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?

[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?

security?

[gtall]

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

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.