Print 60 comment(s) - last by FiveTenths.. on Jul 18 at 9:52 AM

The Obama administration hopes to have a V2V proposal put forth by 2017

Although we don’t have an exact date for when it will become mandatory, vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication technology will inevitably be found on all new cars and trucks. V2V technology allows vehicles to not only wirelessly communicate with each other (broadcasting information such as position, speed, etc.), but also with their surroundings in order to reduce the number of traffic accidents and road fatalities/injuries.
"Vehicle-to-vehicle technology represents the next generation of auto safety improvements, building on the life-saving achievements we've already seen with safety belts and air bags," remarked U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx back in February. "By helping drivers avoid crashes, this technology will play a key role in improving the way people get where they need to go while ensuring that the U.S. remains the leader in the global automotive industry."
Now, President Barack Obama is throwing his weight behind V2V technology. In a speech delivered this morning at Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, President Obama stated that V2V technology could:
  • Reduce up to 80 percent of the 32,000 road deaths each year in America
  • Significantly reduce the 2 million non-fatal injuries
  • Save society $800 billion annually in costs
President Obama reminded audience members that he is not just the Commander-in-Chief, but he is also a father of two. “As the father of a daughter who just turned 16, any new technology that makes driving safer is important to me,” said Obama. “New technology that makes driving smarter is good for the economy.”
V2V technology has a number of backers, including major automakers like Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai-Kia, Toyota, Nissan, and Volkswagen. These automakers are working alongside the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute to research real-world applications of the technology and to provide guidance for legislation. In fact, the Obama administration hopes to reveal its proposal for a V2V mandate before the next administration takes office.

 Vehicle-to-Vehicle technology would allow cars and trucks to communicate with each other wirelessly.

However, not everyone is onboard with V2V technology. The Detroit News reported back in March that it could add up to $3,000 to the cost of a new car by the year 2025. In addition, many feel that such technology should be optional instead of mandated (although that would significantly cut down on its effectiveness and the President’s goals for reducing fatalities).
Others point to the fact that many technologies already available in cars today like blind spot/lane departure monitors, frontal collision detection, and radar/laser cruise control systems (which in some instance can “drive” a vehicle during stop-and-go traffic) already do enough to help prevent accidents.

Source: The Detroit News

Comments     Threshold

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

Does He
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 2:27:10 PM , Rating: 1
Does he really think Americans trust him or this Government with this kind of technology? Especially given the lengths he's gone to implement domestic spying and defending it.

I'll take my "80%" (hyperbole) higher risk of being in a crash if it means keeping the NSA out of my vehicle, thank you.

RE: Does He
By Brandon Hill on 7/15/2014 2:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
On a slightly related note, did you hear the rumor that Apple is recruiting Jay Carney to become head of PR? :)

RE: Does He
By HoosierEngineer5 on 7/15/2014 3:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hilarious. Reality distortion field gets a new operator.

RE: Does He
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 4:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one that finds that alarming. Why does a major corporation need a world class political spin artist? The answer can only be bad.

RE: Does He
By Brandon Hill on 7/15/2014 4:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
Luckily, looks like the rumor just got shutdown pretty hard by Jim Dalrymple:

RE: Does He
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: Does He
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 5:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily... When he starts off a press conference and says "good morning" or whatever initial line he isnt lying yet. :/

RE: Does He
By Alexvrb on 7/15/2014 6:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
I've always imagined someone standing up after he's told a particularly big whopper and saying "Mr. Carney, do you mind if I ask this question in your native tongue?" and then proceeding to do their best weasel noise impression.

RE: Does He
By Spuke on 7/15/2014 9:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
I've always imagined someone standing up after he's told a particularly big whopper and saying "Mr. Carney, do you mind if I ask this question in your native tongue?" and then proceeding to do their best weasel noise impression.
THAT'S f%^king hilarious! LMAO!

RE: Does He
By room200 on 7/15/2014 8:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
What's the difference between THAT and political jackasses lobbying for corporations after they leave office? Or running for political office?

RE: Does He
By ebakke on 7/15/2014 10:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
If by "world class" you mean, in the same class as other world figures like Baghdad Bob, well then yes. I agree with your sentiment completely.

RE: Does He
By AntiM on 7/15/2014 3:09:22 PM , Rating: 3
I would think he would have better things to worry about than vehicle technology. This is just another step towards the police/surveillance state where the location of your vehicle can be monitored and cataloged. I'll wouldn't be surprised if they made tampering with it illegal. Most people won't care, most of them already carry around a location device in their pocket.
But something good could come from it. Maybe I'll be able to communicate to the slow poke douche-bag in front of me to move over.

RE: Does He
By Labotomizer on 7/15/2014 4:21:43 PM , Rating: 3
I think this will naturally come. I don't think the government needs to be involved in accelerating it.

RE: Does He
By Alexvrb on 7/15/2014 6:44:52 PM , Rating: 3
Sure they do. If they don't control V2V, it makes it harder to fully implement V2N (Vehicle-to-NSA) communications - not to mention adding VCO (Vehicle Control Override). Remember, this is for your own good!

RE: Does He
By marvdmartian on 7/16/2014 7:32:46 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, look how well vehicle control worked for Will Smith's character, in I, Robot! LOL

RE: Does He
By Alexvrb on 7/16/2014 8:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah replace USR with Google and make the vehicle without any autopilot override and you've got a more realistic (and abbreviated) version.

RE: Does He
By idiot77 on 7/15/2014 4:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
Everytime they climb on a plane. You think humans control planes? LOL.

RE: Does He
By Samus on 7/15/2014 9:48:38 PM , Rating: 3
Especially given the lengths he's gone to implement domestic spying and defending it.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Obama hasn't expanded any spying programs left over from the Cheney administration, but he hasn't really done anything to stop them or add transparency, either.

Even Edward Snowden stated all the policies at the NSA from FISA courts to data collection was a remnant from long before his time at the NSA and that all of it had been going on for many years.

RE: Does He
By NellyFromMA on 7/16/2014 9:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the NSA spying program has indeed expanded under the Obama administration.

Where else would the direction come from? This is national security.

The policies indeed may very well be the same, if not nearly the same, but the execution and implementation of those policies must have been expanded under the Obama administration.

The resources allocated to spy on 90% of internet traffic in 2002 vs the explosion of devices now online in 2014 almost requires it to, if they do indeed have real-time capabilities.

That's guesswork, for sure, but it seems pretty clear he supported it as well as implemented and expanded the capabilities.

RE: Does He
By wookie1 on 7/16/2014 12:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, a scarier thought is that they're expanding on their own without any knowledge by the congress or president. We already know that they spy on congress (and maybe also the president and supreme court?), so they could end up with leverage and some control over those branches of government. That to me is much more worrisome than the president expanding the NSA's use (although neither is good).

RE: Does He
By atechfan on 7/15/2014 10:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not against the concept of vehicle-to-vehicle communication. I just don't trust the US government to implement it, nor do I think it should be government mandated. Let the market work it out.

RE: Does He
By alpha754293 on 7/16/2014 8:31:35 AM , Rating: 2
The market HAS worked it out. It works out to be about 32,000 deaths per year, which until about 2010, has ZERO prevention strategies/technologies.

Think about it - the market stands the profit GREATLY off you if you crash JUST hard enough that makes you buy a new car, but not so hard that it kills you, or becomes an undue burden on the health insurance system.

RE: Does He
By atechfan on 7/16/2014 9:37:13 AM , Rating: 2
There has been crash prevention technology for decades. Anti-lock brakes, traction control, daytime running light. Everything that improves braking, handling, or vehicle visibility is crash control tech. As new tech become available, they trickle into autos, usually at the upper range first, then work their way down as they become affordable.

Things like backup cameras don't add significantly to the cost of a vehicle any more, since everyone wants an infotainment system, so the screens are already in the dash. Brakes are already controlled by the computer for the purposes of anti-lock, so adding a proximity sensor and having it apply brakes automatically also does not add much to the cost.

That is what I mean by letting the market decide. These features, if not significantly more expensive, will sell vehicles. If they cost too much extra, people will skip them.

RE: Does He
By alpha754293 on 7/16/2014 2:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
The presence of ABS isn't going to do as much for a vehicle that's about to run a red light as that vehicle broadcasting a message (based on speed and direction) to YOUR car that they're about to be running the red light so that you can either hit the brakes manually, or that your auto-brake/emergency brakes can kick in.

Traction control tells you nothing about a driver who's falling asleep behind the wheel (but again, V2V can, because they can actually either have sensors that monitor your eye movements, or track a vehicle's steering input (or lack thereof) and how it is veering from side to side, and then send a message to your instrument panel telling you that.)

DRL is not required in the US (49 CFR 571.108). It is permitted, but not required. CMVSS, on the other hand, requires DRL.

Proximity sensors don't work well for longer ranges greater than a few metres, which, for static, passive safety - is fine, but when you're at speed, 5 m/s = 18 km/h, which means that any speed > 18 km/h, you're going to be cover more than the length of a mid-size sedan every second (which means you're going to be beyond the ability for the proximity sensor to react).

And braking straight-line braking is just ONE of the aspects. If you're pulling out of an underground garage in Chicago or New York City, you know that you have limited visibility of your surroundings (particularly to the left and right of the front of your vehicle).

Or if there is a row of parked cars like it is in Midtown Manhattan, and you're pulling out onto a busy side street, those systems aren't really going to help you. But if a V2V system can tell you about on-coming vehicles (even beyond the range of a RADAR/LIDAR system can detect), you'll be better to know when it is safe to pull out and when it's not.

If the free market was so great, why doesn't V2V already exist? Why does it take a government initiative to get the players in the market to investigate it? Why isn't it like, that by the time the government gets around to doing it, the free market is already like "yeah, we've already done that. And we're like 10 steps ahead of you."?

Or perhaps more importantly, in a point that hasn't been answered/addressed yet, if the free market is so great, then why are there STILL 32,000 deaths every year due to MVAs?

RE: Does He
By FiveTenths on 7/16/2014 3:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
The market HAS worked it out. It works out to be about 32,000 deaths per year, which until about 2010, has ZERO prevention strategies/technologies.

Are you seriously arguing that things like ABS, traction control, third brake lights, and stability control do NOTHING to prevent multi-vehicle, not to mention single vehicle, accidents? That is beyond ignorant.

The reason the V2V doesn't already exist is because the technology was prohibitively expensive, and that in all of your scenarios if both cars don't have the technology it won't make one bit of difference.

So you spend an extra 3K (which seems a bit inflated) on your new Yaris with V2V, an approximately 20% price increase, and pulling out of the parking garage in Chicago you are hit by a guy speeding in a 1994 Bronco. How does that improve the statistic?

RE: Does He
By JediJeb on 7/17/2014 5:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
So you spend an extra 3K (which seems a bit inflated) on your new Yaris with V2V, an approximately 20% price increase, and pulling out of the parking garage in Chicago you are hit by a guy speeding in a 1994 Bronco. How does that improve the statistic?

Exactly, just as you become accustomed to relying on the V2V to warn you and you begin to not look for yourself, along will come someone driving an older vehicle without it.

It would be great if this tech would not lead to drivers being even less alert to their surrounding than they are now. But you know it won't.

RE: Does He
By alpha754293 on 7/18/2014 8:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well, 1) ABS doesn't prevent ALL collisions. In fact, since the stopping distance INCREASES with ABS, you can therefore; have an INCREASE in the number of motor vehicle accidents.

(Source: www [dot] thetruthaboutcars [dot] com/2009/10/nhtsa-abs-braking-increases-fatal-run-o ff-road-crashes-by-34/, especially cf. the PDF that they've got linked there for the direct link to a copy of the NHTSA report.)

Please, oh PLEASE, I would LOVE to see you try and debate/refute the findings of that report. (I'm giddy with excitement!!! :D)

Now, granted I will give you that TCS and ESC both have played their roles in reducing motor vehicle accidents and fatalities - this I agree, is true. But that also means that until it was part of 49 CFR 571, manufacturers were NOT obligated to install them in their vehicles, despite their benefits. So while the technologies saves lives, they're not required. And unfortunately, the "free market" does not require companies to NOT disclose the fact that they DON'T have certain features that other automakers DO have, which means that in all reality, chances are, the time that you're going to find out that you DON'T have TCS or ESC or sometimes even ABS (depending on what year you bought your vehicle), is when you probably need that technology the most, which is probably the WORST time to be finding out "oh hey, I don't have that." So...what do you say to that?

re: V2V cost
Ummm...I don't know about that. I mean given the prevalence of cell phones, and I mean, there can also be debates about how much bandwidth/data it would consume/gets transmitted, but if the most basic premise of the idea is that it would tap into your cell phone for the V2V communications network or if there's an embedded modem/"cellphone" (really, you just need the transmitting chip, you don't need a lot of the other stuff that cell phone has these days), I don't know if it would really be all that expensive to implement. And just as an example to illustrate the point, you can buy an iPhone 4 from Virgin Mobile US for like $200 and their cheapest plan is $35/month, so if you have even a CAN bus reader that can transmit or broadcast the messages to anybody that's listening, how hard could it possibly be or how expensive can it possibly be? So...I dunno about that. Granted, there are a whole series of issues that would need to be worked out, but that's kind of the point of the government V2V initiative. What IS the standard communications protocol? How does it work? When does it work? How to you keep it safe? Privacy concerns, etc.?

It improves the statistic because medical costs are EXTREMELY expensive in the US. If $3k can save you $250k in hospital bills, doesn't it make sense to spend the $3k instead? (Unless, of course, you're in the medical/insurance business, and since it's a for-profit system, you'd probably WANT them to spend the $250k instead...but that's a whole 'nother debate for another time.)

RE: Does He
By FiveTenths on 7/18/2014 9:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody is arguing that ABS is the end all of collision avoidance/prevention...not sure why you took it to that extreme.

I also find it a bit perplexing that in one paragraph you state that most consumers don't know what, if any, traction/stability control their vehicle has; and in the next mention that V2V is as simple as buying a cell phone and a CAN bus reader, and then configuring the two to work together.

If they can't be trusted to know what is installed on the vehicle for them, what in the world makes you think they can handle a DIY V2V solution?

Also, basing V2V on a personal cell phone isn't feasible if the requirement is that every vehicle HAS to have V2V. You would basically be forcing all drivers to buy a cell phone, data plan, AND have a charged phone on them at all times.

It improves the statistic because medical costs are EXTREMELY expensive in the US. If $3k can save you $250k in hospital bills, doesn't it make sense to spend the $3k instead?

You missed the point entirely. You would most likely be dead, the V2V would not work with a vehicle that is not equipped with the technology. The accident would still happen and the 3k would be a waste of money. The statistic would not be improved at all.

RE: Does He
By JediJeb on 7/17/2014 5:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
Things like backup cameras don't add significantly to the cost of a vehicle any more, since everyone wants an infotainment system, so the screens are already in the dash. Brakes are already controlled by the computer for the purposes of anti-lock, so adding a proximity sensor and having it apply brakes automatically also does not add much to the cost.

Not everyone wants infotainment systems, I know I don't and many people I know also hate them. I can even live without an AM/FM radio.

As for the Day Time Running Lamps, GM has the worse ones ever. Most of the GM vehicles I meet have such bright DRLs that I see spots after they pass even in broad daylight. If anything that makes me less likely to see the vehicle following them which decreases safety. I don't have perfect vision by any stretch of the imagination, but I have never missed seeing a vehicle when I was actually looking and paying attention, if not paying attention DRLs would still make little difference.

RE: Does He
By dew111 on 7/17/2014 1:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
If this reduces fatalities by 80%, that makes the current risk 400% higher, not 80% higher.

Maybe you could just wear a foil hat when driving such a car.

I Get It Now
By bitmover461 on 7/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: I Get It Now
By nolisi on 7/15/2014 3:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously suggesting that a back up camera, placed on the outside of a vehicle and pointed away from the cabin, is part of a domestic spying agenda? You seriously think the NSA is collecting information on the vehicles you're parallel parking in front of?? Or maybe they're interested in what your garage door looks like?

Perhaps you enjoy the prospect of repainting your front bumper as people ram it repeatedly while parallel parking? I back into my garage through a common driveway from around a blind corner, and having a car with a backup camera has made that daily activity safer and smoother.

RE: I Get It Now
By Labotomizer on 7/15/2014 4:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
I like having a backup camera. I don't think it should be government responsibility to tell car makers they need one. As costs come down they've become more and more common. It's as simple as that. Just like getting a car without power windows is difficult, eventually backup cams will be the same way.

RE: I Get It Now
By Rockisback on 7/15/2014 8:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
There is no mandate to have backup cameras.

RE: I Get It Now
RE: I Get It Now
By room200 on 7/15/2014 9:02:34 PM , Rating: 2

It's no different than requiring rear-view mirrors in cars. Domestic cars have become so huge that there's no possible way to see what's behind you or low ahead of you.

RE: I Get It Now
By NellyFromMA on 7/16/2014 9:02:18 AM , Rating: 2
The difference between a mirror, plastic, and adhesive vs integrated display with external video inputs and the camera in terms of cost are clearly different; tech is more expensive than a mirror.

Also, people get pretty hung up on up front cost, but what if my camera is broken now. Because, you know, automakers make SUCH durable accessories these days.

Now I can't pass inspection without paying a tech 100 hr just to undue some body panel to replace a camera that you KNOW they will charge more than 100 for. And hope that wiring doesn't become the problem, or a whole litany of carpeting and panels may need to come undone to track down the source.

The costs add up. A replacement mirror is like 15 dollars.

These are the differences.

RE: I Get It Now
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 11:01:02 AM , Rating: 1
lol could you have found a more left-leaning slant on this issue?

"Grieving" (pad parents), who ran over their own kids because they were negligent, need the Federal Government to step in and force us all to have cameras.

No wonder you're the way you are. Another victim of this disgusting Liberal slant turning a normal persons rational brain into a steaming pile of mush. This piece is just one giant sympathy piece, melodramatic trash. Bereft of facts or different opinions or even common sense.

This is why we have the Government of today. When we call for a Government that has to fix or address EVERY issue, we get a Government that's massive, wasteful, and corrupt. Not to mention all too powerful.

Maybe a camera would have saved these people's kid, and maybe not. But I know what WOULD have. How about NOT letting your 2 year old play outside unattended so she can wonder into your neighbors driveway, lay crying on the driveway behind a car for who knows how long, and get run over? I'm pretty sure THAT would have worked.

RE: I Get It Now
By retrospooty on 7/16/2014 11:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
LOL... "But what about the children ? Who will protect the children!!!"

The age of personal responsibility is over. You call it "liberal" I call it "The nanny state" as conservatives are right up there in it as well. Whatever it is, it has to stop.

RE: I Get It Now
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 11:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
Meh I'm not trying to make this about side vs side. I personally don't see building the nanny state as a trademark of Conservatism, but if you do, maybe I just haven't heard about it.

I feel for these parents, but yeah, where's the accountability? Who the hell lets a 2 year old run around unattended outside??

Part of the grieving process is denial. They can't face the horror that they knowingly should and so easily could have prevented, so clearly the Government and some laws "failed them".

RE: I Get It Now
By retrospooty on 7/16/2014 12:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
"I personally don't see building the nanny state as a trademark of Conservatism, but if you do, maybe I just haven't heard about it."

I meant that it's neither. You seem to see it as a trademark of liberalism. Or maybe you just put that label on anything you don't like. "I hate the taste of this brand of coffee. It must be liberal coffee". ;)

"I feel for these parents, but yeah, where's the accountability? Who the hell lets a 2 year old run around unattended outside??"

Exactly. It's not that the kid shouldn't play outside, but FFS, if you are backing out in a neighborhood with Children and you cant see what is behind your cars DONT GO! Especially true if your kids are playing outside and you dont see them at the moment. FFS, lets not force all cars to have camera's because of someones combo of bad parenting and driving decisions.

RE: I Get It Now
By Labotomizer on 7/16/2014 2:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly the government is capable of fixing human nature...

I'm with Retro and R77 here, I get so sick of everyone blaming something else for what happens. That could be TV, music or "well, this wouldn't have happened if the government MADE me have a backup camera".

But I don't even agree with seat belt laws. If you're too stupid to use safety equipment built into every car then why should society continue to have to support you? I'm so sick of laws to protect people from themselves. It's going to make everyone a bunch of f'in idiots. And as I read these comments I realize it's probably too late.

RE: I Get It Now
By Murloc on 7/15/2014 4:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
this is just stupid.... The rest of the developed world doesn't have cars as cheap as americans do. They manage.

V2V = Instant Spying
By deltaend on 7/15/2014 3:16:33 PM , Rating: 1
Of course Obama is all for this. Anything that can give his spying initiatives more power is a win for him. Police will invariably use this technology to track cars, shut them down remotely, or even control them to drive their vehicle directly to the impound lot with the user locked inside.

I am all for V2V as long as they are only mandated while operating the vehicle inside of major cities or rush hour. This would help control congestion and assist people getting to their destination. Outside of major cities and outside of congested traffic though, I find it appalling that it would be mandated to be on.

RE: V2V = Instant Spying
By Labotomizer on 7/15/2014 4:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
When you're in your vehicle you're in public. I'm not sure why you think your car is a private environment.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like this being a government mandated initiative because that leads to it being controlled by a government. But you can't expect privacy when in public.

RE: V2V = Instant Spying
By wookie1 on 7/15/2014 5:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
He raised two concerns, one privacy, and the other control. My car is my property. Why should someone else get to control it? They'll say "we only control other cars to prevent collisions and keep everyone safe" and then you'll find that your car strangely dies when you're on the way to vote if you're registered in the party not in power. Hmm, don't know what happened there, must've been mechanical issues (in Arizona, you register to vote through the Motor Vehicle Division). Any records of car shutdowns will unfortunately have been stored on a hard drive that crashed, sorry about that.

RE: V2V = Instant Spying
By Labotomizer on 7/16/2014 2:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
He raised two concerns. I responded to one. The tech exists today for you to remotely shutdown a car's electrical system. V2V communication might make that easier but preventing the tech won't stop it from happening.

RE: V2V = Instant Spying
By wookie1 on 7/15/2014 5:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
Once you give in to them being mandated, you no longer have control over when/where they are mandated. It will be done based on political reasons, whatever provides the largest political advantage to those that control your car.

How would it assist people in such a way to reduce traffic? My first thought is that the vehicle speed would be governed so you'd be stuck driving at the ridiculous speed limits that we have instead of the 7mph over that everyone drives now (or more on the freeway). Maybe the controllers would tell you that you've used your driving allotment for the week, and now you need to stay home today, or control what hours you're allowed to drive.

RE: V2V = Instant Spying
By deltaend on 7/15/2014 9:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
"You have one point left on your license."

By Ammohunt on 7/15/2014 2:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
Remember classic cars that you actually drove?

RE: Sigh
By wordsworm on 7/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By Labotomizer on 7/15/2014 4:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
I can't wait until I no longer have to drive a car daily. It's not like commuting in Houston traffic is fun. Hell, driving around Houston nearly any time of the day is unpleasant. When I can go to my car with a cup of coffee and my laptop, tell it to take me to my office and kick back and work is a day I will happily embrace.

RE: Sigh
By wookie1 on 7/15/2014 5:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
The self-driving car could be your designated driver! Of course, that's why the taxi lobby is so opposed to them.

RE: Sigh
By Labotomizer on 7/16/2014 2:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
Especially if you can program it to not drive it to your ex's house when you're drunk, no matter what you say.

RE: Sigh
By JediJeb on 7/17/2014 5:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
Remember, heck it is what I drive every day.

96 F150
85 Jeep Cherokee

Those are classics by today's standards, and honestly I don't plan on buying anything newer any time soon. Cost of ownership on these two vehicles is almost nothing, and this year on the Jeep I only owed $2 for taxes but paid $21 for the sticker.

Deficit of trust
By NellyFromMA on 7/16/2014 8:58:28 AM , Rating: 2
It seems that if Obama, or any future President or Congressman/Congresswoman wants to propose mandatory integration of technology where it previously had not been that can collect and emit data, it should promise not to abuse those means for spying or any other purpose, without warrant.

The trust deficit in this regard between the population and the administration is extremely high, it seems if he wants to push this he needs to concede those points.

Now that the public is somewhat more informed about the double-edged sword of internet-enabled technology, we should really demand our rights be respected at the forefront as opposed to having to fight an established status quo after-the-fact.

In fact, aren't there already incidents of car accidents with OnStar or similar systems where hi-jacking of the cars computer was a possibility due to circumstance of the accident and who was involved?

I'm going to have to take a pessimistic approach on any topics going forward regarding internet-enabled technology with regard to privacy going forward. If the government wants to mandate these types of tech as a requirement in our lives, it should also bear the responsibility of ensuring that it will not repeat past violations of our privacy, and we should have a means of ensuring it ourselves.

RE: Deficit of trust
By wookie1 on 7/16/2014 12:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, promise that to us, just like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" or "the health care plan won't add one penny to the defecit", or "read my new taxes". No thank you, I'd rather not put myself in a position to rely on a promise from a politician.

RE: Deficit of trust
By Solandri on 7/16/2014 12:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
In fact, aren't there already incidents of car accidents with OnStar or similar systems where hi-jacking of the cars computer was a possibility due to circumstance of the accident and who was involved?

Dunno about hijackings, but OnStar is used pretty frequently by police to stop car thieves who lead them on car chases.

I don't have a problem with the concept per se, but giving the government that kind of control over every car is really troubling. You can't appraise these things based on the assumption of the current or benevolent government. You have to think about what could happen if the government should become corrupt (or moreso than it already is). This is the public debate that needs to happen before this technology is implemented, but that debate is not happening.

Great technology
By Zgare on 7/15/2014 10:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
I am amazed that so many commenters don't get it. This isn't politics. 33,000 lives and $800 billion per per year per Fox News. (Google Fox and $817 billion). Is it just old fashioned racism, or can you all be this stupid. I am grateful this tech has someone's attention at the presidential level. Otherwise we will be buying the technology from China. If we could somehow apply the $800 billion per year to the National Debt, we could pay it all off in about 20 years. Or pay for all public education including all teacher salaries through high school every damn year. Some things are not a Fox joke. Don't kill crashless cars for America just because you've been told to hate everything about a president that ends wars and gets affordable healthcare to the poor. Try thinking for yourself. Polls showed everyone supported Nixon at one time. You could be wrong.

RE: Great technology
By wookie1 on 7/16/2014 12:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
I tried to make sense out of your post and find a point, but I failed. You flailed around with something about racism, paying off the national debt, public education, and healthcare for the poor, and I just can't see how remote control of a car can impact any of these things. Nobody is commenting to "kill" the "crashless car", they just don't want to be forced to buy it. If it's such a worthy and valuable feature, it will not need a government mandate.

I'm not sure if your post is sarcastic actually, maybe I read it totally wrong. You mention a president that ends wars and provides healthcare for the poor, which clearly can't refer to our current president. Tell us which wars have ended? The poor have had Medicaid coverage for decades, so no change there. As far as applying savings from something to pay the debt, I think we all know that regardless of who heads up the govt they will spend all the money they can manage to borrow. If there is extra money somehow, it isn't going to go towards the debt when there are so many favors to dole out to get elected.

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki