The downside of the government agency taking a sweet time in testing a new scheme like V2X is that while they are engaged in testing, the technology advances by leaps and bounds.
For example, DSRC is a good technology. But considering that every car will soon to have a modem technology (to get connected with services like GM OnStar) or every driver will have a cell phone brought inside a car, the architecture of V2X should consider how to integrate the power of cellular communication in the context of mandating DSRC. I don't think this has been tested or architected.
chanj, the government agency has been "investigating" V2X issues for almost a decade. They have not been so forthcoming until now -- largely because a lot of testing they had to do , but more because of some oppositions (as Bert mentioned as "knee-jerk" reactions)
V2V, or Car-to-Car, will happen; but V2I, or vehicle to infrastructure, will be slow because that requires the budget the state government is not willing to shell out. Under the current political climate in the United States, it will be hard.
V2V is one of the hot topics and innovation areas in the coming years. There are a lot of benefit of V2X communication. Safety will likely be improved. In addition, traffic condition can be communicated to the vehicle position system/ driving system to guide driverless algorithm. These are just a few of the many possibility and the current development is far from mature. I wonder why government wants to impose regulation so soon. Are they going to invest so that the technology grows faster?
I would expect those with a libertarian stance to instantly oppose any such mandates, but this is not so different from the sorts of regulations governments have had to impose from day 1. Consider just lighting requirements for vehicles. Early cars were lucky to have a kerosene lamp strapped on one side. Or check out how practically invisible the tail lights of even some 1950s cars can be. Never mind visibility from the side, which was zero.
To impose RF comms between cars is not such a stretch, when governments have been imposing optical spectrum specs between cars, for very similar reasons, for decades. Just an evolution of the same requirements.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.