EU Reserves a Frequency For Talking Cars 220
Iddo Genuth writes "The European Commission has recently decided to reserve, across Europe, part of the radio spectrum for smart vehicle communications systems. The decision is part of the Commission's overall fight against road accidents and traffic jams, and the hope is that vehicles' developers will create wireless communication technology that will allow cars to 'talk' to other cars and to the road infrastructure providers."
KITT (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember hearing something about a windows car going bsod and locking someone in for 2 hours in the sun.
No laughing matter, unless that someone is bill gates, mitch bainwol, or some bastardized clone combination of the two.
Re:Too much computer stuff in cars.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
MW has told CNETAsia that an electronic fault caused the problem, rather than a system crash of the car's Windows-based central computer, as other reports have speculated.
Just to clear it up, the finger pointing concludes Windows wasn't necessarily to blame...
Re: (Score:2)
Car viruses (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We could have cars that don't start, cars that seek out head-on collisions, and cars that start playing Rick Astley when you're out on a date.
OMG LOLCARS!!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>and cars that start playing Rick Astley when you're out on a date.
Considering how young most slashdotters are, I wouldnt be surprised if more than one person reading that was conceived in a car while Rick Astley was on the radio. You may partly owe your existence to Rick Astley.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Honey, the car won't start, I think there's water in the carburettor."
"and how on earth do you conclude there's water in the carburettor"
"Because I parked it in the canal..."
And soon... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking about putting wifi in the car and setting up an pirate radio station on the move.
Denial-of-service anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Imagine the spam. "Free oil additives that make you feel younger and more virile. Just drive to 110 148th street without your owner. Make sure you bring your keys for a bonus offer"
Re: (Score:2)
Skeeter? Is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
And hack it to honk at all truck drivers, only do max 30km/h on highway and always run the fan at maximum speed and max temperature in the summer.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean old people?
They're terrible to travel with I know.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I can now see it ....
Car receives V14gr4 Spam and the hood pops up.
Still waiting for robot cars (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's only a matter of time before computer controled cars come in.
Problem is that even if they wait till they can build ones which are 10 times safer than human drivers and have far fewer accidents the first time one glitches and someone dies there will be the technophobes screaming about how you can't trust machines and that the killer cars need to be made illegal.
Re:Still waiting for robot cars (Score:5, Insightful)
There's just so much time wasted on the road.
Link all the cars and let a computer control them and the moment the light goes green all the cars could accelerate at once rather than the first car moving off, then the second, then the third etc. On top of that throw in smarter traffic lights, better public transport systems(since there would be no need for drivers the money could be spent on more busses/trains) and being able to sleep on your way into work and you have a big winner
Re: (Score:2)
>Link all the cars and let a computer control them and the moment the light goes green all the cars could accelerate at once rather than the first car moving off, then the second, then the third etc.
I've heard in some countries drivers already do this?
Certainly wouldn't work around here.
Re:Still waiting for robot cars (Score:5, Funny)
In Chicago, the moment the light goes green, all the cars start honking their horns.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
>Link all the cars and let a computer control them and the moment the light goes green all the cars could accelerate at once rather than the first car moving off, then the second, then the third etc.
I've heard in some countries drivers already do this?
Really? Around where I live, all the cars accelerate when the light goes yellow, not green.
Re:Still waiting for robot cars (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem, as I see it, would be how you transition from a system of millions of non-robot cars to a system where all the cars drive themselves.
I've always imagined that there should be something analogous to the carpool lane except that it would be for robot cars. A driver would be able to manually pull up beside the "robot lane" and request to join it. Then the other cars would automatically open up a spot and he would be automatically merged into the robot lane.
Once you have a convoy of vehicles that can automatically drive within a safe stopping distance of each other you can ramp up the speed of the robot lane so that everyone gets to work much faster and they can even read the paper on the way there.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly!
I like your car pool lane idea too since being able to travel faster gives people an incentive to get cars with such systems.
So few people can get their heads round the idea that if you can remove human ego and human reaction times then you could travel much much faster on the roads without any added risk.
There's nothing wrong with going 200mph down the highway as long as you keep far enough behind the car in front to stop if needs be. Humans however can't seem to do this reliably what with "I just
Re:Still waiting for robot cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Fog is no problem until the first car hits something unexpectedly because even a computer with top notch sensors and zero reaction time can't react to a deer jumping in front of it. Even computers can't change the laws of physics and breaking from 200 to zero in half a yard.
And if they somehow figure out a way to do that, it certainly ain't much better than crashing for the human inside. Decelerating from 200 to zero within a few yards IS actually much like hitting a brick wall head on.
Re: (Score:3)
And while you're at it, the same wires or rails that delivered control signals could deliver power to top of your electric vehicle.
You'd simply pull into the robot lane, and a peg on your car would drop into a kind of ... guide slot thingy, with a pair of power and signal rails on either side.
Seriously, this wouldn't be such a bad idea for small electric personal commuter vehicles. You'd program in your destination, the car and network would figure out whether you needed a power boost to reach it. Most
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not entirely sure if you're being serious here but I've also had this idea in the past. A lot of cities have a tram network around the centre that shares ground with normal roads.
It doesn't seem like an insurmountable challenge to be able to join and leave a tram network. I'd love the 22 miles of motorway on my way to work to be automated and high speed.
I'm not sure what would happen to fuel economy at the high speeds though. If everything is computer controlled, could you drive the cars close enough
Re: (Score:2)
You're not entirely sure I'm being serious because I'm not entirely serious.
It's an interesting idea but I can think of a lot of engineering objections to it.
With respect to slipstreaming, why not? For that matter, one thing I've thought incredibly stupid for a long time is the fact that vehicle bumpers are not at a precisely standardized height. Why not standardize this, and provide a physical link as between train cars? It's probably not strictly necessary given computer control, but it would give peop
Re:Still waiting for robot cars (Score:5, Interesting)
Once you have a convoy of vehicles that can automatically drive within a safe stopping distance of each other
Also, the safe stopping distance between computer-controlled vehicles can be much, much shorter. Rather than relying on human reaction time to engage the brakes, which is at least a substantial fraction of a second in the BEST case, and well over a second in most cases, computers could coordinate velocity changes with sub-millisecond latencies. Each vehicle computer would have to know the capabilities of the vehicle, and some slack would probably be added for less than perfect road conditions, but stopping distances could be calibrated very precisely.
That, in turn, would mean that most of the time vehicles would be traveling close enough to draft off one another, which would make all but the lead vehicle substantially more fuel-efficient, even at much higher speeds. Some intelligent ordering based on vehicle size would help even more, though that would tend to place the largest (and generally most fuel-hungry) vehicles in the "trailbreaking" position where their fuel consumption would be high in order to improve the efficiency of the following vehicles.
I think your basic idea, a robot lane, is the most workable approach. Rather than trying to make cars smart enough to navigate safely when intermixed with manually-controlled vehicles, specific areas of the road would be designated for automatic controls. They'd still need to have some ability to detect manual vehicles in order to address situations where a manual vehicle improperly enters the automatic lane. Over time, as a greater percentage of vehicles acquire automatic control systems, a greater portion of the roads would be given to automatic control, until eventually major highways would be purely automatic.
Hopefully by that time, automation will have progressed enough that guidance can be added to smaller roads as well, safely handling a mixture of automatic and manual traffic. Over time, the manual traffic would probably dwindle to next to nothing anyway.
At some point, it's even likely that private ownership of vehicles would decline. Why own a car yourself if enough autonomous taxis are circling the streets, using smarter and smarter algorithms to make sure that there's always one nearby when you need it? Drivers are the largest expense of a taxi fleet, and eliminating them would make taxis very cost-competitive with private vehicle ownership. Or perhaps cooperative ownership would become the norm.
With fully automated roadways, I think bus and train traffic would decline. Fuel-efficient, automatically-convoying, publicly or cooperatively-owned cars would be cost-competitive with traditional public transport, with the flexibility and end-to-end delivery capability of automobiles. Automated cars would also eliminate parking problems. Even if your car was privately-owned, not a taxi, a public car or part of a co-op, the car could drop you off at your destination and then drive to a parking location, even if it happened to be some distance away. Or maybe your car could turn into a taxi that operates itself for your financial benefit while you're shopping. In any case, a few minutes before you're ready to leave, you'd call the car with your phone, and have it waiting for you when you emerge.
There are so many advantages to automated automobiles that it's an idea that absolutely will happen.
Re:Still waiting for robot cars (Score:5, Interesting)
There used to be an ad here in Germany that showed a long row of cars, tightly packed after one another. Caption: "In principle, that's the right approach. Now everybody please go 240 km/h (150mph) at the same time."
It was an ad by the German railroad.
Re:Still waiting for robot cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Out of interest can anyone tell me why we still have human drivers on trains?
What exactly does the human do that's so hard do for a machine?
I mean it always seemed like such a perfect system for automation to me and wages are such a large cost. If you didn't need a driver for every train it would open it up to having far more small commuter carriages buzzing around.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
ya but so can a computer with modern software(like what's used in those gun turrets) and unlike humans never get tired or inattentive.
Re:Still waiting for robot cars (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A friend's father trains train drivers. I once asked him that question. You know what he said?
SHUT UP!
Re: (Score:2)
Can't let outsiders know that they've been computer controlled for years :D
Train Driver 1: Yeah, that Navitron Autodrive system's made our jobs cushier than ever.
Train Driver 2: You know, this thing. [taps box] With this baby driving your train for you, all you gotta do is sit back and feel your ass grow.
Re: (Score:2)
Docklands light railway in the UK
Re: (Score:2)
A completely brand new system, custom designed from the ground up for driver less trains.
Problem is that most railways around the world are legacy systems, and my guess is the cost of maintaining the drivers is cheaper than upgrading the entire system to support a range of *new* driver less trains.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess drivers are useful when the track is being worked on, temporary speed restrictions are in place or workmen are wandering about on the line. This sort of work seems to be going on more or less 24/7 on the railways in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
The fully automated trains are generally self-contained systems (e.g. Docklands Light Railway in London, some London Underground lines either are or will be soon). The TGV system seems like it could easily have been fully automatic, with just a driver for supervision, but for some reason wasn't -- the driver is given a speed by the computer, and a future speed for the next few km. Perhaps making the driver continually adjust the speed keeps him more alert than just watching.
In London, automated trains have
Similar dutch ads (Score:2)
He does. In a train.
Or two pictures next to each other, one a traffic jam of cars, the other a single bus on a nice empty road.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's just so much time wasted on the road.
Link all the cars and let a computer control them and the moment the light goes green all the cars could accelerate at once
If all the cars are linked why have traffic lights? The car will know the route of all cars moving through the intersection, and the server could tell individual cars to speed up and slow down to go through the gaps of traffic (and even to make the gaps). Obviously there'd have to be a significant safety margin, but cars wouldn't necessarily even need to stop in a fully computerized system. As soon as you enter your destination it should have the whole route programmed to within seconds, only making slig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But personally, I find driving about as interesting as ironing my work clothes in the morning, and the added spice of potential death just doesn't do it for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Now currently, in the analogue world we're just allocating the entire critical section to one process based on nothing more complex than a timer, I'm sure if you know your concurrency theory you can see how such a system can be greatly improved while still maintaining the same margins for error.
And then once the computer controls get good enough, you get into the fun place where you can actually start decreasing the ma
Re: (Score:2)
Cruise control is done by a computer too. All throttle related issues in my engine are done by engine management system. The only way I can intervene is via the clutch (but I've never heard of a problem with those 'computers').
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've honestly been dreaming of building this system since I was 9 years old.
I'm in my late 20's now, so needless to say, I've given it a lot of thought.
Implementing an autodrive system like this on city streets is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than it will be on limited access highways.
And while GPS is very helpful, I really don't think we can rely on a system like this, placing millions of lives every day into its hands, based soley on GPS. I think the road will need to be embedded with RFI
Re: (Score:2)
You also need a response that takes care of cars that break down (wheel breaking off, flat tire, cargo that falls off...).
For the rest, I agree (and I've given it a lot of thought too, driving 2/3 hours a day).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If all the cars are linked why have traffic lights?
Pedestrians trying to cross an intersection?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You could also avoid "phantom" traffic jams, where someone braking suddenly (even a small amount) can cause a ripple-back effect, resulting in jams for hours.
I think the militant driver lobbies will resist it strongly though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Public transportation (Score:2)
There's just so much time wasted on the road.
Link all the cars and let a computer control them and the moment the light goes green all the cars could accelerate at once rather than the first car moving off, then the second, then the third etc. On top of that throw in smarter traffic lights, better public transport systems(since there would be no need for drivers the money could be spent on more busses/trains) and being able to sleep on your way into work and you have a big winner
The solution to traffic congestion is not to be found in any amount of technology. It's called public transport. It's not a coincidence that the cities which are ranked highest by studies of quality of life:
http://www.finfacts.ie/qualityoflife.htm [finfacts.ie]
have great public transport systems. Like Vienna, which is ranked 2nd, where most people just don't bother owning a car.
In case you are curious, the first US city ranks 28th (honolulu). If you want to read the newspaper on your way to work, underground/tram/bus is
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I'm all for public transport but where I live it sucks so so badly.
When I was in London for a time it was an actual pleasure to travel on foot, getting from one side of the city to the other was just so easy. Course the londoners who are used to it don't think it's so great but it is.
You might find that part of what makes people happier is the money, that 10 grand you had to spend on a car? if you'd been able to spend most of it on something else would you not have been happier?(unless driving is what ma
Re: (Score:2)
If all cars where computer controlled, and the system actually worked as it should, you wouldn't need traffic lights at all.
Simply have the traffic-control software adjust the speed and timing of the cars so that they pass between the gaps in the crossing traffic.
Re:Still waiting for robot cars (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that although robot cars could be proven 10 times safer than the average driver, nearly all drivers think they drive much more safely than the average driver.
Re: (Score:2)
ones which are 10 times safer
The problem is that although robot cars could be proven 10 times safer than the average driver, nearly all drivers think they drive much more safely than the average driver.
I certainly do.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I liked a system I saw in a few places in spain,
The traffic lights had sensors which detected how fast you were traveling towards them and reacted accordingly.
It see's you going over the speed limit and speeds up the timer and changes red faster.
Then it's a simple matter of running a red light.
Re: (Score:2)
While in recent years we have made some big steps in the right direction to get self driving cars the actual self driving car is, IMHO, a very long way off. The self driving vehicles that enter the DARPA grand challenge (which are probably about the best we currently have) only have to drive arond on empty desert and roads and lets not forget most don't make it to the finish line.
Factor in other drivers, weird junctions, heavy weather and a million other things we can't even think of and you will see that s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more likely to be the case that "the government" will equate to "some disgruntled government official". As well as the terrorist possibilities.
Re:Still waiting for robot cars (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't stand the idea of robot cars. I ENJOY driving. I loathe being cargo, I don't even like being a passanger for more than a few minutes. And what about motorcycles?
Re: (Score:2)
you can go driving on a circuit, where your inferior(=human) driving skills can't do much damage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
compare : 40000+ deaths on US roads. on avergae, in the last 10 years, there where only 400 terror-victims, That's only 1% of that number ...
Re:Still waiting for robot cars (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't worry. By the time this becomes a reality, simulators will be quite good. Indeed, you'll probably be able to drive in your simulator during commuting, while the computerized driving system in your car protects the rest of us from your mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not just the technophobes, imagine the liability suits. The main reason cars aren't self driving already is not the tech, but knowing that if the tech fails the manufacturer could lose millions.
i'd rather see cars talking to each other, relaying their speed to the cars around them. Integrate that with GPS navigation and you've cut commute times, fuel consumption and accidents drastically and without exposure to liability. The cars ahead of you relay that they are slamming on the breaks, your car aut
Re: (Score:2)
liability suits do have a purpose and part of it is to encourage safer behaviour. This would be a clear example of it being self defeating since even if you come up with a safer system you can't install it without suffering liability.
But on that note if your tire blows out or your breaks fail and it causes an accident who is liable? you or whoever you bought the car off?
Insurance companies might push it though if they decide that it will save them money.
Offer cheaper insurance if you let the computer drive
Re:Still waiting for robot cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Gives a whole new meaning to Blue Screen of Death?
In today's cars, the engines are already computer controlled: for example, the fuel injector, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_injector [wikipedia.org] . That does not mean it run on Windows or any full fledged OS.
If a protocol is some day implemented, it will run on special hardware and be developed using the same kind of procedure used in airplane software. Well, one might hope...
Re: (Score:2)
Robot cars? Glowing red headlamps?
Sounds like we're on the verge of the werecar.
High speed wireless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:High speed wireless (Score:4, Insightful)
Please god let the open source crowd get there before the manufacturers pull a VHS/Betamacs competition between their own protocols.
Last thing I need is my car crashing because the section of road I'm on only runs a different manufacturers protocol.
Re:High speed wireless (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
and will only drive to places on Apple's white list.
So, in other words, will only drive to Starbucks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah but by then we'll all have an iChip in our brains to make us happy with the situation and praise the almighty Steve.
I'm fairly sure they're beta testing this on the mac fanboys already.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or worse, we end up with the iCar. Every car will have the same numberplate "STEVE", and will only drive to places on Apple's white list.
To be fair, the grandparent did specify "Betamacs".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People drove on the left since Roman times [wikipedia.org], on the first true roads.
It's you Yanks who are, or rather were, being difficult.
Also, though the data is not solid, it seems that traffic accidents are rarer on LHS countries than RHS.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say anything about writing the code, just coming up with a decent protocol.
I really really really would prefer if my car didn't die when the company which made it shuts down their DRM servers and it decided it wasn't an authorised automotive viehicle any more.
"is nice when it has shiny wobbly windows and you don't need to do any real work on it"
Funny, that's exactly what everyone seems to always say about vista.
"- no support for advanced hardware"
But great for hardware which doesn't exist yet.
"- an
Re: (Score:2)
"I would like to turn left in 50 meters"
Which never would work anyway considering that very few drivers actually use the stick by the steering wheel for what it's intended. Flashing the headlights seems to be the only thing they use it for...
Re: (Score:2)
Open the Garage Door,... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh! A stale lollipop and a handgun. Thanks HAL!
Where's my flying car? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, it's nice (and more than a little surprising) to see a government body do something so forward-thinking. We'll probably see fusion plants (in another 10-20 years
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, flying cars à la The Fifth Element would be nice, but imagine the amount of accidents what would occur when people have to pay attention to people above and below as well! People cannot be bothered to turn their head a tiny bit when driving the highways as it is now.
In order to have flying cars, we would have to have the computer-assisted driving - with the aid of cars talking to each other - in place first.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with just about everything you've said, except for the DARPA bit :-) The DARPA Urban Challenge worked to resolve some of the automated interaction stuff, and was rather successful. Check it out at http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/ [darpa.mil]
More information (Score:5, Informative)
Smart cars security? (Score:2, Interesting)
This topic seems to be in everybody's minds these days. I just wonder what new security considerations that need to be dealt with it will bring, especially in terms of (location) privacy. Who will be allowed to "talk" to my car? Will my car identify itself -- and me? Inter-vehicle communication needs authentication, which seems to go along with the idea of RFID tags for the licence plates -- my car as part of my (electronic) identity?
And, of course, new business opportunities: what about a get-out-of-my-way
Re: (Score:2)
Well I imagine that identifying your car would be similar to liscence plates with similar penalties for forging your identifier.
As for the get-out-of-my-way broadcasting gadget you can already stick one on your car, just get a siren similar to what unmarked police cars have and turn it on whenever you're in a hurry.
Course the police might frown on this.
no thanks (Score:2)
More info (Score:2)
It might be wise to point out that this is probably key to the unveiling of 802.11p [wikipedia.org] support in cars. Now with some official permission [europa.eu], manufacturers can get a move on with some decent systems integration. Maybe we'll soon have road furniture that broadcasts DGPS correction data to passing cars, in order for them to have extremely accurate maps of important signage that the computer systems would be interested in. Equally so, roadside furniture could flash over maps of nearby intersections to vehicles, so t
They already do talk (Score:2)
Why the `bigbrother` tag? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
then they still have something for doing that, it's called a handgun pointed at your tires.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be as interesting as watching paint dry. Your wireless toys work on 2.4GHz and 5GHz. 802.11p works on 5.9GHz.