The Government May Soon Mandate Technology That Could Prevent A Huge Number Of Car Crashes en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:22:14 -0400 Alex Davies REIGuy Tue, 04 Feb 2014 11:51:58 -0500 The industry (Google, GM, Tesla, etc) has been waiting for standards here. The government's self imposed deadline was over a year ago. This has the ability to stop the #1 killer of people ages 4-34, end traffic jams, and greatly reduce the #2 expense for American families. There's no reason any more surveillance needs to be added. Isolationist Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:58:00 -0500 This is another one of these stories that makes me think of the old Zager & Evans song, "In the Year 2525". We've already gotten fat, because we barely move. In the not so distant future, maybe we'll end up with T-Rex-like hands and arms, because we won't need to turn the steering wheel, or even turn our head to the side! KCRob Mon, 03 Feb 2014 20:41:22 -0500 Seems like a good idea - in theory. But how long would it be before such a system was hacked... or it was discovered that it was feeding data to the government (or to marketing companies figuring out what ads to play on your infotainment system). How much would such a system cost once liability exposure was backed into the price? All it would take is a lawsuit claiming that a system fault caused so-and-so to run a school bus of the mountain. Rusty Shackleford Mon, 03 Feb 2014 20:40:42 -0500 We already have that - They're known as Buses, Trolleys, Light Rail, etc. mikej77 Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:21:50 -0500 The only way to make healthcare affordable is by cutting costs and this can be done by reducing demand substantially and CNC transport is the way to go. Eventually all the obsolete vehicles are forced off the road if they are below a certain technical specification. Roger C. Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:46:33 -0500 They should just wait for automated driving to be perfected, then mandate it in ALL cars. The one thing that worries me is all this mandated safety equipment in cars. They're driving the cost of them up to unacceptable levels. Something has got to give. Tom Fiore Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:34:29 -0500 The concept is very good. The first question would be cost. The next is what percentage of cars will need to be interacting before the system actually does something worthwhile. If the cost is a couple of hundred or less and if as little as 10% of the fleet would be needed to make a difference then it would make sense. If instead the cost is closer to a thousand and you need a quarter or more of the fleet equipped for it to help then we would be looking at half a decade of cost before benefits would begin to be possible. Another question is how the systems would deal with non equipped cars; this would come into play with the concept of convoying and allowing the car to decide when it is safe to turn. higherpenaltiesfortextinganddriving Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:30:11 -0500 Confiscate cars where drivers are caught either drinking and driving or, texting and driving. Watch accident rates plummet. Oh wait, insur co will never back this type of logic. Noma jones Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:14:32 -0500 Ah the classic government "use fear into adding more surveillance into your lives" ploy. Worked with 9/11 so why not try it again.