backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by FiveTenths.. on Jul 18 at 9:52 AM

The Obama administration hopes to have a V2V proposal put forth by 2017

Although we don’t have an exact date for when it will become mandatory, vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication technology will inevitably be found on all new cars and trucks. V2V technology allows vehicles to not only wirelessly communicate with each other (broadcasting information such as position, speed, etc.), but also with their surroundings in order to reduce the number of traffic accidents and road fatalities/injuries.
 
"Vehicle-to-vehicle technology represents the next generation of auto safety improvements, building on the life-saving achievements we've already seen with safety belts and air bags," remarked U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx back in February. "By helping drivers avoid crashes, this technology will play a key role in improving the way people get where they need to go while ensuring that the U.S. remains the leader in the global automotive industry."
 
Now, President Barack Obama is throwing his weight behind V2V technology. In a speech delivered this morning at Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, President Obama stated that V2V technology could:
  • Reduce up to 80 percent of the 32,000 road deaths each year in America
  • Significantly reduce the 2 million non-fatal injuries
  • Save society $800 billion annually in costs
President Obama reminded audience members that he is not just the Commander-in-Chief, but he is also a father of two. “As the father of a daughter who just turned 16, any new technology that makes driving safer is important to me,” said Obama. “New technology that makes driving smarter is good for the economy.”
 
V2V technology has a number of backers, including major automakers like Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai-Kia, Toyota, Nissan, and Volkswagen. These automakers are working alongside the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute to research real-world applications of the technology and to provide guidance for legislation. In fact, the Obama administration hopes to reveal its proposal for a V2V mandate before the next administration takes office.

 Vehicle-to-Vehicle technology would allow cars and trucks to communicate with each other wirelessly.

However, not everyone is onboard with V2V technology. The Detroit News reported back in March that it could add up to $3,000 to the cost of a new car by the year 2025. In addition, many feel that such technology should be optional instead of mandated (although that would significantly cut down on its effectiveness and the President’s goals for reducing fatalities).
 
Others point to the fact that many technologies already available in cars today like blind spot/lane departure monitors, frontal collision detection, and radar/laser cruise control systems (which in some instance can “drive” a vehicle during stop-and-go traffic) already do enough to help prevent accidents.

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I Get It Now
By room200 on 7/15/2014 9:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/11/politics/backover-ac...

It's no different than requiring rear-view mirrors in cars. Domestic cars have become so huge that there's no possible way to see what's behind you or low ahead of you.


RE: I Get It Now
By NellyFromMA on 7/16/2014 9:02:18 AM , Rating: 2
The difference between a mirror, plastic, and adhesive vs integrated display with external video inputs and the camera in terms of cost are clearly different; tech is more expensive than a mirror.

Also, people get pretty hung up on up front cost, but what if my camera is broken now. Because, you know, automakers make SUCH durable accessories these days.

Now I can't pass inspection without paying a tech 100 hr just to undue some body panel to replace a camera that you KNOW they will charge more than 100 for. And hope that wiring doesn't become the problem, or a whole litany of carpeting and panels may need to come undone to track down the source.

The costs add up. A replacement mirror is like 15 dollars.

These are the differences.


RE: I Get It Now
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 11:01:02 AM , Rating: 1
lol could you have found a more left-leaning slant on this issue?

"Grieving" (pad parents), who ran over their own kids because they were negligent, need the Federal Government to step in and force us all to have cameras.

No wonder you're the way you are. Another victim of this disgusting Liberal slant turning a normal persons rational brain into a steaming pile of mush. This piece is just one giant sympathy piece, melodramatic trash. Bereft of facts or different opinions or even common sense.

This is why we have the Government of today. When we call for a Government that has to fix or address EVERY issue, we get a Government that's massive, wasteful, and corrupt. Not to mention all too powerful.

Maybe a camera would have saved these people's kid, and maybe not. But I know what WOULD have. How about NOT letting your 2 year old play outside unattended so she can wonder into your neighbors driveway, lay crying on the driveway behind a car for who knows how long, and get run over? I'm pretty sure THAT would have worked.


RE: I Get It Now
By retrospooty on 7/16/2014 11:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
LOL... "But what about the children ? Who will protect the children!!!"

The age of personal responsibility is over. You call it "liberal" I call it "The nanny state" as conservatives are right up there in it as well. Whatever it is, it has to stop.


RE: I Get It Now
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 11:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
Meh I'm not trying to make this about side vs side. I personally don't see building the nanny state as a trademark of Conservatism, but if you do, maybe I just haven't heard about it.

I feel for these parents, but yeah, where's the accountability? Who the hell lets a 2 year old run around unattended outside??

Part of the grieving process is denial. They can't face the horror that they knowingly should and so easily could have prevented, so clearly the Government and some laws "failed them".


RE: I Get It Now
By retrospooty on 7/16/2014 12:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
"I personally don't see building the nanny state as a trademark of Conservatism, but if you do, maybe I just haven't heard about it."

I meant that it's neither. You seem to see it as a trademark of liberalism. Or maybe you just put that label on anything you don't like. "I hate the taste of this brand of coffee. It must be liberal coffee". ;)

"I feel for these parents, but yeah, where's the accountability? Who the hell lets a 2 year old run around unattended outside??"

Exactly. It's not that the kid shouldn't play outside, but FFS, if you are backing out in a neighborhood with Children and you cant see what is behind your cars DONT GO! Especially true if your kids are playing outside and you dont see them at the moment. FFS, lets not force all cars to have camera's because of someones combo of bad parenting and driving decisions.


RE: I Get It Now
By Labotomizer on 7/16/2014 2:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly the government is capable of fixing human nature...

I'm with Retro and R77 here, I get so sick of everyone blaming something else for what happens. That could be TV, music or "well, this wouldn't have happened if the government MADE me have a backup camera".

But I don't even agree with seat belt laws. If you're too stupid to use safety equipment built into every car then why should society continue to have to support you? I'm so sick of laws to protect people from themselves. It's going to make everyone a bunch of f'in idiots. And as I read these comments I realize it's probably too late.


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














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