Smart Highways, Smarter Cars

My only concern is, how long before an 'ecu' gets hacked into and some control taken out of the drivers hands?

As with anything of value, it must be protected, and backups are always required for safety.

My opinion is that insurance companies and others have been actively inhibiting technologies that can solve problems in this area, for decades. Technologies that could guide cars on tracks have been around 20 years or more... Just think... Instrument Landing Systems for aircraft was developed in WWII... (see "Glidepath" by Arthur C. Clarke) allowing aircraft to land in the fog.

Chris

Why would insurance companies try to inhibit this technology? If there are less accidents their cost of operation goes down.

Insurance companies play the risk game, and profit from it. If risk is removed from the system, they won't make money. Additionally, the police won't be able to collect as much money either. There will be less justification for a larger traffic monitoring police budget. Just my 2 cents worth.

Chris

Chris,

What you are saying makes sense!

David

Well... yes and no.

Saying insurance companies play the "risk game" and removing risk will make them lose money is kind of simplistic. Insurance companies charge a premium based on the risk you have for being in a damaging event. If your risk goes down they will have to charge you a smaller premium (or face being beaten out by another insurance company), but their cost of operation goes down also. They have to go to court to settle disputes and pay for repairs; those aren't cheap.

If there IS in fact zero or insanely close to zero risk (like the risk of being hit by lightning), which I don't think a collision detection system would confer, then you are right; insurance companies would not make money. However, a car company that came out with such a system could stand to make boatloads of money, and believe me car companies have the money to develop things like this if they are possible (I wouldn't be surprised if several are doing so now). In other words, I don't believe your evil insurance company conspiracy theory.

You might be right about the police though. If there is one thing public institutions are good at it's getting overfunded based on little to no rational reason.

CAS (Collision Avoidance Systems) is an interest of mine, and has been since I took an electronics course back in the 80's. I don't think there is any proof I can offer of the insurance industries backroom policies, but the Fact that we still operate with pretty much ZERO CAS speaks for itself that whatever agencies that may have put some effort in place, simply has not. That fact is a white elephant in the room that nobody really speaks about, but many people are aware of. Why are we at such a primitive level when it comes to this?

On a parallel, the information superhighway was not under the control of governments and control groups, but under the domain of highly motivated technology companies. In a matter of a decade, the technology has blossomed to pretty much a SciFi level.

Why haven't these kinds of companies seen the light in terms of electronics, and software, and simply gone out and created even the simplest CAS technologies? because they MUST be inhibited by something. (Car companies especially) I am just guessing, but governments and insurance companies and police OWN the road... don' they? Change that and I bet you would have CAS in very short order. its just kind of obvious, not really a conspiracy... IMHO. I mean do the people really enjoy dying, or is there simply no other choices being presented. Does anyone every remember a car company saying "Hey, if you guys want that, just say so, and we'll get busy making it happen" No! Cars are engineered to fit the insurance and police model of transportation. Arguing with this would be like arguing that there is no engineered life expectancy of vehicles.

:)

chris

speed limiters are fitted to most new cars and have been for some years, unforunatly most are set at from anything from 180 to 240 kph. reducing the limter to just above the legal limit would have a large impact on the road deaths and injurys. I worked at a towing firm for some years and the two biggest killers are, speed and stupidy. Government will not suport speed limters, as it may cost votes, and of course they make millions in speeded fines. collision avoidance systems are a great idea but will the car makers fit them to vechiles without legstation?

A 747 jet aircraft can run on autopilot, and even land itself in the dark and fog. Toll roads use vehicle mounted transponders, like hwy 407 in Toronto, and there may be 10,000 vehicles on that road during rush hour. Robots can be programmed to run 'roadway' courses like rabbits, with an embedded wire in the road. GPS systems can track objects as close as 1meter.

I say, the technology and supporting infrastructure exists to permit the creation of a significant CAS, eliminating 95% of accidents within a decade. I have no hesitation or doubt in stating this. Clearly there is no technological limitations, only political.

One idea I really like is the idea of an interdiction zone around schools, (like starwars 'Interdictor' class ships, pulling all ships out of hyperspace). It would be simply a transponder on the vehicle, and a local transmitter in the zone, and all vehicles would be limited to that specified maximum speed. period. Goverment already spends extra dollars hiring police to ensure compliance... Anyone who argues against it is basically arguing against running down children.

chris

I worked at a towing firm for some years and the two biggest killers are, speed and stupidy.

-----

I am a retired over-the-road truckdriver/trainer, and the two biggest killers are following distance and stupidity. With the right following distance speed takes care of itself. We have the technology off the shelf right now that will eliminate crashes. The American driver is not ready to give up individual control of his vehicle and let the central hub control speed and following distance. george oerther oertg@aol.com

Has anyone seen the man Clarkson (Top Gear) test driving the new Merc with an avoidance system fitted? As the car in front slowed, the Merc slowed, as it speeded up, it speeded up. When it came to a halt at a junction, the Merc stopped. Sounds good?

Well, it looked good too! The only downside was the trust factor; Clarkson had to make a great deal of effort not to touch the controls himself.

Personally speaking, as a complete petrol head, I would welcome this for motorway driving, just as the old cruise control let you take your foot off. Away from that type of road, give me an off switch!