Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Government Won't Pursue Talking Car Mandate (apnews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

An anonymous reader shares an AP report: The Trump administration has quietly set aside plans to require new cars to be able to wirelessly talk to each other, auto industry officials said, jeopardizing one of the most promising technologies for preventing traffic deaths. The Obama administration proposed last December that all new cars and light trucks come equipped with technology known as vehicle-to-vehicle communications, or V2V. It would enable vehicles to transmit their location, speed, direction and other information 10 times per second. That lets cars detect, for example, when another vehicle is about to run a red light or coming around a blind turn in time to prevent a crash. The administration has decided not to pursue a final V2V mandate, said two auto industry officials who have spoken with White House and Transportation Department officials and two others whose organizations have spoken to the administration.

109 comments

  1. If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this driver-assist stuff wouldn't be necessary.

    1. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Right, because no one ever died in car accidents before the invention of the cell phone.

      Now mind you, I don't know that I liked the idea of V2V communication anyway. It sounds cool in theory, but the more complex we make all these systems the more chances there are for people to manipulate things to cause harm. If self-driving cars depend on such technology, then messing with it could cause as many problems as it solves. I'd prefer that each self-driving car be able to do its job without inter-car communication, which seems doable given the way that tech is evolving today.

      --
      William George
    2. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If ppl would just put the cell phone down

      All this driver-assist stuff wouldn't be necessary.

      Because nobody crashed cars before we had cell phones.

      Idiot.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OR It isn't a binary statement.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, it would make the self-driving car technology that much more safer and faster. It's definitely easier to stop when you got the signal to stop vs receiving the LIDAR data, running the computations and determining that there's an obstacle and then deciding to stop. Still faster than a human but slower than just stopping when you get X volts on a wire.

      Not that it cannot be abused or hacked, mind you, but still better than what we have now.

    5. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      OR It isn't a binary statement.

      Several billion 2 input OR gates refute your statement.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    6. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      What I think we really need is better driver education/driver training, and reforms on driver testing -- more rigorous, and more often, to keep people on their toes and weed out the really bad ones, or at least force them to become competent. Just because you can pass a basic knowledge and skills test doesn't mean you're truly competent, all it means is you can pass a test. I actually fear for a future world where there's more technology, making people dumber and lazier and less competent when they really need to be, and I don't think so-called 'self driving cars' are the answer either.

    7. Re: If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's actually both black and white.

    8. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'll note this decision doesn't prevent car manufacturers from implementing this or a similar system, it just doesn't throw people who build cars in jail if they decide their customers will want something different, like lower costs, or a different style of safety feature, or even a similar system which is more advanced later on.

      When the government mandates something like this, it creates legal lock-in of that specific solution, preventing better things for customers from occurring. Imagine if every car built was required to implement the 802.11a standard at the time it became a standard, for example. Sure, it's easy with 20/20 hindsight to explain what a disaster that would've been, but at the time people would've been claiming the government needed to ensure every car used the same protocol. All a similar regulation really does is prevent alternate solutions, lower costs options and future different forms of innovation.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    9. Re: If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You meant CS scum and their binary statements?

    10. Re: If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a racist that just means black. You're never "part white" in the eyes of a white racist.

    11. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by slew · · Score: 1

      OR It isn't a binary statement.

      Several billion 2 input NOR gates refute your statement.

      FTFY. As any computer scientist should know, although it is possible to construct arbitrary logic out of NOR gates, it's really hard to construct most logic simply out of OR gates (even if you have several billion of them).

    12. Re: If ppl would just put the cell phone down by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I think he meant C# scum and their CIL assemblies.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've had the better "driver education/driver training, and reforms on driver testing" route available to us for many decades now. How's that worked? The vast majority of our safety gains can be traced to changes mandated in the vehicle side of the equation.

      What was that definition of insanity? If every year is a chance to get it right, how many times do we need to get it wrong before trying something else?

    14. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by HiThere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, but it does prevent it from being very useful. For that technology to be useful in preventing accidents probably well over half the cars on the road would need to use it. Possibly over 3/4. So even if it were enforced it would take several years before it would do much good. And it mainly helps the vehicles avoiding someone else behaving illegally...and possibly mainly helps vehicles under automatic control. That would depend on implementation details.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      I 100% agree about the fact that while in theory, V2V could be great, but in reality, we all know it would be buggy/security hole ridden/hackable as hell. You would absolutely see people spoofing other vehicles and sending bad information which will lead to accidents and fatalities.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    16. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      OR It isn't a binary statement.

      Several billion 2 input NOR gates refute your statement.

      FTFY. As any computer scientist should know, although it is possible to construct arbitrary logic out of NOR gates, it's really hard to construct most logic simply out of OR gates (even if you have several billion of them).

      Be careful. You might get mugged by a roving band of NAND gates.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    17. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We've had it available to us. We haven't put it into effect - if anything we've lowered the bar over time. It costs money to implement things - and it takes more money to implement things well - so we don't.

    18. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I don't know that I liked the idea of V2V communication anyway. It sounds cool in theory, but the more complex we make all these systems the more chances there are for people to manipulate things to cause harm. If self-driving cars depend on such technology, then messing with it could cause as many problems as it solves. I'd prefer that each self-driving car be able to do its job without inter-car communication, which seems doable given the way that tech is evolving today.

      In the scenario where all cars are autonomous, they will have to talk to each other, otherwise gridlock will result. Its not much of an issue when there is one car among non AVs, but the constant communication has to be there when all or most of them drive themselves.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    19. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I'm personally a tad skeptical on the technology. I really like the concept, but as anybody who works in technology well knows, bad people like to do bad things with it. That said, I would like to see what can be done about people sending false V2V data to other cars, for example to do things like induce traffic to move aside for themselves, or even deliberately cause accidents.

    20. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I 100% agree about the fact that while in theory, V2V could be great, but in reality, we all know it would be buggy/security hole ridden/hackable as hell. You would absolutely see people spoofing other vehicles and sending bad information which will lead to accidents and fatalities.

      If they are all AVs, there will have to be a lot of communication. I think that the future of AVs is going to be a niche, where small numbers co-exist among a vast majority of assisted vehicles. Think buses and taxis. Maybe limos.

      With lane assist, augmented braking, and anti-tailgating radar, you can achieve probably 99 percent of the safety promised by fully Autonomous Vehicles. It would also eliminate some of the impossible to avoid problems of having to program the routes, and what happens if you decide to stop off somewhere or just decide partway through the drive to take a different route. I don't know how many people drive the exact same route home and back every day. It's like having the good parts of the technologies without the pain in the ass parts. And if I decide to have a nice ride in the country to relax, I don't have tp program the route. Because I don't know the route, and I don't feel like spending my time giving voice commands.

      With assisted technology, I can have the very best of both worlds.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    21. Re: If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm very pleased by this. It is POSSIBLE to implement this technology without it being a massive privacy invasion, but that's not how it would turn out. Anything that is a victory for privacy is a good thing.

    22. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      The average age of cars on the road is about 12 years. So a dozen years is probably a good approximation for your usefulness measure of adoption, reaching about 50% penetration.

      How much technological advancement has there been in related car autonomous technology since 2005? Yeah, a lot.

      Again, this decision doesn't stop anyone, just doesn't throw them in prison or fine them if they don't do it the government prescribed way. Now, if the major car companies got together and decided to adopt an open standard for intercar communication and began outfitting cars with transmitter/sensors and software modifiable systems for controlling them, maybe in a dozen years we'd have something useful which could be updated retrospectively to be of some use with the latest technology. That's still iffy, but it has a much better chance of long term success. In the meantime, hey, you could presumably use the built in sensors to double as a police radar/laser speed detection tool so that people would willingly spend the extra few hundred dollars on it. :)

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    23. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the idea is doomed from the start.

      An AV has to be able to get around with a GPS, a map (about as detailed as you get with the nav system in your current car) and what the sensors tell it. If you can't make that work, the AVs will be limited to a rather small subset of roads and be easy to sabotage.

    24. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can make secure systems that are really hack-resistant. It is a matter of focus:

      1: Consoles. Zero percent piracy rate in 10 years. With all the millions of cheap gamers willing to do anything to score a pirated game, the fact that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo have had 100% secure, hack-proof consoles is pretty damn amazing.

      2: Satellite TV. After the purge about 10 years ago, there is no carding or hacking going on in that front.

      3: Blu-Ray. Still not cracked, although at best someone is able to find a specific decryption code for a certain movie.

      4: Samsung bootloaders. Still not unlocked.

      Real security can easily be done. The PS4 and XBox 1 are examples of this. All it takes is for a company to actually value security, and it will be done.

    25. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Then the idea is doomed from the start.

      An AV has to be able to get around with a GPS, a map (about as detailed as you get with the nav system in your current car) and what the sensors tell it. If you can't make that work, the AVs will be limited to a rather small subset of roads and be easy to sabotage.

      The present vision of millions of people travelling in unheard of safety in their AVs is surely doomed. The vehicles are too vulnerable. As much as we focus on the roadrage type activies that occasionally happen, driving on highways takes a lot of cooperation between people. Root level cooperation as it were.

      So the cooperation has to extend to the autonomous vehicles as well. So we're going to turn over control of our vehicles to a system with the track record that exists now? Even if the in-car control system were somehow completely immune, you know that they will have internet access. I can see the headlines and stories:

      50 thousand people were killed today when the Chevy Patriotism line of cars were hacked and their fully autonomous vehicles drove off the nearest cliff. General Motors and congress send thoughts and prayers.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    26. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      the more complex we make all these systems the more chances there are for people to manipulate things to cause harm

      Given the amount of traffic deaths we currently have at all times, I doubt that would be much of a concern. Kind of like winning the lottery and saying "Oh, but I'll have to pay a bunch more in TAXES." Sure, if you don't take reasonable steps to prevent them, they could turn into huge problems.

    27. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I'm personally a tad skeptical on the technology. I really like the concept, but as anybody who works in technology well knows, bad people like to do bad things with it. That said, I would like to see what can be done about people sending false V2V data to other cars, for example to do things like induce traffic to move aside for themselves, or even deliberately cause accidents.

      That said, you design it so that a signal cannot be used to cause a crash and combine it with other features too.

      Example: Car A is being followed by Car B.

      Car A sends "I'm breaking" signal to Car B. Car B breaks. This isn't a bad thing. If someone spoofs the "I'm breaking" signal, worst case scenario cars slow down.

      Car A sends "I'm accelerating" signal to Car B. Car B doesn't do anything. You don't accelerate until your sensors detect the car ahead is far enough away from you. Spoofing the "accelerating" signal doesn't cause an accident.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    28. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because the car in front breaks, the next car doesn't have to break. (If the lights broke, for example.) Now, if the breaking causes it to slow down, the next car may brake to avoid hitting it. If the brakes break, then it won't be slowing down too soon.

    29. Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      That said, you design it so that a signal cannot be used to cause a crash and combine it with other features too.

      I've heard this argument before...many times.

      Car A sends "I'm breaking" signal to Car B. Car B breaks. This isn't a bad thing. If someone spoofs the "I'm breaking" signal, worst case scenario cars slow down.

      Worsening traffic congestion, which could potentially be very useful in a cyber-attack intended to disrupt the economy.

      Car A sends "I'm accelerating" signal to Car B. Car B doesn't do anything. You don't accelerate until your sensors detect the car ahead is far enough away from you. Spoofing the "accelerating" signal doesn't cause an accident.

      What if car B was traveling at a lower rate of speed than car A, and only changed to a higher speed because somebody spoofed a signal saying that car A is going faster? And what if they're moving around a blind curve or hill, meaning visual or radar sensors won't help?

      What if car A was traveling at high speed in an intersection, and somebody spoofs a message telling car B that car A was breaking while car B is intending to take a right turn?

      As you can see, there are many ways that this can be broken.

  2. V2V or V2G by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Yes, let's just have cars broadcasting their speed. If you thought red light cameras were bad, this would have been worse.

    1. Re:V2V or V2G by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 2

      If you're not speeding, then you've got nothing to hide!

    2. Re: V2V or V2G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed cameras already exist. They're not widely used because if you reduce everyone's speed you lose revenue. So don't worry too much about massive increases in tickets.

      But it doesn't matter. Car manufacturers won't do this because it will cost them millions to develop. Which is a shame. It's a huge boon to safety and efficiency.

      So I think an open source project is in order. If the R&D is done for free, manufacturers will be happy to plug it into their shitboxes.

    3. Re:V2V or V2G by msauve · · Score: 1

      If I'm not speeding, there's no need to monitor me.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:V2V or V2G by bobbied · · Score: 2

      If you're not speeding, then you've got nothing to hide!

      If it's a public standard and you have the technical knowledge, even if you have something to hide, you can transmit data that says otherwise..

      "Well officer, what did the transponder report? Only 55 MPH? Isn't the speed limit 55? The radar says 70? I think your radar is wrong..."

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:V2V or V2G by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Yes, let's just have cars broadcasting their speed. If you thought red light cameras were bad, this would have been worse."

      Exactly. Much, much, much worse. And "about to run a red light" alert, so people can now just feel like running lights without worrying as much? (The law of unintended consequences). I am not anti-technology, but we need to be very, very careful when running into something like this. Perhaps each part needs to be examined individually for relevance, cost, privacy, and abuse potential. What exactly is the "other information" being broadcast? Your VIN number or license plate????

      I WOULD be in favor of broadcasting when you put your foot on the brake and HOW HARD the car is decelerating. I am not quite sure how that information could be abused, as long as your vehicle is not logging it. Of course, we are also already doing that- it is called brake lights. The "how hard braking" could be as simple as modulating the lights when passing a certain threshold.

      Much of it is redundant, anyway. Sensors for smart cars can already track vehicles around the car, where they are, which direction they are going, speed, etc. My pretty-old 2009 vehicle can already do that with its on-board laser for traffic ahead (it is what is used for the adaptive cruise control system). Many new vehicles already have blind-spot sensors (that work very well) and backup cameras and sensors, etc.

    6. Re:V2V or V2G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's a public standard and you have the technical knowledge, even if you have something to hide, you can transmit data that says otherwise..

      Kind of like cell phones or Wifi!

    7. Re:V2V or V2G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, people consider red-light cameras to be bad? Is this a thing now?

    8. Re:V2V or V2G by Puls4r · · Score: 1

      Being careful doesn't even scratch the surface. We're talking about needing an unhackable wireless car to car communication system that allows free communication with any car that wanders into range, but is somehow able to ignore the fake signals that hackers will be sending within hours of the first car hitting the street.

    9. Re:V2V or V2G by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      The people authorizing red light cameras also happen to authorize shortening the yellow light signal a bit, so that more people run the red light. More violations, more revenue.

      The argument that red light cameras are for public safety tend to ring hollow.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    10. Re:V2V or V2G by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      You don't even need fake signals, just a transmitter (probably in the 1W range) broadcasting broad-spectrum noise strong enough to swamp the receiver of every car in a fifty-foot radius. And when cars can't signal their intentions to their neighbors, they won't be able to get away with following each other a sub-car-length distances. Additional mayhem is left as an exercise for the reader.

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    11. Re: V2V or V2G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donâ(TM)t worry, China/Europe/Japan/India will develop the standards and future cheap technologies to do this.....plus any other tech/patents too....

    12. Re:V2V or V2G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red light cameras actually cause accidents.

      http://time.com/3643077/red-light-cams-rear-end-collisions-chicago/

      Red light cameras have been caught cheating for increased profits.

      http://nypost.com/2012/10/08/citys-gotcha-traffic-cameras-use-short-yellow-lights-to-increase-ticket-revenue-study/

      Red light cameras deny you the ability to face your accuser.

      http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/local-drivers-look-take-red-light-camera-fight-supreme-court/mMeCc1IbdlOYAhl9ZQ147H/

      Red light cameras are often WRONG.
      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-ticket-spikes-met-20140717-story.html

      It is obvious that redlight cameras are nothing but a naked grab at revenue for the local city or county. They should be banned across the nation.

      And no, I've never received a ticket at one of them, so Im not just hating on them.

    13. Re:V2V or V2G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, people consider red-light cameras to be bad? Is this a thing now?

      Oh yeah, especially starting about a decade ago when the company who made them was really pushing them. Red light cameras have been immensely unpopular since then. (BUT: not really the cameras themselves, but because the city governments were doing crazy things with them.

      Where I live, we had the cameras but on top of that, the city government was sending tickets to the people whose cars they saw on the cameras! Very stupid, corrupt, illegal, etc for lots of obvious reasons. The whole thing was done without any thought. (The biggest problem was that they issued civil citations instead of criminal ones in order to circumvent the court system. And they also always sent the ticket to whoever owned the vehicle instead of whoever was driving. And they had the yellow lights somehow reduce their duration in order to turn it red while vehicles were still in intersections. And they never had cops pull over the vehicle in question while (or soon after) the crime was happening. It was a total clusterfuck of stupidity, injustice, corruption, and unconstitutional government overreach.)

      Another nail in the coffin is that it made intersections less safe, so everyone who was in favor of public safety had to be against the cameras.

      And then it was discovered that a significant portion of the ticket revenue went to pay the cameras' vendor.

      When they stop fucking up the tickets, judicial process, revenue drain, etc, I think people will stop hating the cameras as much. The cameras might(?) still pose some safety risks, but having some cameras to identify where red lights are being run so that contermeasures can be taken, could outweigh those risks.

      Until then: shooting the messenger really is the best thing to do, because it's illegal to shoot the cities' policy-makers.

    14. Re:V2V or V2G by Agripa · · Score: 1

      "Well officer, what did the transponder report? Only 55 MPH? Isn't the speed limit 55? The radar says 70? I think your radar is wrong..."

      An officer's guess is good enough for the court.

      https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

    15. Re:V2V or V2G by bobbied · · Score: 1

      In the absence of independent witnesses or technical information, sure. The testimony of an officer trumps yours in traffic court everyday.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. My Mother, the Car (old TV show) by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    is now ...my Car, the Spy

    1. Re:My Mother, the Car (old TV show) by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      The car from U.N.C.L.E.

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
  4. Stupid Idea by sycodon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    May as well just put cameras in the cars too. If your going to fuck over privacy, might as well go all the way.

    And don't talk about Safety because when this was proposed...and even now, there is no system that would mitigate impending wrecks.

    Nope, I think they had something completely different in mind than Safety.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Stupid Idea by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Informative

      https://www.amazon.com/Best-Se...

      You were saying?

      "They" don't have to put cameras in cars, "We" are doing it for "them"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Stupid Idea by msauve · · Score: 1

      "May as well just put cameras in the cars too."

      Hey, add a bit more and you could have a self-driving car! And, if you have self-driving cars, they shouldn't be speeding, or running red lights, or doing any of the other bad things which V2V is supposed to detect.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Stupid Idea by bobbied · · Score: 1

      May as well just put cameras in the cars too.

      In some places, putting a camera in a car is about the only way to legally protect yourself in the case of an accident. Russians are famous for this, where insurance fraud is rife and local law enforcement won't be bothered to investigate such things without a bribe or two.

      So I've considered putting a camera in my car to record the craziness going on and hopefully counteract the idiot who is determined to lie about the cause of the accident and blame me.

      "Oh Yea Lighting McQueen? It was your fault and here is proof in high definition video suitable for display on a big screen in court..."

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Stupid Idea by Waccoon · · Score: 2

      I have a dash cam. It's terrific. It has a dedicated memory card, no WiFi, and does not integrate into the car's electronics. I am not doing anything for "them" if I own and directly control it myself.

      If my insurance company offered to give me a proprietary dash cam in exchange for a discount, I'd tell them to screw off. If car manufacturers make them standard equipment and don't let you control recording or retrieve video on your own, I'd be worried.

    5. Re: Stupid Idea by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      You fool, you forgot to mention the bed in the Russian hotel.

      Your pay will be docked 2 Hillary Dollars for this transgression.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    6. Re:Stupid Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I guess you've never been in a car accident where the other driver is a lying shithead then, huh?

      Dashcams are the greatest thing in the world as soon as you have an accident with someone who "swears up and down that my light was definitely green!!!"

  5. F****** good by BigChigger · · Score: 1

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...

  6. No Knight Industries? :( by Monster_user · · Score: 1

    Here I was hoping for my own talking K.A.R.R. Oh well, there's always privacy breaching telemetry.

    1. Re:No Knight Industries? :( by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      K.I.T.T. has been blacklisted by the Hollywood community after reporting David Hasselhof for sexual abuse.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  7. Re: talking cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention the added cost we would face in repairing yet another system in our cars... more money for automakers and repair shops.. But I'm sure they considered that in determining what size contribution to the Clinton Foundation was required to get this legislation started.

  8. Probably for the best. by Narcocide · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They'd never hire anyone capable of actually securing it anyway. They'd just hire Microsoft, who would backdoor it then outsource it to someplace in India, who would take money on the side to put backdoors in for China and Russia too, in the mean time accidentally leaking all 3 backdoors to the world, enraging NZ and the UK, who'd both paid for what they thought were exclusive backdoors, and while they're all fighting about it, someone will find a REAL vulnerability and exploit it unnoticed for decades.

  9. The Cars by tquasar · · Score: 1

    People who live in rural areas would have little or no need for this. Think of driving ten or fifty miles on a two lane road to go to the store or visit a friend. I have stood in the middle of a road for twenty minutes eating a sandwich and didn't see a car or truck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re: The Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great, that's also the statistical minority of vehicle drivers, by a landslide.

      Even in cases like that, installing a vehicle sensor every 10-20 miles down major highways would help regional planners determine what roads make sense to improve / etc.

      Got a little highway that a long-haul driver likes using to save a few minutes, but is causing significant damage to a road designed for lighter vehicles? V2V allows data that it happened to exist + allows planners to either built to conditions, or let the driver/company know they will be fined / on the hook for future damage.

    2. Re:The Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I've been on curvy two-lane rural mountain roads where you can rarely see more than 100-200 yards of road at a time with locals routinely traveling at 50mph+ through 35mph zones using two throttle positions, where I had to swerve off the inside of a corner on a routine basis to avoid people cutting the corner of blind curves. These roads often have mirrors at corners because lives have been lost. The local high school usually lost a student or two every year on them. There might be rural applications.

  10. Re:talking cars by dgatwood · · Score: 0

    Worse than useless. If your car has sufficient self-driving capabilities, it can see that the car in front of you is braking, and it can react accordingly. Adding car-to-car communication provides no benefit beyond that, and worse, opens up a vector for some jerk to hang a transmitter from a highway overpass that causes every car to think there's a car in front of it that is stopping, bringing the freeway to an even bigger standstill.

    And if your car lacks self-driving capabilities, this still won't do any benefits beyond what basic collision-avoidance LIDAR gives you. So if the government really wants to help, they should mandate that instead.

    What short-range car-to-car mesh networking can help with is detection of problems a few miles ahead, e.g. if five different cars note a loss of traction in a particular spot, there's a good chance the bridge is icy. But again, that's only useful if you have a self-driving car to begin with, and it is important that any standard they come up with be extensible enough to handle future types of information. It's really kind of premature to mandate it, though the various car manufacturers should start a standards body to come up with a plan.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  11. Thanks God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A sensible thing to do.

    1. Re: Thanks God by airdrummer · · Score: 1

      so ur god is mammon?

      skimming comments i havent noticed any mention of the fact that telecons covet the transport-dedicated 5.9ghz band

      obviously trump values cash over human life

  12. How is this the "most promising" tech? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    For preventing traffic accidents, the technology to let cars talk to each other is far behind self-driving car tech. Self driving cars will have a lot better sensors and reaction times than humans would, so they are already ahead... having cars talk each other only helps if EVERY car around is talking to each other, which may not happen for 20+ years even if it was mandated. In-between what happens to the poor cars around when the linked cars blindly decide to take some action?

    Nothing beats proper spacing between cars to prevent accidents.

    Cars can still talk to each other, just the thought it should be a mandate is absurd and is yet another cost that every car must include...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:How is this the "most promising" tech? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      For preventing traffic accidents, the technology to let cars talk to each other is far behind self-driving car tech.

      Not true. Such technology is mandatory in larger aircraft, where it is called TCAS. It is considered to be accurate enough that pilots are instructed to obey the TCAS warnings over the instructions of the human air traffic controllers.

    2. Re:How is this the "most promising" tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire point of the mandate is that over time the percentage of cars with the technology will increase and naturally improve the efficacy of the system. A voluntary implementation is useless.

      It's almost the exact argument for vaccinations being mandatory.

    3. Re:How is this the "most promising" tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self driving cars can use combinations of video, radar, ultrasonic and and lidar sensors. Adding additional sensor data would help improve accuracy, even if not every car has if fitted.

      If you want to prevent traffic accidents using technology, making alcohol breathalyser interlocks mandatory on all cars would be hugely more effective. However, it would be seen as draconian and politically untenable.

    4. Re:How is this the "most promising" tech? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      But the point is that even if you have 99% uptake, you still have some cars "invisible". You cannot rely on every car having this system even for 50 years or more.

      In the meantime self driver car sensor tech gives you much more accurate data, and a more robust engine to handle car reactions to data - not to mention it is VERY EASY to hack broadcast car data and cause all kinds of mischief, in a way that is much harder to do against an array of self driving car sensors.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. We already have this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called Waze.

  14. Good, because it's illegal in WA state by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

    We have privacy rights here, and our State Constitution means you can't even put a GPS tracker on our cars without a specific individual warrant, specifically identifying the person.

    My car will never talk to your car. It's better than that.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  15. Re: talking cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The idea behind V2V was, and always been convivence. Safety was a perk that statistically would improve with additional data, even if a low double digit percentage of modules were abused. It would take a significant # of people abusing the modules for the data not to be an improvement.

      Any sensor your network is not totally authoritative for is assumed to be untrusted and its weight in safety sensitive calculation is almost insignificantly low.

    V2V lets you plan routes around traffic congestion (accident ahead, alternate route provides data indicating it's faster), gives data to city planners to help improve road capacity calculations (vehicles per hour is great for simple use, but planning additional lanes or alternate access to areas needs more data!), provide location specific information more efficiently (construction ahead, reduce speed) , and happens to help in terms of autonomous vehicles (as long as the actual data is untrusted)

    I've seen a few proposals including TPM's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module which I'm not a huge fan of, but if done correctly provides significant value to the actual data on the wire. (There was a prototype drawn up that included a PGP like implementation where vehicles that saw each other often could build trust through signed handshakes and non-shared but burned RSA keys.)

  16. Coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile, Trump's plan to have all vehicles on American roads be coal powered by 2021 is right on track.

    1. Re:Coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Powered heck - paved with that black gold.

  17. V2V also only works if *ALL* vehicles have it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otherwise the system breaks down as cars have to have enough non-RF sensors onboard to detect every other vehicle around them and plan whether to stop, go, swerve, etc around them. And a single non-V2V vehicle dramatically alters the model and dangers associated, if only because that vehicle might not be able to stop or otherwise respond.

  18. Not TCAS by aberglas · · Score: 2

    TCAS technology is different, radar based. Larger planes have radar and look for other objects. Planes do not broadcast their position.

    Most planes (even gliders these days) have transponders that respond with a ping to being hit with radar. But they do not broadcast a position.

    Many pilots consider TCAS to be a nuisance because they are obliged to follow its instructions even though they can see the other plane and know that it is safe. This can actually lead to more dangerous behaviour. For example when taking off a pilot may avoid a steep (safer) climb if he sees another aircraft above because the TCAS will extrapolate his position and issue a directive, so they make a shallower climb that keeps them nearer to the ground.

    1. Re:Not TCAS by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      TCAS technology is different, radar based. Larger planes have radar and look for other objects.

      Larger aircraft have weather radar. TCAS operates bases on the Mode S transponder signals that are interrogated either by ground radar or by the TCAS unit itself. The only significant difference between TCAS and this "cars talk to each other" system is that one is in the air and the other is on the ground.

      Most planes (even gliders these days) have transponders that respond with a ping to being hit with radar. But they do not broadcast a position.

      TCAS does not depend on ground radar. And yes, with the coming mandate for ADS-B Out, aircraft DO broadcast their positions.

      Many pilots consider TCAS to be a nuisance because they are obliged to follow its instructions even though they can see the other plane and know that it is safe.

      That would clear the conflict, then.

      This can actually lead to more dangerous behaviour.

      Then it would be the pilot increasing the danger, since safety-of-flight is a reason not to obey an RA.

    2. Re:Not TCAS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The other difference is that cars routinely operate within a closing distance where a collision avoidance system on planes would be shrieking.

      There is dramatically more buffer space around planes (even after taking into account their increased speed) and that includes stacking in 3D space where cars all have to share the same plane with vastly more intersection of trajectories.

    3. Re:Not TCAS by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The other difference is that cars routinely operate within a closing distance where a collision avoidance system on planes would be shrieking.

      That is a difference in a threshold value, not a significant technical difference. The basic concepts are the same. The technology isn't all that new.

      In fact, if anything, constricting the problem to fixed roadways and one elevation makes the problem simpler, not harder. TCAS has to deal with horizontal AND vertical tracks; car TCAS has only horizontal to worry about.

  19. Never thought I would agree with Trump on anything by aberglas · · Score: 1

    But because he proposed it, the left will scream that he is wrong.

  20. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... set aside plans to require new cars to be able to wirelessly talk ...

    Translation: No-one else is spending money on this life-saving (and possibly privacy-invading) technology, so we don't want to either.

    Some cars already have a built-in phone service or passengers with a cell-phone, so this won't reduce their privacy. However, like cell-phones with wi-fi, this technology enables a radio version of license-plate cameras to track cars. To curtail surveillance, manufacturers (and legislators) would have to ensure the IMEI isn't linked to the vehicle serial number (VIN) or the owner's license plates.

    1. Re: Translation by airdrummer · · Score: 1

      follow the money
      https://www.theregister.co.uk/...

  21. This is absolutely the right call by sinij · · Score: 3, Informative

    I looked into some of the leading designs, and there is zero protection against surveillance or even consideration for privacy. You could literally set up passive beacon, collect IDs and speed readings, and connect it to a mailer to issue speeding tickets.

    1. Re:This is absolutely the right call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is a bad thing because.....?

    2. Re:This is absolutely the right call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because those speeding tickets aren't the only thing the data will be used for.

    3. Re:This is absolutely the right call by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      That's a disgusting comment.

    4. Re:This is absolutely the right call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't prove who was driving,
      You can't prove the data is not wrong,
      You cant' prove someone didn't hack their car to show someone elses VIN
      You can't force me to violate the 5th amendment and admit to a crime.

  22. I can't drive 55! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    One foot on the brake and one on the gas, hey!
    Well, there's too much traffic, I can't pass, no!
    So I tried my best illegal move
    Well, baby, black and white come and touched my groove again!
    Gonna write me up a 125
    Post my face wanted dead or alive
    Take my license, all that jive
    I can't drive 55! Oh No!
    Uh!
    So I signed my name on number 24, hey!
    Yeah the judge said, "Boy, just one more...
    We're gonna throw your ass in the city joint"
    Looked me in the eye, said, "You get my point?"
    I said Yea!, Oh yea!
    Write me up a 125
    Post my face wanted dead or alive
    Take my license, all that jive
    I can't drive 55!
    Oh, yea!
    I can't drive 55!
    I can't drive 55!
    I can't drive 55!
    I can't drive 55!
    Uh!
    When I drive that slow, you know it's hard to steer.
    And I can't get get my care out of second gear.
    What used to take two hours now takes all day. Huh!
    It took me 16 hours to get to L.A.
    Gonna write me up a 125
    Post my face wanted dead or alive
    Take my license, all that jive
    I can't drive 55!
    No, no no,
    I can't drive...
    (I can't drive 55!)
    I can't drive...
    (I can't drive 55!)
    I can't drive 55!

  23. Bad idea from the get-go by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >> jeopardizing one of the most promising technologies for preventing traffic deaths.

    Using technology to get around the fact that Americans can and do get a driving licence despite being an awful, clueless driver is a shit idea that can't and doesn't address the core problem at all.

    The government needs to address the problem directly by mandating much stricter driving tests that include demonstrating an ability to actually be able to drive, such as controlling and handling a car well in all conditions, especially at the edge of performance. Just memorizing all the traffic signs/laws which is what they currently test for, in no way automatically makes anyone a good driver.

    At least here in AZ, the amount of distracted drivers texting while driving, and people that think its ok to never indicate even when very much cutting you off is a serious problem,

    The cops never seem to focus on stopping those people though, they only seem to penalize people that are actually driving safely other than exceeding the speed limit by a few mph.

    1. Re:Bad idea from the get-go by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In the US, many people need to drive a car for basic things, such as getting to work, the grocery store, medical appointments, etc. Any attempt to clear lots of people off the road because they're bad drivers would be a considerable hardship for many.

      Also, I'm a pretty safe driver nowadays. I'm not claiming to be a particularly good one, but I'm cautious enough to be safe. I wasn't always that way, and I benefit from decades of driving experience. If I wasn't allowed to drive, I wouldn't have a good feel as to what to do when I hit a patch of ice. Chicken and egg.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Bad idea from the get-go by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Your assumption that you and others will necessarily be prevented from driving if the driving test gets stricter isn't a good one, because it presumes people are fundamentally incapable of learning.

      What do you think happens in say Western Europe where the driving tests are already much stricter? Still nearly everyone over there has a driving licence. The answer is you just have to make more of an effort to learn, but everyone can and does. To drive well takes schooling and being taught. Just driving for years on its own clearly doesn't work. Just look at the evidence that is already there on most US roads. Most people have actually been driving for years and still clearly don't even know the basics. All driving for decades has done for them is reinforce bad habits that are now even harder to be undone.
      For example, driving overly cautiously is really not being a good or even safe driver at all. It is FAR safer to keep up with the general flow of traffic than become a one-car bottleneck that causes a tailback and others are fighting to get around, yet still many people do it.

      If you do want to actually learn how to drive, go do a course at a high performance/racing driving school such as Bondurant. Apart from just being outright fun, I promise you it will give you a whole new appreciation of driving and a level of car handling skill that you will find very advantageous for just the average daily driving too.

    3. Re:Bad idea from the get-go by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I was unclear. I'm not cautious in the sense of driving slower than traffic. That's dangerous, as you say. I keep larger intervals than most people, wait for bigger gaps to turn into, that sort of thing.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  24. Car Accidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are random events, but maybe the opponents of V2V will experience enough of them to change their minds eventually.

  25. Re: Never thought I would agree with Trump on anyt by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    see my comment re: telecons

  26. This is probably a good thing by ChrisC1234 · · Score: 1

    >It would enable vehicles to transmit their location, speed, direction and other information 10 times per second.

    So my car is supposed to take another car's word about what it is doing? How long until someone else figures out how to make their car "lie" to watch the fun? It's guaranteed to happen. And will companies be continually updating these things, or are you just up a creek once your car is "obsolete" (aka when the warranty has expired and they want you to buy a new one).

  27. Gaming the system by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    There are already unauthorized traffic signal pre-emption systems that change red lights to green https://www.wired.com/2005/08/... The authorized versions are intended for fire/police/ambulance use. I could easily see somebody compromising the V2V system to broadcast a "get out of my way" message, to make their own commute faster. Even worse, overpower other cars' signals and cause accidents. Dumb computers, just following orders, could cause lots of deaths. Can I slip in a Godwin here?

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  28. FAA mandates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the government mandates something like this, it creates legal lock-in of that specific solution, preventing better things for customers from occurring. Imagine if every car built was required to implement the 802.11a standard at the time it became a standard, for example.

    The FAA mandates all sorts of things, as does the DOT, and our vehicles are generally better for it. As does NIST with various standards, and DOD/NATO with MIL-STD/STANAG.

    The key is mandating what needs to happen, and not how.

    Standards are important for competition to prevent vendor lock-in, though they shouldn't be implemented too soon so as to provide opportunity for some experimentation. They should also be revisions every so often.

    1. Re:FAA mandates by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      What evidence can you supply that these mandates are uniformly positive? Have you compared a no-mandate condition to the mandated condition?

      You might be surprised to learn how many of the mandates you've mentioned have actually made things worse for most people over time.

      Standards are important, but mandating them isn't the way to go. How about a mandate that all web browsers must support flash, back when that was the primary mechanism, ie. de facto standard, to ensure we have a shared standard? What could possibly go wrong? Who wouldn't want a browser with flash support? I mean, it'd be practically criminal if a browser developer didn't include flash as part of their standard offering, right? Besides, no one wants to use lync or fetch or wget, anyway.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  29. I never understood that song by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1
    I never understood that song, but ..

    One foot on the brake and one on the gas, hey!

    ..I figured out why he wasn't able to get his vehicle up to 55 MPH. Get your fucking left foot off the brake pedal.

    In other news, there are many ways rock.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  30. Re: talking cars by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    The thing is, we already have most of the information that this gathers, and cars can't realistically sort through the volume of data required to make things like traffic data via V2V even slightly useful. That works much better when cars report their speed periodically to a centralized system that can filter signal from noise and determine whether it is just one car slowing down or an actual problem. When you're talking about data from potentially millions of cars on the roads at any given moment, there isn't any prayer of even being able to get that much data propagated to all the cars, much less for them to process it.

    The only thing it could possibly do better than other solutions is reporting of unexpected hazards, such as road ice, water flows, etc., and even then, only if there are enough cars close enough together for the signals to actually reach you AND there isn't enough time for it to go to a central server and back before you reach the unexpected hazard. In other words, it has very, very, very limited utility compared with cellular-based or radio-based mechanisms. It really seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  31. Lawsuit of Your car sexually harrassing me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....just went out the bedroom door