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 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