Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NTSB Calls For Wireless Tech To Enable Vehicles To Talk To Each Other

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the KITT-car dept.

Transportation 153

Lucas123 writes "In the aftermath of a school bus accident last year, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) this week called for cars, trucks and buses to be equipped with machine-to-machine communications technology that could help vehicles avoid accidents by knowing what other vehicles are doing. In the bus accident, a Mack truck sped through an intersection slamming into the rear of the bus, killing one and injuring more than a dozen others. 'Systems such as connected vehicle technology could have provided an active warning to the school bus driver of the approaching truck as he began to cross the intersection,' the NTSB stated in its report. Among others, Intel is working with National Taiwan University on M2M technology that would allow vehicles the exchange of data, allowing each to know what's going on around them. 'We're even imagining that in the future cars would be able to ask other cars, "Hey, can I cut into your lane?" Then the other car would let you in,' said Jennifer Healey, a research scientist with Intel."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (4, Insightful)

dtmos (447842) | about a year ago | (#44375295)

'We're even imagining that in the future cars would be able to ask other cars, "Hey, can I cut into your lane?" Then the other car would let you in,' said Jennifer Healey, a research scientist with Intel.

No cars that I know. The cars I know would speed up to tailgate the car in front of them, and then honk their horn in indignant aggression at the thought of someone trying to merge in front of them.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375371)

This is a dupe from months ago or so. I remember that exact same quote, and my own post suggesting that I'd program my car to answer "No."

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44375559)

FIFY

NTSB Calls For Wireless Tech To Enable Vehicles To SPY ON Each Other

"I say! That 2015 Ford Bronco is doing 95 Mph, changing 3 lanes in as many seconds!"

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375689)

Then the tech would be faulty. No such thing as a 2015 Ford Bronco.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44375745)

No such thing as implementation of NTSB RFP.

All future speculation... :-)

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (1)

khasim (1285) | about a year ago | (#44375395)

You're thinking "drivers", not "cars".

But you're right anyway. Without autonomous cars this will never happen.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#44375405)

And drop off a virus to slow the opponent down further.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44375411)

No cars that I know. The cars I know would speed up to tailgate the car in front of them, and then honk their horn in indignant aggression at the thought of someone trying to merge in front of them.

I think this illustrates the problem quite well. The NTSB is trying to create accident avoidance systems like those on commercial aircraft. What they're failing to understand is that you'll never get the average person to exhibit that level of professionalism or achieve that level of training. We do not have a culture of safety surrounding the use of motor vehicles, and without it, things like this will only wind up having motorists smash the little boxes to pieces the moment they try to keep someone from "cutting them off" while their car tries a "I'm sorry, I can't let you do that, Dave."

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a year ago | (#44375633)

Exactly, this is the equivalent of the ADS-B [wikipedia.org] system for aircraft. It will probably become a necessity in order for self driving cars to become practical.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (3, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44376067)

"We do not have a culture of safety surrounding the use of motor vehicles, and without it, things like this will only wind up having motorists smash the little boxes to pieces the moment they try to keep someone from "cutting them off" while their car tries a "I'm sorry, I can't let you do that, Dave."

Well, I definitely disagree with you there... but I do agree that it's nowhere near the kind that (necessarily) surrounds airplanes.

I don't particularly have a problem with this, except for 2 things:

[A] It had better not turn into a universal tracking system. Yes, I know that is a logical extension but the answer is NO. No GUIDs. No identity or location tracking. Realtime only. Anything else is fraught with too many real dangers to freedom.

[B] It is going to be a while before this is done in any kind of universal way. Because what will happen is exactly what happened with automobile "computers" in the first place: accidents will happen when vehicles try to prevent accidents, and the vehicles will be blamed. (And in some cases, probably correctly.) Then there will be a backlash and the idea will be tossed out for a few years. Then the technology will improve and it will slowly creep back in to common use.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that, as long as [A] is observed. My biggest problem is with these pushes to implement technology that simply isn't ready for prime time, like they did with NFC. (Broken before it was even widely available. The only useful feature I see for it now is passing VCards between cell phones. I have NFC and I've never even turned it on... and I may never do so.)

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (3, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44376251)

[A] It had better not turn into a universal tracking system.

Hello, OnStar? Someone here is getting uppity about their "civil rights"; Can you please turn on the microphone and GPS tracking, lock the doors, turn off the engine, while we sit here and listen to their futile screams? Sure, I'll hold.

[B] It is going to be a while before this is done in any kind of universal way

Well, while the government does have extreme difficulty, say, passing the Farm Act so that food stamps to the poor could continue to exist, because the republicans said the cuts didn't go far enough, and the democrats saying the cuts were going to far, leading to it dying immediately, not unlike both sides are hoping millions of poor people will, you can rest assured that when it comes to fucking you over a barrel with universal tracking, they got that shit covered.

My biggest problem is with these pushes to implement technology that simply isn't ready for prime time, like they did with NFC. (Broken before it was even widely available. The only useful feature I see for it now is passing VCards between cell phones. I have NFC and I've never even turned it on... and I may never do so.)

And I think, for anyone who regularly reads slashdot, and perhaps those set to attend DEFCON later where they'll discuss a remote wireless exploit that can, say, cause any car produced in the last five years to self-destruct with the driver inside of it, will find it totally unsurprising that technology not being ready for prime time is hardly an impediment to the rapid adoption of such technology. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go cloud my coffee maker, and then install my NSA-approved listening devices in all the rooms of my house, which they've cleverly labelled "Smoke Detectors".

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44376431)

"Hello, OnStar? Someone here is getting uppity about their "civil rights"; Can you please turn on the microphone and GPS tracking, lock the doors, turn off the engine, while we sit here and listen to their futile screams? Sure, I'll hold."

This isn't a refutation of my comment. On the contrary, it reinforces it. Many people did not understand just how much access OnStar had to information about, and control of, their vehicles. And when they found out, there was a backlash. Do you see it being hyped much today? I don't.

"And I think, for anyone who regularly reads slashdot, and perhaps those set to attend DEFCON later where they'll discuss a remote wireless exploit that can, say, cause any car produced in the last five years to self-destruct with the driver inside of it, will find it totally unsurprising that technology not being ready for prime time is hardly an impediment to the rapid adoption of such technology. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go cloud my coffee maker, and then install my NSA-approved listening devices in all the rooms of my house, which they've cleverly labelled "Smoke Detectors"."

Again, you're only reinforcing my point. So I don't get what you're trying to say here. "Bend over and like it?" Is that the message you're trying to convey? Because I really don't know.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (2)

rea1l1 (903073) | about a year ago | (#44376181)

That is bullshit. There's a reason why the German autobahn is so successful: education through high quality intensive driver's training. This also happens to be very expensive, somethings the US citizenry would absolutely despise.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375417)

Because people don't just innocently merge as they need to. They are merging back and forth haphazardly to gain advantage over other drivers. And then they get mad since you didn't let them merge. Screw them, they can be patient and flow with traffic like me.

Re: "Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375677)

You sound like the guy doing 5 under in the left lane not passing anybody and getting upset when you get passed on the right.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375421)

No cars that I know. The cars I know would speed up to tailgate the car in front of them, and then honk their horn in indignant aggression at the thought of someone trying to merge in front of them.

This depends where you live. In Austin, a turn signal means, "Cut me off, now!" In Seattle people will let you merge, which means, when you see a long line of cars exiting you'll also see a bunch of people driving past the line, stopping in the flow of traffic and signaling to be let in, because they know they will. Cars are fine. Some people suck.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375675)

Only one thing wrong with the Seattle comment - like most places in America the turn signals are an optional extra that's rarely used.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#44375963)

I don't agree with that. I rarely ever see people failing to use their turn signals. Occasionally, I'll see them wait too long, but I rarely see people not using the.

The main driving problems I see here are people that are too polite and clog things up trying to figure out who should go.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (1)

arth1 (260657) | about a year ago | (#44376573)

My experience with Seattle is also that it has one of the most polite driving populations in the US.
But, on the flip side, Seatteites seem to be even more allergic to acceleration than what already afflicts American drivers. You can tell that someone is a visitor from Vancouver if they actually use the on-ramp to accelerate up to speed.
Do 0-60 in less than 30 seconds, and a Seattle passenger would grab for the Oh Shit handle. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not all that much. :)

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376977)

My experience with Seattle is also that it has one of the most polite driving populations in the US.
But, on the flip side, Seatteites seem to be even more allergic to acceleration than what already afflicts American drivers. You can tell that someone is a visitor from Vancouver if they actually use the on-ramp to accelerate up to speed.
Do 0-60 in less than 30 seconds, and a Seattle passenger would grab for the Oh Shit handle. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not all that much. :)

Funny, every time I go to Seattle I think "I'm back in a big city with clueless asshat drivers". So while they are much better than places like Boston or the DC area, calling them polite is a stretch.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375513)

if you leave adequate space in southern ca, it's an invitation for endless people to zoom up, cut you off and then slam on the breaks, better to leave minimal space

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (2)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a year ago | (#44376951)

if you leave adequate space in southern ca, it's an invitation for endless people to zoom up, cut you off and then slam on the breaks, better to leave minimal space

People have been using that lame excuse to act like asshats for years.

I've long since tried another tack. I travel somewhere around the speed limit. I know! That's Fucking insane! I'm a target, and the victim of road rage and have been shot and killed a hundred times! Oops, not really, that's just what people think.

Instead, durning normal traffic, I'll motor along fat dumb and happy, and every so often, there is a clot of drivers, usually screwing with each other a bit, driving 15 to 20 above the speed limit. They continue on in their little group a few feet from each other at 75 to 80 mph, whiteknuckling it for all I know. Then I'm almost alone for a while until the next group of idiots shows up. I used to be one of those idiots. Now I'm just a solo idiot, but it's a lot easier on the nerves.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (2)

Jeff Fohl (597433) | about a year ago | (#44375535)

Actually, I believe this will work. In my opinion, one of the reasons that driving in traffic sucks so hard is because of the limited amount of information the pilots of automobiles are able to pass to each other, because they are sealed up in big metal and glass boxes, limiting the information transfer to the use of a single-note horn, turn signals, headlights, and brake lights. If you are able to communicate to fellow drivers things like, "Excuse me, may I get in here?", this is a much more nuanced and information-rich set of information than a simple blinking indicator. Allowing for greater information-rich communication between cars on the road will, in my opinion lead to a more pleasant driving experience, because human interactions are heavily dependent on emotional cues, i.e. politeness.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (1)

The1stImmortal (1990110) | about a year ago | (#44375553)

Dunno about the laws in the various US states, but at least in NSW, an indicator is just an indication of intent, and doesn't give anyone the right to change lanes. Unless it's a zip merge (where two lanes become one without a line indicating who gives way - and which doesn't require indication anyway), then someone changing lanes technically has to give way to everybody else. Obviously in practice people tend to let people in, but if these things were in Australia, and obeyed the road rules, many cars would get stuck in near-impossible give-way situations...

Re: "Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375951)

The police are too busy buying drones, m16s, and militarizing to enforce silly little life-saving vehicle and traffic law. Pulling offenders over would waste valuable wire-tapping man hours. At least that's how it is here in upstate NY.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#44375607)

Hey, wireless assisted Road Rage!

This will be a hoot and a half, when Lord Wez and his Road Warrior boys start raging around, one hand on the crossbow, one hand on the wireless gadget.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376041)

Now that's the truth.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376485)

breaker one nine, that will be just swell.

I can already communicate what I need
to say visually.

perhaps an automatic bird ?

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (1)

Crypto Cavedweller (2611959) | about a year ago | (#44376533)

I'm imagining wire cutters.

Re:"Hey, can I cut into your lane?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376857)

You just need to provide the right incentives :

http://missingbytes.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/self-drive-engage.html

Nope (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375351)

Here's why it won't work.

1) It won't work on cars that aren't fitted with the devices
2) Like hell are you going to retrofit the entire fleet with the devices

Hey, you know what else is really good at avoiding collisions? Trains. Let's replace our highway system with railroad tracks!

or, if you like

1a) If this thing doesn't have a manual override, software bugs will kill thousands.
1b) If this thing does have manual override, manual overrides will kill thousands.
2) Nobody wants to write software that will kill thousands.

And, last but not least
"Why are all these modern cars so expensive? I'll just buy a used one instead"

Re:Nope (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#44375529)

No mention of
3) Assholes sending fake signals to cars to fsck them up.

Re:Nope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375813)

No, no, no. You do the opposite.
You spoof the speed limit notifications to RAISE them. "I'm sorry officer, my car is doing 90 in the school zone, not me!"

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375573)

I don't think you need everyone to have it, and it depends up to what level you want to allow the system.

1. Car black boxes have been introduced at a slow pace, at this point in time, most vehicles on the road probably have this capability.
2. Your vehicle doesn't have to react to anything. It may just inform people about what may be happening. "Someone is trying to cut in front of you" or "The car in front of you seems to be getting too close too quickly". Some informational messages seem very valuable. Particularly when the driver is falling asleep either in your car, or the one coming right at you.

So while Mercedes Benz tries to keep you in-lane may as well notify the neighbors that such event is happening, and make people more cautious about one particular vehicle.

Of course, there are assholes on the road that cut your way, etc. And in the same way there would be some that try to hack the systems to dangerously "prank" other drivers. That's where you have to know that it's important to KNOW, but not necessarily to REACT to those events.

Re:Nope (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year ago | (#44375799)

"Someone is trying to cut in front of you" or "The car in front of you seems to be getting too close too quickly".

Sometimes it feels like I'm living on a different planet. Isn't the above what eyeballs are meant for? Do I need a machine to tell me someone is cutting in front of me or getting too close?

If it is difficult to judge rate of change of speed and break lights are not enough you could always augment break lights to provide more information..make them flash or change color or something whenever someone decides to test their breaks.

Particularly when the driver is falling asleep either in your car, or the one coming right at you.

If a car is capable of detecting the asshole behind the wheel is falling asleep it is also capable of not letting that same asshole drive.

That's where you have to know that it's important to KNOW, but not necessarily to REACT to those events.

Every time you are warned about something you should have and would have known had you been paying attention the more your ability to drive is degraded. Idiot proofing often just yields better idiots.

Re:Nope (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | about a year ago | (#44375887)

It's to get the attention of the person driving who's too busy reading the paper, eating a burger, texting, chatting on the phone, or just snoozing.

[John]

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375665)

1) It won't work on cars that aren't fitted with the devices

So? If you mandate something is in the cars, then it will eventually be implemented. It's like bitching about that newfangled "seat belts" because it will do nothing for old vehicles. Or that "air bags" are worthless. etc. etc.

2) Nobody wants to write software that will kill thousands.

People that need a job will volunteer. Or looking for a challenge. I would be on of them.

1a) If this thing doesn't have a manual override, software bugs will kill thousands.
1b) If this thing does have manual override, manual overrides will kill thousands.

Correction. 1a may kill dozens before fix is deployed. 1b can't be fixed. Lesser of two evils, etc.

Re: Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375999)

So noone wrote the guidance software for missles that have killed thousands? If you pay me enough I might consider writing software that could kill thousands. Depopulation as service (maybe I should copyright, trademark, AND patent that).

due want to be the one sued or maybe even faceing (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44376299)

Do you really want to be the one sued for the software messing or maybe at the extreme involuntary manslaughter

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376717)

You don't understand government. Since this is a government requirement, they will pass a law saying the software vendors cannot be sued. Can't have any blocks to implementation! Then they will play with statistics to show the law in a good light. The software vendor will get a nice subsidy because he has D.C. lobbyists. The law will say the data can't be used for domestic spying but they'll just ignore that. Divorce lawyers and Child Protective Services will get the data to prove the 'bad' spouse or parent broke 19 traffic laws and get custody of the children. You won't just get a ticket for what the officer saw you do, but tickets for everything he downloads from your car from the last police checkpoint. Rolling stop past the RFID equipped stops signs. You think cities with pension problems won't pounce on this? Ha.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376745)

Here's why it won't work.

1) It won't work on cars that aren't fitted with the devices
2) Like hell are you going to retrofit the entire fleet with the devices

Fallacy of perfection: just because it will not necessarily help existing vehicles is not enough reason to reject adopting it for future vehicles.

Hey, you know what else is really good at avoiding collisions? Trains. Let's replace our highway system with railroad tracks!

Appeal to ridicule: we're not talking about using train tracks so don't try to turn them into the topic of discussion.

or, if you like

1a) If this thing doesn't have a manual override, software bugs will kill thousands.
1b) If this thing does have manual override, manual overrides will kill thousands.
2) Nobody wants to write software that will kill thousands.

Fallacy of the straw man: the question is not about letting this device control all cars but about providing warnings to the drivers.
Appeal to fear: simply causing this device to exist will not cause "thousands" of deaths, as your logic would claim (re: 1).
Fallacy of the slippery slope: implying that (1) the device will cause deaths that (2) would be pinned on the developers who (3) would then reject the job out of fear and thus (4) the device could never be created in the first place (re: 2).

And, last but not least
"Why are all these modern cars so expensive? I'll just buy a used one instead"

Appeal to money: increasing the price of a vehicle does not diminish the inherent value of the device.
And anecdotally, people used that "oh it's too expensive" argument about airbags, seatbelts, and brake lights. Thank god those things never happened, right?

if an false positive comes up who is at fault? (3, Insightful)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44375361)

if an false positive comes up who is at fault? and who will pay the bills while this working though the courts?

What could possibly go wrong? (2)

Mistakill (965922) | about a year ago | (#44375363)

You'd need a very very strong encryption method for this.... and even then...

And if anything thinks RFID security is 'good enough', *facepalm*

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375445)

program my car to be the fire truck, every one off the road here i come come come come come come come
and i thought i would have to resort to a top mounted machine gun to clear the roads.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about a year ago | (#44376845)

And then you pass the cop car programmed to follow you to the scene of the fire.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376325)

You'd need a very very strong encryption method for this.... and even then...

Encryption only works to fight MITM attacks and only when both endpoints are trusted. It won't help if either endpoint could be compromised, as they inevitably would be.

strong encryption will not stop bad sensors (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44376339)

Some kind of sensor issue can lead to a big mess or maybe even 2 or more cars each makeing a move that leads to crash.

Sounds great, terrible example. (2)

Lemming42 (931274) | about a year ago | (#44375381)

I look forward to the days when cars can effectively communicate.

The example of the Mack truck being notified as it was entering the intersection sounds like a convoluted way to pitch the idea as a lifesaving system.

Has this system been in place at the time it seems more likely the truck driver would have seen the alert at precisely the same instant the truck contacted the school bus.

Re:Sounds great, terrible example. (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#44375771)

The example of the Mack truck being notified as it was entering the intersection sounds like a convoluted way to pitch the idea as a lifesaving system.

The summary talks about the bus driver getting the warning, not the truck driver.

The problem is that the truck's computer would have to predict that the truck driver wasn't stopping, which would have to occur after it was too late for him to stop (otherwise he could have intended to stop and you'd have a false positive). Then the bus driver would have to react to the warning, which means it would have to be presented early enough to have any benefit.

Yes, automated cars. What could go wrong with that?

There's now a commercial for a car that automatically puts the brakes on if it approaches something in front of or behind it. The ad shows a child (think of the children!) pushing a cart behind the car backing out of a blind driveway (which is the real safety issue) and the car stops automatically.

I can imagine it will not be long before drivers of those cars start to rely on that system. They'll trust the car to stop without them acting. This will kill someone when the automated system fails. Then they'll rent or borrow a car without the system and, since they have learned to rely on it, won't use the brakes when they need to. Which may also kill someone.

Re:Sounds great, terrible example. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376185)

Perhaps the truck driver should get his head out of his ass and observe the red light he ran?
There is no need for automated safety in cars. Billions of miles are travelled safely each year without it. That's not to say that traffic might not move better with automated cars that communicate, but saying we need this to be safe is bullshit. Drivers need to fucking pay attention, anything that lets drivers ignore the road is only going to make things WORSE.

Zeitgeist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375383)

About time!

hmmm... (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#44375401)

Let's see... what are the first things we'll see this used for?
1. Automated speeding tickets.
2. Insurance company logging of all your activity as an excuse to jack your rates up.
3. Data subpenaed in lawsuits.
4. NSA will be all over it. Reporters will be plowing into palm trees all over the place.
5. Highschool kids rip the devices out of cars in junkyards and drop them from freeway overpasses during a busy holiday for fun.
6. Law enforcement can remotely turn off your car... a few months later criminals will have the same ability...

It doesn't sound like a fair trade to me.

Re:hmmm... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375797)

1. Automated speeding tickets.
2. Insurance company logging of all your activity as an excuse to jack your rates up.
3. Data subpenaed in lawsuits.
4. NSA will be all over it. Reporters will be plowing into palm trees all over the place.
5. Highschool kids rip the devices out of cars in junkyards and drop them from freeway overpasses during a busy holiday for fun.
6. Law enforcement can remotely turn off your car... a few months later criminals will have the same ability...

It doesn't sound like a fair trade to me.

1. Then don't speed
2. Then adhere to road laws and be a safe driver
3. Follow the above and you wont have an issue
4. Way to tie this into current affairs
5. Only because you gave them the idea, and the NSA will surely track this back to you
6. This can already be done, see OnStar's cooperation with law enforcement to recover stolen vehicles, pretty sure I havent heard anything about criminals abusing this

gps can place you on a side road (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44376379)

So you get a ticket for speeding doing 65 in an 45 but you are on highway with a limit of 65 but the gps / ticket system thinks you are on the frontage road next to highway or even on C/D lanes with a lower limit

Re:hmmm... (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | about a year ago | (#44375915)

Technically the insurance companies would use it to put you into a riskier group, which would of course jack up your rates. But hopefully it would also lower the rates for the safer drivers *cough* *cough*, sorry, I just can't swallow that last part.

[John]

Re:hmmm... (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | about a year ago | (#44377081)

Let's see... what are the first things we'll see this used for?
1. Automated speeding tickets.

You see this with some rental cars agencies installing GPS locators and adding penalties for out-of-state or exceeding the speed limit.

2. Insurance company logging of all your activity as an excuse to jack your rates up.

Again, some insurance companies are pushing GPS tracking for "rate reduction possibilities"

3. Data subpenaed in lawsuits.

Black box crash info is already being subpena'd in court.

4. NSA will be all over it. Reporters will be plowing into palm trees all over the place.

Remember the lawsuit against the FBI for using OnStar to eavesdrop and track "suspects"

6. Law enforcement can remotely turn off your car... a few months later criminals will have the same ability...

Already doable via OnStar https://www.onstar.com/web/portal/securityexplore [onstar.com]

Assuming the car doesn't lie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375407)

Thats the problem with this... you can never tell WHAT a driver is going to do.

Second, the device doing the communication is only as good as its sensors. So if the sensors are clogged, or jammed, the message being sent out will be wrong.

That is why it isn't used in aircraft, other than as an advisory... confirmation is always by radar.

First step on a long road (5, Insightful)

naff89 (716141) | about a year ago | (#44375415)

I think it would be great to start equipping all motor vehicles with (well-designed, forwards-compatible) systems like this so that in 20-30 years when driverless cars are a viable option on the road, there's the infrastructure in place to support it.

Re:First step on a long road (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375539)

think it would be great to start equipping all motor vehicles with (well-designed, forwards-compatible) systems like this so that in 20-30 years when driverless cars are a viable option on the road, there's the infrastructure in place to support it.

Augmenting the real world to support self driving vechicles is unecessary and arguably dangerous.

Re:First step on a long road (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376711)

This is about making all vehicles compatible with a single set of driving rules -- something we already do now by "augmenting the real world" with things like signs and traffic lights and line markings and reflectors and curbs and rumble strips and the hundreds of other things we do to support human drivers. As automated driving becomes more popular we'd like to do less of those things, and to do so we either need to ban human drivers or find some way to augment them for compatibly with the new rules of the road.

Re:First step on a long road (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#44375545)

well-designed, forwards-compatible

Bwaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Re:First step on a long road (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375575)

I think it would be great if all motor vehicles were well-designed and forwards-compatible, but I doubt it will ever happen.

Re:First step on a long road (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375577)

A forward compatible system would require a carefully thought out spec, leaving no wiggle room for how you report to other vehicles and how you respond to other vehicles requests. Then considering my Traction/ABS controller didn't even make it to 10 yrs, good luck with all the older vehicles still talking or listening.

More than meets the eye.... (1)

TimO_Florida (2894381) | about a year ago | (#44375443)

Bit of networking and cpu's in the cars also means we're just short of losing major choices. Soon you won't be ALLOWED to speed, waste gas or go where you are not allowed to go (what do you mean you want to drive across the country on vacation? Not if your car won't allow it...) First it will be for 'insurance reasons', then for the 'common good'. Say goodbye to more basic freedoms....

Connected eyeballs (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year ago | (#44375459)

Should a sleepy bus driver...

A) Pay attention to the road?
B) Pay attention to a beeping gadget?
C) Not drive a bus full of little kids while sleepy?

Next question when NTSB calls for connected vechicle the following could reasonably be expected to result:

A) Unnecessary enrichment of industry lobbies
B) Hacking or denial of technology for fun or mischief
C) More regulation and costs for all
D) Reduced emphasis on paying attention to WTF it is your doing.
E) Enhanced surveillance state
F) No actual improvement in safety
G) All of the above

hackable? (1)

jehan60188 (2535020) | about a year ago | (#44375461)

didn't some researchers post a few years back about being able to control a car with a smartphone (via the bluetooth connection)?
the only obstacle was that you had to pop the hood to get access to something (technical details are over rated)
now, i guess that won't be necessary?

real-time mesh narc'ing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375467)

great... now we'll have a mesh network sending your vehicle Id, driver Id, gps location, speed and small summary of last 5-10 seconds of driving info to the local cops (possibly alerts for certain detected conditions like getting stoned, being intoxicated, weaving, etc)

after that's established, you'll have tickets issued automatically (and, of course, real-time monitoring via the mesh... audio and video, two way if needed)

i could design and build that in no time. which means, they've already consider and expect to implement it

Please make it anonymous (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375479)

There is a 99% chance the proposed technology broadcasts a unique serial number everywhere it goes. It is bad enough that we have cameras at intersections logging the license plate of every car that passes through. We do not need people making logs of every car that drives past an accident scene. We don't need marketing firms building logs of every store each car goes to so they can determine who shops the competition and who just buys from the first place they go.

It is very possible to make this technology anonymous but I bet the current prototypes are not.

Re:Please make it anonymous (1)

pellik (193063) | about a year ago | (#44375499)

Yeah, and there's no way to spoof random serial numbers.

Airplanes already have this. They're unencrypted and easily spoofed (yes you can screw with the air traffic controllers quite easily). No reason to assume the same system in cars wont be just as poorly implemented.

Re:Please make it anonymous (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#44375561)

Don't they have check digits?

Hmmm. (1)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#44375489)

a Mack truck sped through an intersection slamming into the rear of the bus, killing one and injuring more than a dozen others. 'Systems such as connected vehicle technology could have provided an active warning to the school bus driver of the approaching truck as he began to cross the intersection,'

So, if both had such a system, the bus driver might have slammed on their brakes, and instead of the truck hitting the rear of the bus, it would have hit the front or middle. That's better how?

Or.... (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#44375511)

How about lowering speed limits (and enforcing them) so drivers have time to react to unexpected events? Other than the cost of printing new signs, the costs would be minimal, safety improved, and dependency on oil reduced.

Re:Or.... (2, Funny)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44375581)

That's Richard Nixon posting from 1973.

Re:Or.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375785)

That's Richard Nixon posting from 1973.

On that issue, however, he was correct.

Re:Or.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375641)

Hey LIBTARD! The fucking speed limits are too low as it is! I'm only allowed to legally do 65 miles an hour on the damn freeway in a rural area now! That speed limit should be at least 75!

Re:Or.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375669)

The FedGov mandated a 55 mph speed limit on the interstate highway system ... and the number of traffic fatalities increased. By lowering the speed limit, the FedGov made the interstates less useful to use and so some drivers switched to less safe roads, resulting in more accidents.

Another good example of death being caused by do-gooders using the govt. to impose their good intentions.

Re:Or.... (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about a year ago | (#44376309)

That is a MASSIVE cost in time the single truly finite thing in our lives. We need a faster transportation system trains are much safer but unused as it takes longer than driving.

I don't think so (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375611)

the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) this week called for cars, trucks and buses to be equipped with machine-to-machine communications technology that could help the government monitor your every movement and everything that you are doing

FTFY

Never trust the government, any government, ever.

Who? (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about a year ago | (#44375625)

We can only hope it wasn't a summer intern calling for this.

well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375649)

Yeah all this will be great when people are no longer in control of the cars/trucks. The bus drive might have had a warning but those don't exactly stop on a dime you know. Would you rather have had the accident hit the front or the middle of the bus because the drive slammed on the breaks?

What a misleading summary, not even what NTSB said (1)

pongo000 (97357) | about a year ago | (#44375723)

The summary makes it sound like the truck was at fault, when in fact the school bus driver stopped "forward of the stop line" then proceeded into the intersection with the truck having the right of way.

Also misleading: The NTSB is not calling for wireless technology in vehicles. In fact, the report simply states (as a conclusion, not a recommendation) that such technology may have prevented the situation from occurring:

Connected vehicle technology could have provided active warnings to the school bus
driver of the approaching truck and possibly prevented the crash.

Oh, and no amount of "active warnings" would likely have helped an impaired driver. Nothing to see here, just more sensationalism.

Re:What a misleading summary, not even what NTSB s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376759)

Impaired drivers still respond to stimulus, just like everyone else. It wouldn't necessarily have helped, but it's unlikely to have made things worse.

Re:What a misleading summary, not even what NTSB s (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a year ago | (#44377159)

The summary makes it sound like the truck was at fault, when in fact the school bus driver stopped "forward of the stop line" then proceeded into the intersection with the truck having the right of way.

I see you are new to the earth. Buses carrying children are never at fault. Ever.

We had a school bus run into a house in a city in my state, and people were complaining that the house should never have been built where it was.

Actually, the prudent thing to do when you see a school bus on the road is to get anywhere but near it. Change roads, or get as far behind as possible. You don't want to be in an accident with it, see someone have an accident with it, or be within a mile of it.

Automated driving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44375737)

How would this system account for a pedestrian crossing the street at the wrong time?

Why not just fix car design? (4, Informative)

loony (37622) | about a year ago | (#44375747)

I drove a 99 corolla until recently... After I got hit this January by a stoner, I got a 2013 corolla... The enhancements are awesome: I can no longer see cars in my blindspot by simply turning my head - they moved the side support forward by about an inch and a half... The mirrors are an annoying cut-off shape that means I can no longer see the car 2 lanes over in the lower corner of my mirror... For no apparent reason, they raised the plastic in front of the wind screen so I can no longer comfortably see the front of my vehicle when parking... They also raised the trunk lid to the point that the windscreen is substantially smaller and I have poor rear visibility... And my favorite, they moved the cup holders behind the gear shift rather than keeping it in front, so I can't properly shift anymore if I have anything larger than a can in my car... so I can either drive de-hydrated or keep the drink between my legs, both sounds really safe. Oh, and my favorite, they also put a lid on top of the center console storage space just in the right place that I hit my funny bone when shifting into 4th gear.

So explain to me, why do I need to have a wireless car-to-car system if the manufacturer of the vehicle seems hell bent on making the vehicle as hard to drive as possible (they call it modern styling)? It adds to the cost of the car, increases the weight (my car, despite 8 more horses, is almost a second slower 0-60) and the end effect is questionable. There are so many cheaper and better ways to make cars safer...

Peter.

Re:Why not just fix car design? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year ago | (#44375917)

You should have gotten a Fusion.

Re:Why not just fix car design? (1)

loony (37622) | about a year ago | (#44376279)

And deal with the nagging to shift and all that every day? no thanks... I want to drive the car, not get married to it :)

Re:Why not just fix car design? (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a year ago | (#44377197)

I drove a 99 corolla until recently... After I got hit this January by a stoner, I got a 2013 corolla... The enhancements are awesome: I can no longer see cars in my blindspot by simply turning my head - they moved the side support forward by about an inch and a half... The mirrors are an annoying cut-off shape that means I can no longer see the car 2 lanes over in the lower corner of my mirror... For no apparent reason, they raised the plastic in front of the wind screen so I can no longer comfortably see the front of my vehicle when parking... They also raised the trunk lid to the point that the windscreen is substantially smaller and I have poor rear visibility...

Oddly enough, those are safety refinements. Ever notice how you feel like you are 7 years old while in a car these days? The doors have come up and side supports forward. Vision is hampered by the attempt to surround you in as much steel as possible, and I wouldn't be too surprised if the air bags have become bigger. Safety culture again to blame. Safety culture never rests

Re:Why not just fix car design? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377231)

I'm sorry but you are not allowed to have TWO favorites. Other than that, All your points are valid.

Sigh...more tech "solutions" for non-tech problems (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#44375853)

Once again, America shows it's ineptitude for dealing with social and behavioral problems by thinking it just smother the them with money for a quick fix and hope they go away.

Technology that allows us to be bad drivers is only going to encourage bad driving ... big surprise, I know. Creating excessive laws and punishments doesn't work either because people aren't thinking about the myriad of ways they could be in violation of some law in the split second it takes to commit such an infraction, accidentally or intentionally.

The way you fix bad drivers is by instituting more rigorous training standards, creating a cultural shift that causes people to take driving seriously, not just as that annoying, time-consuming thing you have to do to get from A to B. But nobody wants to do this, because it takes years to see results. We want to fix all of our nation's problems in one week and it better not affect Brawndo's profits!

NTSB... (3, Interesting)

Anachragnome (1008495) | about a year ago | (#44375971)

NO. As in, FUCK NO.

Not the real reason for wanting this tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376153)

The growing number of ECUs (electronic control units) mandated for commercial vehicles, and popular on ordinary cars as the technology becomes cheaper, led to a need for ever more sophisticated inter-unit communication and external monitoring. Manufactures started storing significant amounts of data gathered during a journey for later analysis (originally with no dark intent).

Now the government can aspire to mandating the so-called 'black box' on every new vehicle. At first, this is really the central computer that speaks to all the others, and collates their logging data. Clearly the government would be able to rip this data from your vehicle in real-time, whenever they desired. At this time, that is best done with a wireless interface that connects, requests and transmits data even as the vehicle is moving. Doesn't take a genius to figure out why this would be useful to government agencies.

Some of this is about spying. A tiny part is law enforcement. Some is what most drivers will hate to consider- the over-riding of their vehicle. Cars of the near future will, for instance, have the ability to have their maximum speed externally limited by wireless communication. In other words, 30 MPH will not be an instruction to the driver any more, but an instruction to the vehicle he/she is driving.

Google's driverless car project is ALL about this. It has nothing, in reality, to do with cars that drive themselves. Google is part of a grooming operation to train drivers to accept that they are NOT in charge of their vehicles.

In the near future, a massive part of court 'justice' will be based on removing the right of 'convicted' individuals to travel or drive, and I'm talking about people who break minor laws that have nothing to do with the road. The concept of 'tagging' and restricting movements of people will extend into all kinds of new directions.

Today, the road system works incredibly well in nations that have decent rules to punish the worst offenders. Robotised vehicles offer ZERO benefit to the citizen. The citizen benefits ONLY from better road infrastructure, or less traffic. Slashdot loves to push the idea of technology simply for technology's sake, and discourages people from asking - where's the benefit or improvement?

When the government is able to use technology to take intimate control of your lives, things NEVER improve. The filthy shill will say "a driver could be irresponsible, so it is GOOD that the government removes that possibility". Notice the line of argument. It is used by filthy shills to justify any furtherance of the police-state, or the technologies used to implement it.

A decent person will always back technology up to a point, but not beyond that point. Of course, for instance, it is good that nations like the USA attempt to prevent commercial drivers from doing too many hours behind the wheel without a proper sleep period. The Russian dash-cams are testimony to the kinds of accidents that happen when commercial drivers only consider issues of maximum earning. But we should ONLY aspire to make things as safe as possible on the road BEFORE excessive enforcement methods start to have serious negative consequences of their own. The last 5% is NEVER worth pursuing- the cost is alwsy far too high.

Re:Not the real reason for wanting this tech (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about a year ago | (#44376785)

Robotised vehicles offer ZERO benefit to the citizen who have nothing better to do than grip the wheel white knuckled while trying to remain alert for threats coming from all 360 degrees for 30 minutes a day+.

FTFY. Me? I'd benefit from spending that time doing something productive, or at least fun. Or at least not depending on the grace of the other millions of people out there to ever so kindly not kill me.

(Why yes, I AM a bit testy today what with some fucking retard slamming on their brakes in the left lane then swerving in front of me in order to cross at least three lanes of people trying to go home to get into an exit that was already three lanes wide, but since this genius failed "waiting in line" in kindergarten, he felt entitled to hold up all the traffic while he cut in front of everyone at the last 200 feet or so on a 6 lane wide interstate.)

The filthy shill

LOL.

More dangerous actually (2)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#44377015)

With a M2M network, you get a notice that a car is coming or not at an intersection; Therefore no need to slow down when you do not have a good visibility. This is bad news for bikes.

Wrong Priorities (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | about a year ago | (#44377161)

NTSB and NHSTA have all the accident data at their disposal. Most of it says that intersection crossing rank very high in driver-error accidents. The problem is that this is still dwarfed by alcohol related deaths. If they were serious about accident prevention, they'd require breathalyzers in cars. Instead they push the industry for expensive research and vehicle add-ons that may or may not make a significant reduction in the fatalities/mile rate.

End of Stopping at Intersections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377217)

Kewl, with this and enough usage, it could end the need for stop lights. That way your car could slow you down, to avoid them.

Chi ti Chi ti Bang Bang (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377315)

Local, State and National Police will have the ability to remotely kill the occupants of an automobile at their discretion.

This is good. Ammo is expensive. Conserve ammo.

For instance. Obama has a habit of taking along his entourage of Secret Service types in big black SUVs on rides through
southeast D.C. around 2am to 4am. The object of the parade is to locate and capture a 1 to 2-year old male, black, for
Obama's sexual enjoyments and indulgences of cooking human flesh.

As has happen often enough, a resident or two see, i.e. witness the goings-on of Obama and his private army. This is not
good.

When this happens there is a chase, much mayhem and an eventual crash with fire and explosions and witnesses along the
way.

A way to limit the potential of witnesses is as described in the original article; the White House give approval.

Therefore allowing Obama to detonate automobiles at any distance from his big black SUV is a good thing to keep witnesses
at a minimum.

Chi ti Chi ti Bang Bang

News for 3 year olds. (1)

formfeed (703859) | about a year ago | (#44377323)

'We're even imagining that in the future cars would be able to ask other cars, "Hey, can I cut into your lane?" Then the other car would let you in,' said Jennifer Healey, a research scientist with Intel."

(My emphasis)

Intel also makes parts for the CAN-bus. This is, so the car can say to the airbag "Ohoh, you better blow up now!"

They also make parts for weapons systems, but their research scientist said that you have to go to bed now, and they will explain that tomorrow using hand puppets.

Renegade Automobiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377367)

The day that technology hits the streets is the day a lot of people will stop driving. The day a car yanks the wheel out of my hands is the day that car is going to the pound.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?