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 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.



"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














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