5 ms·

"What about the safety benefits of proposed technology?" Yes, what about the safety benefits of proposed technology? As in, what are they? Until that paragraph

by mnm1 9y ago

"What about the safety benefits of proposed technology?" Yes, what about the safety benefits of proposed technology? As in, what are they? Until that paragraph I didn't even know this was supposed to be a safety system, just a surveillance system. How is this supposed to increase safety? Also, who is going to pay for these boxes and what will be the penalty for not installing one? This makes spying by Google and FB look mild by comparison.

zeta0134 9y ago
It's my understanding that these broadcasts are supposed to aid other vehicles with their predictions in self-driving scenarios. I'm not necessarily against some sort of protocol for self driving cars to communicate with one another for this purpose, but the proposed solution seems to be severely lacking in basic security.
- hoosieree 9y ago
  Car1: "my previous coordinates were xyz..." Car2: "hey I'm a botnet" Car3: "hey I'm a botnet" Car4: "hey I'm a botnet" ... Car9998: "hey I'm a botnet" Car9999: "did you say xyz? check out these hot singles near xyz"
ScottBurson 9y ago
> How is this supposed to increase safety? I guess the idea is to make it easier to build fully autonomous vehicles. I think it's pointless, though. It will take decades to equip the entire US auto fleet with these transmitters, and by that point, the vision and scene analysis problems that currently give autonomous vehicles trouble will have long since been solved anyway. ETA: the PDF linked from the article [0] supplies a rationale. But it also says that under the proposal, only new light vehicles would be required to have the transmitter. I think my argument stands: by the time even 50% of the cars have this, autonomous driving will be a solved problem. [0] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.p...
- tehlike 9y ago
  This reminds me of steve jobs - he drove his car without license plate :)
  - kylec 9y ago
    There are many cars in California that are driving around without license plates, some legally, and others through the lack of enforcement.
- ambulancechaser 9y ago
  I think you've got your causation backwards; this is what will allow for widespread autonomous adoption. This proposal is making sure that all cars are speaking the same language and are talking to each other. I look at this as the Federal Government standardizing the width of rail roads so that we could get on with our business. But autonomous cars without intra-car communication seems hampered. As to the vision and scene analysis, the proposal specifically mentions that vision is limited by line of sight. This allows for cars to communicate around corners and through other cars. This seems like a net boon for all drivers that won't be rendered moot by a few cameras on cars.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    The median age of cars and light trucks in the US is around 9 years. That means it will take 9 years for this system to reach 50% penetration, once it becomes available at all, which is probably 3 years away at least. At the rate things are progressing, do you really think autonomy won't be a solved problem, or nearly so, in a dozen years? I can see the attraction of this system from a strictly engineering point of view -- it would be nice not to be limited by line of sight. But how many collisions between vehicles have you ever heard of where the drivers literally couldn't see each other until too late? I think these are pretty rare. Seems like occlusion is more of a problem when pedestrians or cyclists are involved, as they sometimes pop out unwisely from behind parked vehicles; but they're not going to be wearing transmitters. Also, radar provides some ability to see occluded vehicles; transmitters are not even the only solution to that problem. So, given the threat to privacy this system would represent, I don't see that the benefits approach the costs.
ambulancechaser 9y ago
You seem surprised, but this is an indicator that you're not reading a good article. They are covering something and don't even accurately describe the proposal by NHTSA. But thankfully they link to the proposal itself. So here's the summary: > This document proposes to establish a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), No. 150, to mandate vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications for new light vehicles and to standardize the message and format of V2V transmissions. This will create an information environment in which vehicle and device manufacturers can create and implement applications to improve safety, mobility, and the environment. Without a mandate to require and standardize V2V communications, the agency believes that manufacturers will not be able to move forward in an efficient way and that a critical mass of equipped vehicles would take many years to develop, if ever. Implementation of the new standard will enable vehicle manufacturers to develop safety applications that employ V2V communications as an input, two of which are estimated to prevent hundreds of thousands of crashes and prevent over one thousand fatalities annually. As to your questions, > what about the safety benefits of [the] proposed technology? ... How's this supposed to increase safety? From the executive summary, the benefit of this is that it provides more information without requiring line of sight to other vehicles. It can "see" through cars allowing it to perceive dangerous situations around corners and behind other cars. It provides more information like breaking force and path prediction so that more corrective action can be taken. If vehicles are updating each other with steering inputs and break inputs along with path prediction its hard to not envision how this could increase safety. A car can react to emergency breaking far far faster than a human can. From the linked proposal, there's a whole section VII Estimated costs and Benefits. Section D there is Estimated Benefits with subsections 1. Assumptions and Overview 2. Injury and Property Damage Benefits 3. Monetized Benefits 4. Non-Quantified Benefits. From the monitized annual benefits section, > Table VII–38 provides the undiscounted annual fatal equivalents, monetized benefits, and property damage and congestion savings of the proposed rule from the year 2021 to 2060. As shown, by Year 5 the proposed rule is estimated to save 129 to 169 fatal equivalents totaling approximately $1.3 to $1.6 billion annually. Approximately 12 percent of the monetized savings, $176 to $237 million, are from the estimated reduction of property damage and congestion. By the year 2060, with V2V fully deployed, the proposed rule is estimated to save approximately 5,631 to 7,613 fatal equivalents annually. Finally, the total associated monetized annual savings would range from $54.7 to $73.9 billion. Of these savings, $7.7 to $10.6 billion is estimated to be property damage and congestion savings. > Also, who is going to pay for these boxes Section VII (Estimated Costs and Benefits) B (Quantified Costs) 1. (Component Costs) has your answers! Physical hardware is estimated to add $245.79 for one radio and $347.18 for two radios with an estimated $17.80 installation fee. The added weight is expected to add $0.19 - $6.97 in fuel costs per year. Summarizing "The cost per new vehicle would range from $135 to $301...". As to the who, presumably the consumer. > What is the penalty for not installing one? From Section I (Executive Summary) the wording is that "to require all new light vehicles to be capable of Vehicle-to-Vehicle ("V2V") communications, such that they will send and receive Basic Safety Messages to and from other vehicles. This seems to be a regulation aimed at manufacturers, and non-compliance would probably come from marking the fleet of manufactured cars as not road legal.
BurningFrog 9y ago
The most basic safety feature is that cars can tell each other when they're braking, so your car can start braking the same millisecond, not when you happen no notice things.
- CyberDildonics 9y ago
  Maybe the car should emit some sort of electro magnetic radiation signal that can be detected with a sensor. It could be emitted when breaking. It could even be part of the visible spectrum so we could see it as light. Some sort of breaking light or maybe just break light. Too bad no one thought of this earlier.
  - Neliquat 9y ago
    But then we would have to color code it, and have backup emitters to avoid false positives. About 2 or 3 would be enough.
- jancsika 9y ago
  Are any of the TCP congestion control algorithms dependent on a router's TCP receiving messages that are trusted by the router to be originating from upstream routers based on an authentication scheme that the router manufacturers trust to deliver anti-DDOS safety features?
  - mixmastamyk 9y ago
    Much more likely to be UDP.
    - jancsika 9y ago
      Would you say that such a UDP-based scheme is safer than TCP?
      - mixmastamyk 9y ago
        It's designed for such applications where timely delivery is more important than its confirmation and old data is useless. Safer? In the timeliness sense yes, in the delivery of important info yes, in the reliability of each packet no.

by mnm1 9y ago

zeta0134 9y ago

It's my understanding that these broadcasts are supposed to aid other vehicles with their predictions in self-driving scenarios. I'm not necessarily against some sort of protocol for self driving cars to communicate with one another for this purpose, but the proposed solution seems to be severely lacking in basic security.

hoosieree 9y ago
Car1: "my previous coordinates were xyz..." Car2: "hey I'm a botnet" Car3: "hey I'm a botnet" Car4: "hey I'm a botnet" ... Car9998: "hey I'm a botnet" Car9999: "did you say xyz? check out these hot singles near xyz"

ScottBurson 9y ago

> How is this supposed to increase safety? I guess the idea is to make it easier to build fully autonomous vehicles. I think it's pointless, though. It will take decades to equip the entire US auto fleet with these transmitters, and by that point, the vision and scene analysis problems that currently give autonomous vehicles trouble will have long since been solved anyway. ETA: the PDF linked from the article [0] supplies a rationale. But it also says that under the proposal, only new light vehicles would be required to have the transmitter. I think my argument stands: by the time even 50% of the cars have this, autonomous driving will be a solved problem. [0] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.p...

tehlike 9y ago
This reminds me of steve jobs - he drove his car without license plate :)
- kylec 9y ago
  There are many cars in California that are driving around without license plates, some legally, and others through the lack of enforcement.
ambulancechaser 9y ago
I think you've got your causation backwards; this is what will allow for widespread autonomous adoption. This proposal is making sure that all cars are speaking the same language and are talking to each other. I look at this as the Federal Government standardizing the width of rail roads so that we could get on with our business. But autonomous cars without intra-car communication seems hampered. As to the vision and scene analysis, the proposal specifically mentions that vision is limited by line of sight. This allows for cars to communicate around corners and through other cars. This seems like a net boon for all drivers that won't be rendered moot by a few cameras on cars.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  The median age of cars and light trucks in the US is around 9 years. That means it will take 9 years for this system to reach 50% penetration, once it becomes available at all, which is probably 3 years away at least. At the rate things are progressing, do you really think autonomy won't be a solved problem, or nearly so, in a dozen years? I can see the attraction of this system from a strictly engineering point of view -- it would be nice not to be limited by line of sight. But how many collisions between vehicles have you ever heard of where the drivers literally couldn't see each other until too late? I think these are pretty rare. Seems like occlusion is more of a problem when pedestrians or cyclists are involved, as they sometimes pop out unwisely from behind parked vehicles; but they're not going to be wearing transmitters. Also, radar provides some ability to see occluded vehicles; transmitters are not even the only solution to that problem. So, given the threat to privacy this system would represent, I don't see that the benefits approach the costs.

ambulancechaser 9y ago

You seem surprised, but this is an indicator that you're not reading a good article. They are covering something and don't even accurately describe the proposal by NHTSA. But thankfully they link to the proposal itself. So here's the summary: > This document proposes to establish a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), No. 150, to mandate vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications for new light vehicles and to standardize the message and format of V2V transmissions. This will create an information environment in which vehicle and device manufacturers can create and implement applications to improve safety, mobility, and the environment. Without a mandate to require and standardize V2V communications, the agency believes that manufacturers will not be able to move forward in an efficient way and that a critical mass of equipped vehicles would take many years to develop, if ever. Implementation of the new standard will enable vehicle manufacturers to develop safety applications that employ V2V communications as an input, two of which are estimated to prevent hundreds of thousands of crashes and prevent over one thousand fatalities annually. As to your questions, > what about the safety benefits of [the] proposed technology? ... How's this supposed to increase safety? From the executive summary, the benefit of this is that it provides more information without requiring line of sight to other vehicles. It can "see" through cars allowing it to perceive dangerous situations around corners and behind other cars. It provides more information like breaking force and path prediction so that more corrective action can be taken. If vehicles are updating each other with steering inputs and break inputs along with path prediction its hard to not envision how this could increase safety. A car can react to emergency breaking far far faster than a human can. From the linked proposal, there's a whole section VII Estimated costs and Benefits. Section D there is Estimated Benefits with subsections 1. Assumptions and Overview 2. Injury and Property Damage Benefits 3. Monetized Benefits 4. Non-Quantified Benefits. From the monitized annual benefits section, > Table VII–38 provides the undiscounted annual fatal equivalents, monetized benefits, and property damage and congestion savings of the proposed rule from the year 2021 to 2060. As shown, by Year 5 the proposed rule is estimated to save 129 to 169 fatal equivalents totaling approximately $1.3 to $1.6 billion annually. Approximately 12 percent of the monetized savings, $176 to $237 million, are from the estimated reduction of property damage and congestion. By the year 2060, with V2V fully deployed, the proposed rule is estimated to save approximately 5,631 to 7,613 fatal equivalents annually. Finally, the total associated monetized annual savings would range from $54.7 to $73.9 billion. Of these savings, $7.7 to $10.6 billion is estimated to be property damage and congestion savings. > Also, who is going to pay for these boxes Section VII (Estimated Costs and Benefits) B (Quantified Costs) 1. (Component Costs) has your answers! Physical hardware is estimated to add $245.79 for one radio and $347.18 for two radios with an estimated $17.80 installation fee. The added weight is expected to add $0.19 - $6.97 in fuel costs per year. Summarizing "The cost per new vehicle would range from $135 to $301...". As to the who, presumably the consumer. > What is the penalty for not installing one? From Section I (Executive Summary) the wording is that "to require all new light vehicles to be capable of Vehicle-to-Vehicle ("V2V") communications, such that they will send and receive Basic Safety Messages to and from other vehicles. This seems to be a regulation aimed at manufacturers, and non-compliance would probably come from marking the fleet of manufactured cars as not road legal.

BurningFrog 9y ago

The most basic safety feature is that cars can tell each other when they're braking, so your car can start braking the same millisecond, not when you happen no notice things.

CyberDildonics 9y ago
Maybe the car should emit some sort of electro magnetic radiation signal that can be detected with a sensor. It could be emitted when breaking. It could even be part of the visible spectrum so we could see it as light. Some sort of breaking light or maybe just break light. Too bad no one thought of this earlier.
- Neliquat 9y ago
  But then we would have to color code it, and have backup emitters to avoid false positives. About 2 or 3 would be enough.
jancsika 9y ago
Are any of the TCP congestion control algorithms dependent on a router's TCP receiving messages that are trusted by the router to be originating from upstream routers based on an authentication scheme that the router manufacturers trust to deliver anti-DDOS safety features?
- mixmastamyk 9y ago
  Much more likely to be UDP.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    Would you say that such a UDP-based scheme is safer than TCP?
    - mixmastamyk 9y ago
      It's designed for such applications where timely delivery is more important than its confirmation and old data is useless. Safer? In the timeliness sense yes, in the delivery of important info yes, in the reliability of each packet no.