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: We will eventually need this
By domboy on 3/14/2014 9:34:35 AM , Rating: 4
Not everyone. I don't want an automomous vehicles.

I don't even want an automatic transmission, so I'm a definite no.

And no kidding it will make it more expensive!

RE: We will eventually need this
By Mint on 3/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: We will eventually need this
By DT_Reader on 3/14/2014 3:29:15 PM , Rating: 3
If you think anything will lower insurance rates, you're crazy. The insurance companies will most certainly charge you more if you have autodrive, just like they charge you more now to have airbags because they're more costly to repair. Any change in the status quo is an excuse for them to raise rates.

RE: We will eventually need this
By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2014 5:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
Not completely true, insurance companies do charge you different rates based on their calculated risk factors. Safe driving record, age, gender, high auto theft area, etc.

RE: We will eventually need this
By Mint on 3/15/2014 6:04:21 AM , Rating: 2
The insurance industry is extremely competitive. If the data is there to show that a technology drastically reduces accident rates, then insurance companies will all want customers using it.

Fewer claims = more profit.

The more resistant they are to change, the more a company will profit by being the first to offer discounts.

The first targets will be fleet customers, both corporate and gov't. There you have massive contracts where insurance companies are doing everything they can to close a deal, and fleet operators are doing everything they can to negotiate the lowest rates.

By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 1:53:46 PM , Rating: 1
Within 10 years, we're going to see autopilot have less than one death per billion miles, and maybe 100x reduction in at fault damages.

Can I borrow your Acme Pull from Asshole Number Generator when you're done with it?

Seriously, you cannot possibly make that kind of wild prediction already. There is NOTHING to support a claim like that.

For shame, really.

RE: We will eventually need this
By sorry dog on 3/14/2014 11:51:34 AM , Rating: 4
I like manual everything too...except maybe windows. But now I won't be allowed to choose the type of car that I want...and this is not the same as mandating seat belts and airbags. Other than a small cost there wasn't a lot of downside to those. In this case, there is a huge downside in potential privacy and safety breaches in addition to the costs. And as BRB said, this doesn't really work all that great unless everybody has it. So what are we going to do? Federally mandate that the Obama faithful from the lower fifth ward retrofit his 1989 Caprice hoopty with wireless? Boy is he gonna be pissed...he won't be able to afford those spinners now.
...and what about motorcycles?

They aren't even being honest about their numbers... 80% of unimpaired drivers? What about the impaired ones? Well, screw helping them (especially since they are now considered drunk after 1 beer at .05). In fact, if the car detects they are drunk, maybe it can automatically serve into the ditch, you know, to protect everybody else.

For real, wouldn't this protection help the impaired most of all?

Surprisingly they didn't mention their latest fetish, texting while driving. It probably won't help them either, because OMG they r 2 distracted.

RE: We will eventually need this
By BRB29 on 3/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: We will eventually need this
By sorry dog on 3/14/2014 1:07:14 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not trying to say I'm cool or a better driver or anything like that. Just that sometimes I enjoy driving and a manual transmission makes that even more so. Yes, it's getting more rare, but there are a significant enough number of people like me that seek out certain models of cars because they are available in manual.

But all that is really getting of the subject. V2V is not something that I want not only for cost reasons, but mainly for consumer choice reasons. Tell you what.... I'd be willing to compromise. The car can have V2V, but it needs a button to where I can turn it off if I want to. But really, what are the chances of that happening? It defeats the purpose of what the gov't is going after here, which is putting their finger of control in a product that is a major part of lives to have more influence on our behaviors.

Maybe the majority of people won't care, but there is a sizable fraction of people out there that this will really piss off to point that we will boycott vehicles with this in it.
Is that what you want? Business is hurt and another reason to add yet more fuel to ideological divisions in the country.

RE: We will eventually need this
By DT_Reader on 3/14/2014 3:40:50 PM , Rating: 3
The whole point of V2V is so that every car broadcasts its location 24/7. Collision avoidance is a justification for forcing it on everyone.

In some cities they already photograph every license plate and store that info, along with timestamp and GPS coordinates, forever. V2V offers them ever so much more info on us sheep - it's a GPS tracker on every car and they don't even need a warrant to use it!

RE: We will eventually need this
By Omega215D on 3/14/2014 2:07:47 PM , Rating: 3
So essentially take the joy out of operating a vehicle. I enjoy the manual transmissions of both my 2013 Beetle R-Line and 2005 Kawasaki ZX-10R.

Auto and adaptive lighting are improvements, automatic climate control is iffy as sometimes it's not always in the driver's best interest.

Maybe if the US would have stricter licensing exams we would have much better drivers like they do in Finland.

RE: We will eventually need this
By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2014 5:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
Ive owned three cars with manual transmission and now wouldn't buy anything that wasn't automatic. I love automatics and I especially love really well engineered auto's that shift at the best times. My guess is a lot of people don't like auto's because the don't like how the auto's were set up.

By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 1:51:09 PM , Rating: 5
Manual transmissions are a thing of the past.

I'm not sure how you could make such an idiotic statement and draw breath.

That's like saying fine dining is a thing of the past, because of a much higher percentage of fast food restaurants exist.

Manual transmissions are still being made. And wtf? I enjoy driving a stick, I'm not doing it because I'm trying to "prove I'm a he-man".

Just stfu, as always.

RE: We will eventually need this
By Piiman on 3/15/2014 9:10:07 AM , Rating: 2
"I like manual everything too...except maybe windows. But now I won't be allowed to choose the type of car that I want...and this is not the same as mandating seat belts and airbags. -"

Oddly the Auto industry also complained and said the same thing about having to install those also.

The rest of your silly remarks about Obama and people you reprieve as lower class upgrading their cars is just stupid. Of course everyone won't have them for many years but just like Seat belts sooner or later it will be in every car on the road.

RE: We will eventually need this
By Spuke on 3/14/2014 12:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take one. I live in SoCal and autodrive would improve getting around immensely. It wouldn't be my only car though as I'd want one without all that crap installed.

RE: We will eventually need this
By Motoman on 3/16/2014 8:58:15 PM , Rating: 3
Seconded and thirded.

If you can't manage a clutch and a stickshift, you shouldn't be driving a car.

And no, I'm not kidding. We have vastly too many idiots on the road as it is who have no business being in charge of a vehicle.

Making cars autonomous is just one more step in the dumbification of America. I wish for once we would stop catering to the criminally incapable with every f%cking thing we do.

Can't f%cking drive? Great. Don't.

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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