Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation AI

Self-Driving Cars Are Safer When They Talk To Each Other (engadget.com) 137

Posted by EditorDavid from the car-to-car-communications dept.
An anonymous reader quotes Engadget: A University of Michigan public-private partnership called Mcity is testing V2V, or vehicle to vehicle communication, and has found that it makes their autonomous prototypes even safer. V2V works by wirelessly sharing data such as location, speed and direction. Using DSRC, or Dedicated Short Range Communication, V2V can send up to 10 messages per second. This communication allows cars to see beyond what is immediately in front of them -- sensing a red light around a blind curve, or automatically braking for a car that runs a stop sign... The catch of V2V? It has to be installed in the majority of cars and infrastructure (such as traffic lights) to function adequately.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Self-Driving Cars Are Safer When They Talk To Each Other More

Self-Driving Cars Are Safer When They Talk To Each Other

Comments Filter:
  • If this was a Microsoft car, SMBv1 would be enabled by default.

    • The Forbin Project comes to mind.

  • Great because what we need is just to throw even more overcomplex, unpredictable tech at the problem rather than to simply get people to put their damn phones down when driving.

    • Well, the idea is that you can use your phone in a self-driving car. And radio communications technology is not all that unpredictable.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by JustNiz ( 692889 )

        >> Well, the idea is that you can use your phone in a self-driving car.

        I'd rather not be obliged to pay extra for all that tech whenever I buy a car, and just not be able to update my facebook profile. Besides, so-called self-driving cars actually aren't. Not yet anyway.

        >> radio communications technology is not all that unpredictable.

        Would you want to bet your life on it?

        • Would you want to bet your life on it?

          We do, all the time, especially when you take a ride in an airliner. Almost all your communications are by radio, and it will remain that way, until we develop 'sub-space' communications. And if you don't want to buy a car, don't. Most of us eagerly await the self-driving variety. Regardless of the irrational fear, it will save many thousands of lives compared to the road-raged human.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Yes, but ultimately the plane is still under the control of human pilots if they choose. The plane is not flown from the ground via a network of computers. The goal with self driving cars is to take the choice away and turn car owners into users. The push for this is so strong that safety is not the top priority. We've already seen this with tesla's denials of responsibility for owner confusion about what autonomous means. A mesh network of self driving cars is a fat "hack me plz" target. I'll pass, thanks

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by JustNiz ( 692889 )

              Well said.

            • We've already seen this with tesla's denials of responsibility for owner confusion about what autonomous means. A mesh network of self driving cars is a fat "hack me plz" target. I'll pass, thanks.

              In the most recent case of a Tesla crash, the driver had ignored all safety warnings to put his hands back on the wheel and was speeding to boot, and the accident itself was ruled the fault of the other driver due to a traffic violation. As well as that, Tesla's are sports cars, not everyday vehicles, and everyday vehicles would benefit immensely from V2V. The cost would be miniscule in comparison to infrastructure like the roads they drive on, and could save thousands of lives every year once this is mains

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Phics ( 934282 )

            It's not the radio tech I'd be concerned with. I'd be more worried about the logic, and trust. Do you browse a website just because there's a link to it? Same with cars and infrastructure - we'd have to establish trust between vehicles and other endpoints. How is that going to work? That's a bigger problem than merely getting every autonomous vehicle talking on some protocol.

            • Logic is easy. Trust? Forget about it. You're always going to play the odds regardless. The biggest danger by far is the human operator. That is well documented.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by JustNiz ( 692889 )

            Bad analogy. It would be a better one if planes NEEDED radio in order to just keep flying.

            • Well, I don't expect these cars to 'need' their radios either. They can serve as just another set of eyes and ears along with all the other sonars and radars, etc. Still, there is no contesting the simple fact the the greatest danger is the human, even specially trained ones, something that the airlines have clearly proven.

      • George, so proud to receive one of the first truly self driving cars, sat down and spoke "Supermarket!" and the doors locked, off he went, and everything was fine until the car said, "Our records indicate your devices suggest you may be harboring an Unapproved Thought, please remain seated and do not attempt to leave the vehicle (recomputing) Detention and Reprogramming Center (recomputing)" and that's the last thing he ever remembered.

      • The self-driving car will be a great place to put a mesh networking relay. It's got plenty of electrical power, and it's by definition located someplace that people go.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by nnet ( 20306 )
      you mean phones, CBs, coffee cups, drink bottles, kids, passengers....and well, people, you know, absolutely anything that can distract...because technology is the problem, right, not people?

    • So expecting technology to continue to improve is over complex and unrealistic, while "just" changing human nature is "simple"? Whatever.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by JustNiz ( 692889 )

        >> "just" changing human nature is "simple"?

        Of course it is. Do you think we've always had cellphones? No-one uses their cellphone while driving in Europe because of the strict laws. This isn't human nature it's pig-headed american nature.

        • No-one uses their cellphone while driving in Europe because of the strict laws.

          Total bullcrap. Why would you even write such patent nonsense? "No one"? Really?

          Texting and talking on cellphones in Europe is less than in America [cdc.gov] but is still common and is a major cause of accidents.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by niks42 ( 768188 )
            Two events concerning vehicle deaths and trucks in the UK were when the driver of the truck was too busy looking at his phone and sending SMS that he failed to see the traffic stopping in front of him. One near Basingstoke - where the car in front was crushed so badly, it was squished into half its original length and height. Sadly, the occupant was killed instantly.

        • No-one uses their cellphone while driving in Europe because of the strict laws.

          LOL. Every time I'm on the road here, I see at least one driver on their cellphone.

    • This is a very good idea. Without this, vehicles will have to rely on turn signals and other more subtle cues to determine the probable actions of other cars. I imagine they'll be pretty good at guessing because initially, most cars will not have V2V communications.

      One thing though. How does your 2025 Belchfire 2600 know that the vehicle it is negotiatiating right of way with is the car now entering the intersection and not the car three cars back traveling in the opposite direction?

  • Right up to the point... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SwashbucklingCowboy ( 727629 ) on Sunday June 25, 2017 @12:47PM (#54686967)

    Some bad guy programs his car to give out false information causing lots of accidents. Would be a great way for a bank robber or other bad guy to slow pursuing authorities.

    • Re:Right up to the point... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ledow ( 319597 ) on Sunday June 25, 2017 @01:01PM (#54687029) Homepage

      Ah, just slap in some security later.

      I mean, you don't need to design for that, right? Just lob everything in, make it do cool stuff, wait for everyone to attack it, THEN think about how it could be misused. Then hang onto that for a few years until someone dies or people start to complain a lot, and try to retro-bolt-on some rubbish security theatre to devices already out in daily use that never talk home.

      And then realise that if you have millions of cars talking together reliably, over some public frequency, it fucks up everything in a large radius, especially around things like traffic jams, and so never works as intended anyway.

      Or we could just... turn the roads into private railways. Which is basically what the whole self-driving thing is aiming towards anyway.

      • I expect if you program in a bit of security, by far the easiest attack is to inject a few spurious messages that causes a few cars to shut down. Ordinary congestion will take care of everything else. The result. Complete gridlock.

    • Re:Right up to the point... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday June 25, 2017 @01:13PM (#54687079)

      Safety critical systems are designed with "defense in depth". So incoming information would be correlated with information from other sources. SDCs have a database with locations of intersections, signs, traffic lights, etc. If a traffic light is around a blind corner, V2V comm could give a "heads up" that the light was red, so the SDC could pre-emptively brake. But if the other car lied, and said the light was green when it was really red, the following SDC would still see the green light with its own cameras as soon as it turned the corner, and still brake faster than a human in the same situation.

      Also, bank robbery is one of the dumbest crimes. Any criminal smart enough to reprogram a V2V system would be smart enough to embezzle from a bank rather than rob one.

      • Any criminal smart enough to reprogram a V2V system would be smart enough to embezzle from a bank rather than rob one.

        Or just become a bankster and get bailed out if your market bets don't pan out. Zero downside and completely supported by the government.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mellon ( 7048 )

      More than that, what about when a really bad guy uses the attack surface presented by the cars talking to each other to cause a _major_ accident.

    • Bank robbers typically aren't very bright. If they had that kind of talent, they'd find a safer way to exploit it.

    • Some bad guy programs his car to give out false information causing lots of accidents. Would be a great way for a bank robber or other bad guy to slow pursuing authorities.

      I have a new Turing test.

      We'll know the long, slow caboose of our shiny new AI technology has fully arrived at the station when people no longer feel an irrepressible urge to posit that a lone bad actor can poison the entire system.

      "N'uh — I don't think so," chime a thousand giant matrices in near-perfect unison.

  • It would be cool (Score:5, Insightful)

    by krray ( 605395 ) on Sunday June 25, 2017 @12:50PM (#54686983)

    I drive a car with level 1 automation [speed control only].

    Two weeks after I bought the car it paid for itself IMHO -- driving at dusk on two lane 50mph packed road; we were all doing 50mph (rare). I saw and was ready to take any action to a car (maybe two) pulling out making a right in front of me. I never saw the Jeep making a left into traffic behind the guy making a right. And then just didn't GO.
    The car slammed on the brakes for me before I even saw the new car. I was more reacting to my car and what the hell is it doing ... "OH, now I see the Jeep". If I was driving I would have plowed into his ass end.

    Two months later I was rear ended. Not bad; I do love that HEMI. :) The car's adaptive cruise control started the hard brake and the emergency braking system finished it off. The car won't stop itself 100%, but it will take you from 100mph to 10mph in short time / distance. Traffic hard stopped from 70mph in the left lane on a highway. I could see traffic stopping; let the car do it's thing better than I could. Otherwise I'd be further back giving myself for distance / time. The computer doesn't need it.

    The guy behind me was way too far back and waiting far too long to HARD brake (more than I did IMHO). Unfortunately the car behind him wasn't ready and pushed his ass right into mine. My car stopped just short enough that after being pushed forward I was still 1' away from the car in front of me ... who at that moment pulled away as traffic was moving forward again. 1 second is all I needed.

    Anyway -- wouldn't it be cool if my car could've communicated to the car that caused the accident (two back) and have its system start a nice slow brake to the stopping / stopped traffic. Re-adjust speed from 70mph to 35mph and maintain would've done it for the next group of cars...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mellon ( 7048 )

      Wouldn't it have been just as good if that car had just had the same system installed that yours does?

  • It should be a trivial logical argument to suggest that "more accurate information leads to less error generated behaviour." One should note that the clause "accurate information" is a hell of stated requirement, but the measurement estimation of accurate true scores from error contaminated dimensions is a well studied field. Dealing with that in a online manner is more difficult, but a growing field.

    • It is also pretty simple logic to know that communication between vehicles provides useful information for safe navigation. Dealing with the unexpected is a large challenge in autonomous driving, and such communication can reduce unexpected events. In order for it to work, there needs to be a standard and we should take time to do it right, along with other standards that would help autonomous travel such as intersection communications and probably even parking lot communications.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nnet ( 20306 )
        Standards like TAKE YOUR FUCKING EYES OFF YOUR FUCKING PHONE while entering a crosswalk, or just walking in general.

  • I speak only to my car, and my car speaks only to God.

  • Good, now lets get beacons available to motorcyclists, so morons don't come in to their lanes, or turn left in front of them.

  • And water is wet.

    What, you think doubling processing power and number of sensors is not going to increase safety? Not to mention the fact that one of the cars is usually ahead of the other, so it gets information about static obstacles before it could normally see them?

  • A University of Michigan public-private partnership called Mcity is testing V2V, or vehicle to vehicle communication, and has found that it makes their autonomous prototypes even safer.

    It will be safer until some asshat decides for fun or profit to screw with the system. It's easier to make a system safer when the hackers don't have access to it yet.

    What worries me about a lot of this stuff isn't whether they can make the technology work but rather whether they can adequately secure the technology. I work in the auto industry and device security is simply something NOT a part of the engineering culture because it's never really needed to be. It's not that the engineers are dumb or are

  • V2V is fine, but they better not put any significant stock in it - use like with gaming you cannot really trust what any external client sends without layers of verification.

    Otherwise, way to easy to hack a fake obstacle the car has to stop for in order to hijack the car, or perhaps coordinate swerving of two oncoming cars so they hit...

  • Adequately for what purpose? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Sunday June 25, 2017 @01:42PM (#54687201) Homepage Journal

    The catch of V2V? It has to be installed in the majority of cars and infrastructure (such as traffic lights) to function adequately.

    What? No it doesn't, that's a blatant lie. No vehicle can trust what another vehicle tells it, that information can only be used for advisory purposes. Therefore, it only has to be installed in enough vehicles for a sprinkling of them to be following one another around in order to provide substantial benefits. And those vehicles are going to report on the state of traffic lights that they can see, so even some traffic light date will be in the system without any of them actually being explicitly connected to it.

    In order to achieve the maximum benefits, yes, it has to be ubiquitous. And I expect that eventually, there will be laws requiring it — and by that, I mean before the human driver is outlawed on the public road.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sl149q ( 1537343 )

      To start being used autonomous cars have to be safe enough to drive without any additional information other than what they can gather on their own (radar, video, lidar, gps.) If they are not safe enough using that data then they cannot be used. If they are safe enough why add an additional requirement that brings (at this point) little additional safety.

      V2V will be of interest once the number of vehicles on the road that can use it is high enough. That will be probably about five to ten years from now. Or

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      What? No it doesn't, that's a blatant lie. No vehicle can trust what another vehicle tells it, that information can only be used for advisory purposes. Therefore, it only has to be installed in enough vehicles for a sprinkling of them to be following one another around in order to provide substantial benefits.

      I'd say highly questionable benefits. All it does is give you a range extension that you can't rely on about a few fixed situations like that the car ahead is coming to a halt, even though you're legally required to keep enough distance to figure that out and come to a stop on your own. Maybe it'll lead to less stop-and-go with smoother and better traffic flow and more efficient crossing of intersections, but those are all nice-to-haves. If the car ahead of you doesn't understand a situation neither does yo

      • I'd say highly questionable benefits.

        If it alerts you to upcoming traffic conditions and lets you route around problems, and if it can detect people or debris in the roadway and alerts following cars to the idea that there might be a problem ahead, then it can substantially increase safety. It won't pay big dividends in fuel savings until it's ubiquitous, but that's not the only major benefit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      In order to achieve the maximum benefits, yes, it has to be ubiquitous. And I expect that eventually, there will be laws requiring it — and by that, I mean before the human driver is outlawed on the public road.

      Its worse than that. First every software company, city, auto manufacturer, stereo manufacturer and dealer network will need to agree on a single standard.

      We cant even get them to agree on a single standard for the size of stereos (we tried with DIN and again with ISO, both failures as I need adaptors for both). Hell, if you took them out for lunch you'll be hard pressed for them to decide on the same restaurant.

      The notion of V2V being safer relies on a perfect technology, as anyone who works in tech

  • Red lights? (Score:3)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Sunday June 25, 2017 @02:38PM (#54687507)

    Self-driving cars who talk to each other don't need red lights for a safe crossing, that's one of the points.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Pedestrians and cyclists still do. Or will we be 'chipping' everyone's brains?

  • If they start taking to each other then they going to start doing what traffic police do when they get bored - play snooker:

    If your a pedestrian wearing red or black you should start worrying...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/422... [bbc.co.uk]

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close