Vehicle Telemetry Recorders

[jtr1962]

As a member of a site devoted to reducing the carnage caused by motor vehicles, one thing which has come up repeatedly is why don't motor vehicles keep an ongoing record of vital telemetry data like speed, pedal/steering wheel positions, turn signal state, and so forth. With the size of today's solid state storage devices you can literally record these things once per second for the entire life of the vehicle. These data can then be used for many purposes. The driver can monitor his/her driving habits, perhaps with the goal of greater efficiency. If an incident occurs law enforcement can use the data to help determine fault. Certainly it's technically feasible. I'm frankly surprised such devices aren't required by law. Commercial vehicles have had such devices for decades. Remember there is no expectation of privacy on public roads. If you use a public road, whether in a motor vehicle, on a bike, or walking, everything you do is subject to public record. There is no constitutional "right" to privacy when using a public thoroughfare as some opponents of these devices have often suggested. If need be, you can even have the devices deactivate if GPS determines you're no longer on a public road. That to me seems a reasonable compromise between public and private concerns.

One recent incident occurred where such a data record might have been useful. However, there are undoubtedly many incidents nationally where such data could be invaluable to law enforcement. Remember also the data could exonerate someone who might at first glance appear guilty. I don't want drivers who did nothing wrong to be punished. I just want the guilty ones found out, preferably through totally impartial means like data recorders.

So why the resistance to this? And why can't the automakers voluntarily add these devices even if they're not legally required? I would think that would greatly help them in the public relations department. The first one which does so will undoubtedly receive lots of praise from pedestrian and cyclist advocacy groups.

For what it's worth such records are even feasible for bikes:



Don't see why it shouldn't be done for all vehicles.

 

[Stereodude]

You've heard of the 5th amendment right?

 

[jtr1962]

You've heard of the 5th amendment right?

I have but strictly speaking you're not incriminating yourself here unless you volunteer the information. This is more like the police are gathering forensic evidence (and would presumably need a court order to look at the "black box"). Remember the police already have lots of other tools to infer what a vehicle was doing. That even includes access to surveillance camera video. This is just another tool. My guess is it would probably be used just as much to exonerate innocent drivers as to convict guilty ones. I've already seen insurance companies unfairly assign some percentage of fault to drivers whose only fault was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A tool to get these drivers off the hook would certainly have been welcome.

Also worth noting is I'm 100% sure if the police looked at the data the only data they could use against you would be that related to the incident. They're not going to run the entire record and give you speeding tickets for stuff you did 10 years ago. That's an oft-used objection to these devices, but it's hard to see this happening.

I personally save all my GPS cycling records not just for training purposes, but in the event I might, say, hit a pedestrian. The records could prove I wasn't speeding or otherwise breaking the law.

 

[Stereodude]

I have but strictly speaking you're not incriminating yourself here unless you volunteer the information.

Like that's going to be an option. The cops will just plug into your car and download the box because you'll consent. And if you refuse to consent they'll bring in the ____ sniffing dog who sits on cue after getting the signal from the handler and then they'll have probable cause to search your car (and download the box).

Plus, you might not be guilty of whatever they think you did, but I'm sure the box will have ample evidence of other minor but traffic law violating wrongdoing like rolled stop signs, speeding, etc. So, they'll just nail you for something else. Traffic law enforcement is 99% about revenue and maybe, if we're being generous, 1% about safety.

1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a manual.

 

[jtr1962]

Traffic law enforcement is 99% about revenue and maybe, if we're being generous, 1% about safety.

No argument from me about that. I especially think highway speed enforcement is BS. In part because speed limits are almost always set way too low, and in part because the police might ignore speeders 95% of the time, then suddenly have a crackdown when they need to meet quotas. And then you also have the fact highways are the safest part of our road system by a long shot. If we want to do enforcement ostensibly for safety, maybe start on city streets first.

Overzealous police are another issue completely apart from any enforcement technology. It's a huge problem with the NYPD. I can ensure I'm not on their side. In fact: http://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/09/...s-to-sabotage-de-blasios-bike-infrastructure/

Note my comment:

This is why the NYPD as an institution needs to go. Fire all the present employees, disband the organization, publicly hang some of the leaders responsible. Then start a new department from scratch with the notice "former NYPD employees need not apply". Institute a residency requirement. Require most officers to patrol on foot or by bike. Get a commissioner who is answerable to City Hall instead of the reverse.The police do this because they think it's their city, we only live here. Newflash motherfuckers, I pay your salary. I'm entitled to a police department which treats all NYC citizens, including those who ride bikes, with a little respect. Get your pasty fat asses out of the bike lane now!

1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a manual.

Um, Patriot Act, asset forfeiture (often when no crime is proven), multiple police killings during routine traffic stops, etc. We're already living in 1984. I personally want more electronic data just as much to keep the police honest as to catch the guilty. Make no mistake, I'd be happier if vehicle black boxes helped a driver beat a BS ticket for rolling a stop sign than I might be if they caught a drunk driver speeding.

 

[sechs]

Don't Teslas do this?

I recall Elon Musk describing how a particular accident was driver error and not a problem with their autopilot system. They had info about the status of all of the car systems.

 

[Stereodude]

Most cars have some level of data recording tied to the airbag system that the vehicle manufacturer can access to defend the deployment of the airbags, but it's very very limited access.

 

[jtr1962]

Someone in the second link of my original post has some direct experience with automotive data recording systems. Here is what he wrote in italics:

I've read the datasheets and I have practical experience hacking these devices. Event data recorders in cars have exactly one record. The control module writes the record continuously. If the restraint system or in newer cars the stability control system thought the car might crash, the recorder latches in certain data from the moment prior. If the car actually crashes that data is permanently written, but if it doesn't the data is overwritten. It can be overwritten by the mere passage of time, by turning the car off and on a lot, or by actually crashing the car after the fact. EDRs do not keep a log of the fact that you drive like a jerk. The analogy with airplane data recorders is misleading.

Now, I'm an urban safety absolutist and I think all car telemetry should be beamed back in real-time to the authorities and automatically monitored and retained. But just because I wish for such telemetry doesn't mean it exists today.

So basically, as SD said they're currently pretty limited. My guess is the only reason they're there at all now is to protect the automaker from liability from people claiming airbags deployed incorrectly.

Don't really agree with this person about beaming the data back to authorities, either. It should only be looked at if a collision happens.

 

[snowhiker]

Like that's going to be an option. The cops will just plug into your car and download the box because you'll consent. And if you refuse to consent they'll bring in the ____ sniffing dog who sits on cue after getting the signal from the handler and then they'll have probable cause to search your car (and download the box).

Plus, you might not be guilty of whatever they think you did, but I'm sure the box will have ample evidence of other minor but traffic law violating wrongdoing like rolled stop signs, speeding, etc. So, they'll just nail you for something else. Traffic law enforcement is 99% about revenue and maybe, if we're being generous, 1% about safety.

1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a manual.

Ding, Ding, Ding. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. SD's replay is 100% word for word what I would have written.

Do not talk to police. Even if you are completely innocent. Do no talk to them. Ever.

 

[Handruin]

I would not want this data because of the misuse and control it gives to law enforcement. The data may be interesting for my own personal delight but it's not worth keeping because of the implications someone may conclude from it even if they claim they're qualified to analyze the data.

Take the example of the nurse in Utah who was arrested for trying to uphold the law and keep a the supposed officer of the law from illegally taking blood (human telemetry) from that person while they were unconscious and without consent. The same would happen with this data regardless if the law protects you or not. Cops will do whatever they want with minimal recourse and the burden and problem is now on the citizen to fight for their rights.

 

[Handruin]

Ding, Ding, Ding. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. SD's replay is 100% word for word what I would have written.

Do not talk to police. Even if you are completely innocent. Do no talk to them. Ever.

I've seen this video and couldn't agree more.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

Don't Teslas do this?

I recall Elon Musk describing how a particular accident was driver error and not a problem with their autopilot system. They had info about the status of all of the car systems.

Probably this one, clearly Darwin weeding out the stupid:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/20/technology/tesla-autopilot-fatal-crash-warnings/index.html

"Joshua Brown's Tesla warned him seven times to put his hands back on the wheel before he plowed into a truck.
A National Transportation Safety Board report on the deadly crash also found that Brown had his hands on the wheel of the Tesla (TSLA) Model S for 25 seconds out of 37 minutes that the car was on autopilot."

 

[DrunkenBastard]

I would not want this data because of the misuse and control it gives to law enforcement. The data may be interesting for my own personal delight but it's not worth keeping because of the implications someone may conclude from it even if they claim they're qualified to analyze the data.

Take the example of the nurse in Utah who was arrested for trying to uphold the law and keep a the supposed officer of the law from illegally taking blood (human telemetry) from that person while they were unconscious and without consent. The same would happen with this data regardless if the law protects you or not. Cops will do whatever they want with minimal recourse and the burden and problem is now on the citizen to fight for their rights.

So the interesting thing there is that the victim (a reserve cop who drives full time) was the only survivor after he was run into by a guy being chased by the state police, apparently outside of department chase protocols.

If they could have got some dirt on the reserve cop, could have muddied the waters regarding who was at fault. Hopefully the maggot that dragged her out to the car while she was screaming her innocence goes to jail for assault and false imprisonment along with the supervisor.

 

[Stereodude]

Ding, Ding, Ding. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. SD's replay is 100% word for word what I would have written.

Do not talk to police. Even if you are completely innocent. Do no talk to them. Ever.

Admittedly, I think I left out a few steps. Getting arrested, having them impound your car, and then jamming you up with some bogus charge based on the positive from the ____ sniffing dog. And of course, you getting to spend $$$$ on a lawyer trying to clear your name.

 

[Stereodude]

"Joshua Brown's Tesla warned him seven times to put his hands back on the wheel before he plowed into a truck.
A National Transportation Safety Board report on the deadly crash also found that Brown had his hands on the wheel of the Tesla (TSLA) Model S for 25 seconds out of 37 minutes that the car was on autopilot."

What percentage of the time do you think the pilot's hands are on the stick when a passenger jet is on autopilot?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the driver wasn't at fault. What I'm saying is that Tesla shouldn't be allowed to call the feature autopilot because the name portrays a level of functionality that the car doesn't have.

 

[LunarMist]

Just horrible. It makes me miss my old Mopar. No computer spying on you. I think the rental cars spy as well.

 

[sechs]

What percentage of the time do you think the pilot's hands are on the stick when a passenger jet is on autopilot?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the driver wasn't at fault. What I'm saying is that Tesla shouldn't be allowed to call the feature autopilot because the name portrays a level of functionality that the car doesn't have.

Keeping in mind that there's little chance of people immediately dying if the plane's autopilot disengages and nobody does anything.

In a car, one can immediately hit somebody and/or crash. There's not enough time to react.

 

[Stereodude]

Keeping in mind that there's little chance of people immediately dying if the plane's autopilot disengages and nobody does anything.

In a car, one can immediately hit somebody and/or crash. There's not enough time to react.

I'm well aware of that. Still it's less capable than the autopilot system on modern planes (which can follow waypoints and the like). And, as you point out things go wrong much faster in a car because they operate in a much more confined space. Hence my belief that the name is misleading.

 

[sechs]

I'm well aware of that. Still it's less capable than the autopilot system on modern planes (which can follow waypoints and the like). And, as you point out things go wrong much faster in a car because they operate in a much more confined space. Hence my belief that the name is misleading.

Basically, you're saying that it's not becoming the name because it can't fly a plane.

It does the exact same function, just in a car. But cars aren't planes.

 

[timwhit]

Airplane pilots also don't watch movies while the plane is in autopilot.

 

[Stereodude]

Basically, you're saying that it's not becoming the name because it can't fly a plane.

It does the exact same function, just in a car. But cars aren't planes.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Stop being so intentionally obtuse. Tesla's "Autopilot" is not capable of fully autonomous operation, which the name implies.

Airplane pilots also don't watch movies while the plane is in autopilot.

How do you know that? Do you think pilots are there actively engaged paying attention ready to grab the stick and controls with a seconds notice?

 

[jtr1962]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Stop being so intentionally obtuse. Tesla's "Autopilot" is not capable of fully autonomous operation, which the name implies.

While on the subject of autonomous vehicles (which the Tesla isn't), one thing being discussed which frankly frightens me is the idea of having the driver "monitor" the system and take control if needed. Horrible idea. For starters, humans are awful at monitoring tasks in case they have to manually take control. Most likely the driver will either be distracted or asleep at the moment they might need to take charge. Second, putting aside the issues of Tesla's autopilot feature, once autonomous systems are mature it's hard to think of a situation where a human will make a better decision than a machine. Remember the autonomous system can be continually updated based on the experience of all the systems out there. So the bottom line is once these systems are fully mature, we should move rapidly towards removing the option to manually drive on public roads. It's worthwhile pointing out Tesla's system only failed because a human-driven vehicle did an unpredictable thing which an autonomous vehicle never would have done. If all vehicles are autonomous, then the system is very predictable.

How do you know that? Do you think pilots are there actively engaged paying attention ready to grab the stick and controls with a seconds notice?

Actually, they're not ready to grab the stick at a moment's notice. As I said, humans are really bad monitoring automated systems. That's why autopilots have alarms to tell the pilots when they might need to take control. Even then, there is a delay of a few seconds before they do. This is acceptable in an airplane. It would be disastrous on the road.

 

[Stereodude]

Actually, they're not ready to grab the stick at a moment's notice. As I said, humans are really bad monitoring automated systems. That's why autopilots have alarms to tell the pilots when they might need to take control. Even then, there is a delay of a few seconds before they do. This is acceptable in an airplane. It would be disastrous on the road.

AFAIK, the pilots do other things. Like read books & magazines, talk, do paperwork, etc. I'm not sure if they've got an tablet in their lap and are watching movies, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[jtr1962]

AFAIK, the pilots do other things. Like read books & magazines, talk, do paperwork, etc. I'm not sure if they've got an tablet in their lap and are watching movies, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I've heard they even sleep on longer flights. They'll have either the pilot or copilot monitoring the in-flight systems while the other one sleeps. My understanding is autopilots help reduce pilot fatigue by letting them avoid doing monotonous tasks like keeping the plane at a given heading, speed, and altitude. This might free them to do something else, like perhaps plot the optimal course based on weather and wind conditions.

 

[Stereodude]

I've heard they even sleep on longer flights. They'll have either the pilot or copilot monitoring the in-flight systems while the other one sleeps.

The whole crew including the pilots sleep on the long international flights. They're not sleeping in the cockpit (or aren't supposed to). There are sleeping quarters for the crew on the larger jets. There is enough crew to account for this and they take turns sleeping vs. working. Depending on the length of the flight there may be 3 or 4 pilots instead of the 2 used on the short flights.

An article with some pictures of the crew only areas on different planes: http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/10/inside-look-crew-rest-areas-different-airliners/

 

[jtr1962]

Looks cozy, actually.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

AFAIK, the pilots do other things. Like read books & magazines, talk, do paperwork, etc. I'm not sure if they've got an tablet in their lap and are watching movies, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Pretty sure at least one pilot is paying reasonable attention to what the plane is doing in time and space at all times. The "autopilot" in a Tesla is doing far more than a planes autopilot. In both cases the operator needs to be in a position where he can take back control in a rapid fashion, either because of failure in the autopilot system itself or because something is occurring which is beyond the capabiliies of the autopilot systems.

Now are there pilots that rely too much on autopilot and not enough on their own brains. Certainly, however some of that can be corporate pressure to perform to exacting requirements:

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/...a-good-thing-can-lead-to-deadly-plane-crashes

 

[DrunkenBastard]

So an update on the Tesla autopilot crash:

"Federal investigators announced Tuesday that the design of Tesla's semiautonomous driving system allowed the driver of a Tesla Model S in a fatal 2016 crash with a semi-truck to rely too heavily on the car's automation."

Basically it did too good a job:

http://abcn.ws/2gZfCpC

 

[Stereodude]

So an update on the Tesla autopilot crash:

"Federal investigators announced Tuesday that the design of Tesla's semiautonomous driving system allowed the driver of a Tesla Model S in a fatal 2016 crash with a semi-truck to rely too heavily on the car's automation."

Basically it did too good a job:

http://abcn.ws/2gZfCpC

I'd argue all these high tech systems make the drivers lazy / complacent. Level 3 and Level 4 autonomous driving is inherently dangerous IMO. It works well most of the time which lulls the driver into a false sense of complacency. So, when the system fails and dumps control back to the driver the driver is totally ill equipped to take over because they haven't been paying attention and their situational awareness is poor.

For example, why check your blind spot when you've got a LED in your mirror that tells you if there's a car there? The insurance companies claim that all these advanced safety features have done little to reduce accident rates.

 

[sechs]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Stop being so intentionally obtuse. Tesla's "Autopilot" is not capable of fully autonomous operation, which the name implies.

I think that it's better than being acute.

As we've decided, a plane's autopilot is not fully autonomous. There are many situations where it is incapable of flying the plane and a pilot must take over. Car autopilot is not any different.

You're just arguing that the definition of "autopilot" is wrong.

 

[jtr1962]

Level 3 and Level 4 autonomous driving is inherently dangerous IMO. It works well most of the time which lulls the driver into a false sense of complacency. So, when the system fails and dumps control back to the driver the driver is totally ill equipped to take over because they haven't been paying attention and their situational awareness is poor.

Exactly the point I made earlier. Level 5 is really all we should be aiming for.

For example, why check your blind spot when you've got a LED in your mirror that tells you if there's a car there? The insurance companies claim that all these advanced safety features have done little to reduce accident rates.

Same reason anti-lock brakes, collision detection, electronic stability control, and so forth haven't increased safety. Drivers compensate by cutting margins closer than they would without these things. End result is little increase in actual safety. The only thing which will make the roads much safer is level 5 autonomous driving.

 

[jtr1962]

As we've decided, a plane's autopilot is not fully autonomous. There are many situations where it is incapable of flying the plane and a pilot must take over. Car autopilot is not any different.

The problem here is pilots have seconds, sometimes tens of seconds, to safely take over in situations the autopilot can't handle. Drivers often have mere tenths of a second. Even if they've been paying attention, the chances of taking over and making the right decision are slim. I'm all for autonomous driving but we probably shouldn't it implement widely until the so-called autopilot is capable of dealing with every situation as well or better than a human can. By most accounts, we'll be there in less than five years. After that, there needs to be a phase-out of human driving on public roads, preferably over a span of a few years or less. If we have all autonomous vehicles, they will behave very predictably. Collisions will probably be so rare they'll make the national news when they happen. If we continue to have human drivers in the equation, collisions will still drop, but you're defeating the autonomous systems by introducing an unnecessary element of unpredictability.

 

[Striker]

I have little doubt that even as flawed as the current system may be, it is still far better than virtually every human driver. You can't say for sure if a human had been driving any other car in that situation, without AEB, that there wouldn't have still been a crash.
I'd still rather have it, no matter what it is called than not.
Anyway, Tesla has learned from the situation and made adjustments to prevent a similar accident haven't they?

You're probably decades away from every car on the road being automated in this country. You're going to have a real hard time getting some people to give up that freedom.

 

[Newtun]

You're probably decades away from every car on the road being automated in this country. You're going to have a real hard time getting some people to give up that freedom.

A major problem seems to be that until every car is automated, the automated ones will not be able to anticipate the actions of the drivers that are texting, eating their breakfast, putting on eyeliner, etc.

 

[jtr1962]

A major problem seems to be that until every car is automated, the automated ones will not be able to anticipate the actions of the drivers that are texting, eating their breakfast, putting on eyeliner, etc.

Which would give heavy incentives to either convert those cars, or ban them from public roads if conversion is unfeasible. There is also the issue of insurance. I suspect even if we don't ban human driving, the cost of insurance if you choose to drive yourself will make it cost prohibitive for all but the very wealthy. On top of that you have public perception. Every incident involving a human driver will be heavily scrutinized. Eventually there will be appeals to politicians to ban human driving on public safety grounds. Finally, I'm not personally seeing any downsides here, nor do I think most of the public would. I fully agree with anyone who says the nanny state is out of control. However, this sentiment occurs when government either completely bans things, or heavily taxes them, or otherwise places severe restrictions on them. They're not doing that here. They're not banning cars, they're not telling people they can no longer use cars. In fact, autonomy if anything will eliminate traffic jams, enable much higher speeds on limited access highways, allow those who can't drive (i.e. the disabled, elderly, children) to take advantage of car travel, eliminate just about all of the deaths and injuries associated with car travel, free many people from the need to own a car, allow you to turn otherwise wasted time driving into something more productive, plus other advantages nobody has yet thought of. What fundamental right is being lost here? All I see are pluses. Even among the small numbers who supposedly "enjoy driving", most driving conditions on typical trips aren't remotely enjoyable. Either you have traffic, or you have long, tedious stretches on highways. And you can always drive manually on a track if that's your thing. However, the fact is once presented with all the advantages I mentioned, most people couldn't care less whether or not they can no longer drive themselves. What makes car travel attractive to people is the speed and freedom from schedules over public transit. The actual act of driving the vehicle is typically seen as a necessary chore. The fact many people are already trying to do something else while driving tells me they'll gladly have the car just drive itself.

 

[LunarMist]

Which would give heavy incentives to either convert those cars, or ban them from public roads if conversion is unfeasible. There is also the issue of insurance. I suspect even if we don't ban human driving, the cost of insurance if you choose to drive yourself will make it cost prohibitive for all but the very wealthy. On top of that you have public perception. Every incident involving a human driver will be heavily scrutinized. Eventually there will be appeals to politicians to ban human driving on public safety grounds. Finally, I'm not personally seeing any downsides here, nor do I think most of the public would. I fully agree with anyone who says the nanny state is out of control. However, this sentiment occurs when government either completely bans things, or heavily taxes them, or otherwise places severe restrictions on them. They're not doing that here. They're not banning cars, they're not telling people they can no longer use cars. In fact, autonomy if anything will eliminate traffic jams, enable much higher speeds on limited access highways, allow those who can't drive (i.e. the disabled, elderly, children) to take advantage of car travel, eliminate just about all of the deaths and injuries associated with car travel, free many people from the need to own a car, allow you to turn otherwise wasted time driving into something more productive, plus other advantages nobody has yet thought of. What fundamental right is being lost here? All I see are pluses. Even among the small numbers who supposedly "enjoy driving", most driving conditions on typical trips aren't remotely enjoyable. Either you have traffic, or you have long, tedious stretches on highways. And you can always drive manually on a track if that's your thing. However, the fact is once presented with all the advantages I mentioned, most people couldn't care less whether or not they can no longer drive themselves. What makes car travel attractive to people is the speed and freedom from schedules over public transit. The actual act of driving the vehicle is typically seen as a necessary chore. The fact many people are already trying to do something else while driving tells me they'll gladly have the car just drive itself.

I'm all for safety technologies if they can be activated or disabled by the driver, but that sounds like some f*cked up dystopia. I've been in nine states, 4 segnetns, setnoa and over 2000 mile

 

[jtr1962]

I'm all for safety technologies if they can be activated or disabled by the driver, but that sounds like some f*cked up dystopia. I've been in nine states, 4 segnetns, setnoa and over 2000 mile

The problem here is there is a delay of as long as 10 seconds from the time a driver might feel the need to take over until the time they actually do. This is why the current idea endorsed by many automakers, namely to have the driver "monitor" the automated system and take over if necessary, is the worst of all worlds.

Nothing I wrote is going to impact your freedom to travel where and when you wish. In fact, you'll likely get where you're going a heck of a lot faster. The only difference is instead of driving, you'll just punch in the destination, then be able to do whatever you want, including sleep. From what little I've tried of driving back when I was younger, to me it seems like mostly tedium or aggravation. Either you're dealing with other idiots on the road, or you're stuck trying to adhere to traffic laws designed with the least common denominator in mind. I recall driving my friend's econobox back when I had a learner's permit. We were out when the highway was empty. He told me just drive how you feel comfortable, don't look at the speedometer, keep focused on the road. All good and well until I was flying past another car I thought was doing maybe 40. I looked down and saw the speedo hovering between 100 and 105 mph, which incidentally was almost double the speed limit. That kind of driving was actually "fun", and I felt perfectly comfortable at that speed. Unfortunately, it was also very illegal. Legal driving would have put me in a ditch on the side of road after falling asleep. I gave up any thoughts of getting a license then and there. The least common denominator laws we have so incompetent idiots can drive pretty much make driving nothing but a tedious chore. I'm not seeing how anyone would miss that.

 

[Stereodude]

...but that sounds like some f*cked up dystopia...

As do most of his posts when he starts in about cars and city living and the like.

 

[Stereodude]

A major problem seems to be that until every car is automated, the automated ones will not be able to anticipate the actions of the drivers that are texting, eating their breakfast, putting on eyeliner, etc.

The theory is that many people will put the V2x box willingly in their old cars in exchange for an insurance discount or other financial incentive which will let the old cars play nice with the overall infrastructure system in terms of telling the newer smart vehicles their position, vector, acceleration, etc. The basic premise is that the system doesn't need anywhere near 100% vehicle participation to have the benefits of V2x telemetry to work system wide, but it does need to hit a critical mass point. I've heard something like 10% bandied about.

 

[jtr1962]

As do most of his posts when he starts in about cars and city living and the like.

It might be because large numbers of motor vehicles in cities, driven by mostly incompetent assholes, make my present reality a f*cked up dystopia. When I cross one of the local arterials with my mom, a number of times I had to wave my arms like an idiot to stop people from running her over. And then you have the ever present air pollution, which is way worse in warm weather. I'm not saying eliminate motor vehicles. Just take the biggest problems with them, namely the idiot behind the wheel and the internal combustion engine, and replace them with something better.