V2V Stops Here - No Module Mandates Needed
The U.S. Department of Transportation is seeking to mandate the installation of a device in cars for vehicle-to-vehicle communications. For some reason the agency fails to perceive that there is already a life-saving device in the car. That device is called a wireless phone.
The wireless phone is typically acquired voluntarily by the driver. It is capable of communicating with other drivers as well as with law enforcement and emergency responders. It is also capable of receiving emergency alerts.
Depending on how the phone is configured it can be set to automatically make emergency calls. And in some cars – notably from Chrysler and Ford in the U.S. – the phone can make approved automatic crash notification calls to summon assistance in the event of a collision.
The wireless phone is normally equipped with the latest wireless network technology and is therefore never at risk of being outmoded by a transition to new technology or by the shutoff of a particular network or piece of wireless spectrum. The device is also possessed of extraordinary processing power and a variety of sensors for positioning and location. It is also equipped for voice, data, video, and text communications.
The device itself is usually replaced on a regular basis to take advantage of advances in technology. Software updates for the device are free of charge and accomplished safely whether the device is in use or not.
Applications exist to enable the wireless phone to communicate with infrastructure and with other vehicles. And some apps (Global Mobile Alert - https://tinyurl.com/pc6rsy7) will alert drivers (who may be distracted by wireless phone calls) to dangerous driving circumstances such as the proximity of intersections or railroad crossings.
Wireless phones using applications such as Driveway can evaluate driving behavior and provide suggestions for safer driving behavior. Multiple applications are available for tracking location via the mobile phone for worried family members or friends as well as to alert them based on geo-fencing.
But the very best aspect of the wireless phone is that it is brought into the car voluntarily at no added cost to the car maker or customer. Deployment of the technology is immediate as are the benefits. Best of all it is demand-driven – no coercion is required.
Even better, no prototyping, testing, or assessment of user interfaces is needed. And there is no requirement for dedicated, protected spectrum or protracted comment periods for car makers, consumers or suppliers. No new standards, consortia, testbeds or congressional hearings.
Bottom line: The U.S. Department of Transportation needs to take a closer look at wireless phones as a means for achieving communications between vehicles or between vehicles and their drivers and infrastructure. Mandating a module is a dead end deal.
Helping the masses understand automotive engineering better
10 年Back when I was at OnStar, I orchestrated a test that became a commercial. It was based upon the musings of "What would happen to a phone in the cupholder during a crash?" I suspect you've witnessed the commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WImS7tvlm8. Seeing as I no longer work there (*and, in fact, my wife works for Ford), I'm sure you'll believe me when I say it wasn't staged. That was a real crash test. The only contrived thing about it was the inoperative phone ended up in the trunk since the rear seats were removed. Yes, there are plenty of cellphones that survive a crash, and the LTE speed and future bandwidth will likely (eventually) meet all the CAMP-VSC requirements for low-latency applications, but I wouldn't want to bet my child's life on an unsecured phone that may or may not be turned-on, tethered, etc. Not to mention, people would have to stop texting to use the phone for that purpose. LOL!
Product Owner Cloud Services for Autonomous Driving, agile in a non-agile world.
10 年Roger, do I get this right? You propose to integrate 5.9GHz into phones? This comes with a significant downside: you would need an antenna on the roof anyway for a flawless transmission, while phone makers have long ago abandoned the antenna jack. Anyway, DSRC was a good idea 10 years ago. Now it is dead in the water. Local sensors and cellular will do the job.
Hardware Engineering
10 年Sure, but all those implementations don't disable the phone, they transfer control to the touch interface in the vehicle and are essentially hands free for the device. This does not work of course with all cellphones.
Hardware Engineering
10 年I'd posit you couldn't sell a phone that is disabled when you plug it into the car. To change consumer behaviour that much would be an incredible achievement. I'd like to see your suggestions on how that might be done. So to sum up, you'd like the phone to use DSRC freq's on phones that don't yet exist, and when you plug them into the car they can only be used for DSRC. Help me understand why you wouldn't just create a new DSRC platform that only does DSRC, that can be used plugged into the car, and used externally as a pedestrian device....wouldn't that be cheaper than having all phones include DSRC?
Hardware Engineering
10 年I'll give you that you could dock the phone, but how popular do you think that might be with consumers when they can no longer text or use the phone? If what you are saying is that a captured and docked cellphone could be a DSRC Rx/Tx (5.9Ghz and nextgen phones), then I could agree, but it would be a case of simply leveraging the hardware platform. This could be useful as a pedestrian device. As a phone it is subject to widespread compromise and on a non-reliable transport (radio). DSRC on this platform could just as easily be compromised.