Feds Unveil Rule Requiring Cars To 'Talk' To Each Other

>Citing an enormous potential to reduce crashes on U.S. roadways, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a proposed rule today that would advance the deployment of connected vehicle technologies throughout the U.S. light vehicle fleet. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would enable vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication technology on all new light-duty vehicles, enabling a multitude of new crash-avoidance applications that, once fully deployed, could prevent hundreds of thousands of crashes every year by helping vehicles “talk” to each other.

>“We are carrying the ball as far as we can to realize the potential of transportation technology to save lives,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “This long promised V2V rule is the next step in that progression. Once deployed, V2V will provide 360-degree situational awareness on the road and will help us enhance vehicle safety.”

Other urls found in this thread:

nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Press-Releases/nhtsa_v2v_proposed_rule_12132016
youtube.com/watch?v=PY_CmhnC4dA
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I won't comply.

>send false data
>cause car crash
seems like a good idea

This

Sorry, here's the sauce: nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Press-Releases/nhtsa_v2v_proposed_rule_12132016

...

PLEASE YES.
>send false info
>cars start crashing into each other
>they backtrack immediately
>millions of dollars wasted, lesson learned when it comes to sentient cars

>Ford gets in on this
>sends ping to nearest car
>does nothing else

Before you guys get all tinfoil hat batshit. This is a picture of robots designed to move products around a warehouse. The operate extremely quickly and efficiently. While there is a predetermined grid on the floor, the robots navigate around eachother merely by sending messages and deciding who will go first

great picture, this really clears things up

Really makes you think.

...

ffs forgot pic

post yfw V2V connection becomes as unreliable as PnP, Bluetooth and DHCP
post yfw the crashes increase

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with this if it weren't both completely pointless (when was the last time you saw someone driving a 2016/2017 car?) and completely dangerous (do you really think they'll stop at cars simply pinging each other?).

of course it'll probably pass, though.

I already knew I was keeping my fifteen-year-old Civic forever when they mandated that all new cars have backup cameras in them last year.

>whining about backup cameras
???

Also your Civic is trash, I bet it has an automatic.

>being too retarded to back a car in a straight line without a camera

You think that's the point of backup cameras?

Fuck, maybe self driving cars are a good idea...

It mandates that there be a screen in the car. So you can no longer buy a vehicle without some shitty "infotainment system" that wants to sync with your phone. The screen and computer has to be there, so now it'll be a standard feature, not something you can drop to save money and avoid botnettery.

idk about you but between three mirrors, a neck, and the ability to turn my body to the right to look over my shoulder, I don't need technological assistance to reverse.

I can read a map, too, instead of needing GPS to tell me where to go.

Unsafe dangerous drivers

Enjoy your new adjusted premiums


Making humans drive like robots will make roads safer

I self insure.

>It mandates that there be a screen in the car.
Do you complain that your car comes with mandated mirrors and ECS too ?

> I have no insurance

You are a criminal

Go away fed shill.

Have fun arguing that with your insurance agency/in court when you get inevitably sued.
You'd likely get fined heavily and also potentially charged with a felony.

Not wanting to use new technology != unsafe drivers

New Hampshire doesn't mandate auto insurance, IIRC.

Mirrors don't flash lights at me and try to distract me like screens do. They also don't keep records of where and how I drive. They don't break unless physically struck, and are easy to repair if that happens, unlike a computer system.

>I self insure.
Unless you're not in the states, hasn't that been illegal for decades?
Also
>anons on Sup Forums having hundreds of thousands sitting in a bank account
doubt.jpg

>getting sued for not using new technology
wtf has the world come to

Noncompliance implies that you don't have the mandated technology installed, which could lead to a suit.

Also that other dude advocated sending false data to induce a crash which would be a felony.

>be journalist
>get tracked to all your sources
>learn something about government you shouldn't
>"russian hackers" crash your car

youtube.com/watch?v=PY_CmhnC4dA

The government can not force me to install their shitty spyware.

This isn't surprising at all. This has come up in every conversation about fully automated vehicles ever.

Some idiot braking at the wrong time can cause a traffic jam, cars should stay in their driving safe space, the humans can steer the wheel.

>Cameras are shit, shit!
Okay buddy. Tell me about how you can see the cat that just wandered behind your car while you were tuning your analog radio.

>no screen
>save money
The screen in your vehicle is worth like $50 maximum. Probably less.

>purchase car
>spoof its GPS location
>"yeah there's a car driving down the wrong side of the freeway at 150mph we need all units available to converge pls"

kek

>implying they wouldn't remotely drive you car into a tree

by using my mirrors and neck? by paying attention to what I'm doing when I'm driving instead of watching twitter updates on my dashboard?

>implying you can read

>take a wrong turn
>car gets ransomware'd by Indians

You're a moron.
No it's not illegal in America to self insure.
>doubt.jpg
Doubt all you want.

>get sued and become a criminal because I drive an old car
Haha, they can try.

>implying the police would chase after the car instead of remotely disabling it.

>by using my mirrors and neck?
You can see an object in your blind spot? You can crane your neck so far that you can see a small animal directly behind your bumper and close to your vehicle? I seriously doubt that unless you're a giraffe that drives a convertible.

>while I'm driving
You weren't driving. Your were sitting in a stationary vehicle and something wandered behind you.

>Giving up liberty so you can save a small animal

shig

What's up with all these news threads?

if it's small enough that I can't see it while I'm turned around looking over my right shoulder, it's small enough to run over without damaging my car.

Source: I've killed squirrels that way

Fuck off. They're Sup Forums related for once.

It's not uploading your location and amount of contraband to a satellite, it's just making a fucking beeping sound when there's a car in your blind spot.

no shit. all it takes is for some loser company to make a shit implementation of this protocol and cause a 20 car pileup.

also to the people who want to "hack" their cars and send out false telemetry, i'm 107% certain everyone is going to implement some kind of secure boot or application signing to prevent this.

agreed, better than the daisuki~ threads and the like

because that never ever gets cracked or bypassed, right? And because nobody could possibly just hook up a radio to a computer and broadcast whatever the fuck they want.

but those are cute

What liberty do you give up by having a backup camera?

the liberty to remain ignorant of whats behind you

> >millions of dollars wasted, lesson learned when it comes to sentient cars
> lesson learned
When has this ever happened when it came to government?

>because that never ever gets cracked or bypassed, right?
Yeah, pretty much. When was the last time a major company had their signing keys cracked by random miscreants?

>>When has this ever happened when it came to government?
Government still hasn't learned that prohibition was a dumb idea.

>broadcast whatever the fuck they want
they will almost certainly employ some kind of mutual authentication scheme like TLS to prevent people from doing that. the problem is, how can you verify a car's identity? you'd almost need to issue a digital certificate to each car, and of course when that happens, you throw any semblance of privacy out the window since now you've got a unique identification tied to your car broadcasting at all times.

The liberty to not rely on a useless piece of shit that distorts your perception of distance, has more blind spots than looking over your shoulder, and shows you nothing but ice crystals in winter.

How do you do this?

>It's not uploading your location to a satellite

Did you even read op's post? It is not about blind spot detection.

>rely on
You don't rely on it, idiot. It's there to supplement the other tools you already have.

In what way does the backup camera prevent your neck from moving?
Have money in the bank.

>when was the last time you saw someone driving a 2016/2017 car
Literally everyday. A lot of idiots lease.

Plus if your car isn't compliant, they'll just raise your insurance prices.

NOPE

how long until this becomes standard?

Euro V doesnt even take self/semi driving cars into crash scores yet.

euro vi and vii will though

>TLS
Ooh boy. how much you wanna bet that whatever auto-company pajeet that implements that forgets to validate certificates? What stops me from taking the transmitter out of a junked car and feeding it phony data from a simulated engine? How would you handle revocation? What CAs will cars trust? If they're anything like browsers they'll trust a gorillion shady ones from all over the world.

It's a useless supplement. I had one in my car, I would look over my shoulder like normal, roads are clear, look into the backup monitor, and as I'm looking into it a car screams by. This happened so often that I altogether stopped using the camera. The amount of near accidents it caused was ridiculous. Fucking useless. I don't want useless features to be mandatory in any car I own.

oh yeah just like all those self driving cars plowing into each other and mowing down pedestrians

fuck out the way Luddites

Sounds like it's you who is fucking useless. Pay more attention to your surroundings, retard. You use the backup camera to check what is behind you in your blind spot before you move.

those are all excellent questions. i'm sure someone is going to be paid a lot of money to pretend to know the answers to those.

>What stops me from taking the transmitter out of a junked car and feeding it phony data from a simulated engine? How would you handle revocation?
if you're running the computer without an engine, then that would probably read as zero RPM or other weird shit to the computer. maybe that could be used to determine if transmit mode were available. but of course those signals can always be faked with some bitbanging from an rpi or something.

>not being a Luddite in 2016
I mean, what are you even moving towards? This?

>zero RPM is weird shit
You realize when you turn a car's ignition to ON the electronics are running and the engine is off and that's why you see a host of warning lights, right? That's basically a normal state. A running engine isn't a requirement for a moving car, either.

The backup camera has no peripheral vision. It sees what it sees and that's it. You see more stuff behind you by looking over your shoulder.

You wouldn't drive forwards looking at nothing but a tiny screen showing a moderate-wide-angle view of the road ahead, why would you back up that way?

I really hope commuting isn't your passion

>technology a bad because a kid's movie showed it being used badly in a made up future!
Please do just drop out of society

How could you so conveniently ignore how it's supposed to be used? Are you trying to be ignorant?

>why would you back up that way?
You're not supposed to. That's what we've been trying to tell you. You glance at the backup camera to make sure there's nothing right behind your vehicle that you can't easily see.

Being able to not have it in newly produced vehicles.

hey man, i'm just spitballing here. of course cars of the future might not even have RPMs to measure if electric cars catch on.

yeah great so who owns the warehouse that is the country of usa

I like driving, yes, but that's not the point. You'll eventually reach a point where humans aren't needed to do anything and then what will they do?
Technology isn't bad but people don't seem to have a fucking clue about what they're going to do with it that doesn't end up making life worse.

>2060
>Chinese botnet infects millions of cars
>Every car in a specific geographic location shut down or crashed

I do pay more attention to my surroundings-- WHEN I'M NOT LOOKING AT A REARVIEW CAMERA!

Welcome to the point I'm making.

Holy shit you are a retard.

So I'm looking behind me, over my shoulder, at where I'm going when I'm reversing. Now I'm supposed to look away, towards the dashboard where the backup camera screen is, so as to see it's view of what I was already looking at?

>Lose argument.
>Call opponent retarded.
I bet you're the kind of person who thinks they're one of the people who can text and drive at the same time really well.

You can text and drive at the same time, but that's not relevant here. You look at the backup camera BEFORE you start moving, retard. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that, you shouldn't be driving.

Then why doesn't the camera shut off when the vehicle moves?

Dashboards are smart enough to disable GPS interaction when moving so you don't crash, but won't turn off when you're not supposed to look at it?

Keep digging your grave with more shitty arguments.

simpler solution: Don't start moving until your head is pointed over your shoulder. That's easy to do, you know. You don't start going forwards if you're not looking through the windshield after all.

backup cameras are solving a nonexistent problem. They're gadgetry for the sake of having gadgetry.

>Then why doesn't the camera shut off when the vehicle moves?
Because it can be used while the car is moving, such as to check the distance between your car and another car when parallel parking. What's wrong with you, dude? How do you function?
>Don't start moving until your head is pointed over your shoulder
So you have X-ray vision, huh?

>Toyota can't even code an accelerator pedal
>Hey let's trust them to "talk" to our cars!

This will go well.

more like, if I see something behind me, or something that soon will be behind me, I don't take my foot off the brake. How is x-ray vision needed for this?

>Because it can be used when the car is moving
You just said not to look at it when the car is moving. Which I agree with because it's fucking dangerous and why I think it's useless.

So thank you for doubling back and agreeing with me, moron.

Do you drive a lifted truck by chance?

Are you brain damaged? How can you see what's already behind the car in your blind spot just by turning your head?
>You just said not to look at it when the car is moving.
Yes, don't look at the display like a moron when backing out into a street, fucktard.
>Do you drive a lifted truck by chance?
No, bitch boy.

>America
>free
>democracy
>the majority is ALWAYS right!
this is why we need voluntaryism, god this is depressing.

>You need to have backup cameras! They're so important!
>don't look at them when you back up btw, that's just stupid

>2019
>The Department of Justice and Department of Transportation have jointly drafted a bill requiring all motor vehicles to have a remote kill switch, which would have cars automatically pull to the shoulder, come to a halt, and lock the doors

it's a slippery slope

You're just retarded, it's terminal. I'm sorry for you family.

America is not a democracy.