[SS-Traveller]

It is the stuff of sci-fi movies, but vehicles traveling on US roads will soon be able to "talk" to one another to avoid accidents. The US Department of Transport's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced on 3 February 2017 that the US government is crafting a rule that would require all new cars and light trucks on the nation's highways to be able to "talk" to one another using wireless technology.

NHTSA's plan is based on research from an experiment with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute using about 3,000 vehicles already sharing information about their speed and location in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The insurance industry lauded the effort. "The chief advantage is that this technology always pays attention, unlike drivers," said Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Where federal regulation previously has focused on strengthening the structure of vehicles to protect occupants, this represents a shift toward technology to avoid crashes.

The DOT said this would significantly reduce accidents on US roads and alleviate traffic congestion. A proposed rule mandating so-called vehicle-to-vehicle communication technology is expected to be put in place before President Barack Obama leaves office in early 2017, DOT officials said.

V2V communications use a variation of the 802.11 wireless network standard used by laptops and mobile phones, but instead link cars, which can share position and speed information with each other 10 times per second. That can let one car reliably detect when another in front is braking hard, for example. Currently, the 5.9GHz band is set aside for use of the 802.11p standard for V2V dedicated short-range communications (DSRC).

V2V technology initially will assist drivers, but NHTSA is considering linking it to "active safety technologies that rely on on-board sensors", which could let a car brake or steer to avoid a collision without driver involvement. This data does not include personal details about the driver or vehicle, the DOT said. Vehicles or a group of vehicles can be identified through a defined procedure "only if there is a need to fix a safety problem."

Approval follows a test project begun in 2012 in which vehicles equipped with wireless devices were used to warn drivers about specific hazards such as an impending collision at a blind intersection, or a vehicle stopped ahead.

Officials said the technology can help avert rear-end, lane change, and intersection crashes. But the systems do not include technology such as automatic braking or steering. Vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems would give cars the ability to warn drivers of dangers as far as 300 yards away, and could prevent as much as 80% of the more than 30,000 traffic fatalities that occur each year in the U.S.

At the heart of V2V communications is a basic application known as the Here I Am data message. This message can be derived using non-vehicle-based technologies such as GPS to identify location and speed of a vehicle, or vehicle-based sensor data wherein the location and speed data is derived from the vehicle’s computer and is combined with other data such as latitude, longitude, or angle to produce a richer, more detailed situational awareness of the position of other vehicles. Because the Here I Am data message can be derived from non-vehicle-based technologies that are ubiquitous within the marketplace, the program may leverage an opportunity to accelerate V2V capability and deployment in the near-term and produce safety benefits through reduced crashes sooner than through Original Equipment Manufacturer(OEM) embedded systems only.

The NHTSA said it is finalizing its analysis and will publish a report for public comment, with the goal of establishing rules for the new technology. The agency said the systems would include "several layers of security and privacy protection" to ensure that vehicles can rely on messages sent from other vehicles for potential safety problems.

NHTSA acting administrator David Friedman said: "Decades from now, it's likely we'll look back at this time period as one in which the historical arc of transportation safety considerably changed for the better, similar to the introduction of standards for seat belts, airbags and electronic stability control technology."

References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

[joybhowmik]

SST- I voted "Maybe". And here's why.
Technology implementations are often based on assumptions of societal mores. And what goes down well in the US or Western countries, would need to be really examined for fitment in India or for that matter our immediate neighbours (China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal). All these countries suffer from woes such as lack of lane discipline, wrong-side driving , illegal parking , dangerously weaving cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians.
If the technology were to ensure that cars in danger of collision, were immediately disabled, our streets would turn into a parking lot.
Or,
People would find out ways to circumvent the system - recall how speed governors in commercial vehicles were tampered with.



Someone once described our system of driving as '

organized chaos

'.

[mints21]

I have always welcomed anything that adds on to the safety on roads. I agree with joybhowmik that people will find a way to circumvent the system. We are actually very good at circumventing and our past is a proof of this.

However, when I see many who loose their lives in road accidents, I feel the need for the change. The thought of those who loose life on roads leaving behind their dependents send shivers down the spine.

I think India is still far from witnessing this, may be 15 years from now. But a little traffic sense on roads can bring a lot of improvement.

[Jeroen]

I voted maybe, lets see how it works. I'm sure overtime this will be the way to go. I understand initially the system is just used to provide warning/info and not actively interfere with for instance the brakes.

I'm not sure how effective the system would be with only some cars on the road being equipped with it.

Jeroen

[FINTAIL]

Indeed, its a wait and watch situation.

I am of the opinion that nothing actually beats the sheer pleasure of driving.

However, we must have a look at the implementation and success of this system in the Western Nations, before taking a further step.

Hacking is Possible. Circumventing this is also possible. It is a wait & watch.

However, such innovations have to become common in the future.

Cheers!

[srishiva]

I am working on the communication part of general machine to machine communication including alternative to existing wireless tech. Have read about a use case where the cars will rely information about pot holes to adjacent cars and also to authorities to fix it

eCall will be mandatory in Europe shortly and technology will make it safer for occupants eventually. There are lots of challenges in making it reliable though and will be interesting to see how it will apply to our market.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by srishiva

I am working on the communication part of general machine to machine communication including alternative to existing wireless tech. Have read about a use case where the cars will rely information about pot holes to adjacent cars and also to authorities to fix it

eCall will be mandatory in Europe shortly and technology will make it safer for occupants eventually. There are lots of challenges in making it reliable though and will be interesting to see how it will apply to our market.

eCall uses a different technology to talk to the world outside the car. Essentially it does so via mobile data. It will be interesting to see what Europe will standardise on, as mobile wireless technique is likely to move on.
So if you design your eCall around GPRS how long will that last? How long will GSM last in Europe, probably still a while or should you go 3G or 4G?

Some of the eCall trial were based on SMS and I think some manufacturer are still using that today for M2M communication? (E.g. BMW)

The Russian are desiging around their own systems. And the American have something different again.




Jeroen

[Max]

Originally Posted by joybhowmik

SST- And what goes down well in the US or Western countries, would need to be really examined for fitment in India or for that matter our immediate neighbours (China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal). All these countries suffer from woes such as lack of lane discipline, wrong-side driving , illegal parking , dangerously weaving cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians.

Exactly, such kind of system will not work in India. Indian drivers never stop unless you are in their way and they will keep coming further and try to find out that little gap from where they can pass on to their way. This also include large vehicles including buses and trucks. This mentality is opposite to the kind of system they are designing in US. If this is to be installed in Indian vehicles, the system will beep all the time but nobody will give a damn about it

Here at Godhbander road people break signals all the time unless there is a cop standing on the next side. We need to conduct deep psychological research on how to change mindset of such people! (btw, all the people!).

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

eCall uses a different technology to talk to the world outside the car. Essentially it does so via mobile data. It will be interesting to see what Europe will standardise on, as mobile wireless technique is likely to move on.
So if you design your eCall around GPRS how long will that last? How long will GSM last in Europe, probably still a while or should you go 3G or 4G?

Some of the eCall trial were based on SMS and I think some manufacturer are still using that today for M2M communication? (E.g. BMW)

The Russian are desiging around their own systems. And the American have something different again.


Jeroen

It uses in-band signalling also so it need not be just data. With a layered approach, its easier to change the communication layer beneath with less impact on the service itself.

[charanreddy]

Voted both May be and Scared that some one will misuse. I am more pessimistic than optimistic about this as
1. In Congested Indian roads and traffic, Most of what works in developed countries with wide roads will not work. On a lighter note, will they also fit cows or buffaloes we regularly see in 2 tier towns with these devices ?
2. Hacking / Tampering is a worrying thought. Imagine a situation where some VIP convoy is coming and your vehicle stalls at a junction due to interference with some signal.
Our existing infrastructure is quite far away from a stage where these things will make an impact. Lets first cover up potholes, Paint the speed Breakers on national / state highways, equip our cars with ABS, Airbags etc.

[Nanometer]

This is a welcome move I would say. I hope this helps with people driving on roads as complete strangers, get to know the credentials of the other drivers on the road in proximity will help in tuning your driving style.
This will help drivers from getting frustrated when someone is driving slow on a fast lane , or someone is learning driving , or say a old person is driving , the possibilities are enormous and off coruse , what will be shared across the cars has to be scrutinized to ensure privacy and security.

[Joe M]

Even though it's not very feasible in near future to have such a thing revolutionise Indian road safety, I guess it's a very welcome move, and it's just that we don't take anything for granted. We just shouldn't take it as driver 'replacement' but consider it as driver 'assistant'.

How many of us have not wished if we could know there's a car coming from around the corner, being impatient behind a long truck! Leave cows and pedestrians and non-automobile objects on the road - most of the fatal accidents are between automobiles, if I guess right. If the new device can help drivers by providing info about 70% of all objects they may encounter on the road ahead(10% given for pedestrians, 10% for 4-legged pedestrians and 10% for anything else we find on the tarmac), isn't it helpful? I strongly believe so.

Definitely in India at least 30% of the devices won't work even if it's strict rule so we can't expect to know about every other vehicle, and overtaking should solely be based on direct sight but it can avoid many confusions.

[raveesh_k]

I cannot help but imagine what will happen if this technology comes over to India. I am sure that more often than not, cuss words would consume the majority of the wireless bandwidth for this technology. "Me first! No, me first!! Look out hot pants! No, you better watch out!" and Crash!!
Yes, in a civil society this would indeed be a welcomed tech, however in a society like ours with crunching road infrastructure by the second and growing car population like our nation's, it would be more of a nuisance rather than an assistance.
Cheers!

[abirnale]

Good information SST - specifically of interest to me being a mobility m2m fanboy. I chose the options - oh yes!

Of course with every automated system, there will be pros and cons but in my opinion, the pros here will stand out far more than the cons. And this is not a regular software like we do for ERP/ CRM etc. These are life critical applications of technology and hence before mass rollout, they shall have full-proof testing. Moreover since it is a life related thing, the manual override will be available at all time.

By the way I had encountered this article yesterday by Daniel Burrus here - http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/a...a-car-near-you

[dzrebellz]

This a good initiative as far as the safety is concerned.
However, Implementation will determine whether this adds value or not.
If every vehicle has this system, great! If not, there is a chance of accidents being caused by this.

Imagine that the car ahead of you and your car has V2V.
The car tailing you doesn't.
For some reason, the car ahead of you stops abruptly.
Your V2V acts to stop your car within a safe distance from the car ahead.
The car behind rear ends you and in addition to the damage to your car, you get to handle an argument that you stopped earlier than you had to, unnecessarily causing an accident.

Again, I want to stress that I am all for this system. I am only skeptical about the execution.

On a lighter note, this could be the start of evolution of cars to being auto-driven a la I, Robot or Demolition Man or Total Recall or any of the sci-fi future based movies we've grown up watching