Definitely a technology to keep on the radar screen. While I do think V2V Communications has life saving potential, as with any of these emerging technologies, there are questions about it, more in the short term, before it's fully evolved. One thing that occurs to me is say all these new vehicles are equipped with the sensing, receivers, and GPS technology to make this work, what about the older vehicles that don't have the requisite technology on board? All it takes is one of these to blow a stop sign and any driver in the cross path depending on his or her onboard warning system is toast.
I sure hope designers are paying attention to security! I can see it now, in the short term when the car only gives the driver warnings: Kids on the side of the road with a rogue transmitter telling passing cars the non-existent light ahead will be turning red... or later when the car makes decisions for you, the same scenario making the car stop!!
Then there are the criminal intents, the privacy issues (each car would be uniquely identifiable i'm sure), plus unintentional interference (or intentional jamming).
The way automotive electronics systems have been designed thus far isn't very comforting.
I'm not saying it should be abandoned, just that we need to make sure it is implemented correctly!
We'll have to install these transmitters on deer and other critters too, so when they cross roads, cars are aware! :)
Like with any technology it always sounds great at first. Given the propensity of today's drivers to be distracted already with much more important tasks such as phone conversing, reading, texting, etc in the car, would MORE information make them pay attention? Maybe if the system sent them a text message..."WARNING, Idiot driver in cross traffic at the upcoming intersetion is about to run a red light!" Then the driver may pay attention!
I had been thinking of a visual system to rate drivers ability. A car mounted paint ball gun for those who follow too close or cut me off, straddle lanes etc. Color coded or just positional placement. A car with his back end covered in paint would tell police and other drivers what kind of driver he is. A V2V would let me verbally communicate to him his latest sudden lane change was not a safe move and perhaps should plan ahead his route and lane placement. DashCam technology should be intergated into new cars too.
Existing technology of machine to machine, or M2M is commonplace today. Expanding the concept to moving vehicles is logical and now even an obvious step in the right direction. Start today, and within 10 years, all cars on the road will transmit and receive V2V signaling in various protocols.
However, the article further eludes that a GPS interface is also necessary.I disagree, and think that while GPS is critical in providing LBS (location based services), the entire concept of V2V could be more streamlined in incorporating the right solutions without incurring the cost and complexities of GPS based LBS.Think about it: would I want my vehicle to sense another oncoming vehicle with a readable signal; or is it better to get the same result after routing the signaling thru the celestial constellation systems-?
JimT, I agree with you. V2V is not a location issue. Now, GPS would be nice for traffic avoidance, etc., but that is already incorporated into many car navigation systems. As is typical in these efforts requirements get out of hand.
I also wonder how useful these systems will be unless there is some aspect of automatic operation by the system. There are cars that have some of the features discussed here. Of course, they don't have the V2V part, but using other sensors they give lots of warnings. I was in such a car, in a downtown environment. The driver and I were deep in a conversation and the car was talking up a storm as well. The driver basically ignored everything he was being told. So, I have to wonder...
In China where driving about one inch from the car next to you is accepted, it is common for cars to have proximity sensors on them to alert the driver when he is too close to another vehicle. If M2M can do the same task, I would say that it is worth it.
I really wonder how this would work in some countries. As Tim says, in China, it would be problematic. I do not have any experience of Asia, but in Europe, where I lived for a while, it would be similar. I lived in England, which is much more like here. I also drove extensively in Germany and Scandnavia. In all these countries, I felt much like the more sane parts of the US. There were many countries where I would not drive, such as Italy or France. I also did not drive in Athens. Drivers would very much have to adapt to the system or it would be worthless.
Charles, it seems a direct to direct talk version of early warning systems using sensors. In early warning system sensors are measuring the distance between nearby objects are giving some warning signals. In v 2 v communication model, I would eager to know about the frequency allocation without collision or frequency hopping.
I dont see any big issue with this V2V communication system eventually the technology will come into use when driverless cars are in full production. Thats the only way its applications can make technical sense and work with almost zero errors.For now there is no need to implement the technology in current vehicle versions.It wont achieve the intended results.
tmash, you are quite correct. As a warning system for drivers I think it is limited in utility (as I mentioned in my previous post). I think it is looked at as either a way for manufacturers to differentiate themselves or as a way for regulators to seem to be doing something. Like many of the alternative technologies we see these days applied to automobiles there is really little utility for everyday use.
I think V2V is very likley going to happen, HowieD231, and I think that the automatic summons is also likely to follow, just as you predict. If there's money in it, local municipalities will figure out a way to get their hands on it.
I agree with many of the comments here. There is definitely potential for this and existing models of how it could work. The new ADS-B Out systems in aviation are a good example of getting information about weather and local traffic to the pilot as well as sending out position and altitude to others. Fortunately, most pilots are very alert and abreast of the situation. However, even in the pilot world we've learn that lots of gadgets and information can be overwhelming. It's called a glass cockpit. Training now days focuses more on how to manage that and fly the plane. Driver training, in my opinion, is severly lacking.
I also have to admit that I don't get excited about the government or others being able to track me, know my speed, driving habits, etc. all by throwing up some receivers along side the road. If this does move forward, I think the information broadcast needs to be generic. Things like: vehicle speed, location, size, and condition (for wrecks). Assuming it's constantly rebroadcast, it should be enough for another car's computer to determine direction, distance, and general state. If a car is in a collision, it could change state and other cars/drivers could be alterted and maybe even pass that info along to other cars up the road. It could also be picked up by local receivers to alert emergency personel. What it doesn't need to broadcast, is my vehicle make, model, VIN, or really anything else that directly ties a person to a vehicle. If it does, there will nothing but privacy law suits.
People are for the most part, planners or reacters by nature. When panners must react, they usually already have a plan for the reaction.
Reacters are accident prone. Always a second late and a thought short.
Planners are two or three steps ahead as far as what the other drivers on the road are might do. They think about where they are going, how they plan to get there amd of course how they plan to flow with the traffic around them to get there.
Info alone cannot save lives - it's how the driver uses it. Is the driver using it to plan or is the driver merely reacting to it?
The question is: Will this technology make you more of a planner or more of a reacter as you drive?
It will be very pointless to use V2V comm technology if its simple anotherway to cut down on human error. Human drivers will always be faulty whether you are naturally a good planner or you are not.
V2V communication research has been going on for over a decade and the technology can easly intergrate with currect navigation systems but that does not stop accidents happening and it will be a poor model to use the technology on.
Now that driverless cars are nearly into production , then so is the V2V Comm technology and its part of the driverless system design. The technology does the planning and where posible the reaction but the later will rarely happen unless there is a systems design error.
The only planning you will do then is to tell the Car your destination , either by voice or touch screen device like your ipad...i guess more intelligent pads by then.
Good question, Chaschas. In the long run, I believe the plan is to have this technology work with such features as adaptive cruise control and collision avoidance. Ultimately, the plan would be to have the vehicle take over the braking for you.
Notice that the first things mentioned are the technologies that will be sold to implement this new gimmick. That tells me that those most enthusiasticly promoting it are the ones with a product to sell. Which, if you can get a law passed that all must purchase your product, you will get rich.
The instant problem will be in product liability, meaning that now many fools will presume that part of their driving task is no longer their responsibility, and they will drive, and sue, accordingly. I would not want to be the legally responsible producer of such equipment. There will certainly be a lot of lawsuits when fools start buying these systems. A system that provides the driver with sensed information about other vehicles would be a much better idea. This could include radar to track path and rate of closure, thus providing a warning to take corrective, or evasive, action.
But the very worst problem will come from the same direction as those nasty computer viruses come from: false information, such as reporting that the car ahead is going slower than it really is, or that it is stopping. And certainly the communications will include a vehicle identity, and probably driver identity, code, so that it will be a trivial matter to send out traffic citations for any percieved violation, rather real or not. And in that area, consider the really easy possibility of "vehicle identity theft", where one would be given citations earned by others.
The reality is that V2V communications would be a theoretical benefit primarily to those who should not be driving at all because they don't pay attention tom their surroundings. It would indeed be a large step toward the implementation of "utopia", where Big Brother is constantly monitoring our every action, so as to make sure that we never do anything "out of line", or anything different from all others.
Probably the one idea that is worse than this would be an in-vehicle booze dispenser. I have seen one of those and I do NOT recommend them.
Two of the most enthusiastic promoters of this technology are the Consumers Union and the Center for Automotive Research, neither of which are selling any technologies. Both have studied this and have predicted an 80% reduction in fatalities.
Some cars are more reliable than others, but even the vehicles at the bottom of this year’s Consumer Reports reliability survey are vastly better than those of 20 years ago in the key areas of powertrain and hardware, experts said this week.
As it does every year, Consumers Union recently surveyed its members on the reliability of their vehicles. This year, it collected data on approximately 1.1 million cars and trucks, categorizing the members’ likes and dislikes, not only of their vehicles, but of the vehicle sub-systems, as well.
A few weeks ago, Ford Motor Co. quietly announced that it was rolling out a new wrinkle to the powerful safety feature called stability control, adding even more lifesaving potential to a technology that has already been very successful.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.