left the other driver alone. Every cop I know will tell you that it's okay to speed up beyond the limit in order to pass someone if doing so will result in a safer driving situation for the people involved. And at least where I live, failing to do so means that you need to drop back and get out of the left lane if you want to be law-abiding. Either way, it's safer for everyone involved.

incorrect. the best way to drive safely in about 99% of situations on a normal highway: 1. get in the leftmost lane (on 2+ lane highway). note this may be illegal but is statistically proven to be the safest lane of travel. (I don't have the statistic handy, sorry) 2. do 85th percentile speed, anything else is dangerous. note this may be illegal as well if everyone is driving over/under the speed limit 3. allow enough braking distance to not hit the car in front. this may be found by using the "3 second rule" but varies by your vehicles inertia, stopping distance, reaction time, and how well the tires and brakes are working at that moment in time 4. and stay alert. (no other point has proven to be more important than that.)

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[Anubis IV]

From firsthand experience, I agree with you about that being the safest tactic to use on an individual basis (and it's what I practice most of the time, since it means only having to watch one side rather than two, which allows me to maintain a better awareness). That said, like many other systems, it breaks down if everyone is doing it, thus leading to reduced overall safety. Hence the laws, which are there to promote safety for as many people as possible (at least in theory...obviously there are politics and other nonsense at play sometimes).

But I definitely do follow that practice with most of my freeway driving. Get in the left lane, go fast enough to ensure that I'm passing everyone to my right, but not so fast that I'm being dangerous or am likely to get pulled over, and then stay there for as long as possible. I'll briefly exit the lane to allow cars that are intent on going dangerously fast to pass me, since their riding my bumper is not doing either of us any favors. At this point, I've been driving for about 15 years and have yet to get in an accident, get pulled over, or get ticketed, though I understand that drivers have accidents every 17.9 years on average, so I haven't quite made it into "above average" territory yet.

can't wait

[CaptainStumpy]

for my new car to tell the state police exactly how fast it was going, no radar needed.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[Anubis IV]

Ha, yeah, it was a rather pleasant surprise (at least for me and only in this one regard) when I heard about some of my friends getting pulled over for not using the lane to pass. That said, we still have our share of people who think those signs are suggestions and that the 75mph speed limit must be a typo that was intended to say 65mph. They're thankfully just a bit less frequent than they used to be.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[Anubis IV]

I'd fully agree. "Left lane for passing only" laws are not a license to engage in dangerous behavior. Like you, if a car is coming up fast behind me and I'm in the left lane, I'll do what I can to get out of their way in a safe manner, but my inability to do so does not give them an excuse to do whatever they feel like doing. If someone is dodging in and out of traffic, they're making things more dangerous for everyone, and we can both agree on that.

But drivers like you and I were not the ones I was discussing with my previous posts. I was describing the drivers who are in the left lane and aren't using it to pass. They're not getting out of the way when they should be, which is making things more dangerous.

TL;DR: your last paragraph sums up my thoughts perfectly.

I like the current standard

[istartedi]

Absolute silence. Of course I wouldn't put it past the government to hack up a few thousand pages that standardize "silence".

Re:What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for

[mattack2]

1) That's not an acronym.
2) If it were, it would be a great one, because we know the universe revolves around the United States. So whether you say us or U.S., you're talking about the same place.

(That's (intended) as a JOKE, folks.)

Extra tail lights

[WaffleMonster]

Equip cars with an array of tail lights like "welcome wagon" helos from ID4. Nerby vechicles could use CCDs to capture signals and convert them into usable instructions.

Re:What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for

[mattack2]

Actually US *is* an acronym.

No, it's not. You don't pronounce U.S. as "us". An acronym is when you pronounce it as a word.

acronym
noun
an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word (e.g., ASCII, NASA).

U.S. is an initialism.

initialism
noun
an abbreviation consisting of initial letters pronounced separately (e.g., CPU).

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[real gumby]

But then I'd have to take my foot off the accelerator....

Although I hear some American driving schools are teaching the kids to use their left foot for the brake, which sounds like educational malpractice to me.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[SleazyRidr]

No they'll still give you a speeding ticket. They'll just also give you a ticket if you're not speeding. http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=85108

Re:What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for

[icebike]

What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for all us toll roads as well?

How about getting rid of toll roads all together?
You paid for them from your taxes. Do you get anything back when someone pays a toll?

Thought not.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[drinkypoo]

You do realize that he's complaining about people engaging in illegal practices, right? Where I live, cops regularly enforce the "Left lane for passing only" signs that were posted within the last year

I live in California where it has been illegal to clog the passing lane for years and I see cops come up behind people in the left lane and then just go around them all the damned time.

My prediction

[EmagGeek]

This new "standard" will include:

1) Several patented technologies that require royalty payments to the patent holders, which will no doubt be big contributors to Presidential and Congressional election campaigns

2) Companies who fought for open technologies during the development of the standard will be effectively locked out of any opportunity to profit from these technologies

3) Consumers will be screwed, as always, by the coalition between government and big corporations

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[Albinoman]

That's some of the dumbest advice I've ever read on the internet. Let's cause and accident at highway speeds!
I think I speak for all of us when I say please swerve into a pylon next time you try it so the guy behind you doesn't have to.

can see it now

[Xicor]

viruses and malware for cars. definitely going to happen

Re:What about makeing the EZ-pass system work for

[richlv]

i travel around some parts of the usa w/o any cash at all every now and then. what would they do in such a case ?

also, aren't un-labeled toll roads illegal or something ? in florida, toll roads have several very great warnings before, some even saying "last exit before toll" - even i notice them :)

this could be perfect

[Gravis Zero]

if i can make a device that tells the car(s) in front of me "get out of the lane because you are about to get hit" it will all have been worth the effort.

this seems all too easy to manipulate.

It also works online for Internet users!

[antdude]

..!..

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[kannibal_klown]

I can understand the left-lane being safer. With the right-lane you have people jumping in to take that exit they're about to miss and perhaps sideswiping you, people parked on the shoulder, people merging with traffic, etc. I've never seen hard-data but I wouldn't doubt that it's true. I could see the middle-lane being the in-between-safety.

But then, as you say, try to stay in a high-percentile of the speed. Don't drive insane-speeds, but at least keep up with the flow of traffic.

Personally I don't like to scoot around lane-to-lane and I don't mind if it takes me another couple of minutes to get where I'm going.

However it drives me nuts when I see the open highway in front of these 2-3 cars (nothing ahead for miles) and I look in my rear-view mirror and see traffic or congestion because nobody can pass them. It's an accident waiting to happen BECAUSE when the people in the congestion want to get over to the right for their inevitable exit's hard to get over because everyone is so clumped together. Which shouldn't be the case because in front of those 2-3 cars is just empty highway.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[kannibal_klown]

LOL, I see that too. Here in NJ the speed limit is (usually) 65MpH on the major highways. But I see out-of-staters and such riding at 55MpH even though they've passed like their 3rd speed-limit-sign. So either they're not paying enough attention (and are dangerous) or are stupid and think the state posted the wrong sign umpteen times.

One guy I was speaking to while travelling said the national speed limit was 55MpH and there was no such thing as a USA highway (interstate or otherwise) with a 65 or 75 limit; and anyone who said otherwise was lying to get out of a ticket. I chuckled and thought he was kidding or trying to be ironic, but it turns out he actually believed that.

Must learn enough about cars

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Must learn enough about cars to disable all this stuff when I buy a new one.

Car to Car Comms

[brunnegd]

I would like the concept of dialing the license plate number of a car, telling the driver what an idiot he is.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[krovisser]

That's understood, but some laws require that you move over if cars are behind you, regardless of how fast you are going.

Re:Please give me "get off the left-lane stupid" m

[dpidcoe]

That's some of the dumbest advice I've ever read on the internet.

Intentionally so. Apparently sarcasm isn't one of your strong points.