backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by vortmax2.. on Feb 13 at 11:14 AM

Today's decision by the NHTSA marks a transition from V2V research to taking the next steps toward actual implementation in new vehicles

It's been decided that vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications, which allow cars and trucks to "talk" with one another and their surroundings, will move from just research to actual implementation thanks to a recent approval. 

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) wants to put V2V technology in all new cars and trucks as a way of avoiding traffic accidents and fatalities. For example, your car could let you know that another vehicle ahead is about to blow through a stop sign in an attempt to avoid a crash.

Research regarding V2V communications has been ongoing for quite some time now. Ten major automakers and technology companies have been working with NHTSA’s Connected Vehicle Research Program since 2012 in a V2V pilot study in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for example.

But today's decision by the NHTSA marks a transition from V2V research to taking the next steps toward actual implementation in new vehicles.


Automakers like Audi, Volkswagen, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Honda and Toyota have all started developing some type of V2V technology, but NHTSA's new push for making such technology required in new vehicles will likely put forward some sort of standard to ensure that everyone is on the same page and that vehicles from different automakers can communicate with one another effectively. 

Automakers have voiced concerns in the past regarding V2V communications, saying that such technology could add thousands of dollars to the price tags of new vehicles, making them more difficult to sell. 

But the overall sentiment is that the technology can save lives. According to DOT, V2V could prevent 70 to 80 percent of vehicle crashes involving unimpaired drivers, which could help prevent thousands of deaths and injuries on U.S. roads annually.

The tech uses a 360-degree view of a vehicle’s surroundings, allowing the car to detect what the driver cannot. A dedicated short range radio network is also used to allow vehicles to communicate with each other up to 300 yards away. 

"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," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "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."

The DOT and NHTSA have not yet set forth an exact date for when vehicles will be required to implement V2V technology. 

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Fitting
By PaFromFL on 2/4/2014 8:10:10 AM , Rating: 3
This all started long ago when the government got away with declaring that going from A to B in a vehicle was privilege, not a right, and began making money on licenses and registrations. Then even more money was made enforcing speed limits and driving under the influence. In many areas, speed limits are set artificially low and traffic cameras are set up to make false accusations, entrapping safe drivers. The elimination of collisions will directly reduce the loot, so be prepared for new revenue-raising schemes.


RE: Fitting
By EasyC on 2/4/2014 8:23:51 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly. People who think speed limits are for their safety are very, very mistaken. Cops aren't trained to stop speeders to keep the streets safe, they're trained to make money.

The original idea was that the government created the infrastructure of roads and highways, and you're paying to use them. Under that model, I feel like we should be entitled to money back when the roads aren't maintained properly...which they never are.

I will never buy a car with V2V communications. Hell, I wouldn't buy a car with OnStar. No one should have any kind of control over a car I'm driving, except me.


RE: Fitting
By arrandale on 2/4/2014 8:26:57 AM , Rating: 2
Speed limits were originally created to increase fuel economy during the oil embargo. That idea has since been co-opted as a way for municipal and local governments to make up for budget shortfalls. I find it interesting that speed limits have never really been about safety, yet that's the excuse used to keep them artificially low.


RE: Fitting
By Jeffk464 on 2/4/2014 11:26:34 AM , Rating: 2
No, they were lowered to 55 to increase mileage.


RE: Fitting
By JediJeb on 2/4/2014 2:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. Prior to the 1970s there were two lane back roads with speed limits up to 70mph at least. The 55mph speed limit was first put into place to combat the oil embargo in the 1970s then they came up with the slogan "55 saves lives" when gas prices fell just to keep it low.

Just the same bait and switch we often get from government. "The lottery will pay for schools" then a few years after we get the lottery "We need to raise property taxes to pay for the schools". So what happened to all that lottery money that was going to fix the schools?


RE: Fitting
By Rukkian on 2/4/2014 11:55:52 AM , Rating: 2
While the original intent of Speed limits may not have been for safety, are you going to tell me that people driving 90 mixed with people driving 50 would be a good thing? What about residential streets with people doing 65 down them?

While some may be arbitrarily low, I don't see how speed limits in general do not help increase safety.


RE: Fitting
By arrandale on 2/4/2014 5:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While the original intent of Speed limits may not have been for safety, are you going to tell me that people driving 90 mixed with people driving 50 would be a good thing? What about residential streets with people doing 65 down them? While some may be arbitrarily low, I don't see how speed limits in general do not help increase safety.


Naturally I'm not going to tell you that any of those scenarios are safe. That's absurd. My point is, unnaturally low speed limits that are used to increase municipal revenue don't tend to increase safety. On surface roads changes in speed limits have been shown to have little impact on motorist's actual speeds. In fact, in some cases, lowering the speed limit actually increased accidents. (read more here: http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html) Note that I'm not suggesting it would be a good idea to rid ourselves of speed limits entirely, just that they should be more reasonable considering the circumstances.


RE: Fitting
By Jeffk464 on 2/4/2014 11:25:45 AM , Rating: 2
Government pays for the roads so I guess they have to get the money from gas tax and registration and what not. Its mostly irritating when they use the money for other things.


RE: Fitting
By FITCamaro on 2/4/2014 12:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
Driving is a privilege. Not a right. Unless a state spells it out to be a right, it is not one. The federal constitution certainly does not grant that right.


RE: Fitting
By M'n'M on 2/4/2014 1:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Is walking a right ? If not how do I fulfill my right to free assembly ? If it's a right then why are there public streets and property that I can't walk on ?

Driving is a right just like walking. That doesn't mean it must remain unregulated. That gov't claims it's a privilege is no different from the long standing gov't claim that the 2'nd Amendment grants states, not the people, the right to bear arms.


RE: Fitting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2014 2:29:25 PM , Rating: 1
A crapton of legal rulings say you are wrong. Driving is undeniably a Constitutional right, NOT a privilege.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotpr...

This is just one of those all too numerous occasions where States Rights are allowed to trump the Constitution.

It's really sad when so-called Conservatives repeat this same old Leftist lie they love beating us over the head with.


RE: Fitting
By FITCamaro on 2/4/2014 8:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
Then we can say internet is a right. Education is a right. Treatment for disease or injury is a right. Rights are things that cannot be denied. Not things we desire to have or do.

Do we have the right to go almost anywhere we want? Absolutely. How we do that depends. Do we have the right to fly through the skies at hundreds of miles an hour then without anything to say we competently know how?

The 9th amendment states:
quote:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Just because we have the right to travel when and where we please, doesn't mean we have the right to travel however we please without rules. States have near unlimited authority (bounded only by the federal constitution) to institute rules for things. I'm just as against things like seat belt laws as many of you. But I don't pretend to say that driving is a right that cannot be denied. States are allowed to set law for things that are not explicitly defined rights.

It's up to the people to decide what is and is not a right in their state and have their legislature modify their constitutions. Other than those already codified in the constitution.

A legal ruling also said that the government has the right to force us to buy health insurance under the government's taxing power. A ruling that violates the government's taxing power and didn't even match the content of the government's own argument in the case.


RE: Fitting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2014 10:01:15 AM , Rating: 2
Well I'm pretty much convinced either your account has been hacked, or something has happened to you in your personal life.

This isn't the Fit I once knew and respected. You sound exactly like an anti-Constitution liberal! You're even using their exact talking points. "The Founders didn't mention a car, so that doesn't count!"

The reasoning you're using is exactly WHY we have things like the ACA being ruled "Constitutional". People have turned the Constitution into almost a game, where we make up loopholes and tricks to find ways to do exactly what the Constitution prohibits. Where we say a law follows the letter, when we know it violates the spirit.

By your logic here we don't have a "right" to free speech because we can't yell "FIRE" in a theater. I can accept that driving comes with some rules and regulations, that's fine. But we must NEVER allow ourselves to view it as a "privilege". It's clearly an undeniable Constitutional right.


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














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