backtop


Print 30 comment(s) - last by kattanna.. on Apr 30 at 10:26 AM

You car won't rat you out for speeding... yet

The National Highway Traffic Safety administration is looking to start testing vehicle-to-vehicle communications to help save lives. The idea is that the vehicles could communicate amongst themselves to alert drivers if another vehicle is going to enter an intersection or if there's a potential for an accident. The agency is considering the implementation of regulations in 2013 that would eventually mandate such technology.
 
NHTSA administrator David Strickland said Thursday at the SAE World Congress, "[Proposed regulations] create a baseline communication system." 
 
"Our research shows that these technologies could help prevent a majority of the collisions that typically occur in the real world, such as rear-end collisions, intersection crashes, or collisions while switching lanes," Strickland said.
 
This could be one technology that automakers get behind. Toyota spokesman Brian Lyons says, "Vehicle-to-vehicle technology is a natural evolution of vehicle safety.  When you consider all the advancements in vehicle safety: passage safety (seat belts and airbags)-active safety (electronic stability control)-collision avoidance (blind spot monitoring and adaptive cruise control), the possibilities of Vehicle-to-X communication are limitless." The testing will get underway this summer using 2,800 vehicles in the Ann Arbor Michigan area to test connected vehicle technology. The testing will span the summer of 2012 through the summer of 2013.
 
If testing goes well, setting rules mandating the technology could take an additional two or more years. The mandates are expected, if they happen at all, to focus on vehicle-to-vehicle safety messages. The testing process conducted over the year will also include a limited number of vehicle-to-infrastructure applications.
 
Toyota's general manager of integrated vehicle systems Hideki Hada notes that the technology is aimed at learning the intention of other vehicles.
 
The NHTSA believes that vehicle technology such as this could eliminate that 80% of vehicle crashes involving non-impaired drivers.

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Clever, but...
By chromal on 4/27/2012 12:33:47 PM , Rating: 1
Here's a better idea, one that will work in all automobiles made, ever: Drivers pay attention to what they're doing and the environment outside their vehicles, and drive accordingly.

Done, and with no electronic nannies, even.




RE: Clever, but...
By FITCamaro on 4/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Clever, but...
By Jeffk464 on 4/27/2012 8:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's not how the brain works. Nobody is able to stay focused 100% of the time. You ever sit in a classroom and realized that you completely missed what the teacher/professor was say for the past couple minutes?


RE: Clever, but...
By Jeffk464 on 4/27/2012 8:06:42 PM , Rating: 3
They really need to add an edit feature here.


RE: Clever, but...
By Samus on 4/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Clever, but...
By JediJeb on 4/29/2012 10:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
I like technology and am all for more R&D into things to make a vehicle safe, but I am also against any misuse of technology and there is the potential for it here. This is something that should be open for the vehicle owner to be able to know what is being recorded and who accesses it. The vehicle owner has the right to know every time someone else sees the data.

There are also problems with letting technology take over too many tasks in daily life. I get to interview new hires for the laboratory and I can tell you that if the batteries die in a calculator most of the younger people I meet today would struggle with basic math without one. Most also can not sign their name legibly since they never write anything anymore, and that is a requirement on all the official documents they will handle for us. It is even difficult to find ones who have a B.S. degree who have good critical thinking and problem solving skills because they now rely too heavily on an internet search. All of those technologies are great tools, but when you rely on them too much you lose the mental abilities that are needed, especially if for some reason that tool is not available when you need it.


RE: Clever, but...
By Rukkian on 4/30/2012 8:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure what article you read, but this is not a "black box" that records things. This article talks about real-time vehicle to vehicle communication to help curb accidents. When a car is stopped, and a driver may not be attentive, their car can sense that the car ahead of them is stopped and can apply the breaks effectively to help avoid the collision. You may want to read the article before you spout off about it.

There was another article about a seperate possible mandate on basically a "black box", but that is something else completely.

While I agree that things are changing, that is not neccessarily bad. There are way to do electronic signatures that could be used, but since when does a signature have to legible? The may thing on a signature is that it is nearly the same each time. I have been doing handwriting for years, but you probably couldn't read my signature, however it is basically the same each time, which is what matters.

As for the basic math, I do agree with that to some extent, however there are also plenty of people that do have the skills needed. Most are not right out of college, or had alot of internship time while in college.


RE: Clever, but...
By drycrust3 on 4/28/2012 3:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody is able to stay focused 100% of the time.

Correct ... and incorrect! The correct part is that is why you need to practice following the road rules until they are second nature, just as you should practice taking notes when in a lecture e.g. keeping a safe following distance, sticking to the speed limits, indicating what your intentions are ahead of doing them, joining the longest queue at the traffic lights if driving in unfamiliar territory, etc.
The incorrect part of your statement is being alert is different from stressing over uncertainties. By driving with the road rules as second nature it allows you to be alert without being stressed. There are lots of uncertainties, which is why you need to allow for those when driving. People that tail gate are placing themselves in stressful situation because the vehicle in front may not behave the way they hope. They don't need to be in that situation.
Accidents happen when people don't follow the road rules.
As we all know, the reason car reliability has gone up is because Deeming jumped up and down and made a fuss about slack tolerances caused parts to not mesh together perfectly which caused breakdowns.
By having tight tolerances the parts mesh together the way they should are the car functions correctly.
The same reasoning applies to road safety: by getting people to follow the road rules you reduce accidents. This is why speed cameras save lives: they tighten the speed standard deviation of drivers as they drive along the road. This is why drink-driving campaigns save lives: they discourage people who would drive outside the standard deviation from driving.

As a professional driver (I drive a bus) my friendly advice to all is to think of the space in front of you is your friend.


RE: Clever, but...
By JediJeb on 4/29/2012 11:03:19 AM , Rating: 2
I always try to leave the 3 seconds between me and another vehicle, but usually some idiot ends up jumping into the gap thinking they are some kind of NASCAR driver needing to draft. Even if we are only going 25mph through town lol.


RE: Clever, but...
By foolsgambit11 on 4/29/2012 6:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well and good. But don't we have about a century of experience showing that expecting all drivers to follow the rules all the time is unrealistic? Maybe if we remove offending drivers from the roads? Should we increase penalties for failure to follow the rules? Suspend licenses for first speeding offense, etc? Or should we try using new tools and technologies to make driving safer? Or both?


RE: Clever, but...
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2012 7:57:28 AM , Rating: 2
Speed cameras only reduce speeding tickets. They don't make people drive better. You can drive like a jackass under the speed limit too.

I agree though that teaching people to follow road rules makes people less stressed when driving properly. When I drove 150 miles a day to work and back, there were many times in heavy traffic that I completely lost track of the distance I covered. Because I was so used to driving properly, it didn't stress me out and just instinct takes over to maintain speed, slow down, and speed up when necessary.


RE: Clever, but...
By Jedi2155 on 4/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Clever, but...
By mindless1 on 4/28/2012 12:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't matter. When taking the exam a person is very focused because they "need" to pass it. Likewise with paying for it.

Traffic accidents on the other hand tend to come from inattention, poor mental state from emotions or drugs/alcohol use or lack of sleep, speeding, confusing roadway conditions, other drivers' errors, and a much longer list of things having no relation to how much one studies or pays for, nor how high they score on a test.

What's the ultimate cause? Humans are selfish a-holes influenced too much by media controlled by the rich.


RE: Clever, but...
By JediJeb on 4/28/2012 9:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Drivers pay attention to what they're doing and the environment outside their vehicles, and drive accordingly.


Except for the ones talking, texting, applying makeup, reading the news paper(saw that once while running 70mph on the interstate) and many other things people shouldn't be doing while driving.

I'm not for taking the responsibility out of the driver's hands, I think drivers need to be more responsible for what they do behind the wheel. Maybe we should take a page from Finland's driving requirements, there they require at least three of your training sessions be done on a water covered skid pad to test your ability to control a vehicle in a skid on wet roads. There you not only have to show you know how to go forward, stop, and park, you actually have to prove you can maintain control under extreme circumstances. Probably not a bad idea all around.


RE: Clever, but...
By Rukkian on 4/30/2012 9:06:05 AM , Rating: 2
Unless they also make you do it while texting, I do not see how it would help. Yes it might help for a small % of crashes, but I do not think the majority it would do anything for.

As stated above, during a test, most people are very focused on just that task, and nothing else. It is when they get out in the real world that things change.

While I may drive correctly (3-4 seconds following distance, drive the speed limit, let others merge in) that does not mean I can stop all of the other idiots out there that do the opposite of everything I do.

We will have to see how the technology pans out, but this sounds like a good start on dropping the accident rate. This should even be a discount for Insurance as it should help. The biggest thing I would worry about is that it needs to be bullet proof and un-hackable as possible to avoid attacks of some sort.


V2V Jamming
By siliconvideo on 4/27/2012 12:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
Since this technology will probably use vehicle to vehicle radios for collision avoidance, a simple RF jammer will turn stop light intersections to green in all directions and we known what the results will be from the movies.




RE: V2V Jamming
By bobsmith1492 on 4/27/2012 3:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, unless you use a simple spread-spectrum radio, which are cheap and readily available.


RE: V2V Jamming
By mindless1 on 4/28/2012 12:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm curious how you think that would work. All the cars have to be on the same frequencies to comm since this isn't a mere P2P system, and yet an intelligent spread spectrum radio would switch to a channel NOT being used which defeats the purpose as no other vehicles are on it to comm with.

Also a jammer could sample airwaves and switch frequencies too.

To me the main problem seems to be bandwidth. They need to get thousands of cars all in the same place at the same time for testing, not just throw a few thousand cars into one city where there may only be a dozen if that many on the road and near enough to be communicating with each other at any given moment.


RE: V2V Jamming
By Jeffk464 on 4/27/2012 8:08:22 PM , Rating: 1
Yup, the evil hackers are going to take over our pacemakers and crash our cars. :)

By the way you guys do know that when you fly the planes you are in are heavily automated right.


RE: V2V Jamming
By mindless1 on 4/28/2012 12:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
Your post makes no sense. V2V comm is not suggested to have any control or effect over stop light timing.

If a jammer were used all it would do is temporarily disrupt the extra safety feature, it might take a very long time for an otherwise avoided accident to occur.


RE: V2V Jamming
By foolsgambit11 on 4/29/2012 7:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe he/she was assuming that traffic light control is part of the "limited vehicle-to-infrastructure" uses? Even so, without a valid signal, the lights would surely default to an unprompted standard lighting rotation.


nice pic
By dgingerich on 4/27/2012 2:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
Nice pic at the top of the article. Where'd you find that?

I actually remember that show and episode. I know exactly what's going on. I remember sitting on the family room floor watching it happen on TV. I was probably around 10-12, I think. How many other people remember this? ;)




RE: nice pic
By JediJeb on 4/28/2012 9:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
Was that the good KITT versus the bad KITT one?


RE: nice pic
By Rukkian on 4/30/2012 9:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
Kindof telling our ages, but yes I knew right away what that was. The original was so much better than the new one that turned Kitt into a transformer!


Not sure about this
By amanojaku on 4/27/2012 12:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked, you were supposed to give other drivers space and use your signals. If I have a v2v console that means I have to take my eyes off the road to check it. How is that any safer than paying attention? Are we assuming the other drivers won't signal? If so, my v2v system will tell me "he's turning right", and so will my eyes. To me, v2v is a complication that only makes sense for automated driving.




RE: Not sure about this
By mindless1 on 4/28/2012 12:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
I expect they want to eventually tie it into automated vehicle control so at the very least the vehicle can apply brakes without driver input, that there is no information the driver needs to visually interpret, though possibly some buzzer warning sound too.


Our research
By jemix on 4/27/2012 2:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
help
quote:
Our research shows that these technologies could help...
I read this as "Our super-pac will give us money if..."

Actually, I've always wanted v2v communication, but I would like it to be more personal, driver to driver (d2d), like: "You left your wallet is on the roof of your car", "Your taillight is out", "Your tire flat" or "How's that booger taste". :)




RE: Our research
By JediJeb on 4/28/2012 9:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
Most cars had that back in the 1970s, it was called CB radio.

Still use one myself, just not so many others to talk with anymore.


Try personal responsibility first
By Beenthere on 4/27/2012 10:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
Why are people driving on the roadways who are incapable of backing out of their driveway without having an accident? A driver's license is not a God given right. Why does law enforcement and the judicial system allow people to drive wrecklessly, inattentively, talking on cellphones or while texting?

Electronics can be useful but they can't eliminate stupidity by drivers or the system.




electronic finger
By kattanna on 4/30/2012 10:26:53 AM , Rating: 2
this would be great if it could be used to tell the slow driver in the front to pull over and let others pass.




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki