Government Won't Pursue Talking Car Mandate (apnews.com) 109
An anonymous reader shares an AP report: The Trump administration has quietly set aside plans to require new cars to be able to wirelessly talk to each other, auto industry officials said, jeopardizing one of the most promising technologies for preventing traffic deaths. The Obama administration proposed last December that all new cars and light trucks come equipped with technology known as vehicle-to-vehicle communications, or V2V. It would enable vehicles to transmit their location, speed, direction and other information 10 times per second. That lets cars detect, for example, when another vehicle is about to run a red light or coming around a blind turn in time to prevent a crash. The administration has decided not to pursue a final V2V mandate, said two auto industry officials who have spoken with White House and Transportation Department officials and two others whose organizations have spoken to the administration.
Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down (Score:5, Interesting)
Right, because no one ever died in car accidents before the invention of the cell phone.
Now mind you, I don't know that I liked the idea of V2V communication anyway. It sounds cool in theory, but the more complex we make all these systems the more chances there are for people to manipulate things to cause harm. If self-driving cars depend on such technology, then messing with it could cause as many problems as it solves. I'd prefer that each self-driving car be able to do its job without inter-car communication, which seems doable given the way that tech is evolving today.
Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll note this decision doesn't prevent car manufacturers from implementing this or a similar system, it just doesn't throw people who build cars in jail if they decide their customers will want something different, like lower costs, or a different style of safety feature, or even a similar system which is more advanced later on.
When the government mandates something like this, it creates legal lock-in of that specific solution, preventing better things for customers from occurring. Imagine if every car built was required to implement the 802.11a standard at the time it became a standard, for example. Sure, it's easy with 20/20 hindsight to explain what a disaster that would've been, but at the time people would've been claiming the government needed to ensure every car used the same protocol. All a similar regulation really does is prevent alternate solutions, lower costs options and future different forms of innovation.
Re:If ppl would just put the cell phone down (Score:4, Interesting)
No, but it does prevent it from being very useful. For that technology to be useful in preventing accidents probably well over half the cars on the road would need to use it. Possibly over 3/4. So even if it were enforced it would take several years before it would do much good. And it mainly helps the vehicles avoiding someone else behaving illegally...and possibly mainly helps vehicles under automatic control. That would depend on implementation details.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm personally a tad skeptical on the technology. I really like the concept, but as anybody who works in technology well knows, bad people like to do bad things with it. That said, I would like to see what can be done about people sending false V2V data to other cars, for example to do things like induce traffic to move aside for themselves, or even deliberately cause accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm personally a tad skeptical on the technology. I really like the concept, but as anybody who works in technology well knows, bad people like to do bad things with it. That said, I would like to see what can be done about people sending false V2V data to other cars, for example to do things like induce traffic to move aside for themselves, or even deliberately cause accidents.
That said, you design it so that a signal cannot be used to cause a crash and combine it with other features too.
Example: Car A is being followed by Car B.
Car A sends "I'm breaking" signal to Car B. Car B breaks. This isn't a bad thing. If someone spoofs the "I'm breaking" signal, worst case scenario cars slow down.
Car A sends "I'm accelerating" signal to Car B. Car B doesn't do anything. You don't accelerate until your sensors detect the car ahead is far enough away from you. Spoofing the "accelerat
Re: (Score:2)
That said, you design it so that a signal cannot be used to cause a crash and combine it with other features too.
I've heard this argument before...many times.
Car A sends "I'm breaking" signal to Car B. Car B breaks. This isn't a bad thing. If someone spoofs the "I'm breaking" signal, worst case scenario cars slow down.
Worsening traffic congestion, which could potentially be very useful in a cyber-attack intended to disrupt the economy.
Car A sends "I'm accelerating" signal to Car B. Car B doesn't do anything. You don't accelerate until your sensors detect the car ahead is far enough away from you. Spoofing the "accelerating" signal doesn't cause an accident.
What if car B was traveling at a lower rate of speed than car A, and only changed to a higher speed because somebody spoofed a signal saying that car A is going faster? And what if they're moving around a blind curve or hill, meaning visual or radar sensors won't help?
What if car A was traveling at high speed in an intersection, and somebody spoo
Re: (Score:2)
The average age of cars on the road is about 12 years. So a dozen years is probably a good approximation for your usefulness measure of adoption, reaching about 50% penetration.
How much technological advancement has there been in related car autonomous technology since 2005? Yeah, a lot.
Again, this decision doesn't stop anyone, just doesn't throw them in prison or fine them if they don't do it the government prescribed way. Now, if the major car companies got together and decided to adopt an open standard f
Re: (Score:3)
What evidence can you supply that these mandates are uniformly positive? Have you compared a no-mandate condition to the mandated condition?
You might be surprised to learn how many of the mandates you've mentioned have actually made things worse for most people over time.
Standards are important, but mandating them isn't the way to go. How about a mandate that all web browsers must support flash, back when that was the primary mechanism, ie. de facto standard, to ensure we have a shared standard? What could
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We've had it available to us. We haven't put it into effect - if anything we've lowered the bar over time. It costs money to implement things - and it takes more money to implement things well - so we don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I 100% agree about the fact that while in theory, V2V could be great, but in reality, we all know it would be buggy/security hole ridden/hackable as hell. You would absolutely see people spoofing other vehicles and sending bad information which will lead to accidents and fatalities.
If they are all AVs, there will have to be a lot of communication. I think that the future of AVs is going to be a niche, where small numbers co-exist among a vast majority of assisted vehicles. Think buses and taxis. Maybe limos.
With lane assist, augmented braking, and anti-tailgating radar, you can achieve probably 99 percent of the safety promised by fully Autonomous Vehicles. It would also eliminate some of the impossible to avoid problems of having to program the routes, and what happens if you dec
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that I liked the idea of V2V communication anyway. It sounds cool in theory, but the more complex we make all these systems the more chances there are for people to manipulate things to cause harm. If self-driving cars depend on such technology, then messing with it could cause as many problems as it solves. I'd prefer that each self-driving car be able to do its job without inter-car communication, which seems doable given the way that tech is evolving today.
In the scenario where all cars are autonomous, they will have to talk to each other, otherwise gridlock will result. Its not much of an issue when there is one car among non AVs, but the constant communication has to be there when all or most of them drive themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the idea is doomed from the start.
An AV has to be able to get around with a GPS, a map (about as detailed as you get with the nav system in your current car) and what the sensors tell it. If you can't make that work, the AVs will be limited to a rather small subset of roads and be easy to sabotage.
The present vision of millions of people travelling in unheard of safety in their AVs is surely doomed. The vehicles are too vulnerable. As much as we focus on the roadrage type activies that occasionally happen, driving on highways takes a lot of cooperation between people. Root level cooperation as it were.
So the cooperation has to extend to the autonomous vehicles as well. So we're going to turn over control of our vehicles to a system with the track record that exists now? Even if the in-car contro
Re: (Score:2)
the more complex we make all these systems the more chances there are for people to manipulate things to cause harm
Given the amount of traffic deaths we currently have at all times, I doubt that would be much of a concern. Kind of like winning the lottery and saying "Oh, but I'll have to pay a bunch more in TAXES." Sure, if you don't take reasonable steps to prevent them, they could turn into huge problems.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
If ppl would just put the cell phone down
All this driver-assist stuff wouldn't be necessary.
Because nobody crashed cars before we had cell phones.
Idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OR It isn't a binary statement.
Re: (Score:2)
OR It isn't a binary statement.
Several billion 2 input OR gates refute your statement.
Re: (Score:2)
OR It isn't a binary statement.
Several billion 2 input NOR gates refute your statement.
FTFY. As any computer scientist should know, although it is possible to construct arbitrary logic out of NOR gates, it's really hard to construct most logic simply out of OR gates (even if you have several billion of them).
Re: (Score:2)
OR It isn't a binary statement.
Several billion 2 input NOR gates refute your statement.
FTFY. As any computer scientist should know, although it is possible to construct arbitrary logic out of NOR gates, it's really hard to construct most logic simply out of OR gates (even if you have several billion of them).
Be careful. You might get mugged by a roving band of NAND gates.
Re: (Score:2)
V2V or V2G (Score:2)
Yes, let's just have cars broadcasting their speed. If you thought red light cameras were bad, this would have been worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're not speeding, then you've got nothing to hide!
If it's a public standard and you have the technical knowledge, even if you have something to hide, you can transmit data that says otherwise..
"Well officer, what did the transponder report? Only 55 MPH? Isn't the speed limit 55? The radar says 70? I think your radar is wrong..."
I can't drive 55! (Score:2)
One foot on the brake and one on the gas, hey!
Well, there's too much traffic, I can't pass, no!
So I tried my best illegal move
Well, baby, black and white come and touched my groove again!
Gonna write me up a 125
Post my face wanted dead or alive
Take my license, all that jive
I can't drive 55! Oh No!
Uh!
So I signed my name on number 24, hey!
Yeah the judge said, "Boy, just one more...
We're gonna throw your ass in the city joint"
Looked me in the eye, said, "You get my point?"
I said Yea!, Oh yea!
Write me up a 125
Po
I never understood that song (Score:2)
..I figured out why he wasn't able to get his vehicle up to 55 MPH. Get your fucking left foot off the brake pedal.
In other news, there are many ways rock.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well officer, what did the transponder report? Only 55 MPH? Isn't the speed limit 55? The radar says 70? I think your radar is wrong..."
An officer's guess is good enough for the court.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In the absence of independent witnesses or technical information, sure. The testimony of an officer trumps yours in traffic court everyday.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Yes, let's just have cars broadcasting their speed. If you thought red light cameras were bad, this would have been worse."
Exactly. Much, much, much worse. And "about to run a red light" alert, so people can now just feel like running lights without worrying as much? (The law of unintended consequences). I am not anti-technology, but we need to be very, very careful when running into something like this. Perhaps each part needs to be examined individually for relevance, cost, privacy, and abuse pot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need fake signals, just a transmitter (probably in the 1W range) broadcasting broad-spectrum noise strong enough to swamp the receiver of every car in a fifty-foot radius. And when cars can't signal their intentions to their neighbors, they won't be able to get away with following each other a sub-car-length distances. Additional mayhem is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re: (Score:3)
The people authorizing red light cameras also happen to authorize shortening the yellow light signal a bit, so that more people run the red light. More violations, more revenue.
The argument that red light cameras are for public safety tend to ring hollow.
My Mother, the Car (old TV show) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The car from U.N.C.L.E.
Stupid Idea (Score:2, Interesting)
May as well just put cameras in the cars too. If your going to fuck over privacy, might as well go all the way.
And don't talk about Safety because when this was proposed...and even now, there is no system that would mitigate impending wrecks.
Nope, I think they had something completely different in mind than Safety.
Re:Stupid Idea (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Se... [amazon.com]
You were saying?
"They" don't have to put cameras in cars, "We" are doing it for "them"
Re: (Score:3)
I have a dash cam. It's terrific. It has a dedicated memory card, no WiFi, and does not integrate into the car's electronics. I am not doing anything for "them" if I own and directly control it myself.
If my insurance company offered to give me a proprietary dash cam in exchange for a discount, I'd tell them to screw off. If car manufacturers make them standard equipment and don't let you control recording or retrieve video on your own, I'd be worried.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, add a bit more and you could have a self-driving car! And, if you have self-driving cars, they shouldn't be speeding, or running red lights, or doing any of the other bad things which V2V is supposed to detect.
Re: (Score:2)
May as well just put cameras in the cars too.
In some places, putting a camera in a car is about the only way to legally protect yourself in the case of an accident. Russians are famous for this, where insurance fraud is rife and local law enforcement won't be bothered to investigate such things without a bribe or two.
So I've considered putting a camera in my car to record the craziness going on and hopefully counteract the idiot who is determined to lie about the cause of the accident and blame me.
"Oh Yea Lighting McQueen? It was your fault and h
Re: (Score:2)
You fool, you forgot to mention the bed in the Russian hotel.
Your pay will be docked 2 Hillary Dollars for this transgression.
F****** good (Score:1)
No Knight Industries? :( (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
K.I.T.T. has been blacklisted by the Hollywood community after reporting David Hasselhof for sexual abuse.
Probably for the best. (Score:1, Insightful)
They'd never hire anyone capable of actually securing it anyway. They'd just hire Microsoft, who would backdoor it then outsource it to someplace in India, who would take money on the side to put backdoors in for China and Russia too, in the mean time accidentally leaking all 3 backdoors to the world, enraging NZ and the UK, who'd both paid for what they thought were exclusive backdoors, and while they're all fighting about it, someone will find a REAL vulnerability and exploit it unnoticed for decades.
The Cars (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Thanks God (Score:1)
so ur god is mammon?
skimming comments i havent noticed any mention of the fact that telecons covet the transport-dedicated 5.9ghz band
obviously trump values cash over human life
How is this the "most promising" tech? (Score:1)
For preventing traffic accidents, the technology to let cars talk to each other is far behind self-driving car tech. Self driving cars will have a lot better sensors and reaction times than humans would, so they are already ahead... having cars talk each other only helps if EVERY car around is talking to each other, which may not happen for 20+ years even if it was mandated. In-between what happens to the poor cars around when the linked cars blindly decide to take some action?
Nothing beats proper spacing
Re: (Score:3)
For preventing traffic accidents, the technology to let cars talk to each other is far behind self-driving car tech.
Not true. Such technology is mandatory in larger aircraft, where it is called TCAS [wikipedia.org]. It is considered to be accurate enough that pilots are instructed to obey the TCAS warnings over the instructions of the human air traffic controllers.
Not TCAS (Score:3)
TCAS technology is different, radar based. Larger planes have radar and look for other objects. Planes do not broadcast their position.
Most planes (even gliders these days) have transponders that respond with a ping to being hit with radar. But they do not broadcast a position.
Many pilots consider TCAS to be a nuisance because they are obliged to follow its instructions even though they can see the other plane and know that it is safe. This can actually lead to more dangerous behaviour. For example whe
Re: (Score:3)
TCAS technology is different, radar based. Larger planes have radar and look for other objects.
Larger aircraft have weather radar. TCAS operates bases on the Mode S transponder signals that are interrogated either by ground radar or by the TCAS unit itself. The only significant difference between TCAS and this "cars talk to each other" system is that one is in the air and the other is on the ground.
Most planes (even gliders these days) have transponders that respond with a ping to being hit with radar. But they do not broadcast a position.
TCAS does not depend on ground radar. And yes, with the coming mandate for ADS-B Out, aircraft DO broadcast their positions.
Many pilots consider TCAS to be a nuisance because they are obliged to follow its instructions even though they can see the other plane and know that it is safe.
That would clear the conflict, then.
This can actually lead to more dangerous behaviour.
Then it would be the pilot increasing the d
Re: (Score:1)
The other difference is that cars routinely operate within a closing distance where a collision avoidance system on planes would be shrieking.
There is dramatically more buffer space around planes (even after taking into account their increased speed) and that includes stacking in 3D space where cars all have to share the same plane with vastly more intersection of trajectories.
Re: (Score:2)
The other difference is that cars routinely operate within a closing distance where a collision avoidance system on planes would be shrieking.
That is a difference in a threshold value, not a significant technical difference. The basic concepts are the same. The technology isn't all that new.
In fact, if anything, constricting the problem to fixed roadways and one elevation makes the problem simpler, not harder. TCAS has to deal with horizontal AND vertical tracks; car TCAS has only horizontal to worry about.
Never thought I would agree with Trump on anything (Score:2)
But because he proposed it, the left will scream that he is wrong.
Re: Never thought I would agree with Trump on anyt (Score:1)
see my comment re: telecons
Re: (Score:1)
But the point is that even if you have 99% uptake, you still have some cars "invisible". You cannot rely on every car having this system even for 50 years or more.
In the meantime self driver car sensor tech gives you much more accurate data, and a more robust engine to handle car reactions to data - not to mention it is VERY EASY to hack broadcast car data and cause all kinds of mischief, in a way that is much harder to do against an array of self driving car sensors.
Re: Translation (Score:1)
follow the money
https://www.theregister.co.uk/... [theregister.co.uk]
This is absolutely the right call (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You can't prove who was driving,
You can't prove the data is not wrong,
You cant' prove someone didn't hack their car to show someone elses VIN
You can't force me to violate the 5th amendment and admit to a crime.
Bad idea from the get-go (Score:4, Insightful)
>> jeopardizing one of the most promising technologies for preventing traffic deaths.
Using technology to get around the fact that Americans can and do get a driving licence despite being an awful, clueless driver is a shit idea that can't and doesn't address the core problem at all.
The government needs to address the problem directly by mandating much stricter driving tests that include demonstrating an ability to actually be able to drive, such as controlling and handling a car well in all conditions, especially at the edge of performance. Just memorizing all the traffic signs/laws which is what they currently test for, in no way automatically makes anyone a good driver.
At least here in AZ, the amount of distracted drivers texting while driving, and people that think its ok to never indicate even when very much cutting you off is a serious problem,
The cops never seem to focus on stopping those people though, they only seem to penalize people that are actually driving safely other than exceeding the speed limit by a few mph.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, many people need to drive a car for basic things, such as getting to work, the grocery store, medical appointments, etc. Any attempt to clear lots of people off the road because they're bad drivers would be a considerable hardship for many.
Also, I'm a pretty safe driver nowadays. I'm not claiming to be a particularly good one, but I'm cautious enough to be safe. I wasn't always that way, and I benefit from decades of driving experience. If I wasn't allowed to drive, I wouldn't have a good
Re: (Score:2)
Your assumption that you and others will necessarily be prevented from driving if the driving test gets stricter isn't a good one, because it presumes people are fundamentally incapable of learning.
What do you think happens in say Western Europe where the driving tests are already much stricter? Still nearly everyone over there has a driving licence. The answer is you just have to make more of an effort to learn, but everyone can and does. To drive well takes schooling and being taught. Just driving for yea
Re: (Score:2)
I was unclear. I'm not cautious in the sense of driving slower than traffic. That's dangerous, as you say. I keep larger intervals than most people, wait for bigger gaps to turn into, that sort of thing.
This is probably a good thing (Score:1)
>It would enable vehicles to transmit their location, speed, direction and other information 10 times per second.
So my car is supposed to take another car's word about what it is doing? How long until someone else figures out how to make their car "lie" to watch the fun? It's guaranteed to happen. And will companies be continually updating these things, or are you just up a creek once your car is "obsolete" (aka when the warranty has expired and they want you to buy a new one).
Gaming the system (Score:2)
There are already unauthorized traffic signal pre-emption systems that change red lights to green https://www.wired.com/2005/08/... [wired.com] The authorized versions are intended for fire/police/ambulance use. I could easily see somebody compromising the V2V system to broadcast a "get out of my way" message, to make their own commute faster. Even worse, overpower other cars' signals and cause accidents. Dumb computers, just following orders, could cause lots of deaths. Can I slip in a Godwin here?
Re: (Score:1)
Worse than useless. If your car has sufficient self-driving capabilities, it can see that the car in front of you is braking, and it can react accordingly. Adding car-to-car communication provides no benefit beyond that, and worse, opens up a vector for some jerk to hang a transmitter from a highway overpass that causes every car to think there's a car in front of it that is stopping, bringing the freeway to an even bigger standstill.
And if your car lacks self-driving capabilities, this still won't do an
Re: talking cars (Score:1)
The idea behind V2V was, and always been convivence. Safety was a perk that statistically would improve with additional data, even if a low double digit percentage of modules were abused. It would take a significant # of people abusing the modules for the data not to be an improvement.
Any sensor your network is not totally authoritative for is assumed to be untrusted and its weight in safety sensitive calculation is almost insignificantly low.
V2V lets you plan routes around traffic congestion (accid
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, we already have most of the information that this gathers, and cars can't realistically sort through the volume of data required to make things like traffic data via V2V even slightly useful. That works much better when cars report their speed periodically to a centralized system that can filter signal from noise and determine whether it is just one car slowing down or an actual problem. When you're talking about data from potentially millions of cars on the roads at any given moment, there