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

We will eventually need this
By BRB29 on 3/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: We will eventually need this
By Wy_White_Wolf on 3/14/2014 8:26:45 AM , Rating: 4
Not everyone. I don't want an automomous vehicles.


By spamreader1 on 3/14/2014 8:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
Me either.


RE: We will eventually need this
By domboy on 3/14/2014 9:34:35 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Not everyone. I don't want an automomous vehicles.


I don't even want an automatic transmission, so I'm a definite no.

And no kidding it will make it more expensive!


RE: We will eventually need this
By Mint on 3/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: We will eventually need this
By DT_Reader on 3/14/2014 3:29:15 PM , Rating: 3
If you think anything will lower insurance rates, you're crazy. The insurance companies will most certainly charge you more if you have autodrive, just like they charge you more now to have airbags because they're more costly to repair. Any change in the status quo is an excuse for them to raise rates.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2014 5:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
Not completely true, insurance companies do charge you different rates based on their calculated risk factors. Safe driving record, age, gender, high auto theft area, etc.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Mint on 3/15/2014 6:04:21 AM , Rating: 2
The insurance industry is extremely competitive. If the data is there to show that a technology drastically reduces accident rates, then insurance companies will all want customers using it.

Fewer claims = more profit.

The more resistant they are to change, the more a company will profit by being the first to offer discounts.

The first targets will be fleet customers, both corporate and gov't. There you have massive contracts where insurance companies are doing everything they can to close a deal, and fleet operators are doing everything they can to negotiate the lowest rates.


By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 1:53:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Within 10 years, we're going to see autopilot have less than one death per billion miles, and maybe 100x reduction in at fault damages.


Can I borrow your Acme Pull from Asshole Number Generator when you're done with it?

Seriously, you cannot possibly make that kind of wild prediction already. There is NOTHING to support a claim like that.

For shame, really.


RE: We will eventually need this
By sorry dog on 3/14/2014 11:51:34 AM , Rating: 4
I like manual everything too...except maybe windows. But now I won't be allowed to choose the type of car that I want...and this is not the same as mandating seat belts and airbags. Other than a small cost there wasn't a lot of downside to those. In this case, there is a huge downside in potential privacy and safety breaches in addition to the costs. And as BRB said, this doesn't really work all that great unless everybody has it. So what are we going to do? Federally mandate that the Obama faithful from the lower fifth ward retrofit his 1989 Caprice hoopty with wireless? Boy is he gonna be pissed...he won't be able to afford those spinners now.
...and what about motorcycles?

They aren't even being honest about their numbers... 80% of unimpaired drivers? What about the impaired ones? Well, screw helping them (especially since they are now considered drunk after 1 beer at .05). In fact, if the car detects they are drunk, maybe it can automatically serve into the ditch, you know, to protect everybody else.

For real, wouldn't this protection help the impaired most of all?

Surprisingly they didn't mention their latest fetish, texting while driving. It probably won't help them either, because OMG they r 2 distracted.


RE: We will eventually need this
By BRB29 on 3/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: We will eventually need this
By sorry dog on 3/14/2014 1:07:14 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not trying to say I'm cool or a better driver or anything like that. Just that sometimes I enjoy driving and a manual transmission makes that even more so. Yes, it's getting more rare, but there are a significant enough number of people like me that seek out certain models of cars because they are available in manual.

But all that is really getting of the subject. V2V is not something that I want not only for cost reasons, but mainly for consumer choice reasons. Tell you what.... I'd be willing to compromise. The car can have V2V, but it needs a button to where I can turn it off if I want to. But really, what are the chances of that happening? It defeats the purpose of what the gov't is going after here, which is putting their finger of control in a product that is a major part of lives to have more influence on our behaviors.

Maybe the majority of people won't care, but there is a sizable fraction of people out there that this will really piss off to point that we will boycott vehicles with this in it.
Is that what you want? Business is hurt and another reason to add yet more fuel to ideological divisions in the country.


RE: We will eventually need this
By DT_Reader on 3/14/2014 3:40:50 PM , Rating: 3
The whole point of V2V is so that every car broadcasts its location 24/7. Collision avoidance is a justification for forcing it on everyone.

In some cities they already photograph every license plate and store that info, along with timestamp and GPS coordinates, forever. V2V offers them ever so much more info on us sheep - it's a GPS tracker on every car and they don't even need a warrant to use it!


RE: We will eventually need this
By Omega215D on 3/14/2014 2:07:47 PM , Rating: 3
So essentially take the joy out of operating a vehicle. I enjoy the manual transmissions of both my 2013 Beetle R-Line and 2005 Kawasaki ZX-10R.

Auto and adaptive lighting are improvements, automatic climate control is iffy as sometimes it's not always in the driver's best interest.

Maybe if the US would have stricter licensing exams we would have much better drivers like they do in Finland.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2014 5:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
Ive owned three cars with manual transmission and now wouldn't buy anything that wasn't automatic. I love automatics and I especially love really well engineered auto's that shift at the best times. My guess is a lot of people don't like auto's because the don't like how the auto's were set up.


By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 1:51:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Manual transmissions are a thing of the past.


I'm not sure how you could make such an idiotic statement and draw breath.

That's like saying fine dining is a thing of the past, because of a much higher percentage of fast food restaurants exist.

Manual transmissions are still being made. And wtf? I enjoy driving a stick, I'm not doing it because I'm trying to "prove I'm a he-man".

Just stfu, as always.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Piiman on 3/15/2014 9:10:07 AM , Rating: 2
"I like manual everything too...except maybe windows. But now I won't be allowed to choose the type of car that I want...and this is not the same as mandating seat belts and airbags. -"

Oddly the Auto industry also complained and said the same thing about having to install those also.

The rest of your silly remarks about Obama and people you reprieve as lower class upgrading their cars is just stupid. Of course everyone won't have them for many years but just like Seat belts sooner or later it will be in every car on the road.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Spuke on 3/14/2014 12:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take one. I live in SoCal and autodrive would improve getting around immensely. It wouldn't be my only car though as I'd want one without all that crap installed.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Motoman on 3/16/2014 8:58:15 PM , Rating: 3
Seconded and thirded.

If you can't manage a clutch and a stickshift, you shouldn't be driving a car.

And no, I'm not kidding. We have vastly too many idiots on the road as it is who have no business being in charge of a vehicle.

Making cars autonomous is just one more step in the dumbification of America. I wish for once we would stop catering to the criminally incapable with every f%cking thing we do.

Can't f%cking drive? Great. Don't.


By Griffinhart on 3/14/2014 12:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
Same here, I do not want an autonomous vehicle.


RE: We will eventually need this
By gamerk2 on 3/14/2014 8:45:46 AM , Rating: 2
I view V2V as the wrong approach though; I'd rather have centralized servers, so you don't have to have the cars doing that much processing; too much to go wrong letting each vendor use a different implementation of the same tech. Since you then only need a simple output signal to announce the vehicles presence, cost becomes a LOT lower, since you only need to transmit, not receive.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Piiman on 3/15/2014 9:15:08 AM , Rating: 2
"too much to go wrong letting each vendor use a different implementation of the same tech. - "

Obviously it would have a standard.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Piiman on 3/15/2014 9:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the since it would be installed during the car manufacturing process there would only be a few suppliers.


RE: We will eventually need this
By sorry dog on 3/15/2014 11:00:05 AM , Rating: 3
all of which will make it easier to hack or modify.

Which is fortunate, because if this comes to pass I will be looking for a way to install an on/off switch. No doubt laws will be passed to discourage that.

Things like this hurt consumer choice because it becomes so expensive to bring a particular model to market, that you must sell at least 100,000 a year to make it profitable. There are already far less niche models and makes compared to 20 years ago.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Strunf on 3/14/2014 9:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see how it helps with congested traffic when traffic within a city is regulated by the traffic lights, they could decrease the chances of having congested traffic by just making the traffic lights smarter and this for a fraction of the cost of the V2V.
I still wonder why very often I'm faced with red lights when there's no car coming on the other road, or why it turn green at a crossing when it's completely blocked, it's really annoying how some idiot drivers keep advancing when it's clear they will block the crossroad. If it wasn't for the fact that most drivers are complete idiots I would be all for removing every single traffic light within a city.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Mint on 3/14/14, Rating: 0
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?


By spamreader1 on 3/14/2014 2:09:45 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 MrBlastman on 3/14/2014 12:56:21 PM , Rating: 1
It helps with congested traffic by forcing those maroons to take action!

I live in Atlanta and we have some of the worst traffic in all of North America. It is bad here, no, really bad. We have all types of people driving: young kids, elderly, incompetents, sky-watchers, daydreamers, people so fat their foot stays on their brake while they use the gas pedal, crazies, foreigners who never drove a car in their life until recently moving to America, women drivers... asian women drivers (my asian friends tell me these are the WORST and to watch out for them), cabbies, shuttles, buses, truck drivers, pizza delivery guys, bicyclists, motocycle suicide bikers, texters, drive-it-like-you-stole-it proponents, turbo spoolers at 12 mph (see car through house), cautious paranoids... and more! (Apologies if I left out any sterotypes--I'm trying to be as un-PC as possible while proving a point). Throw them all together and what do you get? Madness!

So by taking the biggest responsibility out of their hands when entering city limits while forcing them to sit back, relax and let the car do the work--you're helping traffic immensely! Those that don't pay attention normally... can keep living in space. Those that are too afraid to act to save their own lives (see: people who stop on the highway on-ramp at the white line where it merges onto the freeway and panic), assholes (see: Dennis Leary drive really slow in the ultra-fast lane) can scream out of their... assholes as they are forced to go fast, merge or change lanes (yes, some people are AFRAID to change lanes)... the list goes on.

You get the idea.

Most of these imbeciles couldn't navigate their way out of a kitchen pantry stuffed full of Hostess cup-cakes, Beanie-Weenies and a sack of Dog Food. If they see a scorpion they scream for mercy, jump on a stool, dance like a bear riding a beach-ball and chant fifty-thousand kumbayahs hoping the 911 operator will send police immediately to save not only themselves but their poor dog fluffy. Or, imagine for a moment, that fluffy is instead a 22 lb cat that is trying to attack them and they have barricaded themselves inside their bedroom, afraid for their lives. (Yes, that DID happen this week on the West Coast).

If you seriously thing all of the above have the capacity... no, the ability to efficiently flow through the asphalt system, unimpeded with civil respect for everyone else... well you have something coming for you. Here's news to ya: That traffic light, it might as well be the hot light at the local burrito stand yelling "Hey guys! Extra queso and hot sauce if you hurry!" (Because some will want it and others will remember that demon named Montezuma who paid a visit to their rear-cavity last month).

No, I can't see any reason at all why we should have automated traffic control with computer-assisted driving!


RE: We will eventually need this
By sorry dog on 3/14/2014 1:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
young kids, elderly, incompetents, sky-watchers, daydreamers, people so fat their foot stays on their brake while they use the gas pedal, crazies, foreigners who never drove a car in their life until recently moving to America, women drivers... asian women drivers (my asian friends tell me these are the WORST and to watch out for them), cabbies, shuttles, buses, truck drivers, pizza delivery guys, bicyclists, motocycle suicide bikers, texters, drive-it-like-you-stole-it proponents, turbo spoolers at 12 mph (see car through house), cautious paranoids... and more! (Apologies if I left out any sterotypes--I'm trying to be as un-PC as possible while proving a point).


Well, I've spend sometime in your I-20/75/85/285 paradise and if your trying to be UN-pc - then you left out Hood Rats in hoopties, Segal wanna-be cops, Jesse James wannabe harley bikers, clueless texting teenage girls, wal-mart dwelling rebel flag waving rednecks, mexicans that are illegal in Mexico too, left lane hogging 6 offspring soccer moms, maybe once attractive but now walking skeleton methheads, and to cover everybody else... all those that participate in the daily running of the Atlanta 285 race... where the cops don't bother to fight through the 80 cars glued to your ass unless your at triple digits and maybe not even then.

Gotta say that you're right....Atlanta is the worst. I wish I had videos of wu-tang weekend motorcycle club that needs 3 lanes of worth of swerving to maintain their un-synchronized wheelies or the mexican Cheby with all windows (including windshield) airbrushed and proceeding to dispose of their single wide grade living room suite on I-20 which pretty much then disintegrates into a million splinters as 80mph.



RE: We will eventually need this
By MrBlastman on 3/14/2014 1:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
Haha! A fellow survivor of the blackened southern rivers of despair--well said, sir. :)


RE: We will eventually need this
By Omega215D on 3/14/2014 2:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
Those hood rats on bikes are the worst and make things bad for the rest of us.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2014 5:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
mexicans that are illegal in Mexico


Legality is a lot more flexible in Mexico.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Motoman on 3/16/2014 9:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, I can't see any reason at all why we should have automated traffic control with computer-assisted driving


The answer isn't automating the vehicles. It's raising the standards to be able to get a driver's license to the point where the f%cktards are off the roads.

We seem to think we have a "right" to a driver's license. You don't. It's not a right. It's a privilege, and it's well past time that we started treating it as such.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2014 9:16:25 AM , Rating: 1
Somehow we've gotten on just fine without it so far.

The Government who couldn't even manage to get a website to function is going to mandate my personal vehicle be networked to everyone else's?

Just no, no thank you.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Mint on 3/14/2014 11:32:26 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, what does the gov't know about building and regulating transportation infrastructure?


RE: We will eventually need this
By illonexxx on 3/14/2014 12:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
You'd have to agree, Mint has a point. This is one of the few places where government has intervened and also has a clear constitutional <strike>right</strike> obligation to do so.


RE: We will eventually need this
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2014 12:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of roads are terribly designed so not a lot apparently.

And there's a big difference between physically building roads and the government designing, building, and deploying a system that is going to manage remotely driving our cars.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Omega215D on 3/14/2014 2:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
Just come to NYC/ Long Island area and you can see the proof of terribly thought out roads and highways. Grand Central and LIE interchange is the worst. Their constant modifications of the Belt Parkway made it a real boondoggle.

At least California highways are a little better thought out but there were still plenty of head scratchers.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2014 5:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
You are aware that the government contracts about everything out right. So your beloved private sector will be the ones setting this stuff up.


RE: We will eventually need this
By sorry dog on 3/14/2014 1:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
Not as much as you think.

Usually it's hired private engineers to design and construction firms to build them. Without them, not near as much would get done.


RE: We will eventually need this
By BRB29 on 3/14/2014 12:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Somehow we've gotten on just fine without it so far


You obviously have never lived in a large metropolitan before. Traffic is the #1 complaint and cause the most problems for people. You spend 2-3 hours a day in commute that you realize you pretty much only have time left to shower and sleep.


RE: We will eventually need this
By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2014 5:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
you could move closer to work, just saying you choose to sit in traffic for 2-3 hours


RE: We will eventually need this
By sorry dog on 3/14/2014 8:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
I would maybe consider that except then my kids would be zoned for a school where gangsta rap is considered part of the core curriculum.


RE: We will eventually need this
By atechfan on 3/14/2014 1:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
I thought you were completely in favour of stuffing technology into cars, and anyone who disagreed was a Luddite. Or is it only good when Google is doing it?


RE: We will eventually need this
By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2014 5:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
Anyways once this stuff is established and mass produced the price goes down and down.


By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2014 10:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or is it only good when Google is doing it?


What technology is Google trying to force down my throat by mandate again?

Oh right, NONE! Stop trolling.

I'm fine with this technology, as long as it's NOT mandated by the Government. The forced mandate is where we as Americans should be drawing the line.

I don't live in a large metropolitan area with sucky traffic. Why should I have to pay for this and deal with this in my own car if I don't want it?

The automobile is dutifully following the country that made it so famous, straight into the goddamn toilet.


RE: We will eventually need this
By deltaend on 3/14/2014 5:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.

quote:

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.

quote:
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.


Aww Cmon!
By Spuke on 3/13/2014 10:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
$31,000? Really?




RE: Aww Cmon!
By Mint on 3/14/2014 6:16:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's ridiculous. By the time this becomes standardized and mass produced, we're looking at a couple hundred dollars at most, and it'll only decline from there. If tablets can do wifi for a few dollars, I don't see why basic V2V will be significant on a new car's price.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2014 9:28:10 AM , Rating: 1
Mint when you add up this with every other mandated piece of equipment you no doubt support, yeah, someone has to pay for it.

Also your tablet analogy is fairly terrible. The Government didn't mandate tablet WiFi and add a ton of costly requirements and measures to the design.

This is just another example of you supporting a large beuracratic centralized socialist state.

If you really supported free markets, as you claim with Tesla vs NADA, then you should support a free auto industry where things like this aren't forcibly mandated.

Auto makers and consumers should be free to choose what they want in a vehicle.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Mint on 3/14/2014 11:59:50 AM , Rating: 3
My note about tablets isn't a regulation analogy. It's about cost. Short range wireless communication is cheap.

I support a free market economy as long as it isn't entirely unregulated. Even you admitted that some regulations are good. I don't care if Tesla still has to get a license to sell a car, whatever that involves. I don't care if they have to pay income tax, or an EV road tax. It's still a free market.

Roads are public property. I don't want to be driving and surrounded by people without anti-lock brakes, wing mirrors (or an electronic equivalent), or windshield wipers. If they hit me and a lack of those features was a factor, then I suffer damage or death. It is entirely in every motorist's self interest to vote for a gov't that mandates those features in new vehicle sales. That's their democratic right, and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

V2V is not just about safety, but also traffic flow. Again, I want to minimize time wasted in gridlock, and can't imagine anyone else thinking otherwise.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2014 7:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Short range wireless communication is cheap.


Yeah because when your iPad loses it's connection, people don't die.

THIS won't be cheap, you can believe that.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By 91TTZ on 3/17/2014 11:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't want to be driving and surrounded by people without anti-lock brakes,


You already are. Many cars are sold without antilock brakes.

Besides, ABS didn't deliver on its safety promises.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/ci.Light+Vehicle+Ant...

quote:
Brake experts anticipated that the introduction of ABS on passenger vehicles would reduce the number and severity of accidents. A number of statistical analyses of accident databases have been performed during the last three years. These analyses suggest that the introduction of ABS does not seem to have reduced the number of automobile accidents where they were expected to be effective. Kahane stated that involvements in multi-vehicle crashes on wet roads were significantly reduced by 24 percent, and nonfatal crashes by 14 percent (with ABS). However, these reductions were offset by a statistically significant increase in the frequency of single-vehicle, run-off-road crashes (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects), as compared to cars without ABS. Fatal run-off-road crashes were up by 28 percent and nonfatal crashes by 19 percent.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Drexial on 3/14/2014 12:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Government didn't mandate tablet WiFi


Mandate, no, but it is regulated every step of the way. From the materials the chip is made out of to the frequencies it operates in. Every piece inside a tablet had to be submitted to the FCC to be tested as compliant with government regulations. To ensure that your cell coverage doesn't interfere with the GPS receiver, WiFi, OTA TV, FM Radio, Satellite TV/internet, Emergency radio, HAM, etc...

Mandate=/=Made by the government. It just means that it will work with the companies that are already testing these technologies to make sure they are compatible with each other, then create a set of regulations that they can then pass on to the auto manufactures to build their own compatible device.

Do I agree that we are ready for tech like this? no. But I will be happy the day we are and most people that only drive because they can, no longer have to worry about driving. Then they can jerk around all they want and are no longer running red lights and killing people because they were texting LOL to a friend.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By ilt24 on 3/14/2014 1:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when you add up this with every other mandated piece of equipment you no doubt support, yeah, someone has to pay for it.


I imagine you would not have, and very well still might not be in favor of seat belt and airbag requirements, but according to the CDC and NHTSA they save around 15K lives a year in the U.S. as well as reduce or eliminate 10 of thousands of injuries.

One way or another there is a price to pay. The key would be to understand how many accidents would be avoided and how many lives would be saved vs. the cost of implementation. For me this article (and the one it is based on) provides no information that would help me determine if I think the cost would be worth it.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2014 6:50:09 PM , Rating: 1
I knew when I posted that someone would bring up seatbelts. Always the seatbelts.

Comparing seatbelts to this is insane.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By ilt24 on 3/14/2014 8:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I knew when I posted that someone would bring up seatbelts. Always the seatbelts.

Comparing seatbelts to this is insane.


If you say, so but I imagine you would have said the same thing about seat belts and air bags at the time they were being forced on everyone. How about padded dashboards, safety glass and the high center rear break light?

For me I'd like to see some cost/benefit data, then we can decide of it's worth it.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 8:29:10 AM , Rating: 2
Seatbelts and airbags were already being adopted by nearly every car manufacturer when the Government decided to mandate them. The mandate didn't make us safer.

This is far FAR different than a piece of safety equipment. And you know it.

Maybe you like our cars being used as a rolling NSA spynet, but I'll pass.



RE: Aww Cmon!
By marvdmartian on 3/14/2014 7:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I believe they're saying the average price of a new car, in 2013, was already $31,000. With the price of SUV's and pickup trucks oftentimes being way over that, and even the price of small cars approaching $20K, they may not be too far off track.

The point that I believe is more important, is the further invasion of the government into our wallets, by pushing yet another unneeded technology on customers that don't want it. Much like the black boxes that (I believe) are on all new cars now.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By jdietz on 3/14/2014 11:29:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well need or unneeded is subjective.

At least one car crashed last year and at least one person died in one of the crashes. The ideal number is zero.

So from there its a cost benefit analysis. NHTSA people say it's worth it, and it would cost about X (Really? $31k per vehicle? How much per vehicle?). Now what we need are 3rd parties to review the NHTSA data to determine whether it will really reduce accidents, what assumptions were made in making the estimate, etc... and how much it will really cost.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By BRB29 on 3/14/2014 12:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
Are you nuts?

You might as well say don't drink water because there were people who died from drinking too much water.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Mint on 3/14/2014 2:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
How can anyone think he's nuts? He's stating a very simple fact: There's a cost-benefit analysis to be done, and isn't yet supporting either side.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By sorry dog on 3/14/2014 12:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
At least one person was struck by lightning too. Shall we all walk around in rubber suits carrying a lightning rod?

I prefer my goals to be obtainable. Zero accidents is not obtainable.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2014 5:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
Automotive death rates are not insignificant though. Its not like the number of people that get struck by lighting are end up as a tasty shark treat. You are talking about 1 million worldwide deaths per year.


RE: Aww Cmon!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 8:34:45 AM , Rating: 2
If you really wanted to cut down on those deaths, then just get the Government to try prohibition again. The single biggest cause of traffic fatalities, drunk drivers.

And I don't care about world wide deaths, the world can go do what they want. I will NEVER accept something like this in our vehicles here.

2%. That's your chances of dying in an automobile in this country, compared to all others causes of death. A measly two percent.

I'll take my chances, thanks. The Government can stay the fuk out of my car.


Ridiculous
By okashira on 3/14/2014 11:23:03 AM , Rating: 2
We're talking about $50 worth of wifi router components, cpu and antenna.

And weight? LOL people choose to drive around 7000lb vehicles because they think it's cool, but now we're worried about 1.0 lbs of electronics ?




RE: Ridiculous
By Nutzo on 3/14/2014 12:43:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's not WiFi. It's much closer to having a cell phone that's been built to withstand the heat and vibrations of a car over 15+ years.

It's a computer that connected GPS and to multiple sensors in the car, and broadcasts all this information like speed, possition, heading, etc.

Once this becomes commonplace, there will be reciever boxes setup to record this information, so they can send out tickets for speeding, and red lights (you didn't come to a complete stop before turning right). No need for expensive cameras, as your car will broadcast all the information they need.


RE: Ridiculous
By Omega215D on 3/14/2014 2:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the maintenance costs these things will most likely have for both the "owner" and traffic operator/ local municipalities.

Who exactly owns the car anyway? Another thing to purchase only to have someone tell you that you don't own it and only bought rights to use it.


RE: Ridiculous
By thesaxophonist on 3/14/2014 6:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's much closer to having a cell phone that's been built to withstand the heat and vibrations of a car over 15+ years.

Simple solution: hire Nokia.


Connected cars
By chmilz on 3/13/2014 9:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Will come with tracking, advertising, data mining, and who knows what else. We are in an era where any "smart" device simply pillages the rights and privacy of the user.

Passenger, enters car: Car, take me to work
Car: Dear driver, for your convenience I've pulled over to 7-11 where they have Taquitos on 2 for $1.00
Boss: You're seven minutes late - you're fired
Passenger: But, but, the car...




RE: Connected cars
By geekman1024 on 3/14/2014 7:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
That's not gonna happen.

I mean, the Taquitos on 2 for $1.00.

Okay, seriously, an AI that's smart enough to make decisions for it's owner, we are at least 30 years away.


And....
By Chadder007 on 3/13/2014 8:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
Hackable




strawberries
By DocScience on 3/13/2014 8:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
Personal automobiles will be reserved for the rich and the well connected friends of the state, like air conditioning, meat and strawberries.

The non-rich will ride the bus or pedal in the name of nannyism and green.




Catholic
By Shawn on 3/13/2014 11:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
In other news, the Pope is Catholic.




Breaking News
By GTVic on 3/14/2014 1:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
This just in, stuff costs money. Also stuff is heavier than air.

Details at 11 but in this case no details will be provided at all.




"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