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: We will eventually need this
By spamreader1 on 3/14/2014 2:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
I don't drive in cities, I can't image how difficult it would be to program a pick up to handle farm to market roads, or gravel roads safely without some poor farmer ending up in a ditch, culvert, or tree while pulling a loaded trailer around.

Why is it nearly every state the last few years seems to want to force the 35ish % of Americans that live in rural areas to do things that don't make any sense for those of us that live in rural areas?

It's no wonder several states keep having these grumbling matches of wanting to split their state up into smaller states. I have no problem with the 65ish % having autonomous vehicles, and I completely understand how beneficial they can be to the overcrowded cities. I'm just saying why force something on everyone because even if it's not wanted by a large population of people. If it's going to come to v2v why not just make it a city tax, and everyone use v2v in a taxi or mass transit type system? Then you won't have to own a vehicle at all.

I just don't understand how the rights/privileges of the metropolitan cities have to outweigh mine when the rural population are the ones that basically feed the cities anyway. Without the rural infrastructure, city life would be nearly impossible. We're already being taxed out of existence or forced off our land by eminent domain laws anyway. Why keep putting the thumb down on us hard working folks to provide for everyone that enjoys many amenities of the cities?

I'm ending my rant now of someones prediction of v2v. And I'm not focusing on your post specifically Mint, you said nothing wrong at all.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Mint on 3/15/2014 6:58:43 AM , Rating: 1
The mandatory part of V2V is going to be little more than an "I am here" beacon for safety, and certainly not going to send a farmer into a ditch or a tree. You aren't doing a favor to the image of rural folk by making such silly assumptions.

For things this cheap, it makes no sense to make it "city only". If, to appease people like you, they made a regulation that cars made after 2018 need to have V2V to drive in cities, then how many people will choose not to have it? How much will resale value go down for a car without it? How pissed will people be when they get tickets for driving in town without V2V on their new car?


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














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