backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by vortmax2.. on Feb 13 at 11:14 AM

Today's decision by the NHTSA marks a transition from V2V research to taking the next steps toward actual implementation in new vehicles

It's been decided that vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications, which allow cars and trucks to "talk" with one another and their surroundings, will move from just research to actual implementation thanks to a recent approval. 

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) wants to put V2V technology in all new cars and trucks as a way of avoiding traffic accidents and fatalities. For example, your car could let you know that another vehicle ahead is about to blow through a stop sign in an attempt to avoid a crash.

Research regarding V2V communications has been ongoing for quite some time now. Ten major automakers and technology companies have been working with NHTSA’s Connected Vehicle Research Program since 2012 in a V2V pilot study in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for example.

But today's decision by the NHTSA marks a transition from V2V research to taking the next steps toward actual implementation in new vehicles.


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. 

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. 

But the overall sentiment is that the technology can save lives. 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 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. 

"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," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "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."

The DOT and NHTSA have not yet set forth an exact date for when vehicles will be required to implement V2V technology. 

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation



Comments     Threshold


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

This is a must
By aurareturn on 2/3/2014 5:35:24 PM , Rating: 1
I've been dreaming of a feature like this in cars. This is a must. Cars are dangerous. If it's too expensive, cut corners in other areas like infotainment, horsepower, etc.




RE: This is a must
By M'n'M on 2/3/2014 6:27:59 PM , Rating: 5
Indeed, why should people have a choice ! We forced airbags on those who wore seatbelts, tire pressure monitors on those who maintained their cars and backup cameras on those who have no kids.

Yes comrade, V2V and nyet on anything else. And if it still costs too much ... let them eat cake !

And if the proles refuse to buy new cars on our timetable, there's a SCOTUS ruling we can use to force them to ... or otherwise pay-up.

Aaaah, land of the free, home of the brave ...


RE: This is a must
By zozzlhandler on 2/3/2014 6:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think that its "home of the fee and the land of the knave..."


RE: This is a must
By othercents on 2/4/2014 10:12:22 AM , Rating: 2
V2V is dangerous. What if someone spoofed the system causing an accident? I do like the auto braking systems in some cars when a driver is distracted since even good drivers get distracted sometimes (much less often than bad ones), but unless we go to a complete driverless system V2V will cause more issues.

quote:
Indeed, why should people have a choice ! We forced airbags on those who wore seatbelts, tire pressure monitors on those who maintained their cars and backup cameras on those who have no kids.


While I agree that backup cameras shouldn't be required, airbags when you are wearing your seatbelt properly can significantly reduce injury. Tire Pressure Monitors I can't comment about since mine goes off almost every time there is snow on the ground, however I like the reminder that I have tires, but doesn't keep someone else from driving on bald ones.

There is a new push to require side impact safety measures into baby seats. NHTSA say the regulations could prevent injuries to 64 children and roughly 5 deaths every year. To me the low number of injuries and death doesn't constitute an issue with the way baby seats are made especially since they can't confirm if those injured were actually in seats with side impact safety measures or if the child was placed into the seat properly.

V2V and many other measures are starting to have a lower rate of return. This is especially true if other countries with lower death rates don't have these measures in place. The better place to work on lowering the traffic fatalities is better driver training and lowering the number of distractions.


RE: This is a must
By NellyFromMA on 2/4/2014 8:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The better place to work on lowering the traffic fatalities is better driver training and lowering the number of distractions.


Couldn't agree more. I'm consistently amazed at how little driving capability a kid needs in order to be given their license. Heck, the vast majority of the adults on the highway are using their cell phones oblivious to the effect their bad driving has on themselves and those around them.


RE: This is a must
By vortmax2 on 2/5/2014 12:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
Better driver training is a simple and cheap way to help. How about requiring a driving test every 10 years (not the same as the 1st, but something on a sliding scale that matches the experience)? Driving is a privilege, not a right. Let's make that privilege special and safer.


RE: This is a must
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2014 10:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


False.


RE: This is a must
By vortmax2 on 2/13/2014 11:14:28 AM , Rating: 2
True.


RE: This is a must
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/14, Rating: 0
RE: This is a must
By Flunk on 2/4/2014 9:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think you might be demonstrating the OP's point. People with that sort of attitude are the problem, get rid of you guys and we won't need this sort of electronic nanny system.


RE: This is a must
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2014 10:18:25 AM , Rating: 1
We DON'T need this. Accident rates have never been lower, and vehicle fatalities have never been lower.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking there is a need for this or that's it's even sensible.

What kind of "attitude" do I have? That I don't want the Government, who can't even get a goddamn website to work, to network my car with every other car on the road! And somehow you interpret that as ME being a bad driver??


RE: This is a must
By Jeffk464 on 2/4/2014 11:10:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, and lets get rid of these new fangled computer thingies while were at it.


RE: This is a must
By HostileEffect on 2/4/2014 12:08:37 PM , Rating: 3
I won't tolerate V2V in my vehicle, the same goes for gps tracking and remote kill switches. I'll mod the stuff out myself if I can't get anyone to do it. And don't give me any lip about laws, those never stopped anyone from doing anything.


RE: This is a must
By niva on 2/4/2014 1:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
True, but fear of being caught while breaking the law has stopped quite a few people from doing "anything."


RE: This is a must
By RapidDissent on 2/4/2014 3:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. There's at least 17 people I would murder right now, if only it was legal. :(


RE: This is a must
By marvdmartian on 2/4/2014 7:48:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, because controlling drivers is so much better than requiring them to be safe and responsible, right?

Frikkin' sheeple....


RE: This is a must
By Jeffk464 on 2/4/2014 11:23:05 AM , Rating: 2
Hey think of it this way, if you have automated cars you can get rid of traffic cops. That sounds like a good trade to me.


RE: This is a must
By arrandale on 2/4/2014 8:29:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've been dreaming of a feature like this in cars. This is a must. Cars are dangerous. If it's too expensive, cut corners in other areas like infotainment, horsepower, etc.


Bollocks. Poorly trained and inattentive drivers are dangerous. A skilled driver in a well maintained vehicle is perfectly safe.


RE: This is a must
By gamerk2 on 2/4/2014 8:35:16 AM , Rating: 3
Unless he happens to get hit by said poorly trained and inattentive drivers.


RE: This is a must
By nafhan on 2/4/2014 9:17:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A skilled driver in a well maintained vehicle is perfectly safe.
Well, it's a good thing that most people feel like they're a better than average driver, then!

More seriously, this is like saying, "We'd never have any mistakes if people didn't make any mistakes." We don't live in a world where you can count on anywhere close to a majority of the people on the road being skilled drivers in well maintained vehicles. I live in a world where I can count on a good percentage of the people on the road to be grumpy, not paying attention, and unskilled.

Also, and this is totally anecdotal, I've noticed that many people who consider themselves skilled drivers "make up for it" by driving much more aggressively/dangerously. Skill != safety. I'd consider adherence to standard rules of the road more important than skill.


RE: This is a must
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2014 10:31:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We don't live in a world where you can count on anywhere close to a majority of the people on the road being skilled drivers in well maintained vehicles.


Uhhh the statistics say we DO live in that world.

By your logic everyone totals their cars out every year playing bumper cars.

But yes, not everyone is a perfect driver. So freaking what? Do you believe the Government is going to swoop in and fix this for you? Or even if they could, should?

Why don't you fly over to Russia and pitch this crap to them? They might actually need it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/...


RE: This is a must
By nafhan on 2/4/2014 2:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
Statistics you say... are these statistics that you made up, or are they ones you can refer me to? And, come on, there's a vast middle ground between perfect drivers and people who total their cars on a yearly basis.

Anyway, my point is that most people aren't that great at driving. Not that we should definitely implement this system as described here in this article (which I didn't say at all). I do, however, look forward to self driving cars getting "skilled" drivers off the road so I can commute in safety.


RE: This is a must
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2014 3:11:05 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah you're right, I made up those statistics. I write for the Washington Post, you got me.

f'ing douchebag....

I guess whenever we feel people are "bad" at something, we're justified in thinking the Government should swoop in and fix the situation.

Sorry Caucasians, mandatory dancing classes for you!!!


RE: This is a must
By Jeffk464 on 2/4/2014 5:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, find me a white guy that likes to dance


RE: This is a must
By nafhan on 2/5/2014 7:42:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yeah you're right, I made up those statistics.
It was more like you made up the idea that those statistics exist somewhere, but yeah, basically.
quote:
f'ing douchebag
Making stuff up. Misrepresenting what others say. Now, name calling. Who's the d-bag?
quote:
I guess whenever we feel people are "bad" at something, we're justified in thinking the Government should swoop in and fix the situation.
You said this, not me. The entire time, I've been attempting to debunk the (very) mistaken idea that most people on the road are excellent drivers. If you want to argue against gov. control (or anything), use facts not things like supposed statistics that must exist because they would prop up your view of the world. There's plenty of reasons why the government shouldn't do this. "Everyone is a really good driver! FOR REAL!" isn't one of those reasons.


RE: This is a must
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2014 9:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was more like you made up the idea that those statistics exist somewhere, but yeah, basically.


Are you a troll? Of course those statistics are tracked and made available. Accident rates, fatalities, injuries, you name it. Tracked, collated, and categorized. Wtf, you can't be serious.

quote:
There's plenty of reasons why the government shouldn't do this. "Everyone is a really good driver! FOR REAL!" isn't one of those reasons.


I don't recall ever making that point. I don't think everyone is a really good driver, however I don't think we're living in a vehicle apocalypse as some are making it seem to be.

The statistics, that you refuse to acknowledge, show our roads are safer than ever and getting safer all the time. Everyone isn't a great driver, nor is everyone a horrible one as some make them out to be.


RE: This is a must
By nafhan on 2/5/2014 10:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
I've never seen statistics for things like "skill level of most drivers", and if such things exist, it's not coming from traffic accident info.

Anwyay:
quote:
Everyone isn't a great driver, nor is everyone a horrible one as some make them out to be.
If you believe that, why are you arguing with me? I jumped into this conversation by replying to someone who was stating that a skilled driver in a well maintained vehicle will be perfectly safe.


RE: This is a must
By JediJeb on 2/4/2014 11:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
More seriously, this is like saying, "We'd never have any mistakes if people didn't make any mistakes." We don't live in a world where you can count on anywhere close to a majority of the people on the road being skilled drivers in well maintained vehicles. I live in a world where I can count on a good percentage of the people on the road to be grumpy, not paying attention, and unskilled. Also, and this is totally anecdotal, I've noticed that many people who consider themselves skilled drivers "make up for it" by driving much more aggressively/dangerously. Skill != safety. I'd consider adherence to standard rules of the road more important than skill.


Then what needs to happen is when someone does something stupid like texting when driving, drinking while driving, or just driving like an idiot, they lose their license for a year to begin with, second offense lose it forever. Or maybe just make traffic fines cost thousands of dollars. If stupid drivers never have to pay for their stupidity then they will always be stupid drivers.

In Finland they make all drivers go through three days of training and testing on a wet skid pad to prove they can control their vehicle in a skid and on low traction pavement before they are allowed to obtain a license, why not implement something like that here? My dad made me drive in mud and on snow before I ever even got my learners permit(lived on a farm so no parking lots handy, just fields and back roads). By the time I had my own vehicle at 18 I could drive in almost any road conditions. He also held me responsible for any damage to a vehicle, which taught me to pay attention and not wreck it. Now days most kids I see their parents just let the insurance take care of it if they bend one up, and not make the kids pay for their own insurance. Start them off right and when they see what it cost maybe they will be more careful.

But really, we do need to make it more difficult to get a drivers license because for me it was a written test that was easy and a quick drive around a few blocks in town, and it is pretty much the same still. We had a drivers safety class at work recently put on by out insurance company and most here who had been driving for many years could not even correctly answer the most simple questions. Most didn't know it was illegal to use the emergency lane to pass a car that was stopped to turn left, or which stripe was where your front bumper was supposed to be at a stoplight and which was for pedestrians, or that speed limits begin at the sign and not from where you can see the sign. Don't even begin to ask how many could not tell who has the right of way at an intersection!


RE: This is a must
By nafhan on 2/4/2014 2:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
I 100% agree with this. Driving is treated as a right rather than a privilege in the US, which is nuts.

I would add to your list that more testing for the elderly should be mandatory. I've seen some scary stuff involving half blind 80 year olds driving or towing bus sized Winnebagos.


RE: This is a must
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2014 7:33:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My dad made me drive in mud and on snow before I ever even got my learners permit


You mean without a Government mandate?

Clearly you're lying sir. We can't have parents taking initiative and doing things like that on their own!!

quote:
But really, we do need to make it more difficult to get a drivers license


Pointless. Like any test, people will retain the knowledge/skills only as long as needed to pass. After that, they'll go back to their old habits and ways.


RE: This is a must
By Jeffk464 on 2/4/2014 5:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
Road hipnoses, it can happen to anyone. Talk to any truck driver and you will find someone not overconfident about driving.


RE: This is a must
By FITCamaro on 2/4/2014 12:23:41 PM , Rating: 1
Salt is dangerous in the wrong hands. Regulate salt!

Seriously. People whine about spying but then support the government mandating features that allow them to know where you are in the car at all times, how fast you're going, where you've been, and even the health of your car.

I'll be disabling this crap in any way possible if I buy a car with it.


RE: This is a must
By ritualm on 2/4/2014 2:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Salt is dangerous in the wrong hands. Regulate salt!

Three New York City politicians actually tried legislating such a ban.

http://blog.timesunion.com/tablehopping/13889/asse...


Fitting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/14, Rating: 0
RE: Fitting
By coburn_c on 2/3/2014 5:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
Oh come one, they just want to be able to eliminate all risk in life and have remote access to your car. It's just about control, not life and death...


RE: Fitting
By rdhood on 2/3/2014 5:50:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
and have remote access to your car.


This. Another report came out today stating that the police want the ability to be able to remotely disable your vehicle (like during a chase).

While the idea of v2v communications has all kinds of positives, it also has a LOT of abuse potential. I can see criminals remotely stopping cars to rob them. I can see a multitude of hacks for people to stop cars to gain an advantage in traffic, or to take revenge (takes road rage to a new level). Remind me again, which systems has the government built or specified that are unhackable?


RE: Fitting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2014 7:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
Power and control.

Put all these technologies together with the self driving car, what do you get?

Personal Government monitoring stations on four wheels. No independence, no freedoms, no anonymity.


RE: Fitting
By Murloc on 2/4/2014 9:08:58 AM , Rating: 2
derp do your realize that most people in the world don't own a car?
In the big cities many people don't own a car and rely on bicycles and public transport.

They don't even have a car, so according to your logic they must be prisoners or something.


RE: Fitting
By Nutzo on 2/4/2014 11:05:31 AM , Rating: 2
In a way they are.

If there is any major civil unrest or a natural disaster, the government can simply shut down the public transportation.


RE: Fitting
By Schrag4 on 2/4/2014 2:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
NHTSA implies we're talking about the US. Yes, in very dense cities, many do not have cars. However, the vast majority of people in the US need a car.

This is a recurring theme in my posts and the posts of others. If you live in NYC, you should get out of the city once in a while. Most of the US is not like NYC. There actually are reasons why people outside of NYC do what they do.


RE: Fitting
By nafhan on 2/4/2014 2:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
which systems has the government built or specified that are unhackable?
I'm curious if you feel like there's a "system" (computer or not) that anyone has built ever, that's unhackable.


RE: Fitting
By RapidDissent on 2/4/2014 3:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
In a world where every new iPhone is hacked in one day and all website security is breachable, I don't think we'll have too long to wait before a slow updating automotive standard is hacked and open to the world.

Think how much chaos you could make just by forcing a handful of cars to come to a complete stop on a couple Los Angeles freeways on Monday morning.

The NHTSA needs to watch Surrogates. Seems pretty relevant.


RE: Fitting
By PaFromFL on 2/4/2014 8:10:10 AM , Rating: 3
This all started long ago when the government got away with declaring that going from A to B in a vehicle was privilege, not a right, and began making money on licenses and registrations. Then even more money was made enforcing speed limits and driving under the influence. In many areas, speed limits are set artificially low and traffic cameras are set up to make false accusations, entrapping safe drivers. The elimination of collisions will directly reduce the loot, so be prepared for new revenue-raising schemes.


RE: Fitting
By EasyC on 2/4/2014 8:23:51 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly. People who think speed limits are for their safety are very, very mistaken. Cops aren't trained to stop speeders to keep the streets safe, they're trained to make money.

The original idea was that the government created the infrastructure of roads and highways, and you're paying to use them. Under that model, I feel like we should be entitled to money back when the roads aren't maintained properly...which they never are.

I will never buy a car with V2V communications. Hell, I wouldn't buy a car with OnStar. No one should have any kind of control over a car I'm driving, except me.


RE: Fitting
By arrandale on 2/4/2014 8:26:57 AM , Rating: 2
Speed limits were originally created to increase fuel economy during the oil embargo. That idea has since been co-opted as a way for municipal and local governments to make up for budget shortfalls. I find it interesting that speed limits have never really been about safety, yet that's the excuse used to keep them artificially low.


RE: Fitting
By Jeffk464 on 2/4/2014 11:26:34 AM , Rating: 2
No, they were lowered to 55 to increase mileage.


RE: Fitting
By JediJeb on 2/4/2014 2:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. Prior to the 1970s there were two lane back roads with speed limits up to 70mph at least. The 55mph speed limit was first put into place to combat the oil embargo in the 1970s then they came up with the slogan "55 saves lives" when gas prices fell just to keep it low.

Just the same bait and switch we often get from government. "The lottery will pay for schools" then a few years after we get the lottery "We need to raise property taxes to pay for the schools". So what happened to all that lottery money that was going to fix the schools?


RE: Fitting
By Rukkian on 2/4/2014 11:55:52 AM , Rating: 2
While the original intent of Speed limits may not have been for safety, are you going to tell me that people driving 90 mixed with people driving 50 would be a good thing? What about residential streets with people doing 65 down them?

While some may be arbitrarily low, I don't see how speed limits in general do not help increase safety.


RE: Fitting
By arrandale on 2/4/2014 5:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While the original intent of Speed limits may not have been for safety, are you going to tell me that people driving 90 mixed with people driving 50 would be a good thing? What about residential streets with people doing 65 down them? While some may be arbitrarily low, I don't see how speed limits in general do not help increase safety.


Naturally I'm not going to tell you that any of those scenarios are safe. That's absurd. My point is, unnaturally low speed limits that are used to increase municipal revenue don't tend to increase safety. On surface roads changes in speed limits have been shown to have little impact on motorist's actual speeds. In fact, in some cases, lowering the speed limit actually increased accidents. (read more here: http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html) Note that I'm not suggesting it would be a good idea to rid ourselves of speed limits entirely, just that they should be more reasonable considering the circumstances.


RE: Fitting
By Jeffk464 on 2/4/2014 11:25:45 AM , Rating: 2
Government pays for the roads so I guess they have to get the money from gas tax and registration and what not. Its mostly irritating when they use the money for other things.


RE: Fitting
By FITCamaro on 2/4/2014 12:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
Driving is a privilege. Not a right. Unless a state spells it out to be a right, it is not one. The federal constitution certainly does not grant that right.


RE: Fitting
By M'n'M on 2/4/2014 1:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Is walking a right ? If not how do I fulfill my right to free assembly ? If it's a right then why are there public streets and property that I can't walk on ?

Driving is a right just like walking. That doesn't mean it must remain unregulated. That gov't claims it's a privilege is no different from the long standing gov't claim that the 2'nd Amendment grants states, not the people, the right to bear arms.


RE: Fitting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2014 2:29:25 PM , Rating: 1
A crapton of legal rulings say you are wrong. Driving is undeniably a Constitutional right, NOT a privilege.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotpr...

This is just one of those all too numerous occasions where States Rights are allowed to trump the Constitution.

It's really sad when so-called Conservatives repeat this same old Leftist lie they love beating us over the head with.


RE: Fitting
By FITCamaro on 2/4/2014 8:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
Then we can say internet is a right. Education is a right. Treatment for disease or injury is a right. Rights are things that cannot be denied. Not things we desire to have or do.

Do we have the right to go almost anywhere we want? Absolutely. How we do that depends. Do we have the right to fly through the skies at hundreds of miles an hour then without anything to say we competently know how?

The 9th amendment states:
quote:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Just because we have the right to travel when and where we please, doesn't mean we have the right to travel however we please without rules. States have near unlimited authority (bounded only by the federal constitution) to institute rules for things. I'm just as against things like seat belt laws as many of you. But I don't pretend to say that driving is a right that cannot be denied. States are allowed to set law for things that are not explicitly defined rights.

It's up to the people to decide what is and is not a right in their state and have their legislature modify their constitutions. Other than those already codified in the constitution.

A legal ruling also said that the government has the right to force us to buy health insurance under the government's taxing power. A ruling that violates the government's taxing power and didn't even match the content of the government's own argument in the case.


RE: Fitting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2014 10:01:15 AM , Rating: 2
Well I'm pretty much convinced either your account has been hacked, or something has happened to you in your personal life.

This isn't the Fit I once knew and respected. You sound exactly like an anti-Constitution liberal! You're even using their exact talking points. "The Founders didn't mention a car, so that doesn't count!"

The reasoning you're using is exactly WHY we have things like the ACA being ruled "Constitutional". People have turned the Constitution into almost a game, where we make up loopholes and tricks to find ways to do exactly what the Constitution prohibits. Where we say a law follows the letter, when we know it violates the spirit.

By your logic here we don't have a "right" to free speech because we can't yell "FIRE" in a theater. I can accept that driving comes with some rules and regulations, that's fine. But we must NEVER allow ourselves to view it as a "privilege". It's clearly an undeniable Constitutional right.


will never buy a car with this
By SPOOOK on 2/3/2014 8:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
I will never buy any car that has this and if the car has it I will get my drill and put a big hole in the computer that hosts this vile garbage this is nsa to spy and it will be the finel straw in the rights of people




RE: will never buy a car with this
By drycrust3 on 2/4/2014 7:30:13 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I hate to be a kill joy, but government's have a way of persuading you to like their ideas, e.g. confiscation of the vehicle, charging you towing fees, repair fees, replacement part fees, higher vehicle taxes, etc. Yes, I know you think I'm dreaming ... but look at what you've got now, that high price of petrol was once thought draconian too.


By espaghetti on 2/4/2014 8:30:58 AM , Rating: 1
You bow down to that bullshit? What happened? Did your balls drop off? Stop this stupid defeatist attitude.


RE: will never buy a car with this
By Flunk on 2/4/2014 9:54:44 AM , Rating: 3
Just keep your current car forever, they're not going to be able to retroactively require this stuff.


By FITCamaro on 2/4/2014 12:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
Just like they were never able to require you buy a product.


By bah12 on 2/4/2014 10:02:11 AM , Rating: 3
Little less tin foil hat here, but I agree I don't want it either. I'm all for tech making the world safer/easier, but this is just screaming for abuse.

Even if you trust big brother, I'm sure criminals will use this as well. Seems to me this is just a transmit receive system, and if the receive system sees signal X it does action Y (ie stop the car). How hard do you think it is going to be to fake signal X and stop your car to carjack you? Keep in mind that Iran faked GPS data to highjack a top secret drone, do you really think the boneheads at GM/Ford... can come up with a "unhackable" system.


Say goodbye to speed
By half_duplex on 2/4/2014 9:32:02 AM , Rating: 2
These devices will report your speed/location to automated citation units. Say goodbye to the roads you love. You are now "safer".




RE: Say goodbye to speed
By Nutzo on 2/4/2014 11:00:55 AM , Rating: 3
You win the gold star.

Doesn't anyone else see the problem with you car broadcasting it's speed, position, etc?

Should make it alot easier to hand out tickets. Cops won't need a radar gun, just a device that picks up the information your car is broadcasting.

This will also be a boon to automated tickets industry. All a city would need to do is setup a box on the side of the road to read the speed information being broadcast by the cars.


RE: Say goodbye to speed
By Jeffk464 on 2/4/2014 10:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
The government has already wiped out the rights that people think they are entitled to, guess you have to get used to it. If you told people 30 years ago that the government was going to be grabbing your balls before you could board a plane nobody would have believed it.


Other Things
By drlumen on 2/3/2014 6:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps not a bad idea if it is only passive. Like was said, if cops can use it then others will too - not to mention any unexpected outages. I would hate for the truck to be shut down because of some strange anomaly while driving past an airport or something.

I too hope it would be anonymous as well. I can see Minority Report type advertising coming our way. Drive by in a Chevy and the billboard changes to show a Ford ad. Or even something more insidious as tracking with a network of receivers at each Starbucks, McD's, Walmart, all traffic lights or ...




RE: Other Things
By ShaolinSoccer on 2/4/2014 9:19:17 AM , Rating: 2
Google is going to love this technology.


RE: Other Things
By ianweck on 2/4/2014 11:06:53 AM , Rating: 2
I could see our wonderful government implementing a kill switch into this system, probably without our knowledge. Seems like it may already be happening in Europe.

http://www.geek.com/apps/every-new-car-in-europe-m...


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














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