back to article Slashing regulations literally more important than saving American lives to Donald Trump

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 …

  1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    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 ?

    1. 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?

      1. 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.

        1. jmch Silver badge
          Facepalm

          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 )

          1. jake Silver badge

            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.

            1. jmch Silver badge
              Facepalm

              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..."

        2. Anonymous Coward
          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.

      2. Stevie Silver badge

        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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        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.

        1. 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)

        2. tfb Silver badge
          Boffin

          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?

          1. 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.

        3. Kiwi Silver badge
          Holmes

          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. jmch Silver badge

          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"

      2. Keef

        Re: All vehicles within 4 years?

        'so could still easily crash into the audi if when it did something stupid.'

        FTFY.

      3. 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. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          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. Francis Boyle Silver badge

            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.

      4. MachDiamond Silver badge

        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.

    3. Shadow Systems Silver badge

      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.

      1. jake Silver badge

        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.

    4. Adam 1 Silver badge

      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.

      1. Chris G Silver badge

        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.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      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.

    6. Kiwi Silver badge
      Pint

      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!)

    7. jmch Silver badge

      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

    8. Frank Gerlach #2

      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...

  2. Anonymous Coward
    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?

    1. DougS Silver badge

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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.

        1. jake Silver badge

          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.

        2. DougS Silver badge

          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!

        3. jmch Silver badge

          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

    2. Anonymous Coward
      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. Kiwi Silver badge
        Pint

        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.

      2. jmch Silver badge

        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

        1. Baldrickk Silver badge

          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.

          1. Kiwi Silver badge
            Mushroom

            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)

          2. jmch Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            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

        2. Dr. Ellen
          FAIL

          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.

    3. phuzz Silver badge

      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.

      1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        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..

      2. Charles 9 Silver badge

        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).

        1. 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

          1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

            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.

            1. Charles 9 Silver badge

              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.

      3. 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.

    4. Kiwi Silver badge
      Coat

      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!

  3. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Go

    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.)

    1. Oneman2Many

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

      Insurance companies will ensure you don't have a choice about participating

      1. jake Silver badge

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

        Not even the insurance companies have the clout to remove hundreds of millions of existing vehicles from the roads. They've been trying for decades, and haven't put a dent in the backlog. Natural attrition is removing far, far more vehicles from the roads than insurance companies. Maybe even a couple of orders of magnitude more.

    2. Baldrickk Silver badge

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

      Delaying would be fine - it's preferable to get the technology onto vehicles, even if it isn't enabled, so that given a short amount of time it could be used, rather than a longer amount of time while things are analysed to the nth degree first (bear in mind that they have already done a lot of research on this)

      Anyway, that's not the point. T isn't delaying it, he's backing off on it so that the spectrum that would work well for the application can be used by others.

      As for other drivers on the road, drivers will already do that, with the assumption that you are going to be paying attention.

      New cars (well, some of them) already keep track of what's going on around them with cameras and radar. You could get someone doing the same now, to trigger their braking systems.

      What this tech is meant to do is to give your car a larger awareness of it's surroundings, so instead of reacting to the car in front of you braking, it can start reacting when the car two or three ahead of that begins to brake, resulting in both a safer and more comfortable ride (gradual braking etc)

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    While I am vehemently opposed to the spectrum grab, I have to say the breathless assertion that the V2V requirement being dropped was going to endanger a massive number of lives is a bit weak. 802.11p is a DOG of a protocol, based on ancient 802.11a encoding and was designed before the IoT security issues were at the forefront.

    Mandating auto manufacturers to support it just means we will be stuck with a bad and insecure version which future protocols would need to support for decades. We are chained to enough legacy protocol cruft, so while it may be accidental, I recommend we treat this action by our Orange Harangutan as an opportunity.

    Save the spectrum and don't mandate a protocol that doesn't 1) separate the transport/radio and the protocol, and 2) mandate that both are field upgradeable and replaceable, so you can fix bugs without having to retire a whole car.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      It's not clear that wifi is even the best technology.

      Since you principally care about line of sight targets (the car in front / behind you) it would seem that photonics would be a better solution.

      Cars could be equipped with wavelength division multiplexed signalling transmitters with eg. red light signalling I am slowing and yellow light signalling a lane change request. Many cars already have the equipment fitted even if it is disabled in most premier brands

      1. Oneman2Many

        the problem with your photonics approach is that it's processed by a organic system

        1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

          Aye, but there's a neural network in there and surely that has to count for something.

          (Except in the premium brands, of course.)

      2. Charles 9 Silver badge

        "Since you principally care about line of sight targets (the car in front / behind you) it would seem that photonics would be a better solution."

        No, because one of the concerns listed in the article is blind corners, meaning cars coming from a place normally OUT of the line of sight.

      3. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Since you principally care about line of sight targets (the car in front / behind you) it would seem that photonics would be a better solution.

        Not always true (leaving aside the bike maxim of "what's behind you doesn't matter") - there are a number of situations where you will need to know about vehicles emerging from a side road that, until they actually emerge, you can't see.

        Especially in older villages with small roads or rural roads with hedges..

        1. onefang Silver badge

          "leaving aside the bike maxim of "what's behind you doesn't matter"'

          Last time I had a major accident on my motor bike was coz the guy behind me was going way faster than me.

          I know, necroing the thread, but I had to respond to this, even if no one reads it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      ... Orange Harangutan ...

      :-)

  5. J.Smith

    There's 2 forces at play, the 'regulation is red tape' free market fundamentalists, and secondly, plain 'money talks' corruption. Both are equally dangerous.

    1. jake Silver badge

      To be fair ...

      ... the "the government must make more laws to protect us from ourselves" crowd is equally vocal and equally dangerous as your two. There are other factions also in play.

      1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

        You elected Trump

        Those laws are needed.

  6. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    Calling BS on the effectiveness

    Major crashes usually involve people doing something incredibly stupid - being too uncoordinated, not having a driver's license, running stop signs, or swerving a 35 MPH Toyota into the fast lane's 70 MPH traffic. A computer looking at low-precision vehicle vectors is going to have a hard time judging the difference between a potential accident and an imminent accident quickly enough to significantly change the outcome. It probably can't do it at all. Combine all the computed mistakes of each vehicle on a crowded 10 lane freeway and it's not going to work at all.

    I drove 1000 miles to buy a version of my car without automatic collision avoidance. Owners said it sometimes skidded to a halt on busy freeways when lanes shift for construction.

    1. Oneman2Many

      Re: Calling BS on the effectiveness

      I have yet to see a driver aid that can't be switched off unless it's a legal requirement

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Calling BS on the effectiveness

        Or a 1964 VW Bus pulling out to pass a semi doing 55 MPH on I5 ... with traffic behind doing 85+ in the fast lane.

    2. Michael Strorm

      Da da da (da da da da)

      "I drove 1000 miles to buy a version of my car without automatic collision avoidance."

      So you would drive 500 miles,

      and then you'd drive 500 more.

      Just to be the man who drives a thousand miles

      To buy a car without automatic collision avoidance?

  7. maxregister

    The car deaths I mentioned are terrible stuff. Doesn't seem one seatbelt is ever enough. You must vote for my act so that fewer will cry. Unless of course you just want people to die!

    1. Hollerithevo Silver badge

      Whoa there, Keats

      Dead breaths till the rhyming stops.

  8. jonfr

    Bringing back the 1970's (when Donald Trump was 24) seems to be a mission for him. This is dangerous path (but everything connected to and with Donald Trump is dangerous and corrupt).

    The 5.9Ghz spectrum is only good for short distance communication. I don't understand why mobile companies want it.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Microcells. They're perfect for scattering in concrete canyons where buildings block the more generalized towers and lower frequencies. Plus, the higher the frequency, the higher the data throughput, important as 5Gdata is being advanced.

  9. Alan W. Rateliff, II
    Thumb Down

    This is bait.

    How did I know who wrote this article before clicking on it?

    How about this headline:

    "Government regulations literally more important than security to tech writer.

    - Savings lives paper-tiger as mechanisms employ technology open to abuse."

  10. doug_bostrom

    Money trumps lives. Just ask investors in SWHC, RGR etc. There are several industries in the US accustomed to surfing the maximum allowable death rate for bystanders and others not enjoying certain forms of groping by the invisible hand of the market. At least we can be happy that the product of the US auto industry is not actually engineered specifically for causing mayhem.

  11. Jimbo in Thailand
    Facepalm

    Geez, another ultra-biased liberal BS article

    Shame on you El Reg for even spreading such BS. I'm as afraid of loose cannon Trump as anyone but this liberal author's tirade is better suited for the trash bin.

    1. Hollerithevo Silver badge

      Re: Geez, another ultra-biased liberal BS article

      It's less a rant on Trump than a rant on the power of the swamp aka the lobbyists.

  12. Nolveys Silver badge
    Megaphone

    I think a better way to implement this system would be to use proximity sensors to determine the location and velocity of nearby vehicles. Under specific sets of circumstances the computer would send a warning message to nearby vehicles in the form of an auditory "AHHHHHHH!!!" Depending on the severity of the situation different magnitudes of "AHHHHHHH!!!" would be used at ever increasing volumes. The warnings would start with a baseline "AHHHHHHH!!!" and progress upward through "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!", followed by "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!", and so forth.

    Nearby vehicles could acknowledge receipt of the signal with an auditory "WAAAAAHHHHH!!"

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      But what about blind corners? Can't use line of sight on those.

      1. Kiwi Silver badge
        Coat

        But what about blind corners? Can't use line of sight on those.

        Er. What, in the original post, mentioned "blind corners"? He mentioned proximity sensors, which aren't necessarily limited to LOS.

        Anyway. I'm sure someone can give them help of some sort. Why, I've often been known to "cane it" around blind corners...

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          "He mentioned proximity sensors, which aren't necessarily limited to LOS."

          What kind of proximity sensors AREN'T blocked or at least seriously affected by line of sight (note that radio is attenuated by obstacles, especially at higher frequencies)?

    2. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      could acknowledge receipt of the signal with an auditory "WAAAAAHHHHH!!"

      Followed by a mass charge by all the orks in the group?

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Would it not be simpler (for parts of it)

    To retro fit older cars with small g sensors that modulate some visual data (like IR leds) so that other cars with IR detection can know there has been a sudden change in path or speed?

    It would also make spotting the fool who triggers a breakfest easier as CCTV and car cameras could detect who started the storm, with wireless it would be a hard job to detect where correctly formatted RF came from.

  14. Chairman of the Bored Silver badge

    What shall be done about civil liberties?

    I love tech and wouldn't mind some level of automation to help me with the insane drivers I interact with on the I95 corridor. And to be honest, I too get sleepy, complacent, and boneheaded.

    But I guarantee you that the lawyers will see V2V as a potential gold mine of data to support whatever personal injury litigation perspective they are being paid to litigate. This may or may not be a good thing. Regardless we need to consider up front what data are publicly available and what is covered by amendments 1,4,5. Yes its a short range protocol but Im having trouble imagining any scenario where your data is not stored in your vehicle's ECU and/or backhauled to Google or equivalent.

    What really concerns me is potentially allowing local law enforcement real time access to data. I can easily see something like getting a traffic stop and 'cooperative search' because a database says Ive just driven from a 'dangerous political rally' and another database helpfully adds that 'I'm driving while black', combined V2V data that says Ive been driving in an environmentally irresponsible way... etc.

    1. Slx

      Re: What shall be done about civil liberties?

      I don't know about the USA, but in the UK (and to an extent in Ireland too) there's increasing use of APRN (automatic number plate recognition) cameras that scan license plates that could do just that without any access to GPS chips.

      Every time a car passes a camera, it's potentially identified.

      It's mostly used to flag up a wanted car and sometimes for traffic modelling - you can follow individual cars through a journey using the plates and then create trip models across a city and use that to plan traffic signals. Or, you can use it calculate journey times for display on motorway overhead signage.

      It can also be used for average speed detection systems. So you basically log a car at camera position 1, time how long it gets before it pings camera 2, and camera 3... If it arrives too soon, you send a fine in the post. If it arrives far too quick, you alert a patrol car and pull it over and charge the driver.

      Police vehicles are also fitted with it so they can automatically and continuously scan car plates as they drive around and if they happen upon someone who is a stolen vehicle, one flagged for being on the road uninsured, or some other suspicious plate, it will alert them in the car when it notices the number.

      1. Chairman of the Bored Silver badge

        Re: What shall be done about civil liberties?

        @six, same on this side of the pond. In many communities the plate recognition cameras are ubiquitous. My assumption is that most of these are controlled by the local sherriffs' offices but their use is only rarely revealed in court.

        One problem is that their existence is used to justify ever more intrusive surveillance. For example I've seen the argument made that warrantless vehicle searches should be ok because you have "no reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle". Why? Presumably because we the people are supposedly ok with the plate cameras, indiscriminate use of stingrays, etc. Its tough to climb up a slippery slope...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What shall be done about civil liberties?

          "One problem is that their existence is used to justify ever more intrusive surveillance. For example I've seen the argument made that warrantless vehicle searches should be ok because you have "no reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle". Why? Presumably because we the people are supposedly ok with the plate cameras, indiscriminate use of stingrays, etc. Its tough to climb up a slippery slope..."

          No, because those are PUBLIC roads, as in funded and maintained by the government. Don't want to be subject to public scrutiny? Don't use public resources. Isn't that why there are private roads and private nets and so on?

  15. Slx

    While it sounds great in theory, I would be very concerned that all it would take is someone to put a transmitter system somewhere that could send false information and you could cause at the very least a whole highway to jam on the brakes or all suddenly swerve out of lane.

    I don't see how you could possibly authenticate that this was genuinely information from another car and that you should act upon it.

    You would have absolutely no control whatsoever over the veracity and quality of the data your were receiving.

    Even without any malevolent motivation, it's possible that a car could send a false signal.

    Then from a legal liability point of view, would the driver with the faulty system then be legally liable for multiple road accidents?

    ---

    If you want to look at Trump deregulation impacting people, there are plenty of examples, but this isn't one of them.

    It may be for the wrong reasons, but this sounds like a technology that absolutely does not need to be mandated in cars.

  16. Kiwi Silver badge

    Yay Chump!

    Way to go! Avoid those silly technical things that could help increase the population of the world! And sacrifice a few yanks while you're at it! So wonderful of you to put the rest of the planet before humanity and especially USians!

    Er, just one more favour if you wouldn't mind. Could you rig it so the first person to lose their life when they could've been saved by this tech would be yourself? That'd really show how much you believe in what you're doing!

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Yay Chump!

      So you suggest replacing the airbag in the steering wheel with a shotgun shell? Or perhaps a metal spike? Would be unfortunate, though, for those who run into ghost drivers...

      1. Kiwi Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Yay Chump!

        So you suggest replacing the airbag in the steering wheel with a shotgun shell? Or perhaps a metal spike?

        Could make an improvement to certain government cars at least... Though it would have to be in the rear. And not in the seat itself, I'm sure some of them would enjoy a metal spike in the rear.

        Would be unfortunate, though, for those who run into ghost drivers...

        Well, I guess they'd quickly be joining them...

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: Yay Chump!

          Ghost drivers are usually of a suicidal bent in any event, meaning you'd be helping them with their death wishes.

          Going back to the topic at hand, perhaps the best way to challenge the system is to make it a game of Tom, Dick, and Harry: only instead of one truth, one lie, and one flipping, all three are flipping and you need to be able to tell which are which first-time every-time in a split second (or you miss the window and crash). It basically boils down to there being no way to truly trust the data. Any attempt to attribute trust can be trivially faked. Indeed, the whole problem of avoiding accidents may boil down to You Can't Fix Stupid, because the ONLY source that COULD potentially provide enough trustworthiness...is Big Brother. Nothing else has enough scope. So what's your choice? Big Brother watching the streets or stupid drivers taking innocent drivers with them?

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Can I get this fitted to my bike?

    Only asking, because *some* drivers don't seem to see a cyclist going round a roundabout in the correct lane, in daylight, and wearing as much high viz clothing as possible as well as a bright yellow cycling helmet. I got knocked off my bike by a taxi a few months ago, and thankfully only got a few cuts and bruises.

    Taxi drivers response to me lying on the floor with blood trickling down my face "what were you doing?"

    my response to this was:- "going round the ####ing roundabout!"

    1. Hollerithevo Silver badge

      Re: Can I get this fitted to my bike?

      Ditto pedestrians, so when I (on my crutches) am crossing a cycle lane on a green pedestrian light, I have some warning when a boy racer decides that brakes are for wimps?

    2. Kiwi Silver badge

      Re: Can I get this fitted to my bike?

      Only asking, because *some* drivers don't seem to see a cyclist going round a roundabout in the correct lane, in daylight, and wearing as much high viz clothing as possible as well as a bright yellow cycling helmet.

      Maybe you make yourself look a bit more like a police officer? That would get you noticed.

      It's been said that a drier will notice the parked cop car 10 miles away before they notice the truck 10 metres away. I comes down to how drivers process risk, and a cyclist simply isn't a risk to a car driver whereas a cop is (especially to a bad driver). Drivers see things that'll give them a bad day long before they see things that'll be a minor bump as they drive over it :(

      (Of course, if you're one of those cyclists who insist on riding 2-abreast in dangerous areas, eg around blind corners where drivers have no real options but to hit you where 1) you could be on an alternative road (but it's your right to use that road!) and 2) if you were riding single-file nothing bad would've happened then, well.... )

      1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

        Re: Can I get this fitted to my bike?

        I've just taken up cycling again after many years, and I would be first in line. Scratch that, what I really want is a device that will warn me in advance that a car door is about to be flung open right in my path.

  18. codejunky Silver badge

    Wow

    Are you sure you didnt mean to post this article on the Guardian? Is the government known for being up to date? Competent? Knowing how things work? No!

    Trump is right to drop this federal interference, not for deep pocket lobbyists but because when the government picks a winner it is often a bad choice and bad solution. The gov can be involved in punishing the failure and with the justice system define who is to blame and the available charges.

    Slashing regulations is a good thing in general. Too many regulations get in the way of fixing problems and advancing. Especially when the regulation is about picking winners.

    1. PapaD

      Re: Wow

      Well, regulation can be a tricky thing, too much and you stifle creativity and create untenable situations, too little however and you get companies making decisions purely on the bottom line, regardless of whether it harms people.

      Like decide that its cheaper to pay the fines for dumping chemicals rather than spending the money to properly dispose of such things, or not caring about seatbelts because hey, who gives a monkey if a few thousand people die in car crashes, we've already sold them the product so we don't lose out.

      Granted, some financial pressure can be applied by people not buying cars without seatbelts, which is great until you have monopolies (like the US telecoms companies) where often the other choice is 'nothing'

      Still, its a fine line that needs to be walked, and the US invariably seems to walk on the side of the line that favours corporate profits over the rest of us.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Wow

        @ PapaD

        "Well, regulation can be a tricky thing, too much and you stifle creativity and create untenable situations, too little however and you get companies making decisions purely on the bottom line, regardless of whether it harms people."

        Very true. If the gov is punishing bad behaviour I am all for it but when they start picking winners of being pedantic then they stifle innovation or even go so far as the law being ignored for being obsolete.

        "Granted, some financial pressure can be applied by people not buying cars without seatbelts, which is great until you have monopolies (like the US telecoms companies) where often the other choice is 'nothing'"

        Breaking incontestable monopolies is definitely a government thing but a lot of safety features come as a selling point or improvement to a product (especially for repeated purchase ones. Ones bought infrequently need more regulation as people cant learn from such situations. US telecoms dont sound appealing. But on the plus side they aint killing people for removing safety features.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Wow

      GSM?

    3. strum Silver badge

      Re: Wow

      >Slashing regulations is a good thing in general.

      Yeah. Right. Who needs fire exits? Who needs seatbelts/crash helmets? Who needs wholesome food or toys that don't explode?

      You really are a jackass, codejunky. Your idealogical garbage wouldn't pass muster with any sensible person over 12.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Wow

        @ strum

        "Yeah. Right. Who needs fire exits? Who needs seatbelts/crash helmets? Who needs wholesome food or toys that don't explode?"

        People who want customers generally. You seem upset at the idea the gov doesnt need to dictate everything. Would you prefer the gov to dictate protocols for a technology it doesnt understand? Or exact penalty on those who cause harm? Dictating a protocol can cause law breakers (such as the recent engine pollution scandal) because the demand is stupid/unreasonable. Punishing those who cause harm reduces the desire to do so and whatever methods work can be employed.

        "You really are a jackass, codejunky. Your idealogical garbage wouldn't pass muster with any sensible person over 12."

        Thats ok. Once you leave school and have to work you may change your views.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Wow

          @codejunky; "Thats ok. Once you leave school and have to work you may change your views."

          Ah, the old "proof by condescension"...

          1. codejunky Silver badge
            Trollface

            Re: Wow

            @AC

            Feel free to read what I was replying to. Unless thats you strum?

        2. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: Wow

          "People who want customers generally. You seem upset at the idea the gov doesnt need to dictate everything. Would you prefer the gov to dictate protocols for a technology it doesnt understand? Or exact penalty on those who cause harm? Dictating a protocol can cause law breakers (such as the recent engine pollution scandal) because the demand is stupid/unreasonable. Punishing those who cause harm reduces the desire to do so and whatever methods work can be employed."

          But by then it's too late and people are dead, people get mad, and usually people VOTE. So governments are incentivized to keep the body counts down. Plus it may be too late to punish those who cause harm because (a) they're dead, too, or (b) they saw what was coming and went whack-a-mole.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Wow

            @ Charles 9

            "But by then it's too late and people are dead, people get mad, and usually people VOTE. So governments are incentivized to keep the body counts down. Plus it may be too late to punish those who cause harm because (a) they're dead, too, or (b) they saw what was coming and went whack-a-mole."

            The only way to red tape a massive reduction in deaths is to red tape everything so nothing can be done. Would you prefer to have thin phones/tablets/improved portable devices even if the odd one melts itself or would you prefer the wire to the wall land line? The car or a cart? With that mentality we would likely never get to have electricity. Look at the lives lost due to electricity and now imagine trying to live without it.

            1. Charles 9 Silver badge

              Re: Wow

              The Amish seem to do well without it. Remember the Luddites who honestly feel technology is overrated and that we're over taxing the planet.

              Plus, when it comes to collateral damage, there's always the personal angle which you'll have to deal with if you wish to avoid revolts.

  19. rdhood

    80% of crashes...

    "The US Department of Transportation estimated that the tech – which has been developed over a decade at the cost of countless dollars – could prevent or reduce the impact of up to 80 per cent of collisions."

    But lets also look at the deaths caused BY tech. People on cell phones are now responsible for more deaths than drunk driving and guns put together. Wouldn't it save a lot of lives to prevent distracted driving? WELL????

    We shame and criminalize drunk driving for 30 years, but barely give notice to the pile of deaths mounting up do to texting. Now we want to legislate that cars self correct for our texting and driving habits. How about, instead, we have first/second/third offenses... costing thousands of dollars and much community service... just like for drunk driving? Lose your license mostly permanently after the third offense.

    I write all of this in complete seriousness. When an activity produces as much death as another activity, punishment for each should be similar. We shouldn't be trying to mandate electronic interventions for our electronic habit.

    1. Baldrickk Silver badge

      Re: 80% of crashes...

      Nothing wrong with working from both ends.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 80% of crashes...

      But then you can take the argument further and ask why we didn't outlaw the in-car radio. After all, music can be a distraction, too, as is fumbling the knob when the local station's out of range.

      Yes, I know the counterargument is that killing monotony (like the constant hum of rubber on road) is the best way to counter highway hypnosis.

  20. Someone Else Silver badge
    Alert

    But that's not all...

    So why has the Trump Administration decided to back track? Is it an ideological hatred of any federally imposed rules at all? Is it another sign of President Trump's weird drive to unravel everything done by his predecessor? No, it appears as though it is good old-fashioned corporate greed.

    Well, there's that...but it doesn't cover for the fact that Herr Drumpf is a racist fuck, and cannot countenance the possibility that the black guy is better than he is at...well, pretty much everything, but especially at simply running things.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As usual, not one commentard has a clue

    Not one commentard seems to know anything about V2V (or V2X or ITS) but blathered on anyways. CAMP and the US NHTSA conducted three pilot projects in the US during the past few years (NYC, Tampa, and Wyoming). Accidents greatly reduced with strong emphasis on privacy and anti-spoofing -- the technology is quite feasible.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: As usual, not one commentard has a clue

      I'll believe it when an outside agency (as in outside the country) endorses the results independently. Even better, I'll believe it when an organization like MADD endorses it (as an endorsement from an opponent is the best form of endorsement there is).

  22. onefang Silver badge

    "The US Department of Transportation estimated that the tech – which has been developed over a decade at the cost of countless dollars"

    I doubt the bean counters are not counting those dollars, that's their job.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019