Print 77 comment(s) - last by 91TTZ.. on Mar 17 at 11:25 AM

The report said V2V "will increase the cost of a new car that, on average, cost almost $31,000 in 2013"

While vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication is seen as a potentially life-saving technology (which happens to be gaining traction, thanks to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA), some worry what the costs to implement V2V will mean for the auto industry and consumers. 

A new report from The Detroit News raises some questions on the topic, saying that V2V will add weight and higher costs to future cars and trucks. 

The extra weight is problematic because fuel standards are tightening, and that weight won't help autos meet such regulations. In August 2012, the White House finalized the long-discussed 54.5 mpg fuel efficiency standards, which will boost fuel economy in cars and light trucks by the year 2025. 

Aside from weight, the report said V2V "will increase the cost of a new car that, on average, cost almost $31,000 in 2013." That's in addition to the estimated extra $3,000 added to the cost of a new car or truck by the year 2025 thanks to the fuel regulations. 

The Detroit News went on to say that V2V regulation may not be necessary since the auto technologies we have today, such as lane assist and blind-spot warnings, are enough to warn us of impending accidents.

In other words, the government is forcing a technology that not everyone will want or maybe even need. 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. 

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. 

V2V communications allow cars and trucks to "talk" with one another and their surroundings. 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. 

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 Detroit News report mentioned other potential V2V issues, such as the government's ability to handle the extra infrastructure and hacking. 

Last month, the NHTSA said it wanted to put V2V in all future cars and trucks. Transportation secretary Anthony Foxx wants to have new regulations ready by January 2017. 

Source: The Detroit News

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Aww Cmon!
By marvdmartian on 3/14/2014 7:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I believe they're saying the average price of a new car, in 2013, was already $31,000. With the price of SUV's and pickup trucks oftentimes being way over that, and even the price of small cars approaching $20K, they may not be too far off track.

The point that I believe is more important, is the further invasion of the government into our wallets, by pushing yet another unneeded technology on customers that don't want it. Much like the black boxes that (I believe) are on all new cars now.

RE: Aww Cmon!
By jdietz on 3/14/2014 11:29:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well need or unneeded is subjective.

At least one car crashed last year and at least one person died in one of the crashes. The ideal number is zero.

So from there its a cost benefit analysis. NHTSA people say it's worth it, and it would cost about X (Really? $31k per vehicle? How much per vehicle?). Now what we need are 3rd parties to review the NHTSA data to determine whether it will really reduce accidents, what assumptions were made in making the estimate, etc... and how much it will really cost.

RE: Aww Cmon!
By BRB29 on 3/14/2014 12:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
Are you nuts?

You might as well say don't drink water because there were people who died from drinking too much water.

RE: Aww Cmon!
By Mint on 3/14/2014 2:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
How can anyone think he's nuts? He's stating a very simple fact: There's a cost-benefit analysis to be done, and isn't yet supporting either side.

RE: Aww Cmon!
By sorry dog on 3/14/2014 12:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
At least one person was struck by lightning too. Shall we all walk around in rubber suits carrying a lightning rod?

I prefer my goals to be obtainable. Zero accidents is not obtainable.

RE: Aww Cmon!
By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2014 5:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
Automotive death rates are not insignificant though. Its not like the number of people that get struck by lighting are end up as a tasty shark treat. You are talking about 1 million worldwide deaths per year.

RE: Aww Cmon!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 8:34:45 AM , Rating: 2
If you really wanted to cut down on those deaths, then just get the Government to try prohibition again. The single biggest cause of traffic fatalities, drunk drivers.

And I don't care about world wide deaths, the world can go do what they want. I will NEVER accept something like this in our vehicles here.

2%. That's your chances of dying in an automobile in this country, compared to all others causes of death. A measly two percent.

I'll take my chances, thanks. The Government can stay the fuk out of my car.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

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