US Regulators Craft Rule For New Cars to be able to "Talk" to other cars

[Zeffy]

http://news.msn.com/science-technology/video?videoid=f0e504db-83da-84b6-1b5b-86fa7a7a895b

Found this looking on MSN late tonight. Basically, NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) officials are hoping that via the use of radios, vehicles can 'communicate' with each other, sharing things like speeds and other potential traffic hazards. The car would then alert the driver to any traffic hazards via lights, vibrations, or audible sounds. The NHTSA hopes that devices like these could reduce non-alcohol related vehicle accidents by 80%. Your thoughts?

[jeffandnicole]

They're going to talk about me.

"Gross...how often does he have to fart?"
"Yeah, and does he pick his nose too?"
"Tomorrow, 2pm. Right front: Go flat"
"Roger that"

[Brandon]

Unnecessary technology in a car.  Same goes for backup cameras and GPS units.  Nice option, but I do not want it.

[getemngo]

Unnecessary technology in a car.  Same goes for backup cameras and GPS units.  Nice option, but I do not want it.

Did you happen to see that backup cameras will be mandatory by 2018 in the US?    I'm not a fan of them either. Rear visibility keeps getting worse and worse because of crash safety requirements, and instead of allowing bigger windows, the NHTSA has decided to solve it by forcing automakers to add more complexity. This is going to cause drivers to rely more on the technology than their own eyes and ears. I caught myself doing that in a rental Grand Cherokee with a backup camera.

[triplemultiplex]

Anything that gets us closer to removing the defective human element from the automobile.

[vdeane]

Anything that gets us closer to removing the defective human element from the automobile.

NO

For many of us, the moment people can't manually drive cars any more, roadgeeking as we know it will cease to exist.  How can you clinch highways (especially if you're anal about what counts as a clinch or want to certify a route) when the computer has full control of your route?  The car will be nothing more than a device to get from point A to point B - the journey won't matter any more.  I've lost track of how many times I was unable to force Google Maps to accept a particular route for a road trip - but in that case, it only meant I had to use my gut when figuring out the estimated trip time.  With a self-driving car, it would mean giving up on clinching something.

[Duke87]

For many of us, the moment people can't manually drive cars any more, roadgeeking as we know it will cease to exist.  How can you clinch highways (especially if you're anal about what counts as a clinch or want to certify a route) when the computer has full control of your route?  The car will be nothing more than a device to get from point A to point B - the journey won't matter any more.  I've lost track of how many times I was unable to force Google Maps to accept a particular route for a road trip - but in that case, it only meant I had to use my gut when figuring out the estimated trip time.  With a self-driving car, it would mean giving up on clinching something.

If Google maps can allow you to drag and change the route, so can a self-driving car. And even if not, presumably you could program the car to have "point B" be the end of the highway you want to clinch. Rinse, repeat.

The issue is more that effectively being a passenger the whole time rather than a driver dampens the fun.

[jeffandnicole]

Anything that gets us closer to removing the defective human element from the automobile.

NO

For many of us, the moment people can't manually drive cars any more, roadgeeking as we know it will cease to exist.  How can you clinch highways (especially if you're anal about what counts as a clinch or want to certify a route) when the computer has full control of your route?  The car will be nothing more than a device to get from point A to point B - the journey won't matter any more.  I've lost track of how many times I was unable to force Google Maps to accept a particular route for a road trip - but in that case, it only meant I had to use my gut when figuring out the estimated trip time.  With a self-driving car, it would mean giving up on clinching something.

By 'many of us', you're talking about the few hundred or so people that like to clinch routes.  For the few hundred million other drivers, they simply want to get from point A to point B. 

You should always be able to modify the Google directions to allow you to plan your own route, either by putting in additional destinations or by dragging the route line over to the route you want to go.

And I would think/hope you can deactivate the self-driving electronics.  Depending on how it words, it would suck if he refuses to take you on a new road because it doesn't know it's there.  It'll suck even more if it takes you on a closed road because its internal mapping says it used to be there, or doesn't care that there's powerlines down or an accident on the road!

[SSOWorld]

This is the government bowing to the wishes of companies who want to make money by putting it on the required equipment list.  Remember, politicians can be bought.

[vdeane]

If Google maps can allow you to drag and change the route, so can a self-driving car. And even if not, presumably you could program the car to have "point B" be the end of the highway you want to clinch. Rinse, repeat.

The issue is more that effectively being a passenger the whole time rather than a driver dampens the fun.

I have had many, many cases where I couldn't get a route to look quite right on Google because it couldn't properly comprehend the loops (loops are VERY common on my clinching trips, as I like to create a "blanket clinch zone").

By 'many of us', you're talking about the few hundred or so people that like to clinch routes.  For the few hundred million other drivers, they simply want to get from point A to point B. 

You should always be able to modify the Google directions to allow you to plan your own route, either by putting in additional destinations or by dragging the route line over to the route you want to go.

And I would think/hope you can deactivate the self-driving electronics.  Depending on how it words, it would suck if he refuses to take you on a new road because it doesn't know it's there.  It'll suck even more if it takes you on a closed road because its internal mapping says it used to be there, or doesn't care that there's powerlines down or an accident on the road!

While I will acknowledge that a car that can drive itself is a cool idea (and even I would use that feature on occasion), many of the benefits touted by the self-driving advocates only exist if the option is used by everyone so there are those who want to make it mandatory.  And why should us roadgeeks get trampled over just because other people don't share our view?  This can be generalized to other issues.  Should it be illegal to own a car that's older than 5 years old?  By your logic, it should: there are safety benefits to only having new cars on the road, and most people don't keep cars longer anyways.

[Brandon]

Anything that gets us closer to removing the defective human element from the automobile.

How about NO.
Driving is a skill, and an important one that people should learn and master.

/Death to slushboxes!

[jbnv]

Driving is a skill, and an important one that people should learn and master.

This.

Anything that gets us closer to removing the defective human element from the automobile.

If the human element is too defective to drive skillfully and safely, then it should use other modes of transportation.

For the record, I do like the safety and convenience that technology brings to us. I'm also concerned that technology is reducing us to automatons who exist just to be pleasured. The humans in "Wall-E" come to mind here.

[realjd]

Anything that gets us closer to removing the defective human element from the automobile.

Thumbs up. I'm excited about the future of self driving cars. A standard for inter-car communication is a necessary step to bring us to that goal.

[agentsteel53]

If the human element is too defective to drive skillfully and safely, then it should use other modes of transportation.

... like a self-driving car.

I'm all for it, as long as it isn't made mandatory (a big IF).  I think it would really reduce the amount of morons on the road.  I'd probably not get a self-driving car for 20-30 years after it became prevalent on the market, because of my tendency to buy electronically uncomplicated used cars, but it would be very nice to have a lot fewer people doing 59 in the fast lane with their right blinker on for miles.