Trump administration reportedly kills vehicle-to-vehicle safety mandate

Is this finally the end of the road for V2V?

Read the whole story

 

[slowtech]

Well, looks like someone else, maybe California, will have to establish rational standards now.

 

[truthyboy15]

Well, looks like someone else, maybe California, will have to establish rational standards now.

oh like how they were going to do with privacy but just listened to lobbyists instead?

 

[stevenjazz787]

Well, looks like someone else, maybe California, will have to establish rational standards now.

oh like how they were going to do with privacy but just listened to lobbyists instead?

Or how they were going to do healthcare, but just listened to lobbyists instead?

To be fair though, the lobbyists want this. Trump is just for slashing the government. But I wonder why business wants it.

 

[Solomonoff's Secret]

Good. V2V is troubling for privacy as it makes automated tracking even easier than plate scanning. It also won't work with motorcycles that tend to avoid these fancy features, bicycles, pedestrians, and other obstacles. As general obstacle avoidance technology is basically ready for production, is there even a need for V2V?

 

[truthyboy15]

Good. V2V is troubling for privacy as it makes automated tracking even easier than plate scanning. It also won't work with motorcycles that tend to avoid these fancy features, bicycles, pedestrians, and other obstacles. As general obstacle avoidance technology is basically ready for production, is there even a need for V2V?

here's the thing if vehicles have cellular modems in them then insurance companies can monitor everything you do with the vehicle and if you do one wrong thing ever then adios insurance.

 

[truthyboy15]

Good. V2V is troubling for privacy as it makes automated tracking even easier than plate scanning. It also won't work with motorcycles that tend to avoid these fancy features, bicycles, pedestrians, and other obstacles. As general obstacle avoidance technology is basically ready for production, is there even a need for V2V?

here's the thing if vehicles have cellular modems in them then insurance companies can monitor everything you do with the vehicle and if you do one wrong thing ever then adios insurance.

Only if the insurance companies have access to that data. I don't see any requirement to give it to them on the horizon.

your deluding yourself if you really don't think it wont happen.

 

[ikepuska]

I'll be honest, I don't really trust any technology like V2V that's going to have enormous lifetimes and virtually no updates to prevent exploits.

I also will utterly refuse to pay for a cellular connection in my car, and any car I buy will have it disabled even if I have to find the damn antenna myself and shield it with enough shielding that it never has reception.

I don't mind self driving cars as a concept, although my personal situation means that I won't be getting one to be my daily driver for a while. But I'll be darned if I'll let remote monitoring occur with something that I can't turn off. At least with my cell phone I can turn it off or leave it behind.

 

[sep332]

I'm guessing that the car manufacturers want the regulation just for synchronization purposes. If a new change is going to be expensive, then anyone who holds out is going to have an advantage in the market. If all the car makers want to make the change, it's in their best interest to make sure everyone makes the change at the same time.

 

[Infinity4011]

Good. V2V is troubling for privacy as it makes automated tracking even easier than plate scanning. It also won't work with motorcycles that tend to avoid these fancy features, bicycles, pedestrians, and other obstacles. As general obstacle avoidance technology is basically ready for production, is there even a need for V2V?

here's the thing if vehicles have cellular modems in them then insurance companies can monitor everything you do with the vehicle and if you do one wrong thing ever then adios insurance.

Only if the insurance companies have access to that data. I don't see any requirement to give it to them on the horizon.

All it takes is a quick update to the terms of service that 99% of people won't read and an opt-out clause instead of an opt-in and they can start harvesting your driving data.

 

[jt122333221]

Good. V2V is troubling for privacy as it makes automated tracking even easier than plate scanning. It also won't work with motorcycles that tend to avoid these fancy features, bicycles, pedestrians, and other obstacles. As general obstacle avoidance technology is basically ready for production, is there even a need for V2V?

here's the thing if vehicles have cellular modems in them then insurance companies can monitor everything you do with the vehicle and if you do one wrong thing ever then adios insurance.

Only if the insurance companies have access to that data. I don't see any requirement to give it to them on the horizon.

Do you use OnStar in a semi-recent vehicle? Then the insurance carriers have access to that data. I'm not familiar with the other companies' safety services like Toyota's SafetyConnect, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't far behind OnStar in that regard.

 

[Eupfhoria]

There are already plenty of insurance vehicle monitoring services (see: Metromile) that save responsible drivers money by monitoring their driving habits. Unless it is ever mandated that insurers use that service, there will be a company that provides insurance with opt-out, at a price.

Car insurance is probably the most functional market that exists in our economy.

 

[wvmikep]

This is one area where maybe industry should take the lead. Otherwise, there may be different competing standards across the world, much as there is for crash protection.

 

[Mercyful Fate]

"Hopes have long been pinned on V2V as a way to cut traffic fatalities, which have been on the rise the past two years. "

Traffic fatalities have been steadily rising ever since the introduction of texting on a smartphone which are now used by morons simultaneously while driving. THAT is one problem that really needs addressed ASAP.

 

[yababom]

My problem with using V2V for safety purposes is that it requires a trust relationship between total strangers who cannot be reliably verified/held accountable. How long would it take for someone to DoS a whole highway (and possibly getting people killed in the process) by hacking transmitters to send false data?

 

[Shiptare]

If it was important, perhaps they shouldn't have spent 16 years dickering about it?

We've had every configuration of Reps/Dems in the Presidency and Congress over that time period.

Clearly neither of the major parties felt this was important, how is it relevant now?

Aside from the notice that taxpayer dollars aren't being pissed down some hole to whomever was working on this garbage.

So, thanks for that!

 

[ThinkingMore]

I'm guessing that the car manufacturers want the regulation just for synchronization purposes. If a new change is going to be expensive, then anyone who holds out is going to have an advantage in the market. If all the car makers want to make the change, it's in their best interest to make sure everyone makes the change at the same time.

The auto industry simply need to take the lead and develop standards that make sense. There may be disagreement along the way, but this approach typically results in clear set of practical approaches. Also, it improves the odds of international alignment. At the right time, the government can implement requirements based on the standards that have proven themselves and/or under the most adaption.

 

[ghstd4303]

the problem with V2V is unless you include strong signing or authentication, its going to be very hard to trust any data received, as there will always be the possibility that someone is faking data.

And there is no way in hell I'll willingly support something that is screaming my name/vin/number all down the street, its a 1984 surveillance persons wet dream.

 

[Comradephate]

I'll be honest, I don't really trust any technology like V2V that's going to have enormous lifetimes and virtually no updates to prevent exploits.

I also will utterly refuse to pay for a cellular connection in my car, and any car I buy will have it disabled even if I have to find the damn antenna myself and shield it with enough shielding that it never has reception.

I don't mind self driving cars as a concept, although my personal situation means that I won't be getting one to be my daily driver for a while. But I'll be darned if I'll let remote monitoring occur with something that I can't turn off. At least with my cell phone I can turn it off or leave it behind.

So first you complain that the problem with v2v is that it can't be updated, and then you go on a paranoid tinfoil hat rant about a technology that would allow for updating v2v.

k.

 

[ColdWetDog]

I'll be honest, I don't really trust any technology like V2V that's going to have enormous lifetimes and virtually no updates to prevent exploits.

I also will utterly refuse to pay for a cellular connection in my car, and any car I buy will have it disabled even if I have to find the damn antenna myself and shield it with enough shielding that it never has reception.

I don't mind self driving cars as a concept, although my personal situation means that I won't be getting one to be my daily driver for a while. But I'll be darned if I'll let remote monitoring occur with something that I can't turn off. At least with my cell phone I can turn it off or leave it behind.

I'd have to agree. Further, I'm not exactly warm-and-fuzzied about a car-to-everything chip installed in every new vehicle. Makes the old 'Clipper Chip' arguments seem downright friendly. Embedded silicon with hooks to most every bit of spectrum and protocol available.

With undoubtedly questionable security.

No problemo.

 

[ziegler]

Update: Ars reached out to NHTSA this morning, which told us that it has yet to make a final decision. "The vehicle-to-vehicle notice of proposed rulemaking was released in December 2016 for public feedback, and received over 460 comments. NHTSA is still reviewing and considering all comments submitted and other relevant new information to inform its next steps. An update on these actions will be provided when a decision is made as part of the Department’s ongoing regulatory review," it told us in a written statement.

SO I would have liked this to have been at the top of the article...since it pretty much disproves the rest of the article so I could have just skipped it.

Edit to add: Mr. Gitlin has made the change. Kudos to him.

 

[ThinkingMore]

the problem with V2V is unless you include strong signing or authentication, its going to be very hard to trust any data received, as there will always be the possibility that someone is faking data.

The trick is to not depend solely on V2V data, so that security doesn't have to be a 100% certainty, but rather a risk considered. Maybe two different signals that are compared where risk reduction is needed.

 

[ThinkingMore]

Update: Ars reached out to NHTSA this morning, which told us that it has yet to make a final decision. "The vehicle-to-vehicle notice of proposed rulemaking was released in December 2016 for public feedback, and received over 460 comments. NHTSA is still reviewing and considering all comments submitted and other relevant new information to inform its next steps. An update on these actions will be provided when a decision is made as part of the Department’s ongoing regulatory review," it told us in a written statement.

SO I would have liked this to have been at the top of the article...since it pretty much disproves the rest of the article so I could have just skipped it.

But they'd have to change the headline to something accurate.

 

[nononsense]

Good. V2V is troubling for privacy as it makes automated tracking even easier than plate scanning. It also won't work with motorcycles that tend to avoid these fancy features, bicycles, pedestrians, and other obstacles. As general obstacle avoidance technology is basically ready for production, is there even a need for V2V?

here's the thing if vehicles have cellular modems in them then insurance companies can monitor everything you do with the vehicle and if you do one wrong thing ever then adios insurance.

That's the new reality. Almost everyone has a cell phone and can be tracked while driving or anywhere else. My Waze tells me how fast I'm going whenever I use it and it knows where I'm going and where I'm coming from and when I exceed the speed limit. My cellular company knows if I'm texting while driving or making phone calls. It's a bit late to be worrying about privacy while driving.



Depending on how long you think it will be before self-driving cars are common, V2V technology can save lives in the meantime, or it is a completely useless technology that will be supplanted with self-driving technology very soon.

And again, the argument that if a system isn't perfect, doesn't protect pedestrians or motorcycles is ridiculous. If it can save lives, it's a plus. Pedestrians will continue to have to look both ways before crossing the road, but other lives will be saved.

 

[Carewolf]

My problem with using V2V for safety purposes is that it requires a trust relationship between total strangers who cannot be reliably verified/held accountable. How long would it take for someone to DoS a whole highway (and possibly getting people killed in the process) by hacking transmitters to send false data?

Well a safely designed protocol wouldn't be able to get anyone killed, but yes, DoS would still be possible. Not sure how you could avoid that being possible.

 

[ikepuska]

I'll be honest, I don't really trust any technology like V2V that's going to have enormous lifetimes and virtually no updates to prevent exploits.

I also will utterly refuse to pay for a cellular connection in my car, and any car I buy will have it disabled even if I have to find the damn antenna myself and shield it with enough shielding that it never has reception.

I don't mind self driving cars as a concept, although my personal situation means that I won't be getting one to be my daily driver for a while. But I'll be darned if I'll let remote monitoring occur with something that I can't turn off. At least with my cell phone I can turn it off or leave it behind.

So first you complain that the problem with v2v is that it can't be updated, and then you go on a paranoid tinfoil hat rant about a technology that would allow for updating v2v.

k.

A) V2V isn't a strictly software issue, so it isn't necessarily true that software could fix it.

B) I'm not paranoid about LTE or other cellular technologies given the obvious fact that I have a cellphone, I just refuse to have an always on connection that I don't control and that I have to pay for.

 

[Solomonoff's Secret]

That's the new reality. Almost everyone has a cell phone and can be tracked while driving or anywhere else. My Waze tells me how fast I'm going whenever I use it and it knows where I'm going and where I'm coming from and when I exceed the speed limit. My cellular company knows if I'm texting while driving or making phone calls. It's a bit late to be worrying about privacy while driving.



Depending on how long you think it will be before self-driving cars are common, V2V technology can save lives in the meantime, or it is a completely useless technology that will be supplanted with self-driving technology very soon.

And again, the argument that if a system isn't perfect, doesn't protect pedestrians or motorcycles is ridiculous. If it can save lives, it's a plus. Pedestrians will continue to have to look both ways before crossing the road, but other lives will be saved.

Privacy is still a choice. You choose to travel with trackers. I choose not to. But the law mandating trackers takes away that choice.

 

[BajaPaul]

"December 2016 for public feedback, and received over 460 comments. NHTSA is still reviewing and considering all comments submitted..."

That is the whole problem right there. It takes them 10 months and counting to review 460 comments to make a final decision on anything. Bureaucracy at its best.

 

[bradac56]

Well, looks like someone else, maybe California, will have to establish rational standards now.

lol, the words "rational" & "California" do not mix.

 

[jandrese]

My problem with using V2V for safety purposes is that it requires a trust relationship between total strangers who cannot be reliably verified/held accountable. How long would it take for someone to DoS a whole highway (and possibly getting people killed in the process) by hacking transmitters to send false data?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the proposed V2V systems here, but I thought it was something like "Car 200m ahead is hard braking, slow down and pay attention". People are acting like it's going to be some autonomous navigation system and start mowing down pedestrians who aren't wearing transponders, but that doesn't seem to be the intention as far as I can tell.

Malicious actors could probably set off the "impending trouble" alarm over and over again to annoy drivers, but other than that it doesn't seem like a major security concern.

 

[nononsense]

That's the new reality. Almost everyone has a cell phone and can be tracked while driving or anywhere else. My Waze tells me how fast I'm going whenever I use it and it knows where I'm going and where I'm coming from and when I exceed the speed limit. My cellular company knows if I'm texting while driving or making phone calls. It's a bit late to be worrying about privacy while driving.



Depending on how long you think it will be before self-driving cars are common, V2V technology can save lives in the meantime, or it is a completely useless technology that will be supplanted with self-driving technology very soon.

And again, the argument that if a system isn't perfect, doesn't protect pedestrians or motorcycles is ridiculous. If it can save lives, it's a plus. Pedestrians will continue to have to look both ways before crossing the road, but other lives will be saved.

Privacy is still a choice. You choose to travel with trackers. I choose not to. But the law mandating trackers takes away that choice.

And as I pointed out, when self-driving cars are the norm, you won't have a choice. Not many human drivers will be able to afford the insurance after risk assessments of human drivers vs AI drivers are available.

Even if you don't have a cell phone, you are being tracked with license plate readers and CCTV. You're not going to roll that back.

You can't stop this technology revolution by not carrying your phone with you when you drive. It's inevitable. The only thing to be determined is whether V2V saves lives. People were complaining about having to wear seat belts as an invasion of privacy and that argument didn't work then and it won't work now. When self-driving cars are the norm, you're going to lose every last vestige of privacy while driving anyway.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

"Hopes have long been pinned on V2V as a way to cut traffic fatalities, which have been on the rise the past two years. "

Traffic fatalities have been steadily rising ever since the introduction of texting on a smartphone which are now used by morons simultaneously while driving. THAT is one problem that really needs addressed ASAP.

We also had an economic recovery. People are driving more because they are working more and engaging in more leisure activities. More road miles means more accidents. Also, increase of congestion in commuter routes seems to have a more exponential effect on traffic accidents.

 

[Solomonoff's Secret]

And as I pointed out, when self-driving cars are the norm, you won't have a choice. Not many human drivers will be able to afford the insurance after risk assessments of human drivers vs AI drivers are available.

Even if you don't have a cell phone, you are being tracked with license plate readers and CCTV. You're not going to roll that back.

You can't stop this technology revolution by not carrying your phone with you when you drive. It's inevitable. The only thing to be determined is whether V2V saves lives. People were complaining about having to wear seat belts as an invasion of privacy and that argument didn't work then and it won't work now. When self-driving cars are the norm, you're going to lose every last vestige of privacy while driving anyway.

Will motorcycles be self-driving too? I don't think that would be practical. Will they be banned?

 

[Decadence]

Good?

Over regulation is bad, who would want a system that gives someone else control over your life?

Thought this guy was supposed to be some dictator

 

[Criscokkat]

V2V is one of those technologies that made perfect sense when they started developing it but makes less sense now.

It wasn't for automated driving, it was for warning cars around you of what you were doing. Slamming on your brakes, let others know. slowing down? Let others know. Detected potential stopped traffic on road ahead, let others know.

When CPU resources are limited, having a mandated language and defined parameters forced on everyone made sense. Not too many people thought that computers and sensing technology would be as advanced as it is now when they started developing this in the early 2000's.

It actually makes more sense these days to come up with an industry driven (not government driven) standard. The government just needs to continue reserving the bandwidth slice already reserved for this, and let the vehicles companies hash out a standard. Right now that standard doesn't make sense because the technology is evolving so fast. Once driverless technology is more mature they can start looking at making a choice as to what v2v protocols are best suited for a mostly driverless world so we can start re-optimizing intersections to account for them.

 

[Decadence]

And as I pointed out, when self-driving cars are the norm, you won't have a choice. Not many human drivers will be able to afford the insurance after risk assessments of human drivers vs AI drivers are available.

Even if you don't have a cell phone, you are being tracked with license plate readers and CCTV. You're not going to roll that back.

You can't stop this technology revolution by not carrying your phone with you when you drive. It's inevitable. The only thing to be determined is whether V2V saves lives. People were complaining about having to wear seat belts as an invasion of privacy and that argument didn't work then and it won't work now. When self-driving cars are the norm, you're going to lose every last vestige of privacy while driving anyway.

Will motorcycles be self-driving too? I don't think that would be practical. Will they be banned?

They'll be banned. It's the final frontier of freedom when it comes to motorized transportation. In a self driving world you don't get to choose your vehicle in a any meaningful way, there would be no point to a self driving motorcycle anyway.

 

[Decadence]

Driverless tech is extremely dangerous to the freedom of the people. You lose a lot when you've got a government controlled mass transport