Seeking Alpha

Car-to-car talk around the corner

  • Federal regulators indicate they aim to require automakers (GM, F, TM, FIATY, HMC, NSANY, VLKAY, HYMLF, TSLA, FUJHY) to install technology that helps to warn drivers if a crash is imminent using data broadcast from other vehicles .
  • Cars and trucks would be required to have special technology which would emit data through radio signals. The rate of accidents could be lowered by up to 80% through successful adoption of the program, according to the NHTSA.
  • Privacy advocates oppose the technology while security experts warn hackers could be disruptive in the area.
  • Implementation of the technology standard is expected to be at least a few years off.
From other sites
Comments (44)
  • mrdeezman11@yahoo.com
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Bad drivers need this technolgy--- most tech for auto does not serve the need of the driver and they are a distraction (ex: GPS,cell phones etc)

     

    This will help them. like a seeing eye dog for the blind
    4 Feb, 08:47 AM Reply Like
  • lemm
    , contributor
    Comments (441) | Send Message
     
    And will add more to the base price of the car.If the Gov keeps on mandating all of these things no one will be able to afford one.
    4 Feb, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • msteck
    , contributor
    Comments (50) | Send Message
     
    Seat belts, air bags (and later side airbags), crumple zones etc. All mandated by the government, as manufacturers probably wouldn't have put them in otherwise. Mortality rate in car accidents is less than half of what it was in the 1950s AND cars are cheaper. This will save lives, maybe even yours or someone you love.
    4 Feb, 02:48 PM Reply Like
  • wrscomncents
    , contributor
    Comments (661) | Send Message
     
    @msteck
    Seat belts were in cars and being used long before the government mandated their use. Air bags were also in cars long before the government mandated them to be included. These were all safety features invented by the private sector and then later imposed by the "we're here to help you" government. The fact is cars were getting safer without government intervention.
    6 Feb, 03:35 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (4028) | Send Message
     
    This is true. Government Mandates regarding auto safety generally come along only after one or more automakers have already introduced the technology, at least as an option, and it is proved out as "safe and effective". For example, the original "active restraint system" air bags were introduced and refined by the automakers and placed in premium vehicles and as optional safety upgrade packages, many many years before the government made them mandatory in all passenger cars. The automakers have gone further by introducing additional "curtain" air bags along the side windows, to further protect occupants in collisions. Those are not yet mandated, but are highly encouraged by the Insurance industry in awarding 5-star safety ratings.
    7 Feb, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • DougRk
    , contributor
    Comments (1592) | Send Message
     
    Where in the Constitution does govt have the authority to simply order this? Beyond the mere fact that we have law making by agencies other than Congress, like here. We live in a post-Constitutional America, and are less free and less prosperous because of it.
    Not to mention where this is heading... electronic shut down commands. Which in the future govt will use to control where and when people drive. And when and where car jackers and rapists stop female drivers when the inevitable hacks are found.

     

    Do we want yet more direct govt control like this? Jesus.
    4 Feb, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • wrscomncents
    , contributor
    Comments (661) | Send Message
     
    @dsr70

     

    I agree you. Technology such as this can be very useful and I am all for it. The market if left alone will find good uses for it. The government mandates are not needed. Automobiles were becoming safer year after year on their own long before the government started to intervene with their long list of mandates.
    4 Feb, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • wandonye
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Here is why government mandates are needed: if some cars have this function while some cars don't, this tech will be useless.
    4 Feb, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • chfp
    , contributor
    Comments (593) | Send Message
     
    Does the Constitution deny this? Honest question. You're not required to buy a car. If you don't like this, don't buy one.
    This type of technology would be best suited as a backup to computer visual crash detection (using the visible light spectrum, same as our vision). RF is too easy for hackers to jam radio waves.
    4 Feb, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4267) | Send Message
     
    This technology will be useless anyway unless the government also demands that every person, dog, cat, deer, turtle, armadillo, and anything else that can walk, run, leap, or crawl onto a roadway also emit such signals.
    Oh, by the way, you'd still run into the odd trailer hitch or other non-living, non-broadcasting road hazard that happens to fall off a load or a vehicle.
    4 Feb, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (1818) | Send Message
     
    dsr70, this is about "PUBLIC SAFETY".

     

    Nobody like the govt controlling anything. But the state does regulate public safety. People are idiots when they drive and this is another step at trying to help them from killing themselves.

     

    The cost that is added to a new vehicle will become negligible over time.
    4 Feb, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • Cassina Tarsia
    , contributor
    Comments (646) | Send Message
     
    wandonye ... I tried to give you a like but the "Like" button won't work ... so you have at least one more like than it says!
    4 Feb, 02:28 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (4028) | Send Message
     
    Dave - Excellent example of a "straw man argument". Look it up if you don't know about that particular logical fallacy, where one exaggerates what another said or suggested, and then refutes the exaggerations that were never said.
    .
    Anyway this is about eliminating collisions between "smart" cars, not collisions with wildlife and pedestrians and random trailer hitches. Although certainly a smart car with good sensors could conceivably detect most roadway hazards, including the occasional and pesky mechanical and biological obstructions, and respond appropriately to avoid unwanted tangled high energy mergers in space-time. The vast majority of car crashes are between two or more vehicles where one party was at fault and basically rammed into the other. Most of the rest are Single-Car accidents where drivers lose control and hit a tree or something.
    .
    These can all be virtually eliminated if the Smart Cars do the proper Three Laws of Robotics thing in protecting themselves and their humans ... but don't decide collectively in the end that the Hairless Monkeys that they are supposed to protect and assist are themselves The Problem, and not worth saving. Just watch out if the headlights turn blood red, that is never a good sign.
    4 Feb, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • antiguajohn
    , contributor
    Comments (72) | Send Message
     
    There is medical treatment available for paranoia!

     

    I would tell you but they are watching me .........................
    .........................
    4 Feb, 05:18 PM Reply Like
  • Bmwrider66
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Technology like this and other self driving features are inevitable. The increase in price will be miniscule compared to the savings from accident reduction and decreased insurance costs.
    4 Feb, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • DougRk
    , contributor
    Comments (1592) | Send Message
     
    Reduced accidents and dollar savings are not and should not be the goal of government. Preservation of freedom and govt staying out of the market is the only duty of govt. Which sadly is a quaint and discarded notion in the US now.
    4 Feb, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (4028) | Send Message
     
    Preservation of the lives and livelihoods of the citizens as a whole, within reasonable individual freedoms and liberties that do not impinge upon another's, and the upholding of the laws of the land, are the government's top priorities.
    .
    A government that does nothing, thus allowing anarchy and encouraging bullies and mob rule, is a government that serves no purpose.
    .
    Having a distress or warning signal transmitted from your car to the one behind it or to others in the immediate proximity is not a betrayal of your right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, provided that your particular pursuit of happiness does not flaunt established law or unlawfully take away from somebody else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. You do not for example have the right to flaunt the law and endanger others on the public roadways.
    4 Feb, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • mrdeezman11@yahoo.com
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Hoooray !! Bad and destructive drivers absolutely need this!!
    4 Feb, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • Chezterr
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    On my drive in to work this morning on the South Bound 405 in L.A. I witnessed a near-accident... a slow moving vehicle in the center lane with it's hazard lights on (Id estimate was travelling at about 30 mph..) was nearly rear-ended by several other vehicles (at speeds of between 70-80mph).... This is a perfect example of a situation that would be minimized if not entirely eliminated by vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems. The slow moving vehicle (in obvious distress), would have been able to broadcast it's issue/speed to surrounding and approaching vehicles, thereby providing ample time for the approaching vehicles to automatically reduce their speed and change lanes.
    4 Feb, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • chickensevil
    , contributor
    Comments (703) | Send Message
     
    Ummm why was the vehicle in the MIDDLE LANE!!! ugh my head hurts. If someone hit him, I would totally argue that it was the guy's fault for going too slow and in the middle lane! Get off the highway!
    4 Feb, 09:26 AM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4267) | Send Message
     
    When you're on a multi-lane freeway such as the 405 and encounter a suddenly non-operative condition in your vehicle, then yes, you may be caught in a middle lane and unable to pull over to the shoulder of the highway in time. No, you aren't allowed to run into suddenly slow or stopped vehicles on the 405.
    4 Feb, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Chezterr
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    It appeared to me that the vehicle had a mechanical issue, either a flat tire or something drive-train related... was attempting to get across the lanes to the right shoulder with his hazard lights on. Closing speeds of approaching vehicles was quite dramatic.
    4 Feb, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • buckmead
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Flashing hazard lights don't mean to slow down and change lanes??
    4 Feb, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • chickensevil
    , contributor
    Comments (703) | Send Message
     
    For the record, there is no need for this! All you are doing is making an overly complex system, potentially invading our privacy further, and opening the door up for abuse (both by government and other nefarious sources.)

     

    If you want to mandate something (not that I am more anymore regulations), mandate the passive technology that has been used by companies like Mercedes for a while now. It is already proven technology, there is no need for "extra standards", and there is no risk of invasion/intrusion on your vehicle.

     

    stupid *@&#%%*@ government!
    4 Feb, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • Capt Jack Daniels
    , contributor
    Comments (1411) | Send Message
     
    Wow they just want to drive up the costs of everything and make everything far more complex than it really needs to be.
    I have a stupid glitch that makes my brakes want to act as if I'm sliding when I'm not.
    Do we really need to be broadcasting and making vehicles more subject to intrusion and control or can we get back to the basics of people being more responsible and actually paying attention and driving instead of watching television, a text message , or whatever else is distracting them.
    4 Feb, 09:43 AM Reply Like
  • Cassina Tarsia
    , contributor
    Comments (646) | Send Message
     
    Here we go again ... the government is going to save us from ourselves!!! I personally think that when the government goes to this extent to save us something is wrong. In the first place, unless every vehicle is retrofitted this system simply won't work, and even if it is it will simply lull drivers to become less alert, not more. Taking responsibility away from the driver is one sure way to insure that the quality of the driver will go down since he/she will not have to learn the basic skills of defensive driving which is the essence of what it takes to be a good driver. Oh well, I guess that we can't fight "progress" if it comes to this, we can just ride along with it!
    4 Feb, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1920) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely correct!
    Now imagine you as a driver, think everyone else has it, you are going through a green light, not noticing the 58' Plymouth Fury running the light and cutting through your econo car like butter.
    4 Feb, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • J Mtwell
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Every improvement in auto safety that I recall, Seat Belts, Interstate highways, ABS, Air Bags, Child Safety Seats, has been met with skepticism and charges of government intrusion into our lives. I praise the advancements in auto safety and never want to go back to the 1950's when automobiles were death traps.

     

    As for only "Bad drivers need this technology", we are all bad drivers at some times. Think of when each of us drove tired, a little tipsy, too fast on the snow or ice, caught caught off guard when we tuned the radio or were a teenager learning to drive. If technology can help, bring it on.
    4 Feb, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • DougRk
    , contributor
    Comments (1592) | Send Message
     
    @J Mtwell,

     

    Do you think no safety advances would have occured without govt? Therein lies your faulty premise. You do not acknowledge that free people want to be safer.

     

    Govt. required safety devices, over time, make us less safe since they create an artificial belief in the market that something is safe. Come to understand market dynamics and then you'll understand that seemingly self-contradictory statement.
    4 Feb, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1920) | Send Message
     
    Well, that is just a kick in the you know where for Ford, GM, Kia, Honda, and Toyota.
    They make such lower margins on the entry level cars as is. Now put an extra system that probably costs $1000 + and have it run the communications.
    Audi, BMW, Porsche, and Tesla can soak up the costs since they make large margins on their cars.
    If this is in fact true, start shorting GM and Ford, because this is going to kill their car sales.
    I remember something about GM, Ford, and Toyota complianing about how it would be too costly to have back up cameras mandatory. This system seems alot more costly than a $100-$200 camera system
    4 Feb, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • ted lujan
    , contributor
    Comments (737) | Send Message
     
    Wow, Texting, now my auto screaming at me. Driving may become hazards to my health. I suppose big brother will demand health insurance for my dog. What next.
    4 Feb, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • Capt Jack Daniels
    , contributor
    Comments (1411) | Send Message
     
    LOL @ mandated insurance for pets.
    4 Feb, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • carloswolf
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    More important which are the companies that are doing this so we can get in on it?
    4 Feb, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • Tesla Revolution
    , contributor
    Comments (141) | Send Message
     
    Ok,ok. Let's stop debating the politics here on SA. We are here seeking Alpha, riiiight?
    Now if anyone hears about who stands to make $$$ from this, then please post it.
    Thank you.
    7 Feb, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (4028) | Send Message
     
    That would be the companies that make the sensors and things, and the software to handle it.
    7 Feb, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • maggas
    , contributor
    Comments (473) | Send Message
     
    i agree with both camps. Needed for idiot drivers, which really will make them more unsafe drivers since they will be texting or putting makeup on, and for the truly moronic types they will sit back and be complacent, notwithstanding that electronics do fail. Re govt mandates, sometimes the robber barons have to be nudged a bit. And do not forget where the government gets the idea to install these things. From the beltway bandits of Washington DC.
    5 Feb, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (4028) | Send Message
     
    The funny thing is everyone believes they are above average drivers.
    5 Feb, 10:02 AM Reply Like
  • Bmwrider66
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Government mandates will not be necessary. If you have state of the art safety equipment installed (or not) your insurance rates will reflect your choice. The free market will largely determine what you do. However I think the accident reduction will be so dramatic that most will embrace the new technology.
    7 Feb, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • ted lujan
    , contributor
    Comments (737) | Send Message
     
    If the technology is so good why not let the consumer decide. It will sell well. If the government gets involved it will insure inferior products cause we have to buy them whether we want to or not!
    8 Feb, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • Bmwrider66
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    All of this concern about government control is absurd. Who wants to share the road with bad drivers operating unsafe, polluting, cars? A totally free market would not prevent this. Government standards prevent it from happening. Does anyone have a better solution? Technology will continually improve and some of it will be so good that governments will mandate its acceptance. That's a good thing.
    9 Feb, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (4028) | Send Message
     
    The point is Rider, the automakers are already freely and competitively developing these technologies, unregulated without any Government assistance. Cars are on the road right now loaded with automatic braking and steering equipment to keep you from drifting into the ditch, or rear ending a slower moving vehicle in the lane in front of you. Cars have black box type equipment that can basically report where it has been and what it has been doing for the past days, weeks, or months. And insurance agencies are installing recording transmitters that plug straight into the car's computers, to report how their customers are driving: speeds, acceleration rates, turn rates, braking habits, racing engines, burning rubber, etc.
    -
    The government's role here is to make sure that as vehicles start transmitting information, and communicating and warning each other, and potentially providing "TMI", that fundamental rights of privacy for free law abiding citizens are not being violated.
    9 Feb, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • Bmwrider66
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Tdot, I don't think the government is nearly as interested in what I do as are as are my insurance company and all the comparies that want to sell me something. My mouse clicks are already part of my record. Speeding tickets, moving violation citations, etc. are already collected by the government and made available to the public. I don't see any safety technology being more invasive that that.
    10 Feb, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • Surf Dog
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    I think that the benefit of these mandates is that they take the technology out of the category of being an option that the manufacturer gets to charge a premium price for, and makes it standard which ultimately costs less for each vehicle because of higher volumes.

     

    Basically it shortens the time the manufacturer gets to gouge the consumer for an item by making it optional.

     

    I sure wish the government had mandated 4 wheel disk brakes decades ago. Disks on the front and drums on the rear is just a stupid application of available technology for many reasons, but that arrangement still exists on some models.
    17 Feb, 03:23 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (4028) | Send Message
     
    The government certainly has an interest in vehicle safety on the roads and highways, using proven technologies. If the carnage on the freeways can be significantly reduced by having vehicles communicating with each other and automatically forming into sort of cooperative caravans based on destination, it is probably a good thing. Since there is transmitting and receiving going on, the government (which owns the radio spectra) also has an interest. But obviously privacy is a concern - you don't want criminals and stalkers taking advantage of the new information source to conduct criminal activity.
    17 Feb, 05:36 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector