The Trump Administration has literally put a reduction in regulations over the lives of Americans with a decision to drop a new car-to-car communication protocol. Last year, the federal government proposed that all new cars and trucks should be required to include new vehicle-to-vehicle communications (V2V) as a way to cut …

COMMENTS

Post your comment

House rules Send corrections

Add to 'My topics'

Page:

Wednesday 1st November 2017 22:09 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward

All vehicles within 4 years?

So every vehicle needs GPS and a cell phone fitting and older vehicles need some sort of steering, brake and throttle angle sensors and the associated comms bus - in 4 years

And how do you trust this data?

Even if it is encrypted, authenticated , unjammable and unspoofable - how do you know that the other car isn't maliciously steering you out of it's way or into another?

And then even if it did work as advertised. That means if eg. an Audi driver turns in front of - it signals your car to brake to let them in ?

31 9 Reply
1. Wednesday 1st November 2017 22:38 GMT Jim Mitchell
  
  Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
  
  Yeah, I've always wondered about this vehicle to vehicle communications. Perfect "encrypted, authenticated , unjammable and unspoofable" is impossible at consumer cost. Can an asshole with a button make every listening car in range panic brake?
  
  30 2 Reply
  1. Wednesday 1st November 2017 23:02 GMT HungryMan
    
    Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
    
    "Yeah, I've always wondered about this vehicle to vehicle communications. Perfect "encrypted, authenticated , unjammable and unspoofable" is impossible at consumer cost. Can an asshole with a button make every listening car in range panic brake?"
    
    I don't even need to hack the system or make a button to do that. all I have to do is slam on the breaks of my own car for no reason at all, and V2V will make all the other cars around me panic break as well. not to mention if it can send data out it has to be able to receive data as well. hackers have already proved they could take control of Jeep Cherokees with their built in wifi. I would be more worried about some asshole script kiddies playing real life bumper cars.
    
    If you want to get real tinfoil hat, there is the always possibility of the government taking control of you vehicle. behind on you taxes, child support, alimony, any other ridiculous government fee and boom, no more driving for you. "because driving is a privilege and not a right" so there for we can drop the hammer on you for any reason we want. all the while forgetting that a lot of people depend on being able to drive to their jobs and to make a living to pay these bills.
    
    27 3 Reply
    1. Thursday 2nd November 2017 13:49 GMT jmch
      
      Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
      
      "I don't even need to hack the system or make a button to do that. all I have to do is slam on the breaks of my own car for no reason at all, and V2V will make all the other cars around me panic break (sic) as well"
      
      You don't need V2V for that. Anyone right now can just slam on the brakes of their car and make everyone else panic break, except for the idiot who was texting and will rear-end you at a speed differential of 40-60mph. No-one will just slam on their brakes in the middle of traffic for the heck of it because the major risk is to themselves. For the same reason, no-one will just slam on their brakes in the middle of traffic fjust to mess with V2V because you don't know if teh car behind you is equipped with a V2V system ( or with a competent driver, for that matter )
      
      6 0 Reply
      1. Thursday 2nd November 2017 19:40 GMT jake
        
        Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
        
        "No-one will just slam on their brakes in the middle of traffic for the heck of it because the major risk is to themselves."
        
        Suggestion: Hit YouTube. Look up "Brake check Semi". Report back.
        
        5 1 Reply
        
        Friday 3rd November 2017 09:20 GMT jmch
        
        Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
        
        "Look up "Brake check Semi". Report back"
        
        Yeah, you're right, "no-one" is always an over-generalistion where humans are concerned. I suppose my post should read ""No sane driver will just..."
        
        3 0 Reply
    2. Thursday 2nd November 2017 14:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
      
      @HungryMan; "all the while forgetting that a lot of people depend on being able to drive to their jobs and to make a living to pay these bills."
      
      On the contrary, I'm sure they'd be *very* aware of that- and consider it excellent leverage for that reason.
      
      3 0 Reply
  2. Thursday 2nd November 2017 14:32 GMT Stevie
    
    Re: Can an asshole with a button make every listening car in range panic brake?
    
    What about a "Fad T" hotcar belting past with copper HT cables and a trad dizzy/coil ignition system? Or worse, carbon cables that have had their day and are now putting out so much EMR they generate a field strong enough to support a column of oil as it pours from the can down, then horizontally, before dropping into the rocker cover through the access port.
    
    Verified experiment done a few years back with an old mini fitted with a flip-front, btw. I was able to actually get the oil to run uphill for a few inches as I moved the can over the driver-side front roadwheel and the river of oil flowed in a shallow "N" into the running engine.
    
    Until the oil stream became charged enough to conduct, then there was an almighty CRACK!, followed by an almighty OOYAH! and some class three Words of Power, clutching of the right hand under the left armpit and a bit of hopping around the yard hissing through clenched teeth.
    
    4 1 Reply
2. Wednesday 1st November 2017 22:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
  
  GPS chips are cheap as, well chips. It would not need a cell phone just a small radio part in the frequency specified. Range would not need to be great at you are only broadcasting to and receiving from other cars.
  
  I am fairly sure that the rule proposed would not enforce that all card become self-driving only that they at least emit their V2V data. I suspect there will be something like 3 levels. 1) You drive normally and your car lets other cars around it know your direction, location and speed. Incoming data might do something like illuminate a warning light but it would not take control of the car in any way 2) As per 1 but allow your car to do emergency braking for you based on the info it is getting. Many cars already do something along these lines anyway using their own sensors, 3) You are in your car in fully automated mode using both the cars own sensors (as per the current google automated cars) and the V2V data to help the car drive safely.
  
  If all the cars were automated, except the one pulling out into traffic (as if automated it would not pull out dangerously) then yes the automated ones would probably manoeuvre to let the car in but its an unlikely scenario as more likely many of the oncoming cars will not be automated so could still easily crash into the audi if it did something stupid.
  
  19 2 Reply
  1. Wednesday 1st November 2017 22:53 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
    
    Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
    
    But even to send the data (not be self driving) any car more than 10 years old doesn't have the data to send. There is no steering angle sensor, no brake data, no computerised engine management to know the speed and no canbus to collect the data. Even newer cars with canbus might not have steering and braking data if they don't have power steering or ABS.
    
    It also seems to be one of those technologies that isn't useful unless nearly all cars have it. Like marine AIS - it's great but you can't base a course on it if that crowd of sailing boats in front of the harbor don't have it.
    
    24 4 Reply
    1. Thursday 2nd November 2017 08:52 GMT M7S
      
      Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
      
      "But even to send the data (not be self driving) any car more than 10 years old doesn't have the data to send"
      
      And this is meant to stop regulators planning for the future? The requirement is for new vehicles in the same way that compulsory seat belts were only for new vehicles some years back. There's no requirement to retrofit. Over time those vehicles without the required feature will generally disappear from the roads, some specialist vehicles and classics aside.
      
      At some point a critical mass will be reached of vehicles with this feature, and the technology to use this positively may well then be mature enough to deploy on a wide scale, so why not start to require fitting these now if the "sender" side tech is ready and affordable?
      
      I agree there's much to be considered, and it will not work for some classes of road user (motorcycles have already been mentioned but there's also animal-drawn wagons, pedestrians, pedal-cyclists etc) so there will need to be an accommodation of these which may will include "old" cars, or maybe it will only activate on certain roads such as motorways where other types of traffic are generally not permitted (and before the m/c riders come for me, no I do not propose we be banned from any type of road)
      
      10 0 Reply
    2. Thursday 2nd November 2017 10:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
      
      That's right: it probably isn't useful unless almost all cars have it. So you have two choices: start putting it into new (models of) cars now, wait 20 years and now almost all cars have it; or don't and almost all cars will never have it.
      
      Gosh, which option seems better?
      
      12 0 Reply
      1. Saturday 4th November 2017 12:27 GMT Jaybus
        
        Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
        
        "Gosh, which option seems better?"
        
        Well, there is useful tech and useless tech. Not sure which category this falls into, so there is no answer to that question at this time.
        
        2 0 Reply
    3. Thursday 2nd November 2017 10:21 GMT Kiwi
      
      Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
      
      There is no steering angle sensor, no brake data, no computerised engine management to know the speed and no canbus to collect the data.
      
      My older POS doesn't even have a rudimentary engine management computer. It barely has electronic ignition. Still a mechanical fuel pump even.
      
      Yet, strangely, it has always had a needle on it that tells the speed of the car to within a couple of km/h, even after closing on 30 years. (damn I need some new vehicles!)
      
      Even more strangely, the GPS I sometimes use can tell direction and speed, also within some decent accuracy. Does well for something that cost me $20 some 5 years ago as an unwanted Aliexpress purchase.
      
      4 0 Reply
    4. Thursday 2nd November 2017 13:44 GMT jmch
      
      Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
      
      " any car more than 10 years old doesn't have the data to send"
      
      The proposal is NOT, as the thread title suggests " All vehicles within 4 years" but all NEW vehicles within 4 years. Existing vehicles will not be affected. (Or now, "would not have been" rather than "will not be", I guess). From the article:
      
      "the federal government proposed that all new cars and trucks should be required to"
      
      4 0 Reply
  2. Wednesday 1st November 2017 22:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
    
    'so could still easily crash into the audi if when it did something stupid.'
    
    FTFY.
    
    12 0 Reply
  3. Thursday 2nd November 2017 15:35 GMT Bill Michaelson
    
    Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
    
    Pretty much, I suppose.
    
    Ask airplane pilots how ADS-B is working out. I don't think you will hear many complaints.
    
    1 0 Reply
    1. Thursday 2nd November 2017 15:45 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
      
      Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
      
      Apart from the crash in India where 2 planes were put on the same route and their GPS navigation was so accurate that they crashed exactly nose-nose with 1m. Or the Russian charter crash in Switzerland/Austria where TCAS told one pilot to dive but ATC told him pull up and they crashed.
      
      Or the numerous US Navy vs container ship where one followed AIS and the other followed rank.
      
      Even though these systems are much more extensively regulated and operate in a much slower and sparser space environment than a rush hour freeway we still don't let flights operate totally autonomously based on ADS
      
      1 0 Reply
      1. Friday 3rd November 2017 10:26 GMT Francis Boyle
        
        Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
        
        @Yet Another Anonymous coward
        
        I don't know "crash in India" (not a lot to go on there) but in the Russian charter case, as you say, that one of the pilots followed the instructions from the ATC rather than trusting the TCAS. The problem was that the TCAS was right (and could have prevented the collision) and the ATC was wrong. I'm not sure how you could spin that as an argument against ADS.
        
        1 0 Reply
  4. Friday 3rd November 2017 17:36 GMT MachDiamond
    
    Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
    
    "GPS chips are cheap as, well chips."
    
    GPS is good for 3m at best and that's not good enough to guide cars. 3m puts you in the next lane or mounting sidewalks.
    
    2 0 Reply
3. Thursday 2nd November 2017 01:52 GMT Shadow Systems
  
  Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
  
  I can already see a problem. Motorcycles. They might be able to generate the V2V data & broadcast it, but if a motorcycle panic stops because of someone other than it's operator, that operator becomes a flying meat missile straight into the nearest vehicle. Kiss said motorcyclist goodbye. No autonomy for motorcycles.
  
  23 1 Reply
  1. Thursday 2nd November 2017 03:28 GMT jake
    
    Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
    
    Not all that good for cage drivers, either. Have you ever had a smart-ass friend jerk the e-brake unexpectedly while you are driving? I have. Not fun. Nor safe.
    
    Also, something all y'all seem to have missed ... That's all new cars in 4 years, not all cars. Nobody has touched on the issue of what to do with legacy vehicles ... and I'm here to tell you that there are tens of millions of folks in the US who will be very unwilling to part with their ability to drive a '65 Mustang or '69 Camero or '32 Ford (or insert other antique car of choice) whenever and wherever they want. Any politician that tries it will be tarred & feathered and run out of town on the rail.
    
    23 2 Reply
4. Thursday 2nd November 2017 07:22 GMT Adam 1
  
  Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
  
  Disclaimer: I have no idea how these regulations are written.
  
  I don't see a technical reason why the first phase cannot be broadcast only. If other nearby AI or semi AI vehicles know some basic information about my speed, acceleration, direction then they can take that into account in their own emergency manoeuvre planning. My bigger concern would be digital tracking by some Slurpy Inc (although they can do that with a camera and number plate recognition right now)
  
  > That means if eg. an Audi driver turns in front of - it signals your car to brake to let them in ?
  
  You must be mistaken. I've never seen an Audi with signals. Maybe you have confused it with their adhoc parking space indicator lamps that designate a piece of road not otherwise required by the Audi driver and blink to indicate that it has been designated as a parking space.
  
  14 0 Reply
  1. Thursday 2nd November 2017 19:46 GMT Chris G
    
    Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
    
    " Adhoc Parking Space Indicator Lamps"
    
    In Spain, these are not limited to Audis, they are an optional utility for all drivers here regardless of make, model or year, nor are they limited to parking. APSILs allow a driver to stop or crawl while having a conversation with a pedestrian, stop in the middle of the road on a school crossing to drop off/pick up kids while also loading/unloading and assembling/disassembling a buggy, stop part way round a busy roundabout to drop off/pick up passengers or answer or continue to speak/text on the phone. Think of an absurd or dangerous thing anyone could do on the roads of Spain and APSILs convey the absolute right to do it and some of the best instructors are the police and Guardia Civil.
    
    1 0 Reply
5. Thursday 2nd November 2017 09:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
  
  > So every vehicle needs GPS and a cell phone fitting and older vehicles need some
  
  > sort of steering, brake and throttle angle sensors and the associated comms bus - in 4 years"
  
  No. The article clearly says half of new vehicles within 2 years, and all [new] vehicles in 4 years.
  
  5 1 Reply
6. Thursday 2nd November 2017 10:16 GMT Kiwi
  
  Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
  
  And then even if it did work as advertised. That means if eg. an Audi driver turns in front of - it signals your car to brake to let them in ?
  
  Or maybe it helps you sleep at night - by not having the death of the kid in the backseat disabled for life because you couldn't stop in time. Even when it wasn't your fault.
  
  (This is a vote for the tech BUT not a claim it is easy of even "doable", I too can see lots of ways this could be a big problem - but something that alerts cars to a risk so brakes get applied sooner, as a Motorcyclist who has had to deal with idiot cagers who couldn't stop in time to avoid a brick wall a mile away when they're only doing 4mph, all the more that stops them when they need to the better!)
  
  (El Reg - a train-wreck icon could be nice for when a post (or poster!) goes off the rails a bit!)
  
  4 0 Reply
7. Thursday 2nd November 2017 13:30 GMT jmch
  
  Re: All vehicles within 4 years?
  
  "... and older vehicles need some sort of..."
  
  Older vehicles don't need anything, the proposals are only for new vehicles. New vehicles from an existing model will not be available 4 years from now anyway - I don't know of any model that doesn't go through a 'refresh' every 3 years even if it's not a completely new model.
  
  "Even if it is encrypted, authenticated , unjammable and unspoofable - how do you know that the other car isn't maliciously steering you out of it's way or into another?"
  
  That is a much more pertinent point. At a minimum there must be a mechanism by which a car uses it's own sensors and trusts them over contradictory information being broadcast by other cars. For real resilience you would need that each car broadcasts not only it's positional information but also it's sensory information, so each car can rely on (a) it's own sensors (b) position/velocity of every other car transmitted by those cars and (c) estimated position/velocity of every other car that can be sensed by those cars from which it is receiving a signal. Then it needs some way to reconcile all those inputs to work out which of the '3rd-party' signals are actually referring to itself, which of the '3rd-party' signals from different 3rd parties are referring to the same vehicles, and deprioritise / discard any that conflict with it's own readings or with the majority of other readings
  
  All of that to be done in near-real-time. Sounds like a nightmare to me
  
  4 0 Reply
8. Friday 3rd November 2017 04:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  How Do you know TCAS is good ?
  
  No kids, please do not try it out in real airspace !
  
  Seriously, electronic terrorism is already outlawed and the federalez will go after you...
  
  1 0 Reply
Wednesday 1st November 2017 22:13 GMT Anonymous Coward

Wow

So normally not trusting the government with data like this is ok, since nobody wants to be spied on and nobody trusts these companies to get security right. However, if we can spin it into an anti-Trump rant, then all of a sudden the tech is great?

26 20 Reply
1. Wednesday 1st November 2017 22:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Wow
  
  The claim was the reason had nothing to do with "hey that's anti-privacy and a security risk" but was done because of lobbying by deep pocketed telecoms that are among the largest corporate republican donors.
  
  If this administration was pro privacy, we wouldn't see them pushing for renewal of warrantless wiretapping, have a deputy AG suggesting that if the feds can't get a backdoor into our encrypted communications they should a way to access our plaintext communications, and so forth.
  
  Not saying the Obama administration was any more pro privacy (or Bush's, or Clinton's where Clipper was born, and so on) but let's be real here. The privacy/security based reasons most Reg readers find this idea extremely distasteful and risky have nothing to do with the reasons the Trump admin is shitcanning it.
  
  32 2 Reply
  1. Wednesday 1st November 2017 23:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Wow
    
    > "...was done because of lobbying by deep pocketed telecoms that are among the largest corporate republican donors."
    
    So, even when Trump does the clearly right thing, it's really only in exchange for lots of dirty money going into the big Republican vaults? As hinted at darkly, sans-evidence, by you? Got it.
    
    15 30 Reply
    1. Thursday 2nd November 2017 03:32 GMT jake
      
      Re: Wow
      
      Well, yeah Prince John. That what lobbyists DO. On all sides of the political fence. Are you going to deny this fact of politics here in the US? Or are you just going to claim that everybody but the Trump administration does it? Regardless, the attempt is even more laughable than your usual drivel.
      
      18 1 Reply
    2. Thursday 2nd November 2017 06:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: Wow
      
      If the democrats did something you felt was right, and was supported by unions, would you believe they are doing it for the right reasons, or because their big union donors told them to? Politicians only care about getting re-elected and amassing more power, and campaign finance is necessary for those things to happen. They listen to the guys paying them the millions, not the people.
      
      You live in an alternative world with alternative facts, where only democrats are corrupt, and republicans and Trump always act for the right reasons. You are going to experience a major case of cognitive dissonance when he's impeached next year. I suppose you'll attribute it to traitorous RINOs, and still maintain he's innocent of everything. Heck, you probably believe Nixon was innocent!
      
      18 3 Reply
    3. Thursday 2nd November 2017 13:55 GMT jmch
      
      Re: Wow
      
      "So, even when Trump does the clearly right thing"
      
      Eh? No, he has clearly done the wrong thing.
      
      "it's really only in exchange for lots of dirty money going into the big Republican vaults?"
      
      US-style lobbying is basically legitimised corrution. For both Democrats and Republicans. Just one of many parts of the US electoral system that is irretrievably broken
      
      7 4 Reply
2. Thursday 2nd November 2017 09:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Wow
  
  Hey, what if cars were built so that they had lots of low end to get up to speed quickly but the top end speed was barely over the highway speed limit? Manufacturers could also build in a warning sound that goes off in the car if it exceeds the maximum highway speed by a specified amount.
  
  1 0 Reply
  1. Thursday 2nd November 2017 11:15 GMT Kiwi
    
    Re: Wow
    
    Hey, what if cars were built so that they had lots of low end to get up to speed quickly but the top end speed was barely over the highway speed limit?
    
    Almost seems like a good idea but... While speed must always be a factor in a crash (2 parked cars will never hit each other, at least one must be moving), speed being the cause of a crash is a much much rarer thing. Speed above what is safe for the conditions might cause a lot more, but there are many many many many roads and many many many many times when the legal speed is way above the safe speed.
    
    Come over here and I'll show you roads where averaging 1/4 of the legal limit will get you killed, no ifs buts or maybes.
    
    Teach people to drive at a speed safe for the conditions, and if conditions change to change their speed appropriately. Teach them that regardless of what they drive, where they drive, or who else is on the roads around them, the driver is responsible for getting their vehicle to its destination safely, and that means being alert because (as a long running ad campaign in NZ says) "other people make mistakes". If you can act to prevent a crash and don't, then even if the other person was legally wrong you are at fault. Teach people to do this and watch accident rates plummet.
    
    PS My bike, when she runs, can do double the legal speed. Difference between 80kph and 140kph (automatic loss of license) is a slight twist of the wrist and a few seconds (not that I've ever gone that fast, HONEST!). I don't drive at speeds faster than is safe because 1) I am in control of myself, 2) I am in control of my vehicle, and 3) I've done every bit of extra training I can afford and 4) I get out and PRACTICE things like emergency braking - I know how my bike will perform in an emergency and I know how to counter any quirks. I do the same with the cage, I know it has a slight pull to the left under very hard braking and I know what is needed to counter it. Practice makes this automatic so I don't need to think "oh hell my car is changing direction what do I do" I can instead focus on "where is the gap I need to get through to survive" and avoid whatever else I need to avoid.
    
    9 0 Reply
  2. Thursday 2nd November 2017 14:10 GMT jmch
    
    Re: Wow
    
    "what if cars were built so that they had lots of low end (Torque?) to get up to speed quickly but the top end speed was barely over the highway speed limit?"
    
    Petrol-engined cars always had the excuse that you needed power low down the rev range for acceleration, AND and a wide rev range so as not to have to upshift/downshift constantly. There really is no need for a road-only car to be able to do double or more the speed limit, but the combination of the 2 requirements above result in that. Sounds to me like you're describing an electrical vehicle with electronically-limited RPM.
    
    I think both manufacturers and car enthusiasts would revolt at such a proposal, but as far as I'm concerned, as long as there is strong accelerative torque all the way through the speed range (agin, describing an EV), there is really no need for any car to be doing more than c 140-150kmh on a public road. Racetrack - do as you like.
    
    Incidentally, proposal of a speed cap is not new. At the end of the 90's Motorcycles were getting more and more powerful culminating in the Kawasaki ZX-12 and Suzuki Hayabusa that pushed the 300km/h barrier. Following rumours of the threat of a ban, manufacturers voluntarily kept their bikes under that limit, for a while at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_motorcycles#Gentlemen.27s_agreement_to_end_competition
    
    Certainly there's nothing unreasonable in keeping insane speeds off public roads
    
    3 0 Reply
    1. Thursday 2nd November 2017 15:51 GMT Baldrickk
      
      Re: Wow
      
      Agree with excessive speeds, but sometimes you want some high-end torque.
      
      For example, when someone is doing 35 in a 60-zone, but with limited (in number, not capability) overtaking opportunities and you are stuck behind, you want to be able to take advantage of that when it occurs.
      
      On the motorway, you just pull out and accelerate, on a single carriageway, you need to accelerate hard to make the manoeuvre quickly and safely. Spending 15-20s to get up to speed when an opportunity arises results in a shorter safe time to perform the overtake, which makes this proposal less safe.
      
      This is the reason why some people I know prefer to have more powerful cars. It isn't so that they can drive at excessive speeds, but instead so that they have the high end (at least within the speed limit range, not the engine's capacity range) power which results in safer overtakes.
      
      I personally am a little wary whenever I do overtake on a single carriage road, and that's in a fairly average Ford Focus, not some little underpowered runabout.
      
      4 0 Reply
      1. Thursday 2nd November 2017 23:41 GMT Kiwi
        
        Re: Wow
        
        On the motorway, you just pull out and accelerate, on a single carriageway, you need to accelerate hard to make the manoeuvre quickly and safely. Spending 15-20s to get up to speed when an opportunity arises results in a shorter safe time to perform the overtake, which makes this proposal less safe.
        
        Small tip (not necessarily @Baldrickk)
        
        Keep a good following distance between you and the car in front. When you're getting close to a passing opportunity, speed up so that you're at speed to pass as you reach the opportunity. But, of course, also keep a check on your speeds and distances etc so if the opportunity isn't, you still have time to slow back down.
        
        I do this with my underpowered POS and it means that within a few seconds of reaching the opportunity, I've completed the manoeuvre.
        
        By sitting back you have much better sight lines. Sit close to that truck and all you see is that truck. Sit a couple of seconds behind that truck and you see the truck, the road ahead, oncoming traffic (if any), the sky, the countryside....
        
        I say all this because most people I've known who claim "more powerful car so I can pass quickly" are also "I'm a stupid cunt who cannot figure out while tailgating is a bad idea". Oh, I'm also someone who would love to see a 3-strikes law brought in for tailgaters, caught 3 times in a 6 month period it's a 1yr loss of license. Caught once more and it's a lifetime driving ban - if you're so stupid as to tailgate you're to stupid to drive! (except during a passing move like above of course)
        
        3 0 Reply
      2. Friday 3rd November 2017 09:12 GMT jmch
        
        Re: Wow
        
        "Agree with excessive speeds, but sometimes you want some high-end torque"
        
        Which is exactly why I mentiond electric cars. 100% of available torque available all through the rev range
        
        1 0 Reply
    2. Thursday 2nd November 2017 22:12 GMT Dr. Ellen
      
      Re: Wow
      
      During the Carter administration, and continuing, the maximum speed allowed on American roads was 55 mph. Everybody hated it. As one traveling salesman said, "crossing Texas at 55 isn't a job, it's a career."
      
      Highways are not one-size-fits-all, especially when the garment in question is a straitjacket.
      
      1 0 Reply
3. Thursday 2nd November 2017 10:50 GMT phuzz
  
  Re: Wow
  
  Err, they're planning to use 5.9GHz, that's a pretty short range signal and pretty much the opposite of what you'd want for surveillance. It'll only be detectable over slightly longer distances than an ANPR camera could pick you out.
  
  Not to mention, even if this went into law tomorrow we're talking about the US where they haven't even made seatbelts mandatory in older cars. You'll never have to install this in existing cars even in thirty years when your Tesla is an old hoopty.
  
  6 1 Reply
  1. Thursday 2nd November 2017 12:52 GMT CrazyOldCatMan
    
    Re: Wow
    
    we're talking about the US where they haven't even made seatbelts mandatory in older cars
    
    They are not in the UK either (like indicators). If fitted at the factory, they must be present (and work) otherwise the car will fail the MOT.
    
    Older classic cars (the bloke that services or Morris Minor has a 1948 Morris 8 that he turns up in to collect the car) don't have indicators or seat belts and are not required to fit them.
    
    It doesn't have door locks either - it was made in an era before car thefts..
    
    4 0 Reply
  2. Thursday 2nd November 2017 14:01 GMT Charles 9
    
    Re: Wow
    
    "Not to mention, even if this went into law tomorrow we're talking about the US where they haven't even made seatbelts mandatory in older cars."
    
    THAT'S due to a Constitutional issue known as "Grandfathering." Because of Article I, Section 9's prohibition of retroactive (ex post facto or "after the fact") laws, it's very tricky to force old things to take on new things. I see it in a local bar that got an on-premise alcohol license BEFORE "curfew" hours were incorporated into the licenses. Because they're in good standing and because they keep renewing the license ahead of time, there's no way to enforce the curfew in that bar (because any attempt would run afoul of the retroactive law prohibition), allowing them the draw of being able to serve all night. It's also why military weapons bought before 1985 can legally be owned and traded (because the law that prohibited their ownership and sale only went into effect in 1985).
    
    3 1 Reply
    1. Thursday 2nd November 2017 15:11 GMT pxd
      
      Ex post facto
      
      I looked into this for some other reason, not long ago, and discovered that ex post facto law is considered a Very Bad Thing in the States (so only very occasionally allowed/tolerated), but this does not seem to be the case in the UK, where any number of recent major examples can be found in a fairly cursory internet search. I found that quite surprising, and pretty disappointing, too. pxd
      
      2 0 Reply
      1. Friday 3rd November 2017 12:44 GMT Francis Boyle
        
        Re: Ex post facto
        
        An Ex post facto law is simply one that changes the legal status of an already performed action, so not really anything to do with grandfathering as such. It's not really surprising that it's unpopular since it means a government can't make a person a criminal by fiat (even if it's mostly used to declare politicians not criminals).
        
        I like to have a dig at the Merkins as much as anyone here (did I mention Trump sucks) but not requiring safety devices on vehicles that were never designed to be fitted with them is hardly an unreasonable practice.
        
        2 0 Reply
        
        Monday 6th November 2017 08:04 GMT Charles 9
        
        Re: Ex post facto
        
        Right, but an already-sold car or weapon or an already-issued license counts as an action already taken, meaning Article I Section 9 applies to any and all.
        
        1 0 Reply
  3. Thursday 2nd November 2017 20:56 GMT dmacleo
    
    Re: Wow
    
    you ever been through a state inspection license course like I have?
    
    many states have laws saying its illegal to alter OEM safety equipment.
    
    drilling into A/B/C/D pillars or running stanchions through floorboards to frame can actually weaken the structure.
    
    this is why vehicles that did not have belts/shoulder harnesses OEM are not required to have them now.
    
    2 0 Reply
4. Thursday 2nd November 2017 10:59 GMT Kiwi
  
  Re: Wow
  
  However, if we can spin it into an anti-Trump rant, then all of a sudden the tech is great?
  
  Simples. Want to know the best way to do things? Just look at CMIC and do the opposite of what the orange buffoon does.
  
  If he says something is bad, it must be damned near the 2nd coming!
  
  5 2 Reply
Wednesday 1st November 2017 22:34 GMT Anonymous Coward

I'm actually fine with delaying these regulations...

Until we fully understand the traffic safety, legal liability, personal privacy, IT security and financial implications of these regulations.

I definitely don't like the idea that a driver might try to crowd me into a barrier, or cut in front of me in the belief that my car is receiving the telemetry from his car, when it isn't (Due to concerns above, I do not plan to be an early adopter of this technology.)

20 0 Reply