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?

[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?

[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.

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!

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: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: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.

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: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?