Government To Require Vehicle-to-vehicle Communication

An anonymous reader writes "For decades, the focus of auto safety has primarily been on surviving the traumatic impact of crashes through features like air bags and seat belts. But now the focus has shifted to avoiding crashes by developing technology to make future vehicles 'smart' enough to detect and respond to threats, such as an oncoming vehicle. The technology, known as 'vehicle-to-vehicle,' or "V2V," lets cars 'talk' to each other and exchange safety data, such as speed and position. If a nearby car abruptly changes lanes and moves into another car's blind spot, the car would be alerted. Federal transportation officials did not announce when the new regulations would go into effect but said they hope to propose the new V2V rules before President Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017." Combine this with remote kill-switches or pulse guns, Amber-alert scrolling signs, proliferating cameras, automatic plate recognition and unstoppable text messages from on high for some not-so-distant driving dystopia.

Comments

To require?

[bigfinger76]

"To require" and "to propose" are two different things.

Re:To require?

[ackthpt]

"To require" and "to propose" are two different things.

And to get passed is yet a third.

Then to not have struck down by the Supreme Court is still a forth.

Re:To require?

[bigpat]

It isn't even clear this will be at all useful for autonomous navigation or crash avoidance. Any crash avoidance and autonomous navigation system is going to have to deal with cars that aren't transmitting this type of data for at least a decade while cars were in transition and then even after that cars would have to deal with neighboring cars generating bad data, or if it relies on GPS for position then it is going to be completely useless for crash avoidance and even fine grained navigation... not to mention being able to cause accidents or traffic jams by simply creating bogus data and transmitting it. So if the computer has to do all this processing anyway using the cars own sensors to detect neighboring cars and it shouldn't rely on this position data transmitted from other cars because of the real likelihood of bad data, then it is just processing overhead to be doing calculations based upon what all these other cars on the highway are telling you. Either way this strikes me as a very naive approach and not one that should be mandated unless and until we have some real world trials that demonstrate its effectiveness over relying on the cars own sensors under a variety of conditions.

Or really most likely this proposal is just a transponder tax collection scheme under the guise of safety. Bureaucrats have been fretting for years about how they are going to fund road construction and repair as we move towards non-gas tax paying electric cars, more efficient (lower gas tax) or other more efficient non-gasoline powered cars that can't be effectively taxed at the pump.

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, I though Obama said he can bypass Congress with executive orders now?

Re:To require?

[mrchaotica]

The IRS will tax/fine you if your cars don't conform. The AHA has already made it possible.

That's just FUD. The creation of the NHTSA made it possible, and that came long before Obamacare.

Re:To require?

[AK Marc]

He learned it from Bush.

Re:To require?

[davester666]

you aren't required to use a vehicle to move around the country, therefore we can require whatever tracking system we want to be in every car.

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

He learned it from Bush.

And how many executive orders has Bush issued in the past 5 years?

Re:To require?

[vtcodger]

Of course it'll help sometimes. "Restricted Visibility" isn't just for people. It'll surely apply to vehicle on-board sensors also. The ability to "see" potential hazards obscured by terrain, vegetation, traffic, looking directly into the rising or setting sun, etc isn't going to solve all or even most problems. But it'll help.

And frankly, self driving cars are going to need all the help they can get -- especially once one gets down off the freeways onto roads shared with pedestrians, bicycles, skateboards, joggers, drunks, wildlife, livestock, tree limbs, etc,etc, etc.

Re: To require?

[Scowler]

How is it a bad thing to receive information that "could" be true? You shouldn't trust the information is true, of course, but you could take a conservative course of action that will protect you in the event the information is either true or false. For cars, if the information is of a hazard ahead, a prudent action is almost always to reduce speed, for example, even if it turns out there is no hazard.

Re:To require?

[dcooper_db9]

Indeed, this is in the pre-rule stage. The NHTSA will soon publish a report and submit it for public comment. We won't know if they have the authority under existing law until they publish their proposed rule. They may have to go to Congress and request additional authority. It will be years before any regulations actually change.

Here is is an overview of how the regulatory process works in US federal agencies.

Here's an excerpt from the NHTSA announcement:

NHTSA is currently finalizing its analysis of the data gathered as part of its year-long pilot program and will publish a research report on V2V communication technology for public comment in the coming weeks. The report will include analysis of the Department's research findings in several key areas including technical feasibility, privacy and security, and preliminary estimates on costs and safety benefits. NHTSA will then begin working on a regulatory proposal that would require V2V devices in new vehicles in a future year, consistent with applicable legal requirements, Executive Orders, and guidance. DOT believes that the signal this announcement sends to the market will significantly enhance development of this technology and pave the way for market penetration of V2V safety applications.

Re:To require?

[emagery]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... ...

Re: To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

And??? Are you saying it's ok now because someone else did it?! Grow a pair and denounce the current piece of shit in office; not just the one before it.

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't you like to know, communist

Re:To require?

[AK Marc]

To me, it looked more like they thought it was time to make some governmental standards (or put a government stamp on corporate standards) for the developing safety gear, much like the government did with seatbelts and bumpers.

You are assuming the worst possible implementation, then attacking somthing that doesn't exist. Do any of the problems you are mentioning get worse if the government steps in and mandates interoperability and open standards for V2V communications?

V2V is happening today. Unregulated and with no standards at all. Why are you asserting that a nascent technology with no standards and no oversight is safer than one with?

Re:To require?

[superwiz]

Government builds the roads and owns the roads. I don't think the Supreme Court will find an objection with government imposing requirement on those who operate machinery on these government-owned roads.

Re:To require?

[lgw]

The difference between "here's a standard to follow if you add this feature" and "you must add this feature, we'll get back to you on the standard" is the difference between the government doing it's job, and the government being a dick. Some of us still remember when the government mandated airbags before good standards for safety had been worked out - this was not a good thing.

Re:To require?

[HornWumpus]

The king of the executive order remains FDR. IIRC his combined successors still haven't matched his total.

Re:To require?

[OhPlz]

Fair enough, but the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is not the check and balance that it was intended to be. It's easy to get around it. The AHA is one example. The dangling of highway funds is another (this is how the minimum drinking age was forced on the states). If the NHTSA is used for this, then the Supreme Court comment I replied to is that much more irrelevant.

Mod me flamebait all you like people, it doesn't make it less true. Hell, send the IRS after me. Bring it on!

Re:To require?

[cayenne8]

I wonder what the fines or penalties will be for NON-functioning car responders?

I have to guess old cars will really start to hold their value that were made prior to this requirement.

I may have to get in the market for an old muscle car, maybe a Judge GTO, nothing but engine and a transmission, ahh, simple times.

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, I though Obama said he can bypass Congress with executive orders now?

For a constitutional lawyer Barak H. Obama is a blight upon the rights and freedoms of the citizens of the country he allegedly governs. Stalin would have been envious.

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

Government builds the roads and owns the roads. I don't think the Supreme Court will find an objection with government imposing requirement on those who operate machinery on these government-owned roads.

The Government owns nothing except that which the citizens allow. As for the highways they are tax-payer-funded not government-funded. There is a difference although Comrade Obama would prefer you not think. Hell Obama and Cheney are familial relations. Need I say more.

Re:To require?

[NJRoadfan]

Wait until the systems start breaking. Nobody will get them fixed because the OEM's dealers will likely be the only one with the tools to fix it. Dealers are never a cheap place to get anything fixed. Right now all those fancy blind spot warning, adaptive cruise control, and lane departure warning systems require an OEM specific computer interface to calibrate along with special calibration machines and targets. They do not self calibrate and the procedure has to be done any time the sensors are moved or replaced.

Re:To require?

[judoguy]

That's just FUD. The creation of the NHTSA made it possible, and that came long before Obamacare.

Well, the NHTSA just made it possible. The ACA made it *probable*. When the Supreme Court OK to forcing Americans to buy stuff from giant corporations, everything is on the table. You'll all quietly go along when a Republican administration forces you all to expensive guns, whether you need them or not, I'm sure.

Re:To require?

[GodInHell]

Totally unnecessary, cars (like trains and planes) cross state lines and are inherently integrated into inter-state commerce - regulation of inter-state commerce is an enumerated power of the federal government. That's why the Feds can mandate that auto manufacturers must install seat belts and air bags. This is just the continuation of that. Damn that constitution and its specific grants of powers.

Re: To require?

[AK Marc]

I have. You just weren't listening.

Re:To require?

[AK Marc]

It's not necessarily quantity, but quality.

Re:To require?

[mattack2]

Any crash avoidance and autonomous navigation system is going to have to deal with cars that aren't transmitting this type of data for at least a decade while cars were in transition and then even after that cars would have to deal with neighboring cars generating bad data, or if it relies on GPS for position then it is going to be completely useless for crash avoidance and even fine grained navigation...

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Re:To require?

[AK Marc]

I personally blame Ralph Nader, who committed perjury with the result of killing babies. Yes, Nader is a baby killer. He lied to congress in the hearings about airbags. He was also instrumental in the first generation being the most aggressive, rather than ramping up more gently, as they were mandated for unbelted 185 lb male drivers of slightly above average height. Short women, children, babies would be harmed by the first standards, and no benefit would be seen by belted drivers.

They were sold as a seatbelt replacement, a giant pillow for those who chose to not wear a seatbelt. Now, they are supplimentary restraints to reduce ingury to belted occupants. That's a much better goal, and should have been the initial one all along. But Nader is a fascist who knows what's best for you, even if it kills you.

Re:To require?

[mattack2]

It was not better than NO airbags?

Re:To require?

[lgw]

The bit about don't put your kid in the front seat? Consumers discovered it the hard way. There's nothing about putting explosives in you dashboard that's automatically safer than not putting explosives in you dashboard. Also, it wasn't well understood by consumers that an Airbag is not a substitute for a seatbelt, and can actually be more dangerous if you're not wearing a seatbelt (though that was mostly people being idiots). Airbags should have been allowed to follow the normal "expensive cars first till the bugs are worked out" cycle of new automotive technology, but they were rushed.

Gradual progress from enthusiast cars to mid-line family cars to econoboxes is critical, both to get mileage on high-margin solutions before choosing the bottom-dollar part, and to socialize changes in driver behavior needed gradually.

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

Originally Ford put a spike in the middle of the steering wheel that discouraged getting in accidents.

Re:To require?

[mattack2]

Of *course* it's not a substitute for a seatbelt.

But even with a seatbelt, were there (many, non-isolated "random" issues) issues with seatbelts + old airbags that made them worse than no airbags?

Re:To require?

[timeOday]

Bureaucrats have been fretting for years about how they are going to fund road construction and repair as we move towards non-gas tax paying electric cars Just bureaucrats? I personally find roads to be very handy to have.

Re:To require?

[mrchaotica]

Look, seriously: this is not a partisan issue, so you can take your divisive rhetoric and fuck off with it.

And for the record, I am not a Democrat and would be perfectly happy if the government decided to interpret the Second Amendment to mean that every citizen was required to own a firearm.

Re:To require?

[SolitaryMan]

Insurance companies will tax you instead.

Re:To require?

[OhPlz]

The interstate commerce clause is a dangerous tool. Nearly anything can be dragged over a state border, and nearly anything could be labelled as commerce. There are people that dislike the AHA because they have insurance offered only within their state and see only doctors within their state. There's not always an interstate component.

The same could be argued of vehicles, although the practicality of selling vehicles targeting specific state requirements could be onerous. Although CARB comes to mind. There are also states which are trying to prevent Tesla from selling over the Internet because state laws forbid it. The union only works if such dangerous tools are used sparingly and for good reason. Highway safety may be a good reason, but if the requirements harm motorists financially, those motorists may reconsider how worthy a reason it truly is.

Frankly, I can't imagine a two way communication mechanism that wouldn't be ripe for abuse. The collision avoidance features already on the market could probably be exploited to cause the vehicles to panic stop unexpectedly. The feds should let the market do its thing and if these features prove themselves and can be made affordable, perhaps then we make requirements. This reminds me of the ever increasing mileage requirements the feds come up with. Industry tends to miss them because the science isn't there yet, at least for the types of vehicles Americans want or need. Not many Americans would be in favor of Uncle Sam deciding what kind of motor vehicle they can have. So what good are requirements that can't be met?

Re:To require?

[lgw]

Of *course* it's not a substitute for a seatbelt.

You say that now, but that's not the original idea of airbags. They were pushed as a solution to the problem that people weren't wearing their seatbelts. Oops. They quickly became described as "supplemental restraints", but that wasn't the original justification for mandating them.

But even with a seatbelt, were there (many, non-isolated "random" issues) issues with seatbelts + old airbags that made them worse than no airbags?

Yes, early on they were quite dangerous to kids (and sufficiently small and/or frail adults). It seems not that long ago that minivans with no passenger-side airbag were valued for school carpools because you could take 1 more child in them than the dual-airbag models. There were certainly several years during which you simply did not let a kid ride in a seat with an airbag (I hope we're past that now with new cars, but plenty of cars with child-dangerous airbags are still around!)

Re:To require?

[ron_ivi]

I wonder what the fines or penalties will be for NON-functioning car responders?

Probably similar to any other missing safety feature - like a broken break light, or a torn seat belt.

Re:To require?

[bigpat]

V2V is happening today. Unregulated and with no standards at all. Why are you asserting that a nascent technology with no standards and no oversight is safer than one with?

I am asserting much more than that. I am saying that cars should rely on their own sensors (cameras, lidar and/or radar) for detecting other vehicles, people and objects rather than introduce and rely on yet another subsystem that has complex external infrastructure dependencies with some very real and commonly known failure modes with differential GPS.

There seems to be an assumption here that V2V is safer than not having V2V which I am challenging. I think in many scenarios it is actually less safe to be relying on V2V for any essential part of a collision avoidance or autonomous driving system. Maybe it works great on the test track, but I think it is going to fail quite often and in a variety of ways in the real world.

Maybe cars will require autonomous communications for coordinating traffic movements in a more efficient manner, but that is a different purpose and would be a different type of negotiation than the type of "Here I Am" message described as a supplement for collision avoidance. I could see V2V being used to instead communicate "intention" of autonomous vehicles in heavy traffic rather than be used as a transponder. So instead of "Here I Am" make it "Here is where I want to go now". So, a flashing blinker might be hard for a camera to distinguish versus just getting a signal that car at position xyz going v mph is trying to change into your lane. Therefore the car could then either accelerate or slow down to make room for the other vehicle to merge. And that would be data about the intention of the other vehicle, that might not be available otherwise from the cars sensors. But even then, we already have turn signals and to work harmoniously with non-autonomous cars then really we should be trying to use the cameras on the car to detect a turn signal and to react rather than introduce a separate communications channel that isn't human detectable.

As for the taxation question. If V2V was actually useful, then I wouldn't care if it was also used for taxation or even police monitoring. The roads need to be maintained and paid for equitably. My concern is that V2V is being sold to regulators as an aid to autonomous cars, plus a handy way to solve this gas tax replacement issue and 'by the way' it is also a very complicated system that will create all these jobs and require all these big government contracts to implement and improve upon... win, win and win. I just think it fails on the first test and there are also simpler ways to collect a use tax for roads like requiring people to send payments based on their odometer readings along with their yearly income tax forms.

Re:To require?

[bigpat]

Just add a line to the State and Federal tax forms with your odometer reading since the last time and multiply by whatever is required. Or just pay for it as part of whatever tax your state likes. There are a variety of ways well short of tracking everyone's car movements in real time and spending millions or billions of dollars just on the tracking system.

Re:To require?

[bigpat]

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

And the real world is the enemy of the GPS signal.

Re:To require?

[superwiz]

The Government owns nothing except that which the citizens allow.

Oh? The law is what gives the government its authority. Citizens (in a democracy) decide on who occupies the positions of power, but they don't decide on what the government can or cannot do. That's dictated by the law. Now who are these citizens, that you speak of, who exercise ultimate veto power over government actions? I never heard of them.

Re:To require?

[mattack2]

Why do you say this ALL has to be GPS related?

Can't each car send out signals, and the other cars figure out where they are via signal strength/direction? At least approximately? In order to *help* the situation, not necessarily completely prevent an accident?

Re:To require?

[AK Marc]

Of *course* it's not a substitute for a seatbelt.

But Ralph Nader argued for standards designed to protect a large *unbelted* male. How can it not be a substitute for a seatbelt when the original regulation was explicitly to protect those who weren't using seatbelts? It was less safe for those with belts, but much much better for those without. Those who chose to ignore their own safety were protected by Nader, but those who chose to protect themselves were ignored by him.

The initial aribags were no better for people in seatbelts. They reduces some injuries, and added others (broken wrists, a large number of people with allergic reactions, some life threatening).

Re:To require?

[AK Marc]

V2V wouldn't need GPS. Why do you need to know the GPS of a car that's communicating with you via IR laser that you can see and track visually? ("you" being your computer, as you can't see the IR laser, or the signal encoded over it)

What failures do you expect from V2V that would come about on the public roads that wouldn't be found on the track? Why do you assume the people working on them haven't thought of them?

But even then, we already have turn signals and to work harmoniously with non-autonomous cars then really we should be trying to use the cameras on the car to detect a turn signal and to react rather than introduce a separate communications channel that isn't human detectable.

You are completely wrong here. A human has a very very low limit to processing. How can you tell when passing a line of parked cars, whether the left blinker you see is a left turn indication, indicating they are pulling out, possibly in your path, or the left side of a pair of hazard lights, the right side obscured by the car behind them? If you add information, you can distinguish them. But a human would be unable to process if every signal was received from every car at the same time. A computer can do it, trivially. So a different communications path for the computer would increase communications for V2V and not decrease communications with a person, as a multi-signal system would. Human factors of the minimum driver level prohibit useful information, like front brake lights, or right-turn signals on the left side. But a computer could process the additional information, so it seems obvious that V2V should include more than just visual signals.

Re: To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

... For cars, if the information is of a hazard ahead, a prudent action is almost always to reduce speed, for example, even if it turns out there is no hazard.

Tell that to anyone with a big truck on their ass. A big truck with a broken transponder.

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

like a broken break light

FFS, can't anybody spell anymore?

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

... But Ralph Nader argued for standards designed to protect a large *unbelted* male.

This is part of the reason I kept my 1992 car (no airbags) and didn't replace it until the lower powered airbags were available (in my case, in a 2001 car.) I believe that the phase in and out years were different for different car lines, but in general any car before about 2000 with airbags is suspect.

capcha = wearer (yep, I've always been a seat belt wearer)

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't required to live in the U.S.

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

gps, in conjunction with other technologies, would be more than adequate if they'd take the limits off for civilian use.

Re:To require?

[Endloser]

Citizens (in a democracy) decide on who occupies the positions of power

Oh? And when did the average citizen start deciding who is in the presidential primaries? By the time a politician has enough clout to run, he/she is already entrenched in such a political mud-hole that no winch of candor could pull him/her out. When is the last time a third party had a chance? The options the average person has to vote on are already primed and ready to turn us citizens on one another with our political angst. If given a choice, I would rather vote on a leader than a politician. But I have never had that choice; it's always A or B.

Re:To require?

[CaptQuark]

The first thing that came to mind was "What a great way to track any car, anywhere." Simply query the system for any car in communication with car VIN 5N4SK8B987123. By not communicating with the target car directly, surveillance could claim they are only doing what a police officer could do by examining a license plate. Or asking the public to watch for a specific car like during an Amber Alert.

The fact that the query spreads out across the whole city and 30 miles down every freeway until an equipped car responds "Hey, that car is in the lane next to me." greatly exceeds what the hypothetical police officer could monitor would be lost in the strict interpretation of tracking laws. I can see the excuse "We are not tracking YOUR car. We are just asking other people to reply if they notice you nearby.."

Our streets and freeways become a huge distributed network where any information can flow to those who know how to ask the system for information.

~~

Re:To require?

[kmoser]

"To require" and "to propose" are two different things.

And to get passed is yet a third.

Then to not have struck down by the Supreme Court is still a forth.

And to get hacked and disabled is a fifth.

Re:To require?

[Outta_the_way_peck!]

I think "break lights" are supposed to be broken.

Re:To require?

[Xicor]

this is actually false. the majority of roads now are privately owned, or privately built. this is especially the case with highways. almost all of them are funded privately, thats why they are tollways. that being said, they are SUPPOSED to relinquish control to the government after the tolls pay for the highway construction... but they never do.

Re:To require?

[Reziac]

Or on a busy freeway, where traffic *routinely* goes bumper-to-bumper, at high speed, and with many rapid lane changes -- the system (never mind the driver!) is liable to be overwhelmed with data from adjacent cars.

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eff forth. FORTRAN is better. Or are you just an idiot who meant to say "fourth"?

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron spouting lies. The vast majority of highways are NOT tollways, let alone privately owned.

Re:To require?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding healthcare, the insurance component of a health plan (as opposed to the preventative care part) needs to cover you when on holiday or business in another state. Now this could be implemented as a two-policy plan but I don't think many insurers would consider that practical.

Regarding vehicle performance requirements, the model of a minimum mandatory level and advertisable rating levels above that seems to work for encouraging improvement. It certainly works for crash safety worldwide and is now being applied to tires in the EU.

Overall though your point stands. The needs of the many generally outweigh the needs of the one but not always. Balance is necessary and government should not go to far towards either extreme and should avoid regulating without compelling reason.

Liking my old cars more and more.

[HornWumpus]

This will make people worse drivers. How about a car that notices the driver not paying attention and and gives them a mild electric shock.

This does the opposite.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[gstoddart]

This will make people worse drivers.

And, since as you point out in your subject, the reams of older cars without this in it is going to more or less negate the benefits of it.

So you'll get a small number of cars on the road networked and keeping track of each other, and a larger number of completely random entities.

They won't be able to make all cars retroactively do this, and unless all cars are using this the system is essentially worthless.

If people start to assume they'll get a beep if there's suddenly a car where there wasn't one, then they'll stop using their mirrors. And, as you say, that will definitely lead to worse driving and more accidents.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the virtual finger?

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[krept]

Not sure if you're aware or not, in Vegas they are piloting a system that does this for taxi drivers. As soon as the cab gets close enough to anything in front of it, the driver's seat vibrates to hell. (x10 if it's a pedestrian in front) It's annoying even as a passenger. Especially if you're sitting behind the driver and your knees have to touch the seat.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[rolfwind]

How about cellphones that notice your driving and become bricked?

I do like older cars more and more, but because I feel less spied upon than the microphones and gps they have built in now (at least the spooks will have to go to the trouble of wiring my car) and because the Germans also want the power to shut cars off in the future with a press of the button.

Not because of any legitimate safety feature.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[HornWumpus]

That's what the cab driver told you? She had a a sybian installed in her seat.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[n1ywb]

Not as annoying as when your Bangkok cabbie rear ends somebody and makes you get out and walk the last five blocks to your destination (ask me how I know).

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Aqualung812]

They won't be able to make all cars retroactively do this, and unless all cars are using this the system is essentially worthless.

Woah, worthless?

You're telling me that if there are 2 self-driving cars on the road with 20 old non-network cars, there is no benefit for those 2 cars to coordinate?

What about the two smartcars coordinating their shared view of all of the "dumb" cars?
"Car 2, this is car 1. Dumbcar 249234 is next to me, in front of dumbtruck 2352 and has decreased speed from 72mph to 30mph and dropping."
"ACK Car 1, dumbtruck 2352 is directly in front of me. Reducing speed to increase space between myself and dumbtruck 2352, preparing to change to lane 3 when available"
*Obviously, they wouldn't talk like this, but could assign tags, coordinates & speeds, and this conversation could occur in milliseconds.

The idea is that the more sensors you have, the better the system works. Google and others are doing this with a single moving sensor platform now. A second one just makes both of them work better together, treating the non-connected cars as moving objects that must be avoided.

Looking at it another way, Waze is quite effective even with VERY low penetration rates. Imagine how much more effective Waze would be if every car made after 2018 was automatically plugged into it?

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[PRMan]

I have a car that already does this (for about 3 months now) and I haven't noticed that I quit paying attention to my mirrors. But I can tell you that there have been at least 5 times when I was sure the lane next to me was empty but the blind spot light was on. 4 times, somebody had legitimately come into my blind spot from an unseen angle. This is 4 near-misses that have been avoided as I didn't even start the lane change or even signal. Once, it was a false alarm. There really was nobody there and I ultimately, after a lot of checking, changed lanes anyway.

It's this last situation (the false positive) that worries me the most. In my car, I could ignore it and make the lane change anyway. What if there was a false positive in these cars? Am I doomed to stay in my lane forever? Or at least until it clears itself up?

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[HornWumpus]

Three near misses in 3 months: Haven't quit paying attention.

Based on my years of driving. One of those things is not true. Then again, you could be driving in Shanghai or Mumbai.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[gstoddart]

You're telling me that if there are 2 self-driving cars on the road with 20 old non-network cars, there is no benefit for those 2 cars to coordinate?

I'm saying that if 90% of the other cars don't have this, the benefit to those 10% is minimal, and the potential is high for those 10% to 'assume' things are safe instead of driving their car like they're responsible for it.

Essentially you'll get an early warning system for the people with new cars, and the rest of the drivers will help demonstrate how little benefit you're really getting out of this system.

So, yeah, I'll stick with worthless until the numbers in your scenario are reversed.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[NatasRevol]

Seriously.

It's like all the old car guys are missing that the smart cars might still be able to see & react to the dumb cars.

Resulting in fewer accidents.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[karnal]

I had the pleasure of renting a vehicle with the rear cross-traffic alert. I hadn't noticed a vehicle moving behind me in a crowded parking lot... the system beeped like crazy, made me hit the brakes right away without any real prompting otherwise. Stuff like that is something I'll definitely have in my next vehicle.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[HornWumpus]

Which will be partially or completely offset by additional accidents caused by drivers of new cars sleeping at the wheel.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[superdave80]

But I can tell you that there have been at least 5 times (for about 3 months now) when I was sure the lane next to me was empty but the blind spot light was on.

So, how many accidents were you getting into every year before you purchased this new car?

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[fahrbot-bot]

But I can tell you that there have been at least 5 times when I was sure the lane next to me was empty but the blind spot light was on. 4 times, somebody had legitimately come into my blind spot from an unseen angle.

Are you sure you have your mirrors adjusted correctly? Many (most?) people adjust their side mirrors so they can see the rear end of their car, but better method is to adjust them so the images slightly overlap with the center mirror - as described here or here or here. (or Google: adjust car side mirror) This method eliminates all of the blind spots.

To adjust mine, I simply park on a long straight road and adjust each side mirror until the image on the inside edge just overlaps the image on the outside edge of the center mirror.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is 4 near-misses that have been avoided...

Could have been avoided if you just bothered to glance over your shoulder before pulling over, too. No need for a complex device when a good old-fashioned glance will do the same thing.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[NatasRevol]

As if all the drivers of smart cars are suddenly get sleepier/paying less attention?

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[GameboyRMH]

There are two ads on TV right now which demonstrate this.

One is from Toyota showing off their new semi-autonomous tech. In one scene, a couple in some boring Toyota appliance wanders out of their lane on a two-lane highway, directly into the path of an oncoming truck. A massive and likely fatal mistake that very few drivers are outright shitty enough to make and even fewer would live to tell about. RIP idiot couple.

BUT WAIT! It's okay to do that now because Toyota's automatic lane-holding will save you! So feel free to pay no attention to the road and be an appallingly shitty driver!

Another is an ad from Mercedes. A woman in some overpriced tall hatchback is in what looks like a demolition derby. They act out common scenarios on the street and the car's accident avoidance features save her. The ad explains that the roads are dangerous, like a demolition derby.

But wait a minute, all the accident scenarios involve mistakes that are the Mercedes driver's fault! She failed to react to a car stopped ahead of her. She failed to stay in her lane. She was the only danger in what could otherwise be a peaceful post-apocalyptic community of drivers wearing helmets in beat-up old cars! But it's okay to be a dangerous moron in a new Mercedes!

The active car safety features I'd like wouldn't take control of my car or tell me anything about what my own car is doing. They'd read the minds of other drivers to tell me when someone is going to pull out too close in front of me from a side-road or when someone else is going to change lanes into me. Invent those and I'll retrofit them into my old cars.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Aqualung812]

and the potential is high for those 10% to 'assume' things are safe instead of driving their car like they're responsible for it.

Ok, I get what is going on. I'm assuming that the benefit is to self-driving cars, and I still think I'm right about that. More sensors mean better data for a computer to make better decisions.

Your point is that to a HUMAN driver, nearly all cars need to have it in order to provide useful information that human can react to. I'll agree with you there.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

He may not have been getting into accidents, but cutting people off all the time, and possibly causing those people to get into accidents.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

(ask me how I know).

You're a Bangkok cabbie?

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they aren't talking like that, then no sale! I want mine with Darth Vader voice.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[afidel]

Dude, that's pure BS, today probably less than 1% of cars run Waze and yet it helps tremendously with traffic recognition, to the point that Google bought them primarily to feed better traffic info into maps. If you figure the average age of the US vehicle fleet is 11.4 years that means you turn over ~4% of the fleet each year resulting in a huge network effect year one and a stupid high effect by year 5.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[gstoddart]

And, really, since we've see stories lately about just who is responsible if a self driving car crashes (not the people who control the automation part) ... I just don't see self-driving cars operating in anything other than a legal gray area.

If the rules becomes technically, you're behind the wheel and therefore responsible when the auto-pilot suddenly decides it has no idea of what is going on, then WTF would people want these for?

Either I'm in control of the car (and therefore driving), or I'm not in control of the car and don't want any liability (or to even get in one).

To me, if we're talking about what we'll do to benefit the self-driving cars, I think there's a lot of legal issues to be resolved, as well as the practical issues of just who is going to be travelling in these things.

This is just futurist technology with no meaningful application yet.

And, yes, if we're still discussing human drivers, then unless this is in every car on the road, the utility of it drops off to the point of being worthless. And having nothing but self-driving cars is so far into the future as to be meaningless.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[AK Marc]

This will make people worse drivers.

Worse? I see at least one person per day driving while reading a book or magazine. I'd estimate that at least 1% are using their cell phones illegally at any given time (about 10% breaking it occasionally) , and, even with regular inspections mandated, it seems like 1-10% of the cars wouldn't pass an inspection.

And the "good drivers" can't change lanes, don't know how to merge, fail to keep a proper lookout. There isn't a computer dumb enough to be worse than the average driver, and a reasonable one would beat all but the best professional drivers. The best computers would be better than the best humans.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[AK Marc]

Why would it be unreasonable to have "automated cars only" areas of cities and roads?

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[AK Marc]

Plenty of that happens today, so I'm still not seeing the down side.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[David_Hart]

But I can tell you that there have been at least 5 times when I was sure the lane next to me was empty but the blind spot light was on. 4 times, somebody had legitimately come into my blind spot from an unseen angle.

Are you sure you have your mirrors adjusted correctly? Many (most?) people adjust their side mirrors so they can see the rear end of their car, but better method is to adjust them so the images slightly overlap with the center mirror - as described here or here or here. (or Google: adjust car side mirror) This method eliminates all of the blind spots.

To adjust mine, I simply park on a long straight road and adjust each side mirror until the image on the inside edge just overlaps the image on the outside edge of the center mirror.

I just buy the little convex mirrors and stick them on my side mirrors. This way I can see anything to either side of me no matter where they are. I primarily got them for towing my boat but they work great for everyday driving.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[AK Marc]

That does not eliminate all of the blind spots. For one the "head turn" is considered unsafe, and a source of rear-end crashes. But is required in some cars if your mirrors are adjusted with any overlap of the rearview.

To adjust mine, I simply park on a long straight road and adjust each side mirror until the image on the inside edge just overlaps the image on the outside edge of the center mirror.

A bicycle has a profile roughly the same as a pedestrian. Have someone stand beside your car, just behind your right rear tire. Can you see them then? The overlap-at-infinity that many use will miss a bicycle close to the car, and adjusting for that will have excessive overlap.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[HornWumpus]

Tell it to the FAA. There have been actual behavioral studies on autopilots and safety systems.

You want to be very careful you don't put your driver to sleep by automating the routine, but leaving them to deal with the exceptions.

Yes I'm aware that pilots can and do catch a nap while cruising. There is no part of driving that is analogous to cruising an airplane. Rural highway travel is close.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[HornWumpus]

Might not be unreasonable. Once we have them.

For now, it's like arguing that we should only allow solar powered cars with unicorn hide upholstery.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[HornWumpus]

I agree about horrible drivers. Show me the computer driver, it doesn't exist. Google cars sure aren't it.

Half measures that let drivers sleep are not a solution. Full measures will require strong AI in the autopilot.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Sleepier, but more distracted because they are lulled in to the false sense of security that this system gives them. They think oh the car has this awesome feature to protect me so I dont have to pay as much attention, the car will do it for me. but in the end it makes the roads less safe until such a time as at least 75% of all vehicles can communicate with each other.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Ravaldy]

Maybe but I'll tell you what. I'd love my car to be able to tell me there's an accident ahead. I just had to wait 3 hours due to a 50 car pileup. It wasn't pretty. According to the fireman I spoke to, it started with only 2 cars, quickly turned ugly as more cars arrived at high speed no knowing about the stoppage ahead due to limited visibility. Luckilly, I don't think anybody died but 10 rigs were left on the side of the road overnight along with many cars. It could have been much worst.

One could say slow down but you and me both know it's not going to happen. "Human nature". When you can't change the driver you put measured in place to protect the drivers. In this case communication between vehicles could enable notifications to avoid crazy accidents like the one I witnessed.

As for your comment about drivers paying attention. I though I read something about Android developing technology to prevent the use of the phone while driving unless commands are performed via voice. Would be cool if someone linked the article.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Gr8Apes]

Definitely liking what would be "old" cars. I don't need to go advertising everywhere I am via an easily triangulated radio signal. At this point, we can safely ask "Is this an NSA plot?"

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[ProzacPatient]

And, since as you point out in your subject, the reams of older cars without this in it is going to more or less negate the benefits of it.

Yeah, well, that might be true until the government mandates that everyone upgrade their old cars at their own expense or face a stiff penalty at which point the Supreme Court will uphold the penalty as a tax, meanwhile the politicians will be telling everyone; "you can keep your old car!"

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[AK Marc]

I disagree. We can have no AI at all and still have a computer driver well beyond the abilities of the "average" driver. I'm not sure what your complaint is about Google cars. Though they aren't the only auto-driving car out there. I've not seen one yet that dealt with an "unknown" circumstance in an unsafe manner, though I've seen plenty of people who don't know about them assert they do. Can you give an example, or is it just a guess?

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[AK Marc]

So we shouldn't plan for anything until it's already happened? That seems a little silly.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[leonardluen]

who cares who is liable for automated cars, this is what insurance is for. insurance companies will adapt.

do you sit there worrying now who is liable if YOU suddenly decide you have no idea whats going on and cause an accident?

now if you are concerned about the safety of an automated care, which is sounds you are, that is a different matter, but the liability argument really doesn't seem to interesting. i am already liable for my car how does that really change with a self driving car?

now what if it is proven that self driving cars have a better safety record than human drivers?

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, maybe I'm just being naive here, but I'm going to guess those developing the technology have taken "other cars may not have it" into account. I mean, we're pretty light on the details at this point, so it's a bit strange to leap to the assumption it will be useless right off the bat. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and they've completely overlooked this. Even though it is a really, really obvious aspect to consider, maybe they just haven't. Somehow. I mean, smart people have made bigger mistakes in the past, right? Even though nothing comparable springs to mind right now? Right? Maybe you really are just smarter and more forward-thinking than every single person working on the tech.

As everyone here on slashdot knows, technically minded people are just dumb. Wait, sorry, I meant managers of technically minded people, because the techs always see the problem coming, but just can't get anyone to listen. I know because it happens in all those movies, and also there was that space shuttle, which is clearly an indicator for how all tech endeavours go ever. But you, you're way ahead of the game here. And, gosh, as it seems obvious to me that it's something to be considered, as it does for you, maybe I'm just some kinda genius for noticing it too. We should start a genius club! For smart people! Like us!

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[HornWumpus]

You shouldn't invest too much time in planning for something that might never happen.

Angles might decide to have a formal dance on the head of a pin.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so the parent is a bad driver. What's your point?

A good driver wouldn't have backed out into someone, and the system wouldn't have made a difference, so there's no harm if it's there. A bad driver might... and then the system helps, as it did here. I doubt very much the person the parent nearly crashed into gives a damn whether they stopped moving back because they saw them or a light, just that they stopped. That's one crash averted, mission goddamn accomplished. I mean, it's all very good saying "ooh, but then people won't pay attention and accidents will happen". People alreadydon't pay attention, and accidents do happen. Just as they did before seatbelts and airbags became standard, and I guarantee you there were people round at those times saying "pff, but that'll just lead to people feeling too safe and driving like maniacs" then too.

"But this technology isn't like those safety features, because..." No. Just.. just don't. It really, honestly, doesn't matter. The only thing that does matters is if the graph charting "number of vehicles" against "number of accidents" shows a downward trend (or reduced upward trend, whichever) after this tech is introduced. If it does, I won't give a damn how drivers no longer have to be some mystical savants anymore like they used to be in the good old days, because a huge number never were and never will be, no matter how you say drivers "should" act. Your ideal does not match reality. I'll just be glad that less people are getting hurt. I'm sure that somehow makes me a horrible person.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[HornWumpus]

They deal with an unknown event by kicking it back to the human driver. Who is a professional in the Google car case.

My point is that a 99% automated driver is not good enough for real people. They won't be ready to take over when the car says 'fuck it, I'm out'.

The 100% automated driver problem requires strong AI. Just recognizing the class 'objects that are children's toys' is beyond computerized visual recognition today. Without many more years of Moore's law it might be beyond computer capacity forever.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[AK Marc]

"Might never happen" happens today, on a regular basis (automated cars on public roads).

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But wait a minute, all the accident scenarios involve mistakes that are the Mercedes driver's fault! She failed to react to a car stopped ahead of her. She failed to stay in her lane. She was the only danger in what could otherwise be a peaceful post-apocalyptic community of drivers wearing helmets in beat-up old cars! But it's okay to be a dangerous moron in a new Mercedes!"

Well, that sounds great then; I mean, think of all those other people who otherwise could've been injured or hurt because of her mistakes, whose lives were saved thanks to this tech! Oh man, can you imagine if you were just driving along one day, and some idiot did something dumb and your car got into an accident? But that alternate-you lived in a parallel universe where that idiot was driving a car that stopped that from happening? Man, you'd be so jealous. And possibly dead.

Oh, I mean... grrr, technology taking some tiny amount of control away from me or someone else in life-threatening scenarios for which it has been designed! Don't these people know that all drivers are perfect, except the ones who aren't, and they shouldn't be driving anyway so I'm not going think about them? I am so angry at technology! Rawr!

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're lying. If there's one thing I've learnt from reading the comments to this story, it's that people who may cause accidents are bad drivers, and bad drivers shouldn't be allowed to drive, and that... well, OK, there's a bit of a gap in my understanding here, but the point is we don't have to worry about accidents so we don't need tech to stop them. So there's no way there was a delay caused by an accident. Because bad drivers shouldn't be allowed. So there couldn't have been an accident. See? Makes perfect sense.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[AK Marc]

They won't be ready to take over when the car says 'fuck it, I'm out'.

Sure they will. Have the car, when it reaches that point, pull over in a safe and legal spot, and notify the driver that they have an unlimited time in a safe environment to decide how to proceed.

The 100% automated driver problem requires strong AI. Just recognizing the class 'objects that are children's toys' is beyond computerized visual recognition today.

You assert that, but I don't believe it to be true. You don't need 100% to be better than the "average" driver. Heck, 10% would probably be better than most.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[pjbgravely]

How can a head check result in you rear-ending another car?. The only way I see is if someone is not following the car in front at the legal 2 seconds or the recommended 3 to 4 seconds. I doubt this happens to tailgaters because I never see them driving using mirrors or head checking, just plow their own hole through.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell it to the FAA. ... Yes I'm aware that pilots can and do catch a nap while cruising. There is no part of driving that is analogous to cruising an airplane. Rural highway travel is close.

Around here rural highways (at dawn/dusk) have deer and after dark they have drunks.

Since a very large portion of accidents are caused by impaired drivers, why does the govt keep spending my money trying to improve cars?

captcha = unguided (it's eerie sometimes!)

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say near misses, he said avoiding even the potential of a near miss.

IE: "I didn't even bother head checking and trying to merge lanes, because the light was on"

It wasnt: "I tried to swerve then noticed the light"

Fuck, reading comprehension. Try some.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Urza9814]

"I want EVERYBODY ELSE to have this feature. But not me. Because unlike them, I'm a *good* driver!"

I mean I know how you feel...but as long as they can be overridden when they're wrong, I see no problem. Good drivers won't even notice them, because they won't trigger them. Shitty drivers will be prevented from harming everybody else. You car will get marginally more expensive, but that's gonna happen anyway.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Urza9814]

The car should slow down significantly if it sees a soccer ball in the middle of the road -- some kid might be about to come running after it.

But it would be pretty damn annoying if the car comes to a complete stop every single time it sees a plastic bag drifting across the lanes.

For that matter, can the car even tell the difference between a plastic bag (which it can probably run right over) and a bowling ball (which it probably shouldn't)? Computer vision isn't going to be able to determine density. Even humans are pretty awful at that.

I believe these are the kinds of situations the GP was referring to.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[hb253]

There is no such thing as a blind spot if you adjust your mirrors properly.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[hb253]

Please rip up your license and sell any vehicles you own. You should not be driving.

Re: Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat a dick. Right now.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[AK Marc]

Then develop ultrasonic sonar to get density reflections from items in the way. Even if it's a plastic bag, there's a reasonable chance that a person was initially near it when it became loose, so someone may dash out after it. But a squirrel would be unlikely to have a person dash out after it. At least you recognize that humans are bad at it as well. The bar for a computer to reach to be better than the "average" person is pretty low. A bowling ball may cause damage if hit, but would be unlikely to cause secondary damage (not likely to cause a crash), so hitting it would be unlikely to be catastrophic.

You don't need to "slow" for a soccer ball. You need to be able to stop before it, if a person arrives. So vehicle positioning to ensure better visibility (driving towards the middle of the road) may help as much or more than slowing, at least initially, then, as the ball gets closer, slow while passing it. Perhaps a warning horn as they get close, in case someone were running after it. The distance from the ball matters. The longer away you are, the more likely that a runner will not emerge as you get there. Most people who run out after a ball do so almost immediately after it runs free. There are a lot of little "rules" like that which would need to be programmed in, or learned. If these are AI driven, they could share and one car's experiences could train the others, rather than the current system where a single driver encounters something, and it doesn't teach them anything, nor anyone else learning from that event. Perhaps non-human learning. Perhaps something like: measured vertical movement greater than 10% indicates a high likelihood of a person following it, or something like that (being a bouncing ball is more likely to be followed, and a rolling ball is not. The trick is self-learning. But AI isn't needed for that. Events could be sent back home and examined by a human before incorporation into the rules.

I'm not confident we'll ever build AI. We can't even model our own thought processes. So how can we program something to mimic us? The human brain always makes a decision, even when the answer isn't known. We haven't yet modeled a good way to make wrong decisions we know to be wrong because the "right" decision can't be determined, but people do that all the time (manifesting most commonly in in what's termed "choose the devil you know").

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[LinuxIsGarbage]

I just buy the little convex mirrors and stick them on my side mirrors. This way I can see anything to either side of me no matter where they are. I primarily got them for towing my boat but they work great for everyday driving.

My car came with convex mirrors since I didn't opt for the expensive Blind Sport Information System. I think they're great.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Bugamn]

How do you know?

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had the pleasure of renting a vehicle with the rear cross-traffic alert. I hadn't noticed a vehicle moving behind me in a crowded parking lot... the system beeped like crazy, made me hit the brakes right away without any real prompting otherwise. Stuff like that is something I'll definitely have in my next vehicle.

"I hadn't noticed." == "I decided not to be deliberate and slow enough to ensure that I noticed...."

I don't care how busy and crowded a parking lot is -- if you are sincerely telling us that without a camera/sensor system on your car you would've backed right into another vehicle moving perpendicularly behind you, then you have no business behind the wheel of a car on public roads. Take a defensive driving class some time. If you are backing out of a spot in a place where you know other vehicles may be present - such as, say, a crowded parking lot - then you should spend every second that you're in reverse assuming that another vehicle or pedestrian is about to cross right behind you, and therefore continuously monitoring your environment. Eternal vigilance is the proper approach to driving, not technologically-induced indolence.

Moderators are insane -- How is the parent comment "flamebait"? Grandparent post offers an anecdote that supposedly establishes the utility of a new piece of technology to protect someone from making a mistake. Parent comment then says that the problem is with making an easily avoidable mistake in the first place, and gives the proper approach to the GP's anecdote. It's entirely on-topic and a direct response. Argumentation is not automatically flaming.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

We could save way more lives by installing systems that kill the ignition for 10 minutes when it notices the driver is texting.

Another way to save lives would be a speed text test, where you need to respond in 10 seconds or the car won't start. This would prevent most drunk driving accidents.

We will save way more lives when everybody is driving in a robot car. There will be spectacular failures, hacked cars, and government intrusions, but trusting a 16 year old who is driving at 90 on the freeway not to crash into me is probably the riskiest thing I do. When they slide in between two cars that allows a 3 foot gap at 80, you know they are destined for greatness.

Re:Liking my old cars more and more.

[HornWumpus]

He didn't say 'near misses' except where he did.

Before you get to reading comprehension you need to actually read; moron.

security?

[gtall]

Unless they also mandate good levels of security for these systems, it will end in tears.

Re:security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Imagine sending phony V2V signals that a car is right in front of yours. Hilarity will ensue, guaranteed.

Re:security?

[prettything]

robopocalypse.

Re:security?

[Anonymous Coward]

like the story says with all the other devices they are using or forcing down everyone's throats. to me this seems like another attempt to have control over the populace. while I am sure this would be beneficial in saving lives, like most will be saying on /. its the potential abuse from government and hackers. and considering how terrible the US and its companies are at ignoring security, I would agree this is only going to end in tears

Re:security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunted without mercy the great metallic herds were nearing extinction.

Re:security?

[gmuslera]

All the opposite, they will be required to have backdoors, and security, as with most embedded things, will be a long posponed priority (even 0day fixes will have to pass the NSA approval to get applied, or wait till get widely enough exploited). And you cellphone will be a vector to cause massive "accidents" if the car don't connect by itself to internet.

Re:security?

[mmell]

The only secure computing system is one which has had all power and I/O removed - oh, and storage wiped to prevent unauthorized access. Anything short of that and eventually Anonymous will be doing the driving. Now, if some form of organic computer could be devised, one with robust self-maintenance and internalized power management. Maybe something that can handle video and audio inputs, perhaps even other inputs I haven't named yet. A computer so sophisticated that it's still impossible to accurately measure the total computing power of the platform, a computer capable of participating in the construction of its successor system(s). Yeah, that's the computer for me!

Re:security?

[Chalnoth]

Actually, I'm not so sure it's a huge problem. Even with a good amount of security work, I bet dedicated hackers will be able to find holes. Either way, having a way to alert drivers about nearby cars will almost certainly save far, far more lives than the relatively tiny number of malicious hackers that would seek to panic drivers by feeding them false information.

Re:security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, or you could send a signal to cars that another car is quite close to the front of theirs traveling at the posted speed limit to keep people from speeding down your street. Sometimes the posted speed limit is set for a reason and the people who speed aren't the ones that have to pull out of driveways and live with the noise.

Re:security?

[Anonymous Coward]

A computer so sophisticated it's still impossible to set a process to top priority and be sure it will stay there.

Re:security?

[mmell]

Not so. I've reniced SEX to 20 and it stays at the very TOP of my 'top'. Granted, it eats a TON of CPU and the RAM, well...it's worth it.

Re:security?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought all cars were already equipped with this computing system. It comes standard for them to operate.

Re:security?

[timeOday]

If brake lights and turn signals had originally been proposed on slashdot, somebody would have complained that they're a horrible idea because they could be turned on at the wrong time thus creating total chaos. All the traffic hacker needs to do is press the hazard light button on his steering column! To say nothing of automated street lights -what if somebody re-wires them to be green both ways, HMMMM, didja think of that?! We'd better just stick with 4-way stop signs.

Ummmm ...

[gstoddart]

some not-so-distant driving dystopia.

It's not going to be just a driving dystopia ... we're hurtling towards the worst form of Cyberpunk dystopian future in all aspects of our lives.

Pervasive spying, lack of privacy, and everything around you is reporting what you do to advertisers who then 'own' the data about your life.

It's far far more than just cars.

Re:Ummmm ...

[Third Position]

Yeah, but how do you get out of that situation? If the technology is available, somebody is going to use it. Your only recourse is to pass laws that restrict the use of the technology. But the laws, of course, are enforced by the government. And guess who's even more curious about you, and more likely to abuse that information, than any advertiser?

Re:Ummmm ...

[Chalnoth]

What privacy concerns do you think are relevant for short-range communication of speed, location, and potentially dimensions? I mean, these are things that are effectively available by looking at the car.

Re:Ummmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

and soon to be relayable from car to car to car to police receiver. Speed, location, and vin... I see speeding tickets galore.

Dynamics

[StripedCow]

If each vehicle just acts as a "bubble" with fixed radius, and each vehicle can brake such that its bubble cannot completely compress, then in principle no collisions can occur.

Re:Dynamics

[ReverendLoki]

Until someone sends every car a rogue "Look out you're about to crash!" signal, and every car hits the brakes as hard as they can. Then you get to find who has sub-par brakes, and who doesn't have a smart vehicle yet (or maybe who circumvented it).

Would emergency vehicles have this as well? I can see not implementing it in police vehicles (might need to ram, or otherwise contact another vehicle in the course of duty), or Fire or EMS vehicle. They would then be susceptible to this sort of thing (when the car in front gets the rogue signal, not them).

Re:Dynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

... then in principle no collisions can occur.

And those kids on their scooters deserve what they get for not squawking on the right frequency.

Re:Dynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

True.

But you will only get about half the number of vehicles on the roads...

Rush hour never ends...

Re:Dynamics

[Wycliffe]

Great in theory but that bubble is extremely large. At 60 miles per hour the safe stopping distance is over 300 feet. I've
never been on a busy highway where cars are spaced at least 300 feet apart. And even if you do solve that problem
you still haven't solved lane changes or even worse oncoming traffic where you pass within a few feet of each other at a
combined speed of over 120 miles per hour. That's one of the reasons planes are so much safer than cars. There are
far fewer of them and they can separate themselves both vertically and horizontally by thousands of feet.

Re:Dynamics

[PRMan]

That's human reaction time. A computer could stop in probably about 200 feet. But still your point is well-made.

Re:Dynamics

[jader3rd]

If each vehicle just acts as a "bubble" with fixed radius, and each vehicle can brake such that its bubble cannot completely compress, then in principle no collisions can occur.

That's only true if no vehicle has an interest in lying about itself in the system. The principle only works if you trust the information you receive from the other participants in the radius.

Re:Dynamics

[NatasRevol]

Yeah, only if they plan to be able to have long range communication rather than short range communication. I still can't get 4G at my house, 2 miles from a national interstate. I'm not worried about their long range communications.

Re:Dynamics

[mmell]

Like back in the seventies - L.A.P.D. got a fleet of fifty brand new vehicles, I forget which model of Ford they were. First cop to catch a speeder in one of the new souped up cruisers stomps the gas, accelerates almost instantly to the vehicles maximum governed speed of 55mph, and watches his quota for the month go bye-bye. But the officer was safe at all times, the vehicle prevented him from placing himself in unnecessary danger by enforcing his compliance with the very laws he was supposed to be enforcing. That's good, right?

Re:Dynamics

[Ichijo]

Until someone sends every car a rogue "Look out you're about to crash!" signal, and every car hits the brakes as hard as they can. Then you get to find who has sub-par brakes...

It's perfectly safe to drive with sub-par brakes if you don't tailgate. Remember: Tailgating is the practice of driving on a road too close to a frontward vehicle, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible. That means if you crash into the car in front, you were, by definition, tailgating.

Therefore, that "you're about to crash" signal will not tell you who has sub-par brakes, It will tell you who's tailgating.

Re:Dynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

If each vehicle just acts as a "bubble" with fixed radius, and each vehicle can brake such that its bubble cannot completely compress, then in principle no collisions can occur.

So, you start by assuming a spherical car?

Re:Dynamics

[JoeMerchant]

This is assuming some kind of perfect positioning system - if you take a hard look at GPS reliability, you won't want it to be responsible for your life-safety.

Re:Dynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

You also have to factor in the components. A brand new cars stopping distance is considerably different as it ages. that same car after 3 years will have a different stopping distance due to brakes wearing down. if not properly maintained the distance could be almost 25% further then what the computer is programed for, resulting in your front bumper now being where the back seat of the car in front of you. but the system worked like it should it applied the breaks at the correct time "to avoid: the collision.

These systems are great for the first week of the life of a car but until we can get components that do not wear down (never going to happen, this will cut the automotive profits far too much to make it worth while) we will never see this working at 100% all the time.

Re:Dynamics

[schlachter]

I would say so. Assuming you're trying to optimize for public safety.

Re:Dynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

Great in theory but that bubble is extremely large. At 60 miles per hour the safe stopping distance is over 300 feet. I've
never been on a busy highway where cars are spaced at least 300 feet apart.

You do realize that the car in front to you also moving right? You won't actually have to come to a stop in the distance between you and the car in front of you because the car in front of you will have to decelerate over time as well. All you need is a distance to cover the reaction time delay and a buffer to allow for different efficiencies in your breaks.

Re:Dynamics

[HornWumpus]

What? Unless your brake pads are worn past the squealers they should work as well as ever. Not like the pad material changes as you wear it away.

Grooved or warped disks are a problem. 3 years might or might not need a front brake job. Should be inspected.

Re:Dynamics

[Wycliffe]

Yes, that helps. Your reaction time is about half of that distance and stopping time is the other half so if you stop at the
same rate as the car in front of you then you "only" need 150 feet between every car. Now if you use a computer and
eliminate the reaction time as well then you could in theory eliminate rear-end collisions but because of the same reason
you stated rear-end collisions are alot less dangerous than many other types of collisions that would be harder to
eliminate.

Re:Dynamics

[zippthorne]

If you can stop in 300 ft, you don't need to be 300 ft from the car in front of you unless one scenario you're envisioning is the car in front of you suddenly hitting an unexpected wall.

When did slashdot become a conspiracy site?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is a great idea. For all the articles about self-driving cars, this is obviously the first step to make this happen. It's much easier and more reliable than object detection. My only concern would be security lest some hacker starts blasting bad telemetry data.

Re:When did slashdot become a conspiracy site?

[bobbied]

I think this is a great idea. For all the articles about self-driving cars, this is obviously the first step to make this happen. It's much easier and more reliable than object detection. My only concern would be security lest some hacker starts blasting bad telemetry data.

Queue hackers in 3.... 2.... 1....

Seriously, they *will* be out there blasting bad telemetry, either on purpose (by hacking) or by malfunction. You can count on that. So everybody will have to take any information gleaned from such sources with a huge grain of salt unless it can be independently verified.

Re: When did slashdot become a conspiracy site?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you want the hackers to form a line? Oh, wait, you want to *cue* them?

Re:When did slashdot become a conspiracy site?

[NatasRevol]

Not any different than someone putting sugar or a ping pong ball in your gas tank. Or even throwing rocks at gars.

It's all short range communication, so application is limited.

Re:When did slashdot become a conspiracy site?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even throwing rocks at gars.

I'd think the local Fish and Game Division would be more concerned about this.

Re:When did slashdot become a conspiracy site?

[NatasRevol]

What, you've never heard of a gar-car?!?!?

Re:When did slashdot become a conspiracy site?

[hacker]

"It's all short range communication, so application is limited."

Really? How "short" is the range of GPS these days? Looks like about 12,551.7 miles.

Galactically, that's probably "short", but there is nothing about this that is "short range" at all. GPS capability + what essentially amounts to a huge, roadway-phased mesh network, and you're talking about miles to dozens of miles of coverage between "endpoints".

Not a good idea

[smooth wombat]

This will prevent people from driving at a high rate of speed in the left lane, slamming on the brakes and swerving into the right lane just so they don't have to wait in line like everyone else or because they wanted to get one car ahead.

This will never fly because it's everyone's right to drive like they want.

P.S. I am completely and unequivocally opposed to this nonsensical crap being mandated for cars. If you can't pay attention to where you're driving, you shouldn't be driving. We need to stop coddling people and let them find out the hard way why rules of the road and safe driving methods exist.

Re:Not a good idea

[Merk42]

This will prevent people from driving at a high rate of speed in the left lane, slamming on the brakes and swerving into the right lane just so they don't have to wait in line like everyone else or because they wanted to get one car ahead.

This will never fly because it's everyone's right to drive like they want.

If I want to drive on the sidewalk, it's my right!

P.S. I am completely and unequivocally opposed to this nonsensical crap being mandated for cars. If you can't pay attention to where you're driving, you shouldn't be driving. We need to stop coddling people and let them find out the hard way why rules of the road and safe driving methods exist.

That implies the only ones getting harmed from unsafe drivers are the unsafe drivers themselves.



Not saying I'm in favor of this either though.

Re:Not a good idea

[gstoddart]

We need to stop coddling people and let them find out the hard way why rules of the road and safe driving methods exist.

So when someone who is obeying the rules of the road gets killed by some idiot who isn't, are you suggesting your right to be a moron extends to the point where you could cause harm to someone else?

Your 'right' to drive how you see fit ends where the potential for you to damage me begins.

Your right of free expression ends at my nose. And your right to drive like an asshole ends at the point where there are other people on the road who could harmed by your stupidity.

You want an unrestricted right to drive that way? Drive on your own damned property. Once you're out on public roads with other people, you do NOT have the right to just drive however you like.

Re:Not a good idea

[jader3rd]

This will never fly because it's everyone's right to drive like they want.

No it's not. We have rules and regulations to increase the probability of safe driving. You only have the right to drive how society dictates how you can drive. Drive outside of what society deems safe; we give you ticket. Keep driving dangerously, we throw you in jail.

Re:Not a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't implement a website... Why the crap do we think letting them come up with the standards that "keep us safe from ourselves" while driving is a smoking hot idea.

Re:Not a good idea

[R3d M3rcury]

Your 'right' to drive how you see fit ends where the potential for you to damage me begins.

This is a variation on the phrase coined by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." And it sounds good.

The problem I have with your variation is the word "potential."

To go back to the Holmes quote, I can swing my arms as much as I want until I hit someone's nose. Then we have a problem. In your variation, I can't swing my arms at all because there is potential for me to strike someone else's nose.

Not the same thing.

Re:Not a good idea

[gstoddart]

So, you suggest you can drive dangerously in a school zone, pass illegally, and do all sorts of things ... and until you actually kill someone there's no crime?

Sorry, but the reason we have drivers licenses and laws for drivers is because enough drivers have demonstrated themselves to be incompetent that the default position has to be "you may believe you can do this, but statistics say you can't, and you'll end up killing someone, so before that happens we've made it illegal".

The assertion you should be able to drive however you like right up to the point you actually kill someone is basically saying "waah, but I'm special and can do it safely". And as soon as you get demonstrated to be wrong, someone else ends up dead, and everyone remembers why we had the law in the first place.

Re:Not a good idea

[NoImNotNineVolt]

So when someone who is obeying the rules of the road gets killed by some idiot who isn't, are you suggesting your right to be a moron extends to the point where you could cause harm to someone else?

I thought causing harm to someone else was already prohibited under existing law.

Your 'right' to drive how you see fit ends where the potential for you to damage me begins.

So, basically, nobody should have the right to get out of bed in the morning? At the very least, nobody should have the right to put their cars in gear, since that inarguably creates the potential for you to be damaged. Or are you suggesting that the law ought to be overly draconian and its selective enforcement and application be left to law enforcement and the courts?

Re:Not a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Your 'right' to drive how you see fit ends where the potential for you to damage me begins.

So, basically, nobody should have the right to get out of bed in the morning? At the very least, nobody should have the right to put their cars in gear, since that inarguably creates the potential for you to be damaged. Or are you suggesting that the law ought to be overly draconian and its selective enforcement and application be left to law enforcement and the courts?

Oh man, that's a good point. If only... if only there was room for a middle ground. Somewhere between "people can just do whatever the hell they want regardless of how dangerous it is" and "people should have every action controlled for their entire life to ensure they all conform to standards intended to keep anyone from ever harming another". Some sort of... gray area, we could call it? But, no, you're right, we exist in a world of absolutes where every slight change to the status quo, no matter how well-meaning, will always send us down a slippery slope to the most extreme situation possible. Welp, better get back to nothing ever changing ever again. I'm so glad we managed to find the only possible stable central point, which is why society has been exactly as it is now forever and always will be.

Re:Not a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what we need to worry about is when a corrupt government uses V2V technology to do things outside the scope of the law. You know, like making it difficult to drive for political dissidents. Or perhaps to annoy people who didn't vote for your boss by creating traffic jams.

Re:Not a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Last night in Lumberton, Texas a crazy woman driving a 2012 red Camaro was clocked at speeds in excess of 150 miles per hour north of the city.
DPS tried to pursue but could not and aborted. They radioed ahead and in Lumberton proper another DPS trooper clocked her at 121 miles per hour.
He too tried to pursue but could not catch up and aborted. Minutes later the Camaro rear ended a small car with a mother, her 20 year old daughter that was 7 months pregnant and her 15 year old daughter who was driving on her learners permit. The two daughters died as did the unborn child. The mother is in critical condition and is expected to recover. The driver of the Camaro is in the hospital with minor, non life threatening injuries and is expected to be released tomorrow.

Police are planning on the very least to charge her with three counts of negligent manslaughter. Depending on how her blood test comes back that could be changed to vehicular homicide. She has a DWI conviction in her past though they don’t think she was drinking THIS TIME. However prescription pill bottles were found in the car so it’s very likely she was DWI on pills.

I hope she spends the rest of her life in prison. She murdered three people. There is no excuse.

In this case I wish there had been some sort of way to remotely shut that car down the first time she was spotted.
There is NEVER, EVER any legitimate reason to drive 150 miles per hour.

There is no legitimate reason to make and sell cars to the public with 600 horsepower motors that can drive speeds that are dangerous even on a racetrack with a professional at the wheel.

I don’t think V2V could have helped in a case like this because the car that was hit was driving 40mph and the other car was driving at least 120mph. At that speed things happen too fast even for a computer to compensate. But remote shutdown certainly could have saved three lives in this case.

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/24625047/fatal-crash-in-lumberton

Re:Not a good idea

[R3d M3rcury]

Actually, my issue was more with the bastardization of Oliver Wendell Holmes' quote. The argument behind the quote is that you can do whatever you want until you affect other people. Like I said, adding in "potential" means that if something might happen, it needs to be treated as if it will happen and, therefore, must be outlawed.

So, you suggest you can drive dangerously in a school zone, pass illegally, and do all sorts of things ... and until you actually kill someone there's no crime?

I suppose that's what ol' Olly was suggesting. And it's an intriguing concept.

Consider the state of our freeways today. People speed. People send text messages. People talk on their phones. All of these things are illegal. And yet, they're still done. And when there's an accident, we just sort of tsk tsk tsk it away.

Perhaps trying to enforce preventative laws--actions that may cause a problem--is a waste. Perhaps we should make the consequences more severe.

My roommate used to be a truck driver. She had a California Class A professional driver license. Now, here in California, if you have a Class A license, any traffic fine is immediately doubled. It doesn't matter if you are driving in a professional or personal capacity. The theory being that as a professional driver, you should know better. The result: My roommate drove the speed limit. She was a very cautious driver when she got behind the wheel because the consequences of a mistake were quite severe. When she stopped driving trucks (she quit because of the stress) and went back to a typical Class C license, she relearned all of her bad habits--she speeds around other drivers who annoy her and talks on her cellphone while driving (though, in her defense, she only answers calls.)

Re:Not a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you're out on public roads with other people, you do NOT have the right to just drive however you like.

Sounds like you need to stay home and hide under your bed.

Government run amok.

[Anonymous Coward]

At what cost? The ever increasing demands that government is making on our automobile manufacturers is raising the cost of automobiles beyond what the average Joe Six Pack can afford to buy brand new. It also adds immense complexity rendering the vehicles essentially impossible to repair yourself and it also raises the bar for new companies to bring competing vehicles to market. What about trucks and motorcycles? What about front end loaders and classic cars? Government needs to stop meddling. They're much, much more harm than good. I think they have a little too much time on their hands, and if that's the case, I think we need to send a few of them home.

Re:Government run amok.

[mmell]

I am Joe Sixpack and I've never been able to afford a brand-new car in my life. In fact, I only know a few people who have ever even owned a new car. Used cars in excellent condition, sure. New cars? Yeah, someday when I'm rich and famous.

Re:Government run amok.

[HornWumpus]

New car buyers aren't richer, they are dumber and due to their dumbness, poorer.

Re:Government run amok.

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. You can literally chart's someone's IQ by seeing how much money they have in the bank. It's that simple. I think I saw something in Time the other day, saying how no stupid person has ever been rich ever, and no smart person has ever been poor, and also that smart people always make the best possible decisions, especially when they have lots of disposable income (which, as noted, they all do).

Re:Government run amok.

[HornWumpus]

Fuckwit. Read what I posted you moron.

Re:Government run amok.

[Anonymous Coward]

I did. you said:

New car buyers aren't richer, they are dumber and due to their dumbness, poorer.

So, what can we learn from what you've said? Well, three main points:

• New car buyers are not rich (ie poor).
• New car buyers are dumber. (We will assume this is a comparative statement comparing them to used car buyers; I'll expand on this below).
• Being dumber causes people to be poorer.

From these statements, we can say that rich people must be rich because they are smart. (Rich people cannot be dumb, because if they were dumb, they would be poor). Likewise, a similar relationship exists between the types of car people buy and their intelligence level; new car purchasers are of low intellect, while used car purchasers (or possibly those who do not buy cars, although due to the nature of the conversation I'm going to limit this to car buyers as mentioned above) are of high intellect.

I will, as an aside, admit I am guilty here of assuming unproven logical opposites. For example, while you have stated that dumb people become poorer due to being dumb, you haven't strictly stated that smart people become richer due to their intellect; they could also be poor. However, as you did use the comparative term "poorer" rather than the absolute term "poor", I have chosen to interpret this as directly separating the two; that is, saying that dumb people are poorer than smart people. There are of course other interpretations, but I am accounting for your brevity on this matter. The rest of this post follows that conceit.

Now, it is possible that this works on absolutes; that is, that we say people above X income are "rich" and people below X income are poor, while people above Y IQ are smart and those below Y IQ are dumb. (Note that "IQ" in this context doesn't literally have to mean the results of a standard IQ test, but can be considered shorthand for whatever method of testing intellectual level you prefer.) We'll call these X+, X-, Y+ and Y-. By your reasoning, we would then say that X+ is equivalent to Y+, and X- is equivalent to Y-. We should also add Z+ (people who buy used cars) and Z- (people who buy new cars), creating two groups, which for shorthand we'll call XYZ+, and XYZ-. In this case, my initial statement in the previous post is not accurate, as you cannot accurately chart someone's IQ precisely based on how much money they have; you can only note that their income is above or below Y, and from that deduce if their IQ is X+ or X-. Note that, in this scenario, the rest of my post still applies; I am fairly sure I read it all in Time the other day.

On the other hand, if we take a more nuanced approach, we can instead assume gradients of each value. After all, we can certainly see that certain people can be smarter than other people even if, taken in isolation, we would consider those other people to be smart. Likewise there are degrees of richness/poorness. (I will grant you that whether a car is new or used when purchased appears to be an absolute, but this does not impact the reasoning to follow.) This case seems to better fit your original statement; after all, you did not say "New car buyers aren't rich, they are dumb and due to their dumbness, poor", you used comparative statements. These people are dumber, and as such poorer. This suggests that the more dumb they are, the more poor they are and, by extrapolation, the richer they are, the smarter they are. Now obviously using this to measure IQ would require some calibration, as well as modification over time based on changes in the value of currency, but it could certainly be a useful way of measuring intelligence without all that messy business of testing people; simply state how much wealth you have accrued, and get an accurate reading out. Or, alternatively, state what type of car you purchased for a broad estimate. In this case, my post appears to stand to scrutiny. Unless I'm wrong about that Time article, but I did only say I thought I saw it, and that's true whether or not the article actually exists.

tl;dr version - I read what you said, and you seem like the kind of guy who buys a new car.

The gov't requirement would be a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

This would speed up the arrival of mainstream self-driving vehicles by making it easier for AI-controlled vehicles to react to human drivers.

Re:The gov't requirement would be a good thing.

[bobbied]

This would speed up the arrival of mainstream self-driving vehicles by making it easier for AI-controlled vehicles to react to human drivers.

And make it easier for me to tweak your self-driving car which is dependent on such unverified sources of information. I contend that any system that must be safe yet depends on unverified information is likely not as safe as you would expect.

Misinformation Demolition Derby

[Glires]

So all I have to do is alter my car so that it tells the other cars that I am approaching from behind at 120 mph when I'm really only driving 60 mph and the cars in front of me will automatically swerve out of my way! Awesome!

Re:Misinformation Demolition Derby

[number17]

Is this something something that law enforcement, fire trucks, and ambulances could leverage in an emergency? Perhaps it would be used by Presidential convoys, visiting dignitaries and diplomats, or celebrities wanting to drag race.

Re:Misinformation Demolition Derby

[HornWumpus]

You could do that now with a set of cop lights for your roof or grill.

You don't because, choose one: 1) You're not an asshole or 2) You realize it won't be a net time savings, once you include the time in court and picking up trash on the shoulder.

Re:Misinformation Demolition Derby

[CanHasDIY]

You could do that now with a set of cop lights for your roof or grill.

You don't because, choose one: 1) You're not an asshole or 2) You realize it won't be a net time savings, once you include the time in court and picking up trash on the shoulder.

FYI, the crime of "impersonating a police officer" carries a far stiffer penalty than a few hours of community service.

Re:Misinformation Demolition Derby

[HornWumpus]

Around here the jails are overfull. You can more or less assume you won't spend long in jail for non-violent offenses.

FYI the restrictions on colors of lights is for 'emergency vehicles' only. Tow trucks (or any car) can have flashing lights, just not red and blue ones.

Red and blue (IIRC) lights is not impersonating a police officer. It's impersonating an emergency vehicle.

In any case nobody games the system, because it makes no sense. How big a problem are bootleg strobe light traffic light changers?

Re:Misinformation Demolition Derby

[CanHasDIY]

It's all a matter of what the arresting officer chooses to charge you with - I can imagine the general consensus among LEOs is that nobody impersonates an ambulance.

Re:Misinformation Demolition Derby

[HornWumpus]

What matters is what the DA charges you with. Cops don't file charges.

Re:Misinformation Demolition Derby

[CanHasDIY]

What matters is what the DA charges you with. Cops don't file charges.

They arrest you for stuff; in order to arrest you, they must charge you with a crime.

You're conflating charged with prosecuted.

Re:Misinformation Demolition Derby

[HornWumpus]

Cops arrest you and write reports, on that report is listed laws the cop thinks you broke; DA's file charges, not always the ones the cops wrote up.

Re:Misinformation Demolition Derby

[CanHasDIY]

Seems a pedantic difference to me, at least in reference to this particular conversation.

Re:security? THIS! IS! DETROIT!!!

[Chas]

Security. HEH!

Nonono. These systems are going to be minimally guarded (if at all). Simply because putting in a secure system is pretty much beyond these people.

I can see someone breaking into these systems with minimal effort and causing accidents pretty much at will.

I can see brisk business in after-market spygear removal packages...

If they can...

[Anonymous Coward]

If car can communicate, then the government can and WILL track you everywhere you go.

Re:If they can...

[bobbied]

If car can communicate, then the government can and WILL track you everywhere you go.

So you are turning off and removing the battery from your Cell Phone? No? And you are worried about your CAR?

They ALREADY can track you, even with out a warrant. It's called a stakeout and tailing somebody. They can watch you in public, any time they wish, no warrant required.

Re:If they can...

[rlwhite]

They already do. You don't think they use that GPS on your phone? A state DOT official told me he uses it to plan and prioritize roadwork. The state DOT buys it anonymized from various companies in monthly batches. If the DOT can do that, you can imagine what they let law enforcement do. We recently had a convict escape a mental health facility, and they located and caught him in another state via his cellphone GPS. Again, a legitimate use in that instance, but as you say, if they can do it to you they will.

Re:If they can...

[Anonymous Coward]

They ALREADY can track you, even with out a warrant. It's called a stakeout and tailing somebody. They can watch you in public, any time they wish, no warrant required.

But can they do that to hundreds, thousands of people, or to EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME, and have the data stored FOREVER in a mineable database??

THAT is what people don't like about cameras everywhere- not that fact that they might ::gasp:: be seen in public, but that their public actions might be recorded and stored forever.
THAT is what people don't like about auto-scanning of license plates- not that they (well, their car) might be known to be in a certain place. But that they (their car) can be tracked at all times and the data stored forever.

Re:If they can...

[hacker]

"So you are turning off and removing the battery from your Cell Phone? No?"

Pretty soon, that won't matter either, with MIT developing wireless radios that rely on nothing other than power from the wireless signals floating all around us. That's why I use a Faraday Bag to put my devices in when I am not actively using them.

"And you are worried about your CAR?"

There, FTFY.

It's still my car. If I want my car's exact speed, location, route and destination being sent to anonymous, random strangers sharing the public roadway with me, I'll be the one who authorizes that data being sent outbound, thank you very much.

"They ALREADY can track you, even with out a warrant. It's called a stakeout and tailing somebody. They can watch you in public, any time they wish, no warrant required."

The major difference here, is that we can track them as well, and they aren't allowed to continue to track you, follow you onto private property without a warrant. They're also not allowed to illegally attach GPS devices to your vehicle, but they're doing that anyway too.

See the problem here?

"has shifted to causing crashes" -- FTFY

[Gaygirlie]

While the general goal is noteworthy, the obvious problem here is that the security will be just as lack-luster as all the other car-related tech, ie. it'll be broken pretty fast and then it'll spread everywhere. And you won't be able to disable this V2V, either. Then it's just a matter of terrorists/kiddies/bored/plain, old evil people installing black boxes on the sides of the roads or whatever that send false V2V-messages, causing all sorts of hickups, stalling traffic, causing accidents and so on. And then *that* will be used as an excuse for even more regulation, monitoring and even less privacy.

Not Necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

I communicate with other vehicles all the time. One finger for negative, and sometimes, five fingers for positive.

Security not required

[Okian Warrior]

Take note that the government isn't requiring the communication be secure from hacking, spoofing, or eavesdropping.

I can see this as another police tactic, where they can force your car to stop by spoofing that it's about to be rammed from all directions by other cars.

Of course, this presents a wide range of hilarious opportunities for hackers!

Re:Security not required

[TWiTfan]

You law enforcement agencies won't need to hack your system, citizen. Agents of all local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies will be free to disable any automobiles(s) participating, or anticipated to participate, in any and all illegal or unauthorized activities--such as fleeing police, traveling to commit a potential crime, traveling to or from an unauthorized protest or meeting, or attempting to enter an unauthorized or unsanctioned area. Thank you for your cooperation.

Re:Security not required

[mmell]

I.e., every privately owned automobile on the street just became a "Bait Car". Officer O'mally just flips this little old chromium switch here . . .

Re:Security not required

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that police car's, Official vehicles and political officials will be exempt from having this feature. (oh and entire states and anyone who contributes enough to the "correct" political party's electoral fund like Obama-dosn't-care)

Re:Security not required

[Anonymous Coward]

Take note that the government isn't requiring the communication be secure from hacking, spoofing, or eavesdropping.

I can see this as another police tactic, where they can force your car to stop by spoofing that it's about to be rammed from all directions by other cars.

Of course, this presents a wide range of hilarious opportunities for hackers!

Where did you get that? What kind of idiot would even suggest that they aren't requiring ANY security? Your bullshit is beyond FUD, yet somehow it's +5 Interesting because this is /. and you called da gubmint stupid.

Look Who's Talking Now

[SuperKendall]

The future is apparently bridges that ask how fast cars are going so speeding tickets can be automatically issued.

Sounds awesome - for those of us that have the technical ability to disable the chatter.

Re:Look Who's Talking Now

[ducomputergeek]

Here locally we had a judge who actually tossed out every single red-light camera ticket if you went before him and requested to face your accuser. The city promptly changed the law making running a red light a civil infraction (fine).

Re:Look Who's Talking Now

[bigpat]

At this point state and local police are likely just figuring out that as we move to autonomous cars then that will likely eliminate speeding tickets unless people override their own systems. This is a fairly significant revenue stream that is threatened. Of course tens of thousands of lives might be saved every year if cars are crashing less, but some bean counters aren't going to see it that way and there is going to be push back to still keep drivers in control and legally responsible even though the computer is doing the driving.

Re:Look Who's Talking Now

[awtbfb]

In many US States, the local Departments of Transportation want nothing to do with enforcement actions. They will let the police/town/etc install red light cameras, but they don't want to be involved beyond that. In fact many red light cameras are operated by private companies under contract with local municipalities.

Here's an example of why DOTs don't want to be involved in enforcement. A while back some politician in New Jersey, not part of the local DOT, floated the idea of using EZPass toll data to automatically issue speeding tickets. This was almost certainly a money grab. Massive amounts of drivers started asking how to get rid of their EZPass accounts and turn in their transponders. DOT knew lower market penetration would negatively impact congestion at toll booths. They, thankfully, squashed the idea quickly.

Re:Look Who's Talking Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an example of why DOTs don't want to be involved in enforcement. A while back some politician in New Jersey, not part of the local DOT, floated the idea of using EZPass toll data to automatically issue speeding tickets. This was almost certainly a money grab. Massive amounts of drivers started asking how to get rid of their EZPass accounts and turn in their transponders. DOT knew lower market penetration would negatively impact congestion at toll booths. They, thankfully, squashed the idea quickly.

That is easy to fix. Here in Virginia, the tolls are almost double if you are not using an E-Zpass transponder.

Driving Utopia

[rsmith-mac]

Combine this with remote kill-switches or pulse guns, Amber-alert scrolling signs, proliferating cameras, automatic plate recognition and unstoppable text messages from on high for some not-so-distant driving dystopia.

Or you could combine this with smarter power grids, EV technology, improved image recognition, and automated driver technology for some not-so-distant driving utopia.

Technology isn't good or bad. It's all about how it's used. This is just as much the technology that can build a utopia as it is a dystopia, but if we always act solely in fear of the dystopia we'll simply be stagnant forever.

Re:Driving Utopia

[bigpat]

As I posted above. I don't think cars reporting their locations is particularly useful for autonomous crash avoidance... Yes if you are using differential gps the resolution is optimally 10 cm which is adequate for crash avoidance, but that isn't going to hold true for all environmental conditions or with unintentional or intentional interference. This needs to be shown to be more effective both in terms of cost and safety than simply relying on the cars own sensors before being accepted as a safety standard.

Yes, absolutely we need autonomous car navigation and driving to reduce the carnage on our roads, but this seems a lot more like a tax collection scheme than something that is for the benefit of moving forward the goal of autonomous cars.

Re:Driving Utopia

[Anonymous Coward]

A driving Utopia would be one where the roads had no pot holes, had a good selection of straightaways and a combination of hair pin and sweeping left hand and right hand turns. you know like the Nuremberg ring.

Re:Driving Utopia

[nurb432]

but if we always act solely in fear of the dystopia we'll simply be stagnant forever.

With how things are progressing into oblivion, some stagnation sounds pretty good right about now.

Re:Driving Utopia

[Anonymous Coward]

Dystopias have happened - utopias have not.

Re:Driving Utopia

[zippthorne]

The problem is the powers that be, when implementing something like a smart power grid, can only imagine it as a centrally-planned "smart" power grid. So instead of distributing pricing information in intervals throughout the day so that you can decide when to run various equipment or charge an electric vehicle, they install meters that turn on your appliances when the power company deems it ok to run.

Firstly, the power company's schedule might not match your own, and secondly, doesn't it seem a bit lopsided to give the power a switch they can use to run your bill up?

"dystopia"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it'll be really dystopic to not be killed by cars.

Frankly, once the technology is ready, the best thing would be to mandate autonomous cars and replace manually operated vehicles completely. Human drivers are notoriously unreliable; they're easily distracted, they're emotionally unstable, and they tend to intoxicate themselves.

Re:"dystopia"

[TWiTfan]

Human drivers are notoriously unreliable

Yeah, they're always doing unreliable things like going to places where their government hasn't authorized them to go.

For now.

Re:"dystopia"

[jeffb (2.718)]

You know, I have no great love for government regulation, but I have even less love for "how much tinfoil can I wrap around my head and still manage to cram it up my backside" paranoia.

At its peak during the 1960s and 1970s, the motor-vehicle death rate in the US topped 50,000 per year. It's come down a bit since then -- but the fatalities per mile have decreased almost fivefold.

Now, perhaps that decrease has come in spite of things like seat-belts (and laws mandating their use), crumple zones, air bags, anti-lock brakes, and so forth. If only Evil Government Regulators had refrained from slapping the Free Market's Invisible Hand, perhaps most of those hundreds of thousands of crash victims would still be alive today -- thrown to safety, no doubt, instead of being trapped by those murderous belts.

But it seems to me that safety regulations have brought us, well, quite a bit more than "a little temporary safety", and I honestly don't see that they've cost me any "essential liberties". These regulations take place on a slope that hasn't proven all that slippery, and the prospect of more regulations frankly does not fill me with dread.

We can build systems that react more quickly and consistently than any human. Every year's technological advances expand the domains in which we can do this. If we can use such systems to prevent unnecessary death and suffering, LET'S GET ON WITH IT.

Re:"dystopia"

[TWiTfan]

I have even less love for "how much tinfoil can I wrap around my head and still manage to cram it up my backside" paranoia.

Yeah, like all those paranoid tinfoil hatters who used to suggest that the NSA was monitoring everyone's phone calls and emails, vacuuming up mass quantities of data on everyone, etc. What nutters those paranoid types are!

Re:"dystopia"

[Anonymous Coward]

>Now, perhaps that decrease has come in spite of things like seat-belts (and laws mandating their use)

Seat belts are only required if the vehicle came with them, however, on this one you're right, they're regulated to be installed. Cars were equipped with them before seat belt legislation and FMVSS required them. They were quite popular towards the date the legislation came into effect. The free market provided them because people like being safe. This is a case of the government claiming the free-market's victory for themselves.

>crumple zones

These are not required. Only making it through crash tests with an appropriate score is required, and depending on the vehicle, even then that's pretty much waived. Consumers wished them and companies put them in by choice.

>air bags

These are also not required. Most every car has them because consumers want them.

>anti-lock brakes

These are also not required. Most every car has them because consumers want them.

Any other things you're not aware of the invisible hand of the free market providing for you? I know, it's invisible, so I understand you can't actually see what it provides for you, but, well, there you go.

Re:"dystopia"

[hacker]

"We can build systems that react more quickly and consistently than any human. Every year's technological advances expand the domains in which we can do this. If we can use such systems to prevent unnecessary death and suffering, LET'S GET ON WITH IT."

Show me the data.

There is absolutely no way in this universe, that this will not be abused.

There's too much hand-wringing possible with this technology. Couple this with the recent "Remote Stop Device" that the EU is mulling over, and you've essentially got real-time tracking of every single car in the participating countries, mapping and plotting movements and vehicles, and auto-citations being sent out to offenders.

Do something you're not supposed to do, or out past curfew? Your vehicle is remotely stopped. "Please stay where you are, while we send an officer to violate your rights further, with an illegal stop, search and invasive roadside interrogation."

No, there's no way this is happening in a benign, olive-branch fashion. I'm not that naive. There's far too much evidence backing me up here, that similar technologies proposed as saving humanity weren't immediately abused when they hit the market/street/public.

Re:"dystopia"

[Anonymous Coward]

But it seems to me that safety regulations have brought us, well, quite a bit more than "a little temporary safety", and I honestly don't see that they've cost me any "essential liberties". .

So, because your imagination cannot "see" how something could be a bad idea therefore
it cannot be a bad idea ?

Words cannot express my contempt for your combination of arrogance, stupidity, and shortsightedness.

I love the way Fox News Radio reported it

[Anonymous Coward]

"Soon, your car might talk to you" Like KITT!

Re:I love the way Fox News Radio reported it

[mmell]

KARR.

Re: security? THIS! IS! DETROIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people look at this and say "hmm, could I cause the car in front of me to have an accident". I look at this and say "hmm, could I make the grandma in front of me get out of the fucking left lane".

The National Driving "System"

[jabberwock]

If you want to drive -- if that's really your thing, your passion, your hobby -- I'm sure there will always be a place you can go and do that.

Societally, I'm glad to have us focusing on improving safety and efficiency of transportation.

Think past the automobile era.

Re:The National Driving "System"

[CanHasDIY]

Societally, I'm glad to have us focusing on improving safety and efficiency of transportation.

Were that the actual goal, why not just mandate that all cars have an auto-pilot function by Year X? Spyware doesn't really fulfill that purpose.

Re:The National Driving "System"

[Anonymous Coward]

How will the nannymobiles get my real car to the autodrome?

Re:The National Driving "System"

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to read/code/hack -- if that's really your thing, your passion, your hobby -- I'm sure there will always be a place you can go and do that.

Societally, I'm glad to have us focusing on improving safety and efficiency of the internet.

Think past the unrestricted internet era.

Would you agree with that statement?

Re:The National Driving "System"

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just skip right to the endgame, and make a national PRT system. The great news is since everything is now on a track that can deliver the power to move the car, no more carbon emissions. (presuming, of course, you have a non-emissive generation capacity)

Re:The National Driving "System"

[HornWumpus]

You can't legally mandate technical breakthroughs.

Otherwise we'd just mandate fusion power.

Most politicians understand this. Granted their are exceptions.

Re:The National Driving "System"

[mmell]

Logan's Run or Fahrenheit 451?

Never mind - I'm changing my name to "Null Reg".

Re:The National Driving "System"

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see why that might be a little cost prohibitive for some people?

Re:The National Driving "System"

[CanHasDIY]

You can't legally mandate technical breakthroughs.

Yet, here we are, discussing such a possibility.

Re:The National Driving "System"

[Anonymous Coward]

The number one thing to improve safety and efficient would be to require much better driving classes and tests. Much of what passes for auto safety today end up being ways to allow drivers to have even less of a clue of anything related to how to properly operate or maintain their vehicle. Not willing to check your tires from time to time? The government will cover up your stupidity -- so what if it costs extra money, adds a small amount of weight, slightly reduces handling, and often doesn't function properly? The government is here to protect you from even the slightest requirements of competency on the road.

Re:The National Driving "System"

[Akaihiryuu]

That makes sense to me. I used to like driving when I was younger...but now it's just a chore. I just want to get to where I'm going. I HATE long drives. If I had a car that drove itself while I did something else, did exactly the speed limit, etc, I would welcome it.

Re:The National Driving "System"

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to drive -- if that's really your thing, your passion, your hobby -- I'm sure there will always be a place you can go and do that.

You mean like what we do with horses? Fuck that! I demand that everyone else accommodate my last-century vehicle on modern highways!

That's what all the luddites in this thread sound like.

Re:The National Driving "System"

[HornWumpus]

As far as I can see, you're the only one who suggested legislating when automated cars will have to work.

Re:The National Driving "System"

[PPH]

Horses were arguably safer. Try driving a horse into the side of a building or t-bone another horse at an intersection. I say we go back to horses.

Massively stupid idea!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to this problem is passive proximity sensors. Cars should be required to have electronics on board which can identify the objects (cars, people, sign posts) surrounding them and provide the information without the assistance of the other vehicles in the process.

The system proposed would be susceptible to hacking. It would cause drivers to become dependent on it being functional, not only in their car, but also in the cars around them and currently there's a big enough problem just getting most drivers to have functional head lights and blinkers. Imagine a highly volatile system like this. People already drive off of bridges because they believe that GPS systems are accurate. This would mean that those people would also be at the mercy of systems being properly maintained by other drivers. Let's also consider the amazing amounts of radio noise that would be produced by this system. Maybe in bo-hunk North Dakota this could work, but what about in lower Manhattan?

Systems designed and developed by the universities and companies for self-driving vehicles already are heading quickly towards being able to navigate all obstacles, not just other cars. The good ones employ active area mapping systems that can identify other vehicles without introducing additional signals such as laser, infrared or sonar noise to the environment.

Isn't it time the people in charge used their brains a little regarding topics as advanced as these?

Really... who the hell thought this up?

It's for your safety, citizen

[TWiTfan]

Your local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies need to monitor your position, speed, and activities at all times in order to ensure your safety. Thank you for your cooperation!

Inevitable. No need for long term tracking though

[Khopesh]

I see this as inevitable, really.

If we want autonomous vehicles to be maximally efficient, this has to happen. They move out of the way for a police officer or for somebody who has to change their route at the last minute and get to an exit from the opposite lane. More importantly, self-driving cars can cluster together. Take India for example; they drive 4-5 cars wide in lanes marked for 3. Highly efficient, but highly unsafe for human operators.

This doesn't have to invade our privacy or be implemented insecurely. If range is limited and details forgotten when they become irrelevant, then we're fine. If cars generate random IDs, there's no way to collate them together over time (well, without existing technology like reading plates or RFID).

V2V

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds sexy.

Vehicle-to-vehicle communication

[Anonymous Coward]

I find 'the finger' works well. heh heh.

Re:Vehicle-to-vehicle communication

[k6mfw]

it's been said when someone in Europe honks a horn it means, "I'm here!" When someone in USA honks a horn it means, "F---- You!"

Getting cut off in traffic

[ai4px]

So, my car won't allow me to get closer than 2 seconds behind the car in front of me. Great. Now what happens when a car wizzed by and cuts in front of me. Does my car suddenly jam on brakes and cause an accident behind me?

Re:Getting cut off in traffic

[PRMan]

My car already does this (radar to not hit the car in front of me while in cruise control) and the only situations I have to worry about now are:

1. Cars in front of me coming to a ridiculously fast stop
2. Getting cut off by an idiot in a space that really isn't big enough.

Re:Getting cut off in traffic

[jader3rd]

So, my car won't allow me to get closer than 2 seconds behind the car in front of me. Great. Now what happens when a car wizzed by and cuts in front of me. Does my car suddenly jam on brakes and cause an accident behind me?

You'll have the id of the person who swerved in front of you in your cars records.

Re:Getting cut off in traffic

[zippthorne]

The second problem happens to me about every 15s on the last half-hour of my commute. The problem is that there are too many cars on too few lanes, and they'd probably have to go double-decker to accommodate everyone with a safe gap. Or start a ring-road bus. Why do I have to go 15 miles into a city and back, with more than 3 transfers and a 1-3 mile walk at the end if I want to use public transportation to traverse 5 miles of ring-road?

Next step - regulated departure time from home?

[Trachman]

Will the next step will be regulated departure time? For the greater good a decision will be made when you can stay and when you can leave your home. We all know that late departure causes drivers to be aggressive and irritated, causes excessive speeding and other unacceptable behavior. Here is how this will work. Drivers will get the allotted time for departure, for example, between 7:30 AM and 7:40 AM. If you are late to start driving at that time your car will notify you to stay in the garage, because of the traffic jam or other traffic hazards your car will be creating. You will have alternative to leave home at the premium tax rate, though. Now that your departure time slot has been assigned and established, your smart home will automatically wake you up at 6:30 AM and monitor your movement to be sure you are on schedule, unless you have applied for a morning sex time with your wife. Unscheduled fornication will automatically raise your healthcare premium due to the higher risk of unsanctioned pregnancy.

FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

"But the laws, of course, are ignored by the government."

Automated driving

[Salgat]

In the context of automated driving this pairs beautifully. The future is very much having computers drive us, it simply is more efficient and much safer. Giving them extra tools to enhance safety is great considering we aren't concerned about being liable for what the computer decides to do (since that is the liability of the manufacturer).

Re:Automated driving

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to believe the insurance companies will be all over this info. Surcharge points for all!

No more bridges or traffic lights!!!

[trout007]

If every car was self driving you could eliminate bridges and traffic lights. You could have full speed ground level crossings where the cars seamlessly weave past each other.

Re:No more bridges or traffic lights!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the part about bridges. How will autonomous cars, networked together, help you get over rivers and expressways? I don't think traffic lights can be eliminated either, as long as there are pedestrians and bicyclists.

Believe it or not, this is a good idea.

[randomuser2]

All of the complexity of current-day cars is driven by the automakers. If this is mandated as a requirement from the government, they won't be permitted to charge us much more than the $100.00 per car it would actually cost them (service parts are 10x manufacturing costs). Think of all of the garbage on current cars right now. I'm particularly fond of the laughable refrigerated cup-holder option, or the tire inflation sensors. Realistically this doesn't have to be integrated to a greater community than a 1/4 mile radius around the vehicle. I would hope even more that there were no user-interface components at all, but rather a warning that around the bend are three stopped cars in the middle of the road... More information is helpful. It just needs to be tailored to suit the situation, and it shouldn't necessarily be shared with the driver unless it is helpful. We already have more than enough distractions behind the wheel.

Re:Believe it or not, this is a good idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be the insurance companies that will want this implemented. Probably offering lower rates and discounts.

They will just need to make it so older cars and bicyclists can use it too.

And since there are thousands of people who die and are injured in crashes each year, it would pay off. You can even look at how much we paid to avenge the deaths of 3,000 people in NYC in one event, then compare it to the 30,000+ that die every year on our roads.

Click Here crictimemax.blogspot.com

[Anonymous Coward]

http://crictimemax.blogspot.com/

Bare hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Technical ability required is hands to rip the fucking coax off the antenna. Advanced users may need a hammer to smash the radio.

Correlative prediction

[Okian Warrior]

When did slashdot become a conspiracy site?

Conspiracy is when you invent an implausible explanation for something. Like aliens or Illuminati or such (Dingoes ate my baby!).

This is more correlative prediction. You know, learning from history and all that.

Or did you really think that

1) The government will mandate security within this protocol
2) The mandates will not be farcical to a casual observer
3) The resulting system will be safety certified
4) Hackers won't present a "proof of concept" way to cause accidents at a black-hat conference
5) The NSA and CIA won't build devices that hack cars in specific ways
6) The police and local government won't use this for tracking and surveilance

Do you really think we'll get all these right... this time?

Re:Correlative prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so

Douglas Adams

Re:Correlative prediction

[hacker]

"Conspiracy is when you invent an implausible explanation for something."

If we've learned anything over the last 4-5 years, it's that those pesky conspiracy-theorist friends we have that we never acknowledge to others, were much closer to "Right" than we had ever dreamed of.

I agree with you. There's absolutely no way this is going to go unabused.
 

I've long thought this should happen...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

... I just didn't expect it to happen so soon. A mesh network is a natural step to take on the path to fully automating roads and all but eliminating the dangers of the road. Naturally the next step would be to mandate cars to participate in the network, to get the best data. I just wasn't predicting it would be in this decade. Mind you, the recent advances in automatic driving without mesh networking has also been surprising, so maybe I should have seen this coming.

I don't know what the submitter is so worried about. This is simply one of the final nails in the coffin of road fatalities.

Re:I've long thought this should happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

and privacy

Re:security? THIS! IS! DETROIT!!!

[PRMan]

Actually, I thought BMW and Hyundai were the ones with problems in this area (BMWs easily stolen and Hyundais with false positives preventing their owners from driving).

so the government picks your job and work hours?

[Joe_Dragon]

so the government picks your job and work hours? under your plan the bosses would not like that or works who can not stay to work OT?

What about people who don't need a car to get to work?

No more bridges?

[Anonymous Coward]

How will we cross rivers with no bridges?

Re:No more bridges?

[trout007]

Jumps.

aren't concerned about being liable no you will be

[Joe_Dragon]

aren't concerned about being liable no you will be on hook on your own as they will try to use fine print to get out of it. Ask uber about that

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...

Dystopia myopia

[TheloniousToady]

When I saw this reported on The Evening News last night (which evidently also is "News for Nerds", only faster), they said that 30,000 people die in the US every year due to auto accidents. If this technology could prevent just a fraction of those, it's worth doing.

Some dystopia. Those of you who are worried about the NSA using this as a new way to spy on you in the future should be more worried about how airbags and seatbelts are being used to spy on you now. And before that, way back in the 1930s, shortly after Aldous Huxley wrote "A Brave New World", safety glass was introduced. Can that be mere coincidence?

Re:Dystopia myopia

[orgelspieler]

That's exactly what I was thinking. I always refer to a Brave New World when people complain about dystopia. One man's fear is another man's delight. In the novel, there were certain aspects like recreational sex and drug use, that simply don't seem that bad to me.

Same thing with this, how is it dystopic to have cars that can talk to each other? I would love to be able to communicate the twerp riding my ass that I will gladly get over in thirty seconds as soon as I'm done passing this line of trucks going 55. Or the fact that with communicating vehicles, you don't need stop signs and traffic lights. Think of how many lives could be saved, not just with accidents, but with reduced vehicle emissions. Not to mention all the human life wasted two minutes at a time at a red light.

Of course, there's another side to this coin. One man's utopia is another man's nightmare. Take the end of Manna, for instance. The short story has a utopia where every human has a kill switch in their CNS. If they are about to break a rule, they can be incapacitated. That's the utopia in this story. One of the rules is that anonymity ist verboten. I'm sure everybody here is on board with that, right?

There are no utopias or dystopias. Everybody has a different opinion on the way they think society should be. Cars on the roads and highways is just a microcosm of the interactions we have on a daily basis. Show respect, treat others the way you want to be treated, be safe. These are some of the tenets I try to live by, and communicating vehicles would be a good way to help me live that way.

Re:Dystopia myopia

[Anonymous Coward]

30,000 die annually in the US due to unimpaired car accidents. The population of the US is approximately 300 million. Your chances of dying in any given year in this manner are 1 in 10000, so it doesn't seem like great odds. But theoretically, you'd have to drive for 10,000 years before you were really playing with death. I'm sure something else is going to catch up to you by then.

But most people don't spend every day driving. So let's find out your chances of dying on those days when you are driving. This statistic averages out to 82.19 deaths per day, nationwide. Your chances of dying on any given day from an unimpaired car accident is 1 in 3650079. At this rate, you could expect to die in this manner within 3650079 days of driving. That's 10,000 years, give or take a rounding error. Yes, there's a reason this matches the calculation from the preceding paragraph.

But you don't drive all day, usually. You only drive for a few hours each day. This statistic averages out to 3.42 deaths per hour, nationwide. Your chances of dying for any given hour of driving is 1 in 87,719,298. So, theoretically, you should have to drive 87,719,298 hours before you will die in this manner. That's 3,654,970 days (which is really close to 3,650,079 and we've seen that somewhere before...), which is 10013 years.

So put it in perspective. 30,000 people isn't really that many. A once-in-ten-thousand-years chance of dying in this manner is not worth getting worked up over. And that goes especially for those that take pride in their driving skill and ability. If this technology could prevent a fraction of these unlikely deaths, what does it cost? If it costs my freedom, liberty, or the utility of driving my vehicle for my own reasons, then it's not worth it. The government is incompetent at pretty much everything. They need to stay the hell out of my car. I'd rather take my chances on the open road, seeing as those odds aren't as bad as Chicken Little would like you to believe.

Re:Dystopia myopia

[Nephandus]

You're not respectful in enforcing your preferences on others. Shove your pretentious golden rule authoritarianism, You sleazy myopic hypocrite.

Re:Dystopia myopia

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends. 1/2 is a fraction I would agree is worthwhile. 1/1,000,000 is a fraction, but not so worthwhile.

Re:Dystopia myopia

[CBravo]

I am no expert but some people say it was about 40k in 2005 (not counting pedestrians etc). That is a 9/11 per month. Rage war on that.

Re:Dystopia myopia

[TheloniousToady]

Could be. As I watched the piece on TV about this, it "struck" me that this is the next logical step forward, assuming that current technologies such as seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, etc. are maxed out.

Re:security? THIS! IS! DETROIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

First Mod: Force other vehicles to detect that I am going to full-force ram them (from the rear or sides depending on position) forcing their vehicle to maneuver out of my way allowing me "Bruce Almighty" reminiscent roadways wherever I go.

Yep. I'm going to love this tech. I will never be late again.

and then need to build all kinds of walkways /

[Joe_Dragon]

and then need to build all kinds of walkways / underpasses.

Re:and then need to build all kinds of walkways /

[trout007]

No. You could have a crosswalk button that will make a break in traffic for you for a certain period of time and track you as you cross.

Re: security? THIS! IS! DETROIT!!!

[Jason Levine]

You never cause the car in front of you to have an accident. Always wait until you pass that car and THEN make it have an accident.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Chewbacon]

There's enough unpatched Windows XP desktops up for grabs on eBay and yard sales to make this happen. Worked for utility companies.

Re: security? THIS! IS! DETROIT!!!

[NatasRevol]

Or speed way the fuck up!

Not likely

[Farmer Pete]

We can't even get them to include backup cameras in all cars, something that's been required in ALL new cars for several years. How do you expect this to ever be installed in every car?

Re:Not likely

[jader3rd]

We can't even get them to include backup cameras in all cars, something that's been required in ALL new cars for several years. How do you expect this to ever be installed in every car?

The same way that smog standards are enforced. If you can't get your annual/bi-annual tabs, you get ticked when driving.

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, back up cameras are still sold as options in some new cars.

Re:Not likely

[AK Marc]

Yeah, it'll be just like seatbelts and airbags.

Re:so the government picks your job and work hours

[Trachman]

The government will have a say whether you can or cannot do certain work, based on your browsing history and the smart-cross-analysis of your in house conversation, as well as the analysis of the people who visited your house and the people you visited. Everyone will have a file with the smart-condensed analysis of your life. Except all those things that we are referring as "will" in reality already "is " reality, without you ever knowing precise details or boundaries. But you already knew you have a file on you, right? For people who don't need the car other solutions will be developed. Real time face recognition has already passed the test/pilot phase. Precise safety measures are yet to be developed and will be introduced later.

Re:Inevitable. No need for long term tracking thou

[Jason Levine]

somebody who has to change their route at the last minute and get to an exit from the opposite lane

If we take this concept to the "ideal", you shouldn't have drivers cutting over at the last minute because they didn't realize their exit was there. You will have your destination programmed in, your car will move over when it is time to, and will make the exit without driving across multiple lanes and possibly causing accidents.

I see nothing wrong with this ideal of everyone having a self-driving car. I do, however, see a problem with the government requiring (and possibly tracking) vehicle to vehicle communication. Maybe setting some standards so that we don't get Toyotas only talking to Toyotas while Fords only talk to Fords, but not requiring it or having it set up in such a way that they can monitor it "for our safety."

Re:so the government picks your job and work hours

[Joe_Dragon]

why not go full Communist under your system.

Should read like

[Anonymous Coward]

Government To Require Vehicle-to-vehicle-to-vehicle-to-vehicle-to-vehicle-to-vehicle-to-vehicle-to-vehicle-to-vehicle-to-NSA Communication

Re: security? THIS! IS! DETROIT!!!

[gmuslera]

The functionality of the cars in front of me just to leave me free pass and turn off will surely be implemented. Think in the ambulances! and the police, the politicians, the CEOs, those premium cars, and so on. Will be a symbol of status to be able to make all the other cars to respect yours, no matter how much accidents that cause. Probably will be the main reason that will make all of this to be approved.

Stop spewing crap

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would care to actually read the V2X security standard (IEEE 1609.2, an ENTIRE standard just for V2X security!) instead of just defaulting to baseless accusations, then maybe you might have a more informed opinion.

The same is true for everyone ranting about privacy issues, RTFS! You might be amazed how much they are actually taking care to mask a car's identity.

Re:Stop spewing crap

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

just as soon as it is not paywalled, I'll be sure to read it.

Re:Stop spewing crap

[Chas]

Yup. Because one of the standards under V2X is 802.11p

"As the communication link between the vehicles and the roadside infrastructure might exist for only a short amount of time, the IEEE 802.11p amendment defines a way to exchange data through that link without the need to establish a basic service set (BSS), and thus, without the need to wait for the association and authentication procedures to complete before exchanging data. For that purpose, IEEE 802.11p enabled stations uses the wildcard BSSID (a value of all 1s) in the header of the frames they exchange, and may start sending and receiving data frames as soon as they arrive on the communication channel.

Because such stations are neither associated nor authenticated, the authentication and data confidentiality mechanisms provided by the IEEE 802.11 standard (and its amendments) cannot be used. These kinds of functionality must then be provided by higher network layers."

GOOD SHIT HUH?

You were saying?

V2V Developer

[apharmdq]

So I'm actually working on this technology, and every time I see an article about this, there's inevitably some concern about safety, security, government spying, etc.

First off, the reason this technology would be required in all vehicles is that it essentially consists of in-car wifi routers that send their GPS location to other cars. In order for the technology to work properly, all cars would need it, so they can all see each other. Obviously it's a big transition, but it has to be done eventually. New cars would come with the devices built in, and older cars would have after-market devices that can be purchased and installed. However, once in place, vehicle awareness will greatly reduce accidents and increase roadside efficiency. (Think of it this way; The traffic signals are almost always green when you approach an intersection.)

But wouldn't all that be pretty expensive? Not really. The core technology is pretty basic stuff. It's just gps and wifi, really. The fancy stuff, like in-car radar, video cameras, and so forth that you find in some of the luxury cars today isn't really necessary, though from what I gather, it could be plugged in to augment the system. For the most part, consumers won't notice a price change, and in the worst case, they'd have to spend a couple hundred to retrofit their old cars.

All fine and dandy, but what about hackers and people that would abuse the tech? Well, the system is being designed from the ground up to be heavily encrypted and secure. One of the government requirements for the companies developing this is that it meet certain security standards, and since this stuff is used to keep people from dying, you can bet testing will involve trying to exploit every aspect of it. The only issue I can see is malicious signal jamming, though since it requires a unique frequency, people doing this would be caught pretty easily.

Finally, we get to the issue of government spying. Since every vehicle is transmitting its location, doesn't this mean that the government could track everybody, or gather other information about them? This is actually very unlikely. The development of V2V tech has been fairly hands-off on the government's part. Their primary contribution has been to lay down certain standards and requirements for the tech, and then let the commercial companies implement it. One of their requirements has been that none of the data can be used to identify any vehicle in any way, which has certainly been a challenge to implement from the development side.
And to add my own anecdotal evidence, I've looked through all of the code used, from the firmware to the utilities, and I've seen nothing that could be used as a backdoor to get the information. Likewise, I've worked extensively with the hardware and done all kinds of signal analysis, and as far as I can see, there's nothing illicit on the hardware end either.

And don't forget, the V2V tech isn't only being implemented in the US, but Japan, Europe, and China as well. (To the best of my knowledge.) A lot of the hardware and software is shared between the companies working on it and they all have to fit a certain standard.

In any case, I'm sure few people will be placated by my explanation, but I myself would not be averse to having this system installed in my own car.

Re:V2V Developer

[apharmdq]

Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention. None of this takes control of your car in any way. It would just be used to provide information to built in indicators in the cars. Perhaps a HUD that would show the locations of other cars with relation to yours, especially in your blind spot. Or to flash a collision warning if you're pulling out of a blind intersection while another car is coming. Or to warn you when a vehicle 5 cars ahead of you on the freeway has slammed on its brakes.

I'm sure that self-driving cars would be able to use the information as well, but again, the core system simply provides an interface that would be used for awareness systems, as developed by the car manufacturers.

Re:V2V Developer

[jader3rd]

So what are the security measures when the encryption is broken?

Re:V2V Developer

[bluegutang]

This is all based on GPS? Is the accuracy of GPS sufficient for this? Especially in urban areas where the view is obstructed by buildings?

Re:V2V Developer

[WillAdams]

``... but it has to be done eventually''

Why does this have to happen?

What's to keep someone from hacking their system so as to get priority when two vehicles approach a traffic light?

What new possibilities does this create for bump-crash insurance fraud?

How could one prevent someone from:

  - removing the system from a car
  - mounting it on a small remote-control vehicle
  - causing traffic mayhem w/o any real repercussions (they salvaged the system from a junked car or stole it, built the balance out of commodity parts and cleared the area before the police could investigate)

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

How would this system work on older vehicles beyond maybe just beeping at the driver? It won't. And no way would mandating a device that costs in the hundreds of dollars be installed in peoples cars get past just discussion. A majority of the drivers on the road cannot afford even fixing their cars to be road worthy, which in itself would probably reduce the amount of single-car accidents on the road.

Re:V2V Developer

[mshannon78660]

Since this is designed to be broadcast to any cars around you (and therefore to receive from any cars around you), why would anyone need to hack the encryption? All they need to do is appear as another car, and you'll negotiate the encryption with them, and pass along all the data, meanwhile accepting whatever they tell you. As far as the government spying issue goes, again, all they have to do is appear as another car, and your car will happily give up all the data. I could easily envision a device that simply masquerades as a car 100 feet behind you - when they attach it to your car, your car will keep it updated with all the information about your speed and position, and since it's always behind you and never closing, your car won't need to issue any alerts to you. Even without that, if you have positional information, with the increasing prevalence of toll roads in this country (particularly EZ-Pass and video tolling style), and of license plate scanners, means that it would be trivial to tie a positional data stream to a license plate number unless the owner is trying very hard to fly under the radar (and probably has the assistance of someone inside the PD). Not saying that this will be misused, just that I don't see that there's any way to prevent its misuse. The reduction in vehicle fatalities MIGHT be worth it, but that discussion still needs to happen.

Re:V2V Developer

[Your.Master]

For this sort of thing it could reasonably be a subsidized transition, like the digital OTA transition.

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

> ... and since this stuff is used to keep people from dying, you can bet testing will involve trying to exploit every aspect of it.

That didn't work out for the health care web site.

Re:V2V Developer

[bmajik]

I'll have an incentive to not be honest about the speed that my car broadcasts to your car.

If the system doesn't broadcast speed directly, but broadcasts position in such a way that speed can be inferred, I'll have an incentive to not be honest about that either.

Since I'm talking about older cars that will need retrofit units, what stops me from making a unit that is selectively dishonest about what it's doing ?

Why do you think it will be easy to locate someone that is jamming a signal? RF is hard, and, this claim seems to conflict with the claim you make that it will not be possible to use this technology to identify other vehicles.

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

No it is not. The guy who posted, apharmdq, I believe made it all up because there is NO WAY this could be based on GPS and work.

Thanks for calling him out on making stuff up. I want to use GPS to tell us where parked cars that don't move are and its not good enough for that where I work. GPS is not instant, it is not accurate, it is not reliable. Its fine if you want to know where you are within 100 feet and don't mind waiting a few seconds, but imagine that at 70 mph where you are a few feet from another car.

Re:V2V Developer

[Dcnjoe60]

How would this system work on older vehicles beyond maybe just beeping at the driver? It won't. And no way would mandating a device that costs in the hundreds of dollars be installed in peoples cars get past just discussion. A majority of the drivers on the road cannot afford even fixing their cars to be road worthy, which in itself would probably reduce the amount of single-car accidents on the road.

Or they could just outlaw older cars. They already had cash for clunkers, once. What's to stop them from doing it again, but this time mandating it?

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

All fine and dandy, but what about hackers and people that would abuse the tech? Well, the system is being designed from the ground up to be heavily encrypted and secure. One of the government requirements for the companies developing this is that it meet certain security standards, and since this stuff is used to keep people from dying, you can bet testing will involve trying to exploit every aspect of it.

If these standards aren't perfect on the first try, and hackers spoof a signal to cause an accident, will the car manufacturer be held liable for damages? Personally I'm much more comfortable with strict civil liability than minimum standards - when my car gets hacked, the manufacturer having followed some rules will not make me feel better.

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

Secure, Unhackable? we have heard this calm over and over and it has never been proven to be true. Sony spent 6 million on their last "unhackable" it was broken in 3 days.

Quote "Well, the system is being designed from the ground up to be heavily encrypted and secure"

No, no it isn't first part, It is not created from the ground up you are using standard programming functions you haven't created a new language it uses existing software so inherent vulnerabilities exist and to top it off its lowest bidder software. For now we have no Secure systems (thanks NSA, you think they're the only ones who can use their "exploits")

"One of their requirements has been that none of the data can be used to identify any vehicle in any way, which has certainly been a challenge to implement from the development side."

So no vehicle has an ID..... Um how are you going to perform quality control? every car isn't the same there will be linked system's that are incompatible how are you going to identify which vehicles are faulty if you have no way of tracking.... Also if this is true then you also have no way of tracking a vehicle that is "exploiting" the system, eg feeding it false data. Also "essentially consists of in-car wifi routers that send their GPS location to other cars" the GPS system requires an Identifier of the user. (I know this though setting up a large network of Taxi GPS/trip systems) You have to have an ID to use the system.

"And to add my own anecdotal evidence, I've looked through all of the code used, from the firmware to the utilities, and I've seen nothing that could be used as a backdoor to get the information. Likewise, I've worked extensively with the hardware and done all kinds of signal analysis, and as far as I can see, there's nothing illicit on the hardware end either."

You have personally gone through every line of code on each of the system and connected system's... yea right.

What you are claiming wouldn't work, your describing a perfect world scenario on a global scale and that would be assuming that every System was yours and adding new data was impossible. (which is not how will you patch them?)

Re:V2V Developer

[Dcnjoe60]

For this sort of thing it could reasonably be a subsidized transition, like the digital OTA transition.

With digital OTA, you had the option to not watch OTA broadcasts. If you had cable or satellite, you didn't need an overpriced converter box. I wonder why nobody noticed that you could get an add on tv card for your pc cheaper than the converters? Face it, digital tv in the US had nothing to do with improving tv for the consumer. It was, from the very start, a method to bail out the companies that produced tvs in America. The irony was that by the time it was in place, there weren't any left (the last was the Zenith plan in Springfield, Missouri).

If those converter boxes were priced appropriately, millions would have been sold and there wouldn't have been a need for a subsidy. Then again, if the government didn't force the networks to use a different part of the spectrum, there wouldn't have been the need for the boxes, in the first place.

The take away on this, as it relates to cars that communicate with each other, is that when the government interferes with the free market, there are always unintended consequences -- and they are usually not inexpensive, at that!

Re:V2V Developer

[sacrilicious]

If it's not transparent and open, it will be hijacked and abused by the government. Not even a question. You yourself may have the best of intentions, and the evolving system may currently be in a benign state; that's well and good, and I thank you for both your intents and for your summary of things as they seem at the moment. That being said, it does not in any way serve to derail the larger theme that this will be abused and corrupted. I have no doubt, however, that the government will do its utmost to pretend otherwise. And this opinion of mine is based on a LOT of evidence.

Re:V2V Developer

[Nephandus]

Most useful collision warnings would require you know what the hell they were indicating within a split second. Instead, you'll be busying being startled by whatever the hell your car's doing to notice. The rest of the information you're suggesting would also slow your capacity to respond to any given issue. There's a reason fighter jets have relatively minimal information displayed. The information overload gets pilots killed more than it can help.

Re: V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget hacking, spying, etc., what happens if a device is faulty and doesn't transmit its position? Would all cars see that as a blank space? How does it know the dimensions of the car? Couldn't someone modify it to have 100 metres of clearance behind them? What happens if a car from a foreign country goes to the US and doesn't have one? What about motorcycles? They aren't mentioned. What if people rely on this technology to check their blind spot for them and a motorcycle is there that doesn't have this technology?

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

In your dream world, it won't be expenssive, but in reality, it's going to be marked as a safety feature, it'll cost you an arm and leg.
Also no, it is not required to have this in all cars. GPS is not that accurate and there will be cloudy days, so GPS is not a system you can use for detecting cars nearby. You need other sensors for that, so those sensors will work without the other car having this shit.

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, the reason this technology would be required in all vehicles is that it essentially consists of in-car wifi routers that send their GPS location to other cars. In order for the technology to work properly, all cars would need it, so they can all see each other. Obviously it's a big transition, but it has to be done eventually. New cars would come with the devices built in, and older cars would have after-market devices that can be purchased and installed. However, once in place, vehicle awareness will greatly reduce accidents and increase roadside efficiency. (Think of it this way; The traffic signals are almost always green when you approach an intersection.)

Has to be done? HAS TO BE DONE? None of this has to be done. None what so ever.

Please enlighten us as to why you believe has to be done!

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . I myself would not be averse to having this system installed in my own car.

Feel free to install it in your car, but don't force me to install it in mine. If it's so great, early adopters, such as yourself, should have little trouble convincing others to adopt the technology as well. I, for one, am very apprehensive about the myriad implications such technology presents and prefer not to be a living crash test dummy (no offense).

I'm sure few people will be placated by my explanation . . .

You got that right. No security and no system is unbreakable or perfect.

When it comes to the life and death scenarios we find ourselves in on the road, I'm perfectly comfortable relying on my own instincts, as I have my whole driving career. That's not to say such systems might not be helpful -- they may well be -- but it should be my choice to install and enable them. Like most any government regulation, if the people see worth in something and truly desire it, they will seek it out on their own, without the need for government mandate.

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

send their GPS location to other cars.

Well. Some sort of GPS information. Perhaps their's perhaps not. There is obviously no security (way to accept only true GPS information) possible with this (it would be like trying to secure email such that I could only type true things in the subject line and not false ones).

Well, the system is being designed from the ground up to be heavily encrypted and secure.

So are all modern browsers and modern operating systems. None are secure.

One of the government requirements for the companies developing this is that it meet certain security standards.

This is the government placing backdoors in everything, spying on us with Angry Birds, and deliberately weakening public crypto-keys?

and since this stuff is used to keep people from dying, you can bet testing will involve trying to exploit every aspect of it.

Like for did with gas-tank placement on the pinto, or the Dreamliner and its batteries. Glad to know that cars don't have recalls, because that would mean that tested things designed to keep us alive might be unreliable. I'll bet your encryption is as good as that of the electronic FOB that starts my car. Nothing ever can bypass that.

And to add my own anecdotal evidence, I've looked through all of the code used, from the firmware to the utilities, and I've seen nothing that could be used as a backdoor to get the information..

Then you are unqualified: and here's how I know.

You don't understand the problem. Were are more concerned with vunerabilities than backdoors and we are more concerned with placing information that receiving it (Ford has already stated it has complete access to our location information in existing cars). As to deliberately placing a backdoor: I'm not surprised you can't see it. Perhaps it's added by the compiler at compile. Perhaps it's in the hardware... to wit:

And don't forget, the V2V tech isn't only being implemented in the US, but Japan, Europe, and China as well..

That's a lot of people to add flaws... accidental or deliberate.

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention. None of this takes control of your car in any way. It would just be used to provide information to built in indicators in the cars.

There will always be complete physical isolation between every part of this system and everything attached to the GenMod in the car?

No? I thought not.

This doesn't have to directly control my breaks if it is networked to the thing that does (which, of course, it will be: no part of the car remains independent at this point). If you really are reviewing code on this, you really need a much better education in network security.

Me? I've been doing network security for 10 of my 20-something years in CS

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you still use an identifier that doesn't change per vehicle? Then it's easy to identify the owner based on driving patterns (by knowing home address from driver's license, work address by IRS data, etc.). You would have to make sure nothing unique is transmitted by the vehicles, even if it's a unique string is randomly generated.

Re:V2V Developer

[JustNiz]

>> Obviously it's a big transition, but it has to be done eventually.

No it really doesn't. No-one wants this, especially as it increases the cost of cars, is yet another expensive black box that can go wrong, and is forced on us. of course its all in the name of safety, and it's purely coincidental that it gives the government yet another way to tax/spy/control us.

Think of it like this: If it was self-evidently a good thing, they wouldn't have to be making a compulsory law to force people to have it.

Re:V2V Developer

[NoImNotNineVolt]

One of their requirements has been that none of the data can be used to identify any vehicle in any way, which has certainly been a challenge to implement from the development side.

On the one hand, I know what you're saying, and that's a relief. On the other hand, I can't help but think that in the pedantic sense, this requirement contradicts the requirement that location data be shared with other vehicles. That is, if it is possible to receive and decode the location data being broadcast by these devices, even if the data is anonymized, there is nothing to stop me from leveraging additional out-of-band data sources (like, for example, my eyeballs) to correlate this location data with individual identification data (i.e. a license plate). If your car is broadcasting "Look at me, anonymous car at 40.432314,-73.985931!", it's not that hard to point a camera in that direction and run its output to some license plate reading software linked to a DMV database.

Re:V2V Developer

[dyslexicbunny]

Why is GPS being built in as the critical piece to this? I can lose GPS just driving around town in places. Does that mean no car knows where my car is? Why aren't these systems be based using the same inputs that I can use as a driver?

Re:V2V Developer

[drinkypoo]

First off, the reason this technology would be required in all vehicles is that it essentially consists of in-car wifi routers that send their GPS location to other cars. In order for the technology to work properly, all cars would need it, so they can all see each other.

Besides the obvious privacy concerns, your system is doomed to fail because it depends on trustworthy devices. If the cars can't drive without communicating with one another, what happens when communications fail? If the cars can drive without communicating with one another, why would I want such an obvious privacy violator on my car?

In any case, I'm sure few people will be placated by my explanation, but I myself would not be averse to having this system installed in my own car.

And those same people will not be placated by your complacence.

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

So, all other vehicles on the road can get your vehicle's speed/location/etc, and you're trying to claim that it's "unlikely" that the government would be able to access the same?

Are you fucking retarded?

Re:V2V Developer

[ericcc65]

You have to have a certificate that is digitally signed by a trusted authority in order to send messages considered valid. There is no identifying information sent out from your vehicle. Even your certificate is changed out every few minutes from a set of certificates (and that set is rotated every week or so). Really the whole security model is made to make it so incredibly easier to do things like track your cell phone, use cameras, or just old fashioned following to get any information than to get it from the V2V protocol. I encourage you to read about it, the IEEE and standards bodies have really thought about security from the very start. They knew nothing would derail it faster than people's fears about misuse.

Re:V2V Developer

[hacker]

"Finally, we get to the issue of government spying. Since every vehicle is transmitting its location, doesn't this mean that the government could track everybody, or gather other information about them? This is actually very unlikely. The development of V2V tech has been fairly hands-off on the government's part. Their primary contribution has been to lay down certain standards and requirements for the tech, and then let the commercial companies implement it."

Don't be ridiculous.

Within a hour of this being made a requirement, there will be installations on bridges, public roadways, intersections that will be capturing, gathering, storing, aggregating and mapping every single vehicle movement within city and rural limits.

Guaranteed!

This is an over-bearing, invasive government's wet dream. To know where everyone is at any one time, at all times, day or night? Absolutely this will be abused. They're already doing it now without our consent using our phones and surreptitiously installed GPS devices in our vehicles.

If you think for a nano-second that this is truly being developed to reduce the number of traffic accidents, you're being quite naive. You may be working on the technology, but that doesn't mean you understand the full implications of how it's targeted for use, or how it will ultimately be used when it becomes a reality.

There is absolutely no way this isn't going to get abused at the highest levels of Government.

Re:V2V Developer

[hacker]

"None of this takes control of your car in any way. It would just be used to provide information to built in indicators in the cars. Perhaps a HUD that would show the locations of other cars with relation to yours, especially in your blind spot."

Are you sure about that?

Re:V2V Developer

[PPH]

Please enlighten us as to why you believe has to be done!

Because the government has to find a way to keep doddering old farts buying cars. They don't have the political will to take incompetent drivers and pull their licenses (and confiscate the vehicles of scoff-laws who drive without one).

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

All fine and dandy, but what about hackers and people that would abuse the tech? Well, the system is being designed from the ground up to be heavily encrypted and secure.

I don't buy it, The Content Scramble System for DVDs was "heavily encrypted" in order to protect greedy corporation's profits, yet it was hacked almost overnight and DeCSS was released on the internet.

Finally, we get to the issue of government spying.

Again I don't buy it. Every vehicle having a GPS in it will be too ripe a plum not to pick. I can already envision several ways this can be exploited without tampering with the hardware/software in the vehicles. Especially easy for the government who can simply National Security Letter the encryption protocols and command codes.

Also in the video in the article, why is the car with the green light automatically stopped instead of the car running the red? Could that be so the cities could still get their red light camera revenues?

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

apharmdq (219181) "So I'm actually working on this technology..."

Fucking Traitor.

I sincerely hope you are run over by your own work. Don't laugh--I'm not joking. I see you and your blind techno-zealotry as far more of a threat than any car on the road.

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

So if your vehicles know where your other vehicles are, what happens when a car successfully avoids the single 70 year old asleep at the wheel only to mow down the 50 schoolchildren it can't see.

In some other respects I think you have the rose-coloured glasses on (and you can of course freely accuse me of paranoia!) - just because government are not demonstrating active involvement does not mean that they aren't involved, totally abreast of the technology (whether its developers are aware of that or not) and waiting keenly for their opportunity to mine data as they see fit.

Re:V2V Developer

[ericcc65]

They are open standards being worked on by the IEEE. 802.11p, IEEE 1609, etc.

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it funny that you borrow and alter a Heinlein quote for your sig, but forgot the other relevant one:

When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere.

Re:V2V Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

You may "trust" the system you're working on, in no way means I should. You're only one person, your word is not the end all be all.

You may see no way to exploit that kind of system, doesn't mean someone else someone else can't. Most likely in ways you may not have even imagined. Creativity is not the domain of one person.

I can see politicians writing up "creative" laws once this becomes ubiquitous to all vehicles. Just think of automated ticketing. No need for enforcement officers to be payed. Think of the tax money that can be saved. That's just one thing off the top of my head. I can think of many others without much effort.

Automated justice, what a utopia that will bring. Think of the children

Color me not placated.

. . . four near misses . . .

[mmell]

Never mind that you're saying you nearly avoided collisions four times (got your fenders straightened out yet?), but if you've made the same (to my mind, young driver's) mistake four times in recent memory, perhaps you need to turn off the radio, put down the fast food, stop playing with your phone and pay attention to what you're doing. I'm sorry that some quantity of silicone is required to bring your driving skills up to par; how is that going to happen if you're constantly relying upon technology is beyond me - and don't insist that I use the same crutch so that your crutch will work better. I don't happen to fancy what'll happen when people start driving their cars Anonymously; talk about open sores! Never mind the Minority Report thing about having my car collect me up for the dread Secret Police, what about that guy at the end of the block who gets off watching traffic accidents which always seem to happen near that radio transponder he buried in the front yard?

Re: . . . four near misses . . .

[jeffmeden]

Never mind that you're saying you nearly avoided collisions four times (got your fenders straightened out yet?), but if you've made the same (to my mind, young driver's) mistake four times in recent memory, perhaps you need to turn off the radio, put down the fast food, stop playing with your phone and pay attention to what you're doing. I'm sorry that some quantity of silicone is required to bring your driving skills up to par; how is that going to happen if you're constantly relying upon technology is beyond me - and don't insist that I use the same crutch so that your crutch will work better. I don't happen to fancy what'll happen when people start driving their cars Anonymously; talk about open sores! Never mind the Minority Report thing about having my car collect me up for the dread Secret Police, what about that guy at the end of the block who gets off watching traffic accidents which always seem to happen near that radio transponder he buried in the front yard?

Bahahahhahaaha. You almost had me. Golf clap.

Re: . . . four near misses . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Put down your fast food, stop playing with your phone, and pay proper attention to what you are reading. And because it is the internet, perhaps read it one more time before hitting the CALL-HIM-AN-IDIOT-QUICK button.

He avoided the CHANCE at a near miss. Not that he had a near miss. These were situations where if he was distracted MIGHT HAVE BEEN a near miss. These were not near misses due to increased situation awareness.

The implication being that if he didn't have the light; he would have performed his normal lane-change manouvre, presumably checking his blindspots and THEN moving. But he didn't even do this, because the light indicated that there was someone there long before he even got to having the CHANCE at a near miss.

I can'r wait for this to be seriously abused.

[Anonymous Coward]

The listeners will pop up in no time to make sure we're all properly cited for speeding. Add in a requirement that it broadcast VIN or other unique ID and all those license plate scanners will seem outright quaint.

Of course, the police and government vehicles will be exempt and/or able to disable or alter their broadcasts.

demand for old clunkers from 20th century?

[k6mfw]

Reminds me of article about when Ford exec mentioned company tracks and collects data on it's cars. Someone posted something like, "1965 Mustangs became much more cool to own."

This is Bullsh*t!

[Anonymous Coward]

NEW REQUIREMENT: Only Robots can drive cars. All humans must sit obediently in the passenger seat.
Sit quietly while we take your fingerprint, facescan, blood and urine samples for analysis.

That's just the first step

[Minwee]

The next step will be to fit a transponder on every moose, deer and elk that might wander onto the road where they would otherwise be invisible to a "V2V" system.

BOTNETS

[Anonymous Coward]

This will take botnets to a new level and make malware like cryptolocker look benign...

But there are still my rights to be considered.

[mmell]

The systems on my Ford Fiesta aren't nearly as sophisticated as those on your Jaguar XJ-7, but I need to get across town as rapidly as you. If I don't have a manual override I guess I'm stuck with my crappy old Ford and its limited navigational abilities . . . *or* I could override those abilities and drive her myself. Shouldn't take but a wire snipped here and there . . . wish the government hadn't made me surrender my old gasoline-powered manually-driven automobile, at least that thing I could keep running by myself. Now I suppose I'm just part of the 95%.

There's way more at stake here than safety and technology. And there will always be guys like me actively looking for ways to defeat it. I don't even care if you think I'm sinner or saint for it. Screw your rights - if I want to drive my own vehicle, I'm going to. I'm not interested in letting some socialized nanny-state tell me I can no longer do the things which our forefathers busted their humps to make sure I could do. If the automated systems can't handle that, I win and the rest of you (society) lose. Y'know, sounds good to me!

What is Solyent Green?

[SomePoorSchmuck]

If this system can automate driving, then we should be for it.

The worst system are ones that rely on the public for its reliability and safety.

Systems should be engineered so that the public can do whatever the fuck they want, because they will, and it will still be safe.

I don't want my safety to be based upon somebody else's responsibility, because I know the public is irresponsible.

We need our systems architects to assume such.

This is why we liberals prefer a socialized government, because we assume the worst in people, and design our systems around that, whereas conservatives place their responsibility on the public, because they assume people are good and responsible and hard working and careful, which they obviously are not.

Personal responsibility is equivalent to government irresponsibility.

What a complete logic fail. Your semantic processing is so myopic and shallow that you end up believing something exactly the opposite of reality. Here's your homework assignment: describe what a "socialized government" consists of; include especially its component parts such as the agents which enact its rules, maintain its structure, and execute its policies. Then tell me that you "assume the worst in people".

Or do you perhaps have citizenship in some heretofore unknown computer-operated Algorithm Nation?
Even if so, please describe the agents which write and implement your nation's algorithms.

Soylent green is people.

Oh, great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook has spread to cars. Now vehicular friends can stay in touch with one another.

Please tell me automobile dealers will be offering a Faceblock app instead of just the usual paint sealant, rust guard, fuzzy dice.

Business is good at Clem's Auto Body and Collision

[mmell]

Out of towners just seem to keep getting in accidents right in front of our shop. Crazy.

(pats his MIJI-matic, smiles)

To be fair

[superwiz]

They can only make these requirements for vehicles operating on roads which the government owns.

Re:Inevitable. No need for long term tracking thou

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, ideally it wouldn't invade privacy or be implemented insecurely, but this is not an ideal world, so there goes that theory.

They already have this alert system in place

[Alopex]

If a nearby car abruptly changes lanes... the car would be alerted...

... often by physics

RoadRageBot 3000!

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but he'd have to wear a hoodie and walk three blocks from the bus stop when go goes to their house to break his legs so big brudda won't send him to the happy time camp for the socially maladjusted.

Re:Inevitable. No need for long term tracking thou

[Anonymous Coward]

Without requirements, only autonomous cars will talk. This makes them less safe, since it is harder to asses what a dumb car will do. Creating a mandate paves the way for autonomous cars in the not so distant future (20 years or so). You have to start somewhere, this is a chicken and egg problem.

Re:Inevitable. No need for long term tracking thou

[Anonymous Coward]

If we take this concept to the "ideal", you shouldn't have drivers cutting over at the last minute because they didn't realize their exit was there. You will have your destination programmed in, your car will move over when it is time to, and will make the exit without driving across multiple lanes and possibly causing accidents.

Oops, I forgot my laptop. "Car, take me home."

Controlling Bums.

[Anonymous Coward]

They just want the ability to fully disable your vehicle or control it for whatever reason they want. Oh you wrote a movie on Benghazi and the covered up lies? Well lets just take this quick right into a telephone poll. Anyone else want to make a movie exposing the government? Stay out of my life bums.

Re:aren't concerned about being liable no you will

[AK Marc]

The owner/driver of the car is not affected by Uber's liability (except possibly to his benefit). So again, why should I be concerned about liability?

Recipe for havoc

[John Jorsett]

This sounds like a potential disaster in the making. What's to prevent someone intent on mischief from creating spoof messages and causing hideous problems because your car thinks cars around it are involved in accidents, stopped, approaching at high speed, etc.? Even better, faking emergency vehicle messages that cause you to pull over and let the spoofer sail on through. A lot of people would be tempted to employ one of those.

hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

How many collisions would this cause? Driving I often find my gps recalculating since it thinks I am on a different or in a forest or even driving through houses. Inertial navigation systems could only go so far too. At the moment only humans and other visual auto navigation systems are there to correct for that.

Again. Who is liable when this messes up?

Great for law enforcement

[Dcnjoe60]

Just think if your vehicle is broadcasting it's unique ID and speed, etc., all the highway patrol needs to do is grab it. Heck, in this world where we want to automate everything currently done by humans, you wouldn't even need the highway patrol. You could just have roadside scanners. Or think of the red light cameras in use today. Now, they can show you in the intersection and showing how you didn't slow down when the light turned yellow.

Does the public really believe this is just for safety? Just like with autonomous vehicles, this only makes sense once a critical mass is reached for cars having the the new technology. Until then, the majority of other vehicles still won't have a clue as to what the other vehicle is doing. That is unless, the government is going to require retrofitting existing vehicles. All in the name of national security. Oops, I mean highway safety.

LED communication

[gringer]

I'm okay with this as long as it is restricted to line-of-sight, in other words via LED or similar light transmission. That also removes some confusion issues, because if a car communicates "I'm stopping now", you know it's the car that you can see rather than the car 1km behind you that was hit by a stray radio amplification patch.

You have that slightly backward

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your only recourse is to pass laws that _mandate everyone has access to_ the technology."
FTFY

Re:You have that slightly backward

[allaunjsiIverfox2]

Well, that wouldn't help the privacy situation.

A new Hacking opportunity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Between car communications will allow a hacker to spoof information to cause crashes!. The use of sensors and near instant reaction of a computerized control is far more reliable than depending on the accuracy of data received from unconrtrolled external sources. Have the people who proposed this heard of or used the internet or computers? It is unbelievably stupid to put a packed highway full of cars at the mercy of a rogue information source.

Damn!

[PPH]

My Tesla just received another HCF command.

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

My hat's off to any Tesla owner that gets an 'HCF' vanity plate.

Should be radar based.

[Animats]

Most of this should be done with vehicle radars, not WiFi. Vehicles should be using radars to see what the other cars are doing. That works whether the other car has special equipment or not. Short range radars are cheap in volume - every automatic door has one. That can do a lot towards preventing collisions.

Radars can be arranged to talk to each other, by acting as transponders. Because the radar knows where the other party is, it's not too important who the other party is. Useful information to send is "My current turning radius is NNN, my speed is NNN, my acceleration is NNN, transmission in forward gear, turn signals off, emergency flashers off, vehicle has occupants." All of which any human observer can observe now, although not as accurately. It's useful to have an ID, but it doesn't have to be permanent. A new random ID each time the vehicle comes out of Park is good enough for safety purposes.

But no. We're going to get some kludge that reports everything to central control for marketing purposes, and might secondarily be useful for something involving vehicle control.

They want to require this?

[fustakrakich]

Then they damn well better require the insurance companies to lower their rates...

Carjacker's Dream

[Anonymous Coward]

Carjackers would love this. Just send out a signal that traffic is jammed. When the cars stop unexpectedly, pull the driver out, turn off the signal, and zip away.

Nah

[nobuddy]

Only the Fox/Koch echo chamber is saying that. What he actually said is "I call upon congress to act responsibly. If they will not act, I will do everything I can within my power to move us forward."

in other words, do your job congress- but I have no faith you will so I will make what changes I can within the limits of my power to move our economy along.

Schadenfreude

[nobuddy]

This will prevent people from driving at a high rate of speed in the left lane, slamming on the brakes and swerving into the right lane just so they don't have to wait in line like everyone else or because they wanted to get one car ahead.

I hate these people with a passion, and get such gleeful pleasure from videos of this backfiring on them. When I am able to shut one out so they are fucked into waiting for traffic to clear--- I have a minor joygasm.

Your?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you mean "How about cellphones that notice my driving and become bricked" or "How about cellphones that notice I'm driving and become bricked"? Both sentences are gramattically correct, but "you're" seems like what you meant... but it's hard to be sure.

Re:so the government picks your job and work hours

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Because having the workers own the means of production wouldn't really diminish individual liberty, let alone meaningfully impact driving safety.

Sounds Absolutely Horrible

[JustNiz]

Sounds Absolutely Horrible. I think I'll keep my current low-tech braindead car for as long as I can.
I'm guessing cars without all this crap will become worth a whole lot in a few years.

Good thing?

[JustNiz]

>> Federal transportation officials did not announce when the new regulations would go into effect but said they hope to propose the new V2V rules before President Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017."

If it was an intrinsically good thing, they wouldn't be having to make new laws to force it on us all.

Watch for MORE crashes

[PhilCooper9132]

In the near term this technology will create dumber drivers who rely too much on the technology, which most likely will prove useless when confronted with other vehicles not equipped with V2V technology. Heaven help you if you're a pedestrian, a bicyclist or a motorcyclist.

Bicycles!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a cyclist I dream of a technology that could warn distracted drivers of my position on the road. V2V sounds like it could lay the groundwork for such a tech. This could save countless lives and encourage more cycling in urban areas which are currently perceived as too dangerous due to the automobile traffic.

the car would be alerted.

[nurb432]

As well as the authorities.

Wouldn't it be easier to...

[Anonymous Coward]

require people to actually obtain some actual driving skill before being handed a license? The written and driving tests are a joke! The number of licensed drivers in this country that can't actually drive a car is too damn high!

What's the broadcast code ...

[PPH]

... for out of the way plebe. A Slashdot reader is coming.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

But when will they get a TSA agent to come into my car to feel my up?

WAKE UP : This is really about surveillance.

[Anonymous Coward]

The safety bit is just to make naive people think it is a good thing.

the end of radar....

[uncwjason]

So, Mr. Trooper is going to sit on the side of the road and see how fast your car is going...or better yet, just put up some sensors along the roadway and start billing (fining) people based on their car's reported speed. Takes all the ambiguity out of the cop actually using a piece of equipment to determine your velocity. Why not start taxing people based on it too. Or, maybe you won't be allowed to get on the road unless yours works. I'm sure there will be a black box thrown in there too, one that you can't disable. Do they make tin-foil car wax yet???

calling other cars

[brunnegd]

We should be able to use our cell phones to dial the license plate number of a car that g driven by an idiot and tell him to learn how to drive.

Well we do drive 2 tons vehicles

[nhat11]

If the vehicle can communicate and give us alerts, it will only make us safer. I guess since everyone drive everyday, we let down our guard pretty easy to the fact that we're driving 2 tons (give or take) of material that can go from 1 to 75+ MPH

When I was a kid ...

[Dabido]

We used to have those. We called them bumper cars.