 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2008Vehicle Safety Communications
Imagine if cars could talk to each other and avoid smashing into each other... http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-12/060419-0843/PDFTOC.htm Main Report Executive Summary The Vehicle Safety Communications (VSC) project was established to evaluate vehicle safety applications enabled or enhanced by communications. This project determined initial communication requirements for each application, performed some Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) vehicle testing, and helped to develop the DSRC standards so that the requirements of the safety applications were considered. In 2002, seven automotive manufacturersBMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Nissan, Toyota, and VWformed the VSC Consortium (VSCC) to participate in this project with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). The goals of the VSC project were to: evaluate the potential safety benefits of communication-based vehicle safety applications in terms of reductions in vehicle crashes and functional productive years saved; define and evaluate the communications requirements of selected vehicle safety applications; work with standards development organizations to ensure that proposed DSRC communications protocols meet the needs of vehicle safety applications; and investigate specific technical issues that may affect the ability of DSRC to support deployment of vehicle safety applications, estimate the deployment feasibility of communications-based vehicle safety applications, and assess the ability of proposed DSRC communications protocols to meet the needs of safety applications. [...]  SignatureProud to be a wreckless driver. > Imagine if cars could talk to each other and avoid smashing into each > other... I could drive much faster and without worrying about Sloths. > http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-12/060419-0843/PDFTOC.htm > > The goals of the VSC project were to: > • evaluate the potential safety benefits of communication-based > vehicle safety applications in terms of reductions in vehicle crashes > and functional productive years saved; How about simply making the roadways automated? The problem with limited collision-avoidance programs is that they can only prevent two cars from crashing, but cannot evaluate what happens after the first collision has been avoided. This is related to the problem of a lack of lane discipline. It is assumed that if I move left and towards the inner portion of a roadway, the traffic on my left will be going faster. If somebody does something stupid, like merging onto the roadway at half my speed, I expect that I can accelerate and move left and that I only need to worry about faster traffic behind me. What sometimes happens is that the traffic is too fast and I can't move left. Adding a collision-avoidance program means that the program could decide that my car should move left without any acceleration. It avoids the merge-impaired collision, but kills me as I'm rammed by somebody going much faster in the passing lane. An automated roadway would force a merger to accelerate and not interfere with the traffic flow. All cars would travel at the same high speed in all lanes, and nothing would crash, until it does. > How about simply making the roadways automated? We will not get the 1960s roads of the future where vehicles hummed along at 100+mph. What we get is central control by the same idiots who bring us: 1) The 55mph NMSL. 2) Short yellow signals for red light camera profits. 3) Speed cameras 4) IIHS recommendations 5) wait 2 seconds after the car in front of you moves ( in some cases clears the intersection) on green before *starting* to move. 6) Slow drivers scattered across all lanes is safer. and a whole big long list of other IIHS and claybrookian idiotcy. If automated roads become a reality it will be the nannys and control freaks who will have power over it. Complete power to make your drive the way they've wanted to for decades but just couldn't have enough cops to force it and take quite that much money from you. The future automated roads will cost dearly in tolls and will be SLOW. Automated roads is the dream of control freaks. They will not arrive at the reasonable conclusion that traffic can flow at 150mph because the computers are able guide everything, they will use it to enforce what they see as their morally superior ideas on driving. >> How about simply making the roadways automated? > > We will not get the 1960s roads of the future where vehicles hummed > along at 100+mph. What we get is central control by the same idiots who > bring us: > 1) The 55mph NMSL. It's been shown that traffic quickly jams if the traffic is limited to the "drive 55" stupidity. You must decrease traffic density or increase traffic speeds. > 5) wait 2 seconds after the car in front of you moves ( in some > cases clears the intersection) on green before *starting* to move. I watched two drivers yesterday that accelerated through the intersection much slower than I did, and I was in the crosswalk. One of them left about 50 m of room before accelerating. > Automated roads is the dream of control freaks. They will not arrive at > the reasonable conclusion that traffic can flow at 150mph because the > computers are able guide everything, they will use it to enforce what > they see as their morally superior ideas on driving. It should be impossible to limit the speed without crashing the roadway program. Slow traffic, in anything except the right lane, and high traffic density is what causes braking waves. Road capacity is maximised when traffic is moving at the maximum speed in all lanes. >>> How about simply making the roadways automated? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the "drive 55" stupidity. You must decrease traffic density or increase > traffic speeds. But the claybrookian powers that be don't care about congestion we suffer in (they are the rulers) if they believe it will occur at all. They think 55mph didn't work because people didn't OBEY. That the reason 55mph speed limits cause congestion is that too many people drove faster. An automated road system would give them the power to make everyone obey their wishes. >> 5) wait 2 seconds after the car in front of you moves ( in some >> cases clears the intersection) on green before *starting* to move. > I watched two drivers yesterday that accelerated through the > intersection much slower than I did, and I was in the crosswalk. One of > them left about 50 m of room before accelerating. I see it practically every day, worse now with high gas prices, and I'm usually stuck behind them. There some lights where a brisk acceleration will allow one to make the green of a second... these tards drive these routes every day like I do but they don't even notice. They sloth along and then end up stopping at both lights... arg. it's better to just accelerate and make the green at the next light. At least at one combo I am just punching it up now and am able to pass if there are only one or two tards in front of me. >> Automated roads is the dream of control freaks. They will not arrive at >> the reasonable conclusion that traffic can flow at 150mph because the >> computers are able guide everything, they will use it to enforce what >> they see as their morally superior ideas on driving. > It should be impossible to limit the speed without crashing the roadway > program. Slow traffic, in anything except the right lane, and high > traffic density is what causes braking waves. Road capacity is > maximised when traffic is moving at the maximum speed in all lanes. Argue with a claybrookian for awhile. They remain unconvinced at the 'heat transfer' and 'fluid dynamics' models of traffice. They think that if they prevent 'fast drivers' from catching up to them there won't be congestion. That all they need is the power to enforce their speed limit. Automated roads will give them that power. > Argue with a claybrookian for awhile. > They think that > if they prevent 'fast drivers' from catching up to them there won't be > congestion. That all they need is the power to enforce their speed > limit. Automated roads will give them that power. The automated program should ignore the incorrect input, because moving the traffic too slowly means that all traffic is stopped. The program should automatically identify the problem and fix the traffic jam by increasing traffic speeds. Not accepting this fix means that the program could choose to cause all of the cars to crash into each other. At least somebody should notice that the expensive automated roadway doesn't work, and demand that it be fixed by increasing traffic speeds. >> Argue with a claybrookian for awhile. >> They think that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > should automatically identify the problem and fix the traffic jam by > increasing traffic speeds. You don't understand. The government doesn't operate sensibly. It will be programed so the speed-kills crowd can force everyone to drive slow. Slow is safe. It won't have the ability to make such adjustments to higher speeds beyond 55mph. It will be a fixed blockage, just like the claybrookians got codified into law in many states. > Not accepting this fix means that the program could choose to cause all > of the cars to crash into each other. At least somebody should notice > that the expensive automated roadway doesn't work, and demand that it be > fixed by increasing traffic speeds. As if the government recognizes it has made a mistake in taking power and attempting to manage society, the economy, and everything else it has no business touching and reverses it in a timely manner. It does not. Most of the big problems in the US have been big problems for 30 years or more. None have been solved and none show any sign of being solved any time soon. They are just kicked down the road. Getting the NMSL repealed was a huge exception and what we can consider the best case. Known: 1) 55mph NMSL started in ~1974. Repealed ~1995. 2) 55mph is failure and higher speeds are as safer or safer. 3) The NMSL is still law of the land in many states in 2008. I'm sure that after 20-30 years the government might start to look into the failure of the automated road system with a fixed speed limit programing at or near 55mph. After 25 years the government in this best case would then allow maybe 75mph speeds, but we won't get the 100+ mph travel speeds that automated roads promised ever. There is simply no reason for me to believe that government will behave sensibly this time given its track record. And this is just on speeds... with automated roads government will have so much more power over who can go where and when that it leaves a big list of possible abuses. Right now it can pull someone's DL, plates, etc but it really can't stop them from driving without huge levels of manpower for enforcement. With automated roads, the machines do the enforcement. > It won't have the ability to make such adjustments to > higher speeds beyond 55mph. It will be a fixed blockage, just like the > claybrookians got codified into law in many states. It should be hard to explain why a big expenditure isn't delivering the expected value, eliminating the traffic congestion. Of course, it could fail during evaluative testing and not be purchased. > 1) 55mph NMSL started in ~1974. Repealed ~1995. > 2) 55mph is failure and higher speeds are as safer or safer. > 3) The NMSL is still law of the land in many states in 2008. That sounds insane. I'll continue driving 100 mi/hr where reasonable and yielding to faster traffic when required. > And this is just on speeds... with automated roads government will have > so much more power over who can go where and when that it leaves a big > list of possible abuses. Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat? Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners! >> It won't have the ability to make such adjustments to >> higher speeds beyond 55mph. It will be a fixed blockage, just like the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > expected value, eliminating the traffic congestion. Of course, it could > fail during evaluative testing and not be purchased. Since when has a huge expense on a failed program caused the government to fix anything? Two words for you: IRAQ WAR. >> 1) 55mph NMSL started in ~1974. Repealed ~1995. >> 2) 55mph is failure and higher speeds are as safer or safer. >> 3) The NMSL is still law of the land in many states in 2008. > That sounds insane. I'll continue driving 100 mi/hr where reasonable > and yielding to faster traffic when required. It's the way things are. Giving the government command and control with automated roads won't make us freer, it won't make traffic better, it will just give government more power. The people who wield government power are the same idiots that gave us the NMSL. >> And this is just on speeds... with automated roads government will have >> so much more power over who can go where and when that it leaves a big >> list of possible abuses. > Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat? > Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners! Really? We've got a government right now that is investigating scanners that make Orwell's 'facecrime' a reality. It's been in the news a few times in the last few years. How about you demonstrate just once where the government got this sort of control right and didn't use the failure to expand their control and then fail again? I can't thing of a damn thing the government did to control something that didn't get done wrong or have significant unintended consquences. If you can even come up with one example it will be a huge exception to the rule. Too many people act like someone who has been repeatedly beaten and abused by a spouse when it comes to government... always thinking this time it will be different. It won't. The government is an abuser and it will continue to abuse the people until the people leave it. Automated roads won't turn the government's abuse of us off in the area of driving... it will just empower it further. > Since when has a huge expense on a failed program caused the government > to fix anything? Two words for you: IRAQ WAR. It's harder when the expenditure is regional. The automated roadway would probably fail during testing, if an inefficient speed were used, and there wouldn't be the additional expenditures for installation and the waste of removing it. >> Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat? >> Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners! > > Really? We've got a government right now that is investigating scanners > that make Orwell's 'facecrime' a reality. You should pull the tinfoil hat over your face, because there are face scanners being installed and tested. I assumed that the tinfoil would better-confuse the scanners. > How about you demonstrate just once where the government got this sort > of control right and didn't use the failure to expand their control and > then fail again? Searching database... please wait. >> Since when has a huge expense on a failed program caused the government >> to fix anything? Two words for you: IRAQ WAR. > It's harder when the expenditure is regional. The automated roadway > would probably fail during testing, if an inefficient speed were used, > and there wouldn't be the additional expenditures for installation and > the waste of removing it. Since when does a failure of a program's test mean it doesn't get rolled out? This is government we are talking about. It copies failed ideas frequently. I am watching government repeat the 1970s lately. >>> Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat? >>> Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners! >> Really? We've got a government right now that is investigating scanners >> that make Orwell's 'facecrime' a reality. > You should pull the tinfoil hat over your face, because there are face > scanners being installed and tested. I assumed that the tinfoil would > better-confuse the scanners. What is your problem? Why don't you just prove your case with a track record of our loving government getting things right instead of insulting me as 'paranoid' for simply projecting the past actions of government forward. You should be showing that my idea of its track record is wrong, but instead you use the 'tin foil hat' conspiracy/paranoid insult routine. That tells me you can't show a track record of government success. >> How about you demonstrate just once where the government got this sort >> of control right and didn't use the failure to expand their control and >> then fail again? > Searching database... please wait. Forever. Here's a few examples of how government works: FEMA screws up a response to Katrina = More power and bigger budget for FEMA Federal reserve blows a bubble around housing and it pops = proposing more power for the federal reserve to control (manipulate for the benefit of its owners) the economy. Government schools fail to educate kids in the basics = more money for government schools. government intervention in health care has caused dramatic price increases = proposed complete and total government control of health care. Now you want to solve the problems of government political interference on the roads with the underposted speed limits and other ills with automated road systems controlled by that same government. I have no faith that rewarding government failure with more power and more funding on the roads will have any different result than any other area. > Since when does a failure of a program's test mean it doesn't get rolled > out? I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it if it wasn't working as expected, unless the purpose is to cause gridlock. It's hard to use an automated roadway for tracking if the traffic is jammed. >>>> Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat? >>>> Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners! > You should be showing that my idea of its track > record is wrong, but instead you use the 'tin foil hat' > conspiracy/paranoid insult routine. The tinfoil should confuse the face scanners. What's wrong with trying to use tinfoil to hide from the scanners? >> Since when does a failure of a program's test mean it doesn't get rolled >> out? > > I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it if it wasn't working as > expected, unless the purpose is to cause gridlock. What companies are getting the contracts? Follow the money. Government does nonsense projects just so the connected can get the contracts. Plus some of those in office probably believe gridlock would reduce driving and be a good thing or something. > It's hard to use an > automated roadway for tracking if the traffic is jammed. Still know where people go and when. >> I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it if it wasn't working as >> expected, unless the purpose is to cause gridlock. > > What companies are getting the contracts? Follow the money. Government > does nonsense projects just so the connected can get the contracts. It's probably still too expensive to purchase if it isn't actually reducing congestion. People will need to buy new cars, and those cars will need computers installed too. Government isn't paying for all of that, and companies lose contracts if they're not meeting budget requirements. A way of passing the costs is like how the costs of "safety" features are passed back to the manufacturers, and drivers end up paying for it. I don't want 20 airbags, collision-warning systems with seat vibrators, or brakes that automatically jam if a stupid sensor detects an obstruction in front of the car, but the cost of such silly features seems to be part of the price tag on some cars. Roadway automation would probably be much more expensive. Will drivers be required to pay more money to buy compatible cars, and will the drivers of older cars be excluded from using the automated roadway? That's unlikely in the Americas, as they seem to have trouble requiring standard driver education. People don't want to pay more than the cost of a cereal box to get a driver's license, and they're probably not going to pay more money to be compatible with automated roadways that are only available in limited areas. >>> I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it if it wasn't working as >>> expected, unless the purpose is to cause gridlock. >> >> What companies are getting the contracts? Follow the money. Government >> does nonsense projects just so the connected can get the contracts. > It's probably still too expensive to purchase if it isn't actually > reducing congestion. People will need to buy new cars, and those cars > will need computers installed too. Government isn't paying for all of > that, and companies lose contracts if they're not meeting budget > requirements. Government mandates we have to pay for all sorts of crap on cars we don't need. Airbags, tire pressure sensors, and whole host of other nonsense. The people will buy the sales pitch well enough that the bill will pass with no threat to re-election as almost always does. > A way of passing the costs is like how the costs of "safety" features > are passed back to the manufacturers, and drivers end up paying for it. > I don't want 20 airbags, collision-warning systems with seat > vibrators, or brakes that automatically jam if a stupid sensor detects > an obstruction in front of the car, but the cost of such silly features > seems to be part of the price tag on some cars. You'll pay for the automated road system just you are forced to pay for that crap. > Roadway automation would probably be much more expensive. Will drivers > be required to pay more money to buy compatible cars, and will the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > going to pay more money to be compatible with automated roadways that > are only available in limited areas. Americans today are more like dumb domesticated animals. In another era they would have complained loudly and elected office holders would have feared it. Today, well, they'll just sell it as 'safety' and the people as a whole will just accept it. Sure, some like me will complain, but they just call people like me kooks, cranks, tin foil hat conspiracy theorists.... After all, it's wrong not to trust our loving government to watch over us and take care of us. > I can't thing of a damn thing the government did to > control something that didn't get done wrong or have significant > unintended consquences. If you can even come up with one example it will > be a huge exception to the rule. 1. Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways 2. Rural electrification. Still, your standard is unobtainable, and, as usual, your perspective is flawed due to the Nirvana fallacy you apply to so many things and/ or circumstances. ----- - gpsman > > Imagine if cars could talk to each other and avoid smashing into each > > other... > > I could drive much faster and without worrying about Sloths. Why would "sloths" cause you to worry?! > >http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-12/060419-0843/PDFTOC.htm > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How about simply making the roadways automated? You've obviously applied a lot of thought to this, but a description of the simplicity of that simply slipped your mind. > The problem with > limited collision-avoidance programs is that they can only prevent two > cars from crashing, but cannot evaluate what happens after the first > collision has been avoided. um hm... Could you be more specific; of which CA program are you thinking? > This is related to the problem of a lack of lane discipline. Uh huh. Do go on... > It is > assumed that if I move left and towards the inner portion of a roadway, > the traffic on my left will be going faster. OK... I'll assume that. > If somebody does something > stupid, like merging onto the roadway at half my speed, I expect that I > can accelerate and move left and that I only need to worry about faster > traffic behind me. What sometimes happens is that the traffic is too > fast and I can't move left. Rut roh... I guess you're out of options... > Adding a collision-avoidance program means that the program could decide > that my car should move left without any acceleration. Lol. It also seems to mean it could determine your car should reduce velocity... > It avoids the > merge-impaired collision, but kills me as I'm rammed by somebody going > much faster in the passing lane. It doesn't seem this might cause a reduction of the pool of potential Nobel winners. > An automated roadway would force a > merger to accelerate and not interfere with the traffic flow. Your imagined system seems retarded, why wouldn't it force the merger to a higher velocity before a conflict with traffic was imminent? > All cars > would travel at the same high speed in all lanes, and nothing would > crash, until it does. And this obvious limit hasn't suggested your system of automated roadways is... stupid? If the Nobel committee calls, I'm sure they'll leave a message. ----- - gpsman >> Imagine if cars could talk to each other and avoid smashing into each >> other... > >I could drive much faster and without worrying about Sloths. Imagine if your car could say to a Sloth's car "Keep right - you're about to be passed!" or "Speed the f.ck up, micro-passer!" SignatureProud to be a wreckless driver. >>> Imagine if cars could talk to each other and avoid smashing into each >>> other... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Imagine if your car could say to a Sloth's car "Keep right - you're > about to be passed!" or "Speed the f.ck up, micro-passer!" My guess is the programing would be to match speed with the slowest in the fleet. This would be the guiding regulation with the force of US federal government behind it. We all be sloths wether we want to or not. > Imagine if your car could say to a Sloth's car "Keep right - you're > about to be passed!" or "Speed the f.ck up, micro-passer!" Many cars already have this feature. It's the flash-to-pass signal. I got that last week by someone in a Cadillac. I was passing other cars when he pulled out behind me to pass and signalled that he wanted to go much faster. I floored the accelerator to get out of the way. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.