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 deltaend on 3/14/2014 5:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
V2V comm is necessary for congested traffic. Not only does it help make traffic smoother, it is much safer. The only way it will work is if everyone has it.

A) It isn't necessary for congested traffic. We have congested traffic right now and we don't have V2V.
B) V2V communications alone can't make traffic smoother, they will only allow for communication between vehicles (however that might look like).
C) Automated traffic will not be forced to have V2V, rather, it will simply be forced to use a combination of technologies to ensure that it doesn't run into anyone if someone doesn't have a V2V package in their car.


Regardless of how people feel about it, the way to autonomous vehicles is V2V comm.

No, it isn't. V2V is simple the first step, but REQUIRING it be in a vehicle is insane. They are going about this ass-backwards. Instead of forcing manufacturers to have V2V installed and then letting the chips land where they may, they should come up with a communication and interactivity standard, such as the 802.11 standard . All manufacturers will simply need to sign off of this standard as what they will use and each manufacturer should have a presence on the board deciding the standard itself. They should invite other companies to join such as Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Hitachi, IBM, Motorola, RIM, etc... Once a standard has been created, it will be up to each manufacturer to develop and maintain the features in their V2V packages for their vehicles. At a certain point, carpool lanes will likely get converted to "carpool, motorcycles, buses, and automated vehicles" lane. Slowly but surely, more automated infrastructure will be added until some day, possibly a decade or more from now, you will see signs that require all drivers approaching a major city to either park and take public transportation, or have a V2V with autonomous driving package installed that is compatible with the city's mainframe (and other vehicles).

Long, long, LONG before we implement V2V communication packages and increase the vehicle costs, all vehicles should be equipped with front and rear cameras with DVR recording (black box) just like in Russia. This is a cheap (under $100/vehicle) solution which will save lives. Not only will insurance companies be able to see exactly how an accident occurred, but they will be able to reward safe drivers according, dropping the insurance rates.

If you think that just by having a V2V communication package in your car, that it somehow is going to save your life, you are mistaken. Having the ability to communicate and the vehicle having the ability to somehow save you from an accident due to something that it detects, are two massively different things.

Everyone wants autonomous vehicles yet hate V2V?

Not even close. Most people who drive a congested drive to work every day want this, but everyone else who doesn't fight intercity traffic every morning and afternoon are perfectly fine without automation.

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

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