This is a fascinating topic. I’m very curious to see how it evolves. I’m trying to think about how V2V systems could improve traffic without introducing a huge

This is a fascinating topic. I’m very curious to see how it evolves. I’m trying to think about how V2V systems could improve traffic without introducing a huge element of risk. As I think about drivers, they make “offensive” and “defensive” moves all the time. An example of an offensive move is to pull into an intersection to cross through it. An example of a defensive move is to stop or slow your car when you see the path in front of you is obstructed. Humans convey their offensive intentions in cars all the time, to help others execute defensive responses. When changing lanes, we can use our signal. When two cars arrive at an intersection with a stop sign at the same time, one car might slowly nudge their car forward (offensively), indicating to the other car to wait (defensively). Perhaps cars will broadcast “offensive” information to allow other cars to respond “defensively” to improve traffic, but the lack of these offensive messages (or even in the event of an incorrect or rogue messages), safety is not compromised (although traffic efficiency would be diminished). For example, if cars were traveling near to each other in adjacent lanes and car A communicated its intention to merge into the lane occupied by car B, car B could (defensively) make a small change in speed or change lanes to make room to accommodate car A’s (offensive) attempt to change lanes. In the event that car A broadcasts an “offensive” message incorrectly (or fraudulently), the defensive response of car B does not jeopardize safety (although the rogue message would reduce overall traffic efficiency). If car A does not broadcast the offensive “lane change” message at all, car B should be designed to prevent collision (if necessary, applying the brakes sharply, or executing a quick maneuver to prevent collision). Traffic efficiency would be reduced, but hopefully safety would not.