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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
With erupting concern over police brutality, law enforcement agencies are turning to body-worn cameras to collect evidence and protect police and suspects. But how do they work? And are they even really effective?
A half century ago, cars were still built by people, not robots. Even on some of the country’s longest assembly lines, human workers installed windows, doors, hoods, engines, windshields, and batteries, with no robotic aid.
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.