Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation United States

NTSB Calls For Wireless Tech To Enable Vehicles To Talk To Each Other 153

Posted by samzenpus
from the KITT-car dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by dtmos (447842) * on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @06:58PM (#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.

    • by khasim (1285)

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

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

    • by nurb432 (527695)

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

    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @07:11PM (#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."

      • by riverat1 (1048260)

        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.

      • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @08:22PM (#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.)

        • by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @08:39PM (#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".

          • "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.

      • by rea1l1 (903073)

        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.

        • by crakbone (860662)
          I don't see it being super expensive. Computer technology has come a very long way and hardly utilized at all for driver training in the US. I think they should setup some simulators, get people driving in then and make actual avoidance of the most common accidents mandatory for driver testing to get a license.
      • by SuperBanana (662181) on Thursday July 25, 2013 @02:26AM (#44378269)

        The NTSB also appears to not be considering that there are people on motorcycles, foot, and bicycle.

        That's particularly poor, given that motor vehicle occupant safety has gone up, while pedestrian and cyclist safety has plunged. Why? Cars are increasingly safe for occupants, yet nothing is being done to stop drivers from plowing into other people.

        All the safety has simply made people less careful. Why should they be careful? They're unlikely to be seriously injured, insurance will cover the damage and injuries, and they sure as hell aren't going to get charged with any crimes.

        You can drive into a storefront and injure half a dozen people and not even get a ticket.

        Kill a cyclist and the police will term it an "accident" - all you have to do is say the sun was in your eyes or you were changing the radio station. A little girl in Texas lost both her parents because a guy in a pickup truck slammed into her parents. His excuse: he'd looked down to change the station (and somehow drifted several feet onto the road shoulder.)

        • by Reziac (43301) *

          Last time this came up, someone here pointed out that as drivers' own safety increases, they have less reason to be cautious, which is the real problem. Seatbelts, airbags, GIS, alert systems, have all reduced the need and habit of using their own brains.

          Tho I will also say that in my observation, cyclists today are not nearly as cautious, nor as conscious of other traffic, as they were 30 or 40 years ago. Enter helmets and bike lanes, and now there's no need to pay attention to traffic with their own brain

      • You sure it wouldn't be when the box tries to prevent someone from just wedging their way into through traffic without yielding first?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • by Jeff Fohl (597433)
      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 in
    • 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 woul
    • 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.

    • We already have a wireless "hey, can i cut into your lane" communications device. They're called turn signals. Nobody uses that one either.

    • Try not running the yield sign when you're entering the highway, then. Merging traffic yields to through traffic when lanes end or when entering a roadway. They're speeding up to get out of the way of someone who ran the sign while creating as little delay for other traffic as possible, not to block someone from merging.
  • Nope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @07:04PM (#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"

    • by ELCouz (1338259)

      Hey, you know what else is really good at avoiding collisions? Trains.

      Let me remind you this .... http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/world/americas/canada-runaway-train/index.html [cnn.com]

    • by Nutria (679911)

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

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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!"

    • I do know a little about how train systems work in the US.

      First, the pathways are defined in steel, so everybody knows exactly where a train can go.

      Second, "collision" here only refers to train-on-train. Trains really suck at avoiding collisions with anything smaller that may be on the track. They can't swerve, and they can't stop fast. The collision avoidance system for cars and people is to try to keep them off the track when the train comes by. Another technique is for the engineer to speed up w

  • by Joe_Dragon (2206452) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @07:05PM (#44375361)

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

  • by Mistakill (965922) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @07:06PM (#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*
    • 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.

      • 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.

        It's a legitimate fear but one would hope the controlling computer(s) would be taking lots of input to make decisions. I'd imagine that a faulty sensor might be detected and 'voted out' by the computers comparing internal results and working out that something was amiss. This is probably going to be expensive stuff, I seem to recall (correctly or incorrectly) that voting computers are part of the way modern aeroplanes do things. Like all things it will be paid for mostly by the early adopters I suppose.

        It w

  • 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.

    • by Obfuscant (592200)

      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?

      Th

  • hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @07:10PM (#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: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

    • by Bigbutt (65939)

      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]

    • by fluffy99 (870997)

      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]

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

      I'm OK with this. Driving faster than the road was designed for and conditions allow is the biggest reason cars have all these safety features that any actually competent and attentive driver doesn't need.

  • by naff89 (716141) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @07:11PM (#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.
    • by Nutria (679911)

      well-designed, forwards-compatible

      Bwaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    • by tlambert (566799)

      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.

      You are aware that there is not a car manufactured after 1981 which does not have an Oxygen sensor, and therefore does not need reformulated gasoline with MTBE or, now, other additives, to keep it from polluting. That's a 33 year gap, and it still hasn't gotten all the older cars off the roads, and it hasn't gotten the older cars retrofit with Oxygen sensors. Instead we are still putting crap into the gasoline that has the sole effect of making cars manufactured prior to 1981 pollute less, while at the sa

      • by operagost (62405)
        MTBE is being phased on in favor of... you guessed it... ethanol. We're getting 15% worse mileage because of the inferior energy density of ethanol, not MTBE. MTBE is being phased out because once or twice, some idiot allowed some to get into our drinking water and... birth defects? Cancer? Nope, the water tastes bad. No other ill effect has been proven. Because the water tastes bad when MTBE gets in it (apparently, filters and RO don't work anymore), we've sold out to Big Corn.
      • by naff89 (716141)
        Ex post facto refers to acts already committed; there's nothing stopping a law barring future instances of that act. So they can't make a law saying that having purchased an old car is illegal, but they can make a law saying you're not allowed to drive it anymore.
  • 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....
  • 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 sa

  • 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?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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 technol

    • by pellik (193063)
      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.
  • by msauve (701917)

    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?

  • 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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ebno-10db (1459097)

      That's Richard Nixon posting from 1973.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        That's Richard Nixon posting from 1973.

        On that issue, however, he was correct.

    • 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.

      • by Dcnjoe60 (682885)

        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.

        That argument is made a lot, but since the majority of travel (around 80%) is spent commuting, what would the extra time before and after work be used for? For most people in the US, the speed differential will amount to less than 15 minutes each way, so yes, you would have an extra 30 minutes of "free" time, but not in any real usable blocks. As a matter of fact, if usable time were the main desire, then the train, which allows one to do other things while travelling should be preferable.

        The reality is tha

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

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

    • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

      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.

  • by loony (37622) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @07:52PM (#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.

    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      You should have gotten a Fusion.
      • by loony (37622)

        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 :)

    • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

      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

    • by twakar (128390)

      If this car has so many negatives that annoy you, why did you buy it? Shouldn't most of these annoyances shown up in your test drive? You DID take it out for a test drive, didn't you?

      A major purchase, such as a car should have much more thought put into it than you seem to have done.

      Anyways, it doesn't affect me one way or another, I just got very perplexed by your post.

      Enjoy you car, if you can.

      Cheers,

    • by martas (1439879)
      One of these days someone should build a car with a bunch of cameras around it and an oculus rift inside with a 360 view so you feel like you're in wonderwoman's jet.
  • 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

  • NTSB... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anachragnome (1008495) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @08:13PM (#44375971)

    NO. As in, FUCK NO.

  • by manu0601 (2221348) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @10:07PM (#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.
  • 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.

  • '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.

  • What would be enormously more beneficial, and cost virtually nothing, is if sensors were installed on all the light bulb circuits in cars to notify the driver when one of their bulbs is out.

    The number of people that drive around with non functioning brake/tail/headlights/indicators completely unaware of the fact is frightening.

    And the technology to solve this is about as simple as it gets.

  • I'm only putting this on my car if a person who wants into my space funds me with some bitcoins.

    Heck, for a dollar I'll let anyone go ahead of me at a 4-way.

  • Thanks to NTSB, wardriving will get a completely different meaning...
  • The US government has had this tech for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#Death [wikipedia.org]
  • Surely some company trying to sell this tech is pushing it to the government somewhere.
  • Nothing at all could go wrong with Cars talking to each other.
    Unless they get together and hold us all hostage in a gas station, forcing us to fuel their unending hunger.

  • Given the other story up at the moment about hacking the brakes and throttle system of $SUVJUNKPILE$ so the driver can't slow down (oh really ; and how about just declutching and using the hand brake?), this sounds like a recipe for multiple backdoors opening up. Even without any security breaches, data spoofing and DoS attacks become possible.

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Working...