V2V Communication: The Evolution in Vehicle Safety....

[Obama 2012 1,714]

This is one of those 'cool ideas' that leads down a path that is ultimately destructive to liberty and freedom.

I knew this was coming when "OnStar" was first introduced almost 10 years ago. We would get to a point to where cars would be so computerized that they could be controlled by electronic signals.

Now here we have it.

Soon is will be mandatory in all new cars, soon cops will have the ability in their cars to stop your car, soon the hackers will be having field days on the highways, etc...

----------------

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/08/nhtsa-begins-connected-vehicle-testing/

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is beginning real-world trials of cars equipped with prototype vehicle-to-vehicle technology, deploying a communication network where cars can talk with one another to increase overall road safety.

Starting in August, 2012, the agency will begin gathering data from 3,000 cars equipped with wireless communication technology. Known as The Safety Pilot, the trials will run for one year in Ann Arbor, Mich., to provide data for setting V2V standards and determining what data streams are most helpful.

NHTSA administrator David Strickland says V2V could be a “game changer” for safety, and it’s easy to see why.

While existing active safety systems can only respond to immediate threats, connected cars can prevent otherwise unforeseen accidents through instant communication. In other words, a car equipped with active braking can prevent an imminent rear-end collision in traffic, but only a V2V equipped car can sense the out-of-control driver about to speed around a blind curve in the wrong lane.

Here’s how it works: Using existing, universally accessible technology such as GPS and on-board diagnostic data, cars broadcast what’s called a “Here I Am” message at 5.9 GHz. All V2V equipped vehicles will be able to communicate on this band, sharing data such as speed and location. On-board computers sense the presence of other nearby vehicles, calculate the risks they may pose and even taking action — such as hitting the brakes or warning the driver of an impending collision.

It’s much more than just fancy version of existing active safety technology. While current lane-keep assist and crash avoidance systems rely on each individual car sensing immediate threats, cars equipped with V2V have a more detailed situational awareness of all other cars nearby. NHTSA says widespread deployment could eliminate the causes of up to 76 percent of accidents.

In order for the program to work, however, all cars must be speaking the same language. That’s why NHTSA wants to use existing technology that can be installed in all vehicles, from 18-wheelers to motorcycles. According to the agency, setting universal V2V standards can also bring the technology into the marketplace more quickly than waiting for automakers to develop their own solutions to active safety.

In the short term, the agency will study data gleaned from the tests in Ann Arbor, examining how drivers participating in the trial program respond when their car warns them of an impending collision.

“This pilot deployment of vehicles that ‘see’ and ‘talk’ with one another with the help of wireless communication will allow us to learn how drivers use electronic alerts to avoid crashes in a real-world environment,” said Peter Appel, administrator of NHTSA’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration

The first phase of the trials will determine what hardware is most cost-effective and what percentage of vehicles will have to be equipped with V2V technology for it to be effective. NHTSA will also examine the business case for deployment and ensure that communication protocols are universal regardless of vehicle manufacturer or type.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Paul, I think you've seen the movie Demolition Man a few too many times.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, I think you've seen the movie Demolition Man a few too many times.

nah. I have no worry that the last restaurant to survive the "fast food wars" is going to be Taco Bell.

[The_Dude 1,142]

nah. I have no worry that the last restaurant to survive the "fast food wars" is going to be Taco Bell.

Back to your topic, don't you think it's a bit paranoid delusional to think a likely next step is government mandated controls over your cars? I know all the science fiction movies from the 80's and 90's seemed to like the thought of it, but I really don't see how could get around 4th amendment on this.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Back to your topic, don't you think it's a bit paranoid delusional to think a likely next step is government mandated controls over your cars? I know all the science fiction movies from the 80's and 90's seemed to like the thought of it, but I really don't see how could get around 4th amendment on this.

They already practice it on stolen vehicles that have 'OnStar' capabilities.

Look at the Patriot Act as well. Think of the fact that OnStar has the ability to listen into your vehicle. They 'claim' that they can only do this after there's been an accident in the car, but when you look at the fact they can do it period....

It's not paranoid at this point. 20 years ago? Maybe.

It's becoming a reality that our cars are becoming more and more computer-like and certain functions are controlled by computers. When a car can 'automatically brake' to prevent an accident because it 'communicated' with another vehicle, do you really think that government officials would really feel inclined not to use this to their advantage?

[The_Dude 1,142]

They already practice it on stolen vehicles that have 'OnStar' capabilities.

Look at the Patriot Act as well. Think of the fact that OnStar has the ability to listen into your vehicle. They 'claim' that they can only do this after there's been an accident in the car, but when you look at the fact they can do it period....

It's not paranoid at this point. 20 years ago? Maybe.

It's becoming a reality that our cars are becoming more and more computer-like and certain functions are controlled by computers. When a car can 'automatically brake' to prevent an accident because it 'communicated' with another vehicle, do you really think that government officials would really feel inclined not to use this to their advantage?

Paul, you're missing a big fact here. You point to the fact that police already do access OnStar data and services for a stolen car. They have every right to do that as a crime has been committed. It is a lawful search and seizure.

I think it will probably happen, on an individual basis, by unscrupulous officers. Then again, the supreme court did all but change the 2nd amendment, whats to say they wouldn't do it to the fourth as well.

[Zero Sum 305]

I would agree with Paul that it is worrisome, just not the extreme that it will become a defacto standard of repression. Given the legal standards, an unlawful seizure would be obviously traceable via the system used to detain a motorist, and would be usable as evidence in a lawsuit against the police involved.

As if the police didn't have better things to do than pull Paul over just because. I insist, if you're going to display road rage, and then act like you're just fine, then don't drive.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I would agree with Paul that it is worrisome, just not the extreme that it will become a defacto standard of repression. Given the legal standards, an unlawful seizure would be obviously traceable via the system used to detain a motorist, and would be usable as evidence in a lawsuit against the police involved.

As if the police didn't have better things to do than pull Paul over just because. I insist, if you're going to display road rage, and then act like you're just fine, then don't drive.

police already violate due process with red light cameras.

Do you really think that newer technologies are going to be treated any differently in a digital age?

[Zero Sum 305]

police already violate due process with red light cameras.

Do you really think that newer technologies are going to be treated any differently in a digital age?

Red light cameras that don't activate until you've actually eaten the red light you mean (a traffic violation)?

Read again what I wrote, without the paranoia.

[The_Dude 1,142]

police already violate due process with red light cameras.

Do you really think that newer technologies are going to be treated any differently in a digital age?

Courts have found that they do not violate due process. (Source). I think you won't find any red light cameras in the U.S. in 5 years, but not because people mistakenly believe it is a violation, but because of a whole host of other problems. Here in Los Angeles, they are getting rid of the camreas because first and foremost, the city doesn't derive the revenue from the tickets, a private company does. The city does not have to pay for any of the administrative or maintenance costs, but at nearly $500 a ticket, they aren't reaping the rewards either. These tickets are easily challenged in court. The photos they take are inconclussive in most cases and a lot of judges here will find for the defendant if appealed.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Red light cameras that don't activate until you've actually eaten the red light you mean (a traffic violation)?

Read again what I wrote, without the paranoia.

The red light cameras snap a picture of a plate, not the driver. There is no inherent proof that you (or your wife maybe, even one of your kids, or a friend) were driving the vehicle at the time. The last time I checked, 'ownership' does not make you guilty. The system doesn't act that way however.

I read what you wrote. My counter-point is that none of that seems to matter in certain circumstances already. Just think of roadside sobriety checkpoints in some states. You're force to stop your car and have an officer shine a light in your eyes and possibly blow into a breathalyzer. Just for driving down the road minding your own business.

As I mentioned earlier as well, look at the Patriot Act. With the abilities of things like OnStar and being able to listen into vehicles, why would government not utilize this as it does other forms of communication?

[Zero Sum 305]

Courts have found that they do not violate due process. (Source). I think you won't find any red light cameras in the U.S. in 5 years, but not because people mistakenly believe it is a violation, but because of a whole host of other problems. Here in Los Angeles, they are getting rid of the camreas because first and foremost, the city doesn't derive the revenue from the tickets, a private company does. The city does not have to pay for any of the administrative or maintenance costs, but at nearly $500 a ticket, they aren't reaping the rewards either. These tickets are easily challenged in court. The photos they take are inconclussive in most cases and a lot of judges here will find for the defendant if appealed.

Many in Chicago have video. I must admit I turned right on a red without noticing a sign saying I couldn't. The video (accessible via the web)clearly showed me violating the traffic sign. $100. Out in the suburbs there are places where they're coming down due to voter complaints against the elected officials that had them installed. And as you note- a profit issue for the locals.

[Zero Sum 305]

The red light cameras snap a picture of a plate, not the driver. There is no inherent proof that you (or your wife maybe, even one of your kids, or a friend) were driving the vehicle at the time. The last time I checked, 'ownership' does not make you guilty. The system doesn't act that way however.

I read what you wrote. My counter-point is that none of that seems to matter in certain circumstances already. Just think of roadside sobriety checkpoints in some states. You're force to stop your car and have an officer shine a light in your eyes and possibly blow into a breathalyzer. Just for driving down the road minding your own business.

As I mentioned earlier as well, look at the Patriot Act. With the abilities of things like OnStar and being able to listen into vehicles, why would government not utilize this as it does other forms of communication?

I would totally agree with you that those cameras are not good to use. They should upgrade to ones with video like I describe in the previous post.

I also do not agree with random traffic stops because they are annoying. I've never been pulled over for that, and I have rarely been pulled over for anything in my life. Just remember one very special detail about operating a motor vehicle- it is a privilege, not a right.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I would totally agree with you that those cameras are not good to use. They should upgrade to ones with video like I describe in the previous post.

I also do not agree with random traffic stops because they are annoying. I've never been pulled over for that, and I have rarely been pulled over for anything in my life. Just remember one very special detail about operating a motor vehicle- it is a privilege, not a right.

just because something is a privilege, does not mean that gives government open season.

Remember, the same thing can be said about home ownership, etc.

[The_Dude 1,142]

The red light cameras snap a picture of a plate, not the driver. There is no inherent proof that you (or your wife maybe, even one of your kids, or a friend) were driving the vehicle at the time. The last time I checked, 'ownership' does not make you guilty. The system doesn't act that way however.

I read what you wrote. My counter-point is that none of that seems to matter in certain circumstances already. Just think of roadside sobriety checkpoints in some states. You're force to stop your car and have an officer shine a light in your eyes and possibly blow into a breathalyzer. Just for driving down the road minding your own business.

As I mentioned earlier as well, look at the Patriot Act. With the abilities of things like OnStar and being able to listen into vehicles, why would government not utilize this as it does other forms of communication?

That might be true in Dallas, but not in the cities I have been to. The camera takes a picture of the front and back of the car. However, if they don't get a picture of the plate, and the driver in the same frame, you won't have to pay, as they have no proof you were driving. Certain vehicles, like raised pick ups and commercial vehicles are too high for the camera to get both in the same shot. In Los Angeles, we later found out that the tickets had virtually no enforcement to them. They technically were not issued by the police, but by a coroporation authorized by the police. The big distinction is that for these violations, nobody authorized to issue a ticket saw the violation, hence they are invalid.

Many in Chicago have video. I must admit I turned right on a red without noticing a sign saying I couldn't. The video (accessible via the web)clearly showed me violating the traffic sign. $100. Out in the suburbs there are places where they're coming down due to voter complaints against the elected officials that had them installed. And as you note- a profit issue for the locals.

We don't have video here, but they do have high resolution pictures. I got one in a local suburb of L.A. that is notorious for giving frivolous citations. I got the picture in the mail, had a look and thought that it was blurry enough to contest. I went down to the local P.D. and said "#######, this isn't even clear enough to show that it is me". The guy called a tech in, who produced a 2560 x 1920 HD picture of me, clear as day. D'oh! Was $496 for that ticket.