REGISTER | LOGIN
Breaking News
News & Analysis

V2X Mandate: It’s Now Or Never

10/13/2016 00:00 AM EDT
12 comments
NO RATINGS
1 saves
Page 1 / 2 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
KangarooCourt
User Rank
Rookie
V2X or Not V2X
KangarooCourt   10/24/2016 1:19:00 AM
NO RATINGS
It's interesting that the real cause of all the finger-pointing at Tesla is because the self-regulating Automotive industry has never developed a safety standard for Autonomous driving.  They never bothered presumably because they didn't want to spend the money, and anyway everyone knew it would take years for the technology to be developed by the early adopting German carmakers.  Until Tesla came along and caught them all off-guard.

 

Now we have the marketers and self-promoters wanting to capilatise and have their technologies mandated by Governments, but still they do not fly the flag of safety standards, instead they try and convince the lay-person that V2X is the new saviour of the car-bound human race.  This is NOT the way we engineer a safety system, we should never allow a particular technology to be dictated to our inherently intelligent engineers.  Instead we should demand the Government leads the development of high-level safety standards for Autonomous vehicles, and let our highly capable engineers develop the solutions that meet these requirements - V2X or not.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Author
Re: I'm Puzzled
junko.yoshida   10/21/2016 10:12:13 AM
NO RATINGS
Bert, you wrote:

If anyting, I wonder why some car companies are trumpeting their autonomous driving efforts. Must be for publicity, more than to actually try to accelerate the process?\


I myself wonder this often, and I, too, come to the same conclusion.

As for the benefits of V2X (V2V and V2I), yes, consumers have NO idea what benefits it will bring. But then, that's a part of educationa process the auto industry has to initiate.

But I must go back to what Savari's Paul Sakamoto told me when I interivewed him a few months ago. I quoted him in this article too. He called V2X as "one of the few [sensor] technologies that offer predictive safety." And that really spoke to me.

V2X can make safety predictive rather than reactive. That's a tool no drivers have today.

jnissen
User Rank
Author
Re: I'm Puzzled
jnissen   10/18/2016 1:16:21 PM
NO RATINGS
Good post Bert. I completely agree with the reluctance of the Automotive industry to "stick it's neck out". What is the real benefit for the consumer? Not much in the immediate future. Would it allow unlimited tracking of vehicles and ocupants? Yes it likely would and that should be a concern for all of us in the implementation phase of this proposal.

Bert22306
User Rank
Author
Re: I'm Puzzled
Bert22306   10/17/2016 2:43:51 PM
NO RATINGS
I'm not too puzzled by any of this. As you say, Junko, the auto industry self-certifies. As things are today, the cars are usually found to be not at fault in the event of accidents, largely due to the fact that the basic car systems are mature and localized. If anything, fancy new features have proved to be troubling, e.g. unintended acceleration. And for sure, anything that might increase the automakers' liability would be resisted. If anyting, I wonder why some car companies are trumpeting their autonomous driving efforts. Must be for publicity, more than to actually try to accelerate the process?

In this environment, and with the auto industry's well-known aversion to anything that increases cost, why would anyone expect the auto industry to stick its neck out? It won't. It will cross its fingers and wait to be mandated. I mean, car buyers might pay extra for entertainment system improvements, or fancy interior accents, but V2V or V2I? They won't even know what that means, and let alone why they would need it.

As to 5G, I think that would only apply to longer range V2I comms, not to V2V or short range V2I? So it should not be all that safety critical. The type of V2I comms that might rely on 5G would be for such functions as avoiding traffic jams far ahead, trip planning, that sort of thing. The more safety critical comms should be related to mobile ad-hoc network concepts, as opposed to cellular?

Loser99
User Rank
Author
This is pointless.
Loser99   10/17/2016 11:45:43 AM
NO RATINGS
The average car lasts 10 years or more now a days.  So it will take over 10 years to get this into any significant car population.  Doesn't seem like its beneficial unless every vehicle has it.  We will all be dead by then.

 

 

realjjj
User Rank
CEO
Re: I'm Puzzled
realjjj   10/14/2016 6:50:41 PM
NO RATINGS
Do car makers want to share key data? You wrote not long ago about HERE's new service and V2X would ruin it. Data has value, gives one a competitive advantage, not so sure folks are eager to share much. There is likely an economic cost here beyond the cost of the hardware.

It's late for V2X too, would have been great before autonomy but autonomy isn't waiting. V2V maybe but the penetration rate (6-7% per year) would not lead to a great positive impact in the short term. The medium and long term is more about autonomy and a bit different. There should be many more efficient ways to increase safety.

Maybe the US is not all that eager to invest in this either. The gas tax is far too low to even support minimal maintenance of the existing infrastructure and, at the end of the day, all US infrastructure is in less than stellar shape. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Author
Re: I'm Puzzled
junko.yoshida   10/14/2016 5:50:18 PM
NO RATINGS
1 saves
I don't think you are the only one who is puzzled over this. So am I. Would you be surprised to know that the auto industry is one of the few industries allowed to do "self-certification" of their products? They are exempt from independent third-party certification.

RadioGraybeard
User Rank
Manager
Re: I'm Puzzled
RadioGraybeard   10/14/2016 5:23:44 PM
NO RATINGS
Junko,

No, I spent the last 20 years of my career in commercial avionics.  In general, the industry committees would decide on new systems (there was one in my 20 years), and we were free to innovate as long as we exceeded the minimum requirements.  Every generation always got better.  Before commerical aviation, I worked in defense aerospace, so just custom systems.

So the idea that the auto industry has an idea for a product improvement but won't do it unless it's mandated just strikes me as strange.  Are they waiting for someone else to pay for V2X? 

Despite avionics being highly regulated (FCC, FAA, and equivalents from all over the world), I never heard of someone in the industry ever saying something like, "we know how to prevent crashes, if you'll just make us do it".  

 

 

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Author
Re: V2X and 5G...goals not compatible
junko.yoshida   10/14/2016 4:41:10 PM
NO RATINGS
I agree with you compaletely, MWagner_MA.

The cellular industry and 5G promoters, however, would say that 5G for automotive applications would be different. But again, it will take a few more years for that to be tested and validated.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Author
Re: I'm Puzzled
junko.yoshida   10/14/2016 4:39:31 PM
NO RATINGS
@RadioGraybeard, I beg to differ.

I don't know how familiar you are with the automotive industry. But the general rule of thumb is that for a long, long time, the industry's first response to any new technology had been..." to wait, resist and wait some more...until the governmebt makes it a mandate,''

Carmakers hate earing any additional cost.

If you look at many automotive-related technology mandates in the past, it's been always a hard, long battle.

V2X is no exception.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed