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: Does He
By FiveTenths on 7/16/2014 3:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The market HAS worked it out. It works out to be about 32,000 deaths per year, which until about 2010, has ZERO prevention strategies/technologies.


Are you seriously arguing that things like ABS, traction control, third brake lights, and stability control do NOTHING to prevent multi-vehicle, not to mention single vehicle, accidents? That is beyond ignorant.

The reason the V2V doesn't already exist is because the technology was prohibitively expensive, and that in all of your scenarios if both cars don't have the technology it won't make one bit of difference.

So you spend an extra 3K (which seems a bit inflated) on your new Yaris with V2V, an approximately 20% price increase, and pulling out of the parking garage in Chicago you are hit by a guy speeding in a 1994 Bronco. How does that improve the statistic?


RE: Does He
By JediJeb on 7/17/2014 5:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you spend an extra 3K (which seems a bit inflated) on your new Yaris with V2V, an approximately 20% price increase, and pulling out of the parking garage in Chicago you are hit by a guy speeding in a 1994 Bronco. How does that improve the statistic?


Exactly, just as you become accustomed to relying on the V2V to warn you and you begin to not look for yourself, along will come someone driving an older vehicle without it.

It would be great if this tech would not lead to drivers being even less alert to their surrounding than they are now. But you know it won't.


RE: Does He
By alpha754293 on 7/18/2014 8:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well, 1) ABS doesn't prevent ALL collisions. In fact, since the stopping distance INCREASES with ABS, you can therefore; have an INCREASE in the number of motor vehicle accidents.

(Source: www [dot] thetruthaboutcars [dot] com/2009/10/nhtsa-abs-braking-increases-fatal-run-o ff-road-crashes-by-34/, especially cf. the PDF that they've got linked there for the direct link to a copy of the NHTSA report.)

Please, oh PLEASE, I would LOVE to see you try and debate/refute the findings of that report. (I'm giddy with excitement!!! :D)

Now, granted I will give you that TCS and ESC both have played their roles in reducing motor vehicle accidents and fatalities - this I agree, is true. But that also means that until it was part of 49 CFR 571, manufacturers were NOT obligated to install them in their vehicles, despite their benefits. So while the technologies saves lives, they're not required. And unfortunately, the "free market" does not require companies to NOT disclose the fact that they DON'T have certain features that other automakers DO have, which means that in all reality, chances are, the time that you're going to find out that you DON'T have TCS or ESC or sometimes even ABS (depending on what year you bought your vehicle), is when you probably need that technology the most, which is probably the WORST time to be finding out "oh hey, I don't have that." So...what do you say to that?

re: V2V cost
Ummm...I don't know about that. I mean given the prevalence of cell phones, and I mean, there can also be debates about how much bandwidth/data it would consume/gets transmitted, but if the most basic premise of the idea is that it would tap into your cell phone for the V2V communications network or if there's an embedded modem/"cellphone" (really, you just need the transmitting chip, you don't need a lot of the other stuff that cell phone has these days), I don't know if it would really be all that expensive to implement. And just as an example to illustrate the point, you can buy an iPhone 4 from Virgin Mobile US for like $200 and their cheapest plan is $35/month, so if you have even a CAN bus reader that can transmit or broadcast the messages to anybody that's listening, how hard could it possibly be or how expensive can it possibly be? So...I dunno about that. Granted, there are a whole series of issues that would need to be worked out, but that's kind of the point of the government V2V initiative. What IS the standard communications protocol? How does it work? When does it work? How to you keep it safe? Privacy concerns, etc.?

It improves the statistic because medical costs are EXTREMELY expensive in the US. If $3k can save you $250k in hospital bills, doesn't it make sense to spend the $3k instead? (Unless, of course, you're in the medical/insurance business, and since it's a for-profit system, you'd probably WANT them to spend the $250k instead...but that's a whole 'nother debate for another time.)


RE: Does He
By FiveTenths on 7/18/2014 9:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody is arguing that ABS is the end all of collision avoidance/prevention...not sure why you took it to that extreme.

I also find it a bit perplexing that in one paragraph you state that most consumers don't know what, if any, traction/stability control their vehicle has; and in the next mention that V2V is as simple as buying a cell phone and a CAN bus reader, and then configuring the two to work together.

If they can't be trusted to know what is installed on the vehicle for them, what in the world makes you think they can handle a DIY V2V solution?

Also, basing V2V on a personal cell phone isn't feasible if the requirement is that every vehicle HAS to have V2V. You would basically be forcing all drivers to buy a cell phone, data plan, AND have a charged phone on them at all times.

quote:
It improves the statistic because medical costs are EXTREMELY expensive in the US. If $3k can save you $250k in hospital bills, doesn't it make sense to spend the $3k instead?


You missed the point entirely. You would most likely be dead, the V2V would not work with a vehicle that is not equipped with the technology. The accident would still happen and the 3k would be a waste of money. The statistic would not be improved at all.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














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