backtop


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 Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2014 9:28:10 AM , Rating: 1
Mint when you add up this with every other mandated piece of equipment you no doubt support, yeah, someone has to pay for it.

Also your tablet analogy is fairly terrible. The Government didn't mandate tablet WiFi and add a ton of costly requirements and measures to the design.

This is just another example of you supporting a large beuracratic centralized socialist state.

If you really supported free markets, as you claim with Tesla vs NADA, then you should support a free auto industry where things like this aren't forcibly mandated.

Auto makers and consumers should be free to choose what they want in a vehicle.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Mint on 3/14/2014 11:59:50 AM , Rating: 3
My note about tablets isn't a regulation analogy. It's about cost. Short range wireless communication is cheap.

I support a free market economy as long as it isn't entirely unregulated. Even you admitted that some regulations are good. I don't care if Tesla still has to get a license to sell a car, whatever that involves. I don't care if they have to pay income tax, or an EV road tax. It's still a free market.

Roads are public property. I don't want to be driving and surrounded by people without anti-lock brakes, wing mirrors (or an electronic equivalent), or windshield wipers. If they hit me and a lack of those features was a factor, then I suffer damage or death. It is entirely in every motorist's self interest to vote for a gov't that mandates those features in new vehicle sales. That's their democratic right, and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

V2V is not just about safety, but also traffic flow. Again, I want to minimize time wasted in gridlock, and can't imagine anyone else thinking otherwise.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2014 7:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Short range wireless communication is cheap.


Yeah because when your iPad loses it's connection, people don't die.

THIS won't be cheap, you can believe that.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By 91TTZ on 3/17/2014 11:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't want to be driving and surrounded by people without anti-lock brakes,


You already are. Many cars are sold without antilock brakes.

Besides, ABS didn't deliver on its safety promises.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/ci.Light+Vehicle+Ant...

quote:
Brake experts anticipated that the introduction of ABS on passenger vehicles would reduce the number and severity of accidents. A number of statistical analyses of accident databases have been performed during the last three years. These analyses suggest that the introduction of ABS does not seem to have reduced the number of automobile accidents where they were expected to be effective. Kahane stated that involvements in multi-vehicle crashes on wet roads were significantly reduced by 24 percent, and nonfatal crashes by 14 percent (with ABS). However, these reductions were offset by a statistically significant increase in the frequency of single-vehicle, run-off-road crashes (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects), as compared to cars without ABS. Fatal run-off-road crashes were up by 28 percent and nonfatal crashes by 19 percent.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Drexial on 3/14/2014 12:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Government didn't mandate tablet WiFi


Mandate, no, but it is regulated every step of the way. From the materials the chip is made out of to the frequencies it operates in. Every piece inside a tablet had to be submitted to the FCC to be tested as compliant with government regulations. To ensure that your cell coverage doesn't interfere with the GPS receiver, WiFi, OTA TV, FM Radio, Satellite TV/internet, Emergency radio, HAM, etc...

Mandate=/=Made by the government. It just means that it will work with the companies that are already testing these technologies to make sure they are compatible with each other, then create a set of regulations that they can then pass on to the auto manufactures to build their own compatible device.

Do I agree that we are ready for tech like this? no. But I will be happy the day we are and most people that only drive because they can, no longer have to worry about driving. Then they can jerk around all they want and are no longer running red lights and killing people because they were texting LOL to a friend.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By ilt24 on 3/14/2014 1:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when you add up this with every other mandated piece of equipment you no doubt support, yeah, someone has to pay for it.


I imagine you would not have, and very well still might not be in favor of seat belt and airbag requirements, but according to the CDC and NHTSA they save around 15K lives a year in the U.S. as well as reduce or eliminate 10 of thousands of injuries.

One way or another there is a price to pay. The key would be to understand how many accidents would be avoided and how many lives would be saved vs. the cost of implementation. For me this article (and the one it is based on) provides no information that would help me determine if I think the cost would be worth it.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2014 6:50:09 PM , Rating: 1
I knew when I posted that someone would bring up seatbelts. Always the seatbelts.

Comparing seatbelts to this is insane.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By ilt24 on 3/14/2014 8:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I knew when I posted that someone would bring up seatbelts. Always the seatbelts.

Comparing seatbelts to this is insane.


If you say, so but I imagine you would have said the same thing about seat belts and air bags at the time they were being forced on everyone. How about padded dashboards, safety glass and the high center rear break light?

For me I'd like to see some cost/benefit data, then we can decide of it's worth it.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 8:29:10 AM , Rating: 2
Seatbelts and airbags were already being adopted by nearly every car manufacturer when the Government decided to mandate them. The mandate didn't make us safer.

This is far FAR different than a piece of safety equipment. And you know it.

Maybe you like our cars being used as a rolling NSA spynet, but I'll pass.



"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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