Smart intersections are several years down the road

There has been a steady amount of talk about vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications as well as IntelliDrive/vehicle infrastructure integration (VII) over the past few years. There's a Catch-22 problem here - I don't believe this benefits any startup or even large auto OEMs until every car has it - that won't happen till governments put a large amount of capital into funding the roll-outs. So, IMO, the market is a decade out.  What do you think?

The Wall Street Journal posted a video of this space today:

Here's a scenario from a Gearlog article: "We are traveling at an impossibly high speed along the Autobahn when a stalled Cadillac CTS looms ahead. As if sensing its plight, the Caddy's brake lights and backup lights flash. A warning flashes in my car's dashboard, the seat vibrates, and then powerful disc brakes bring us to a halt just a few feet from disaster—all without the driver touching a thing. The demo actually took place in the parking lot of Giants Stadium at about 20 mph, but one day it could happen on the Autobahn, or on Interstate 80, at serious speeds."

For those of you who've made it this far, here's a fun clip from a motorcycle on the German Autobahn:

Comments

[Ali]

'Risk homeostatsis' is a factor that's unavoidable. After all if a person feels safer, it's just human nature that they let their guard down. That's what safety products and features are intended to do.

But making people feel safer is not the main goal for manufacturers. From the manufacturer POV, they’re main concern is reducing the severity of accidents. I.e. if they can stop people from dying in car accidents even while 'risk homeostasis' may slightly increase the number of accidents, they'd be happy. It's kind of like wearing a motorbike or bicycle helmet: helmets save lives. 'Risk homeostasis' should not deter manufacturers from creating helmets even though consumers act more aggressively when they wear them.

[Dev Khare]

Ali, thanks for your comment. I also think there is a psychological issue at play - 'risk homeostasis' - something I've mentioned in a previous blog post on driver-centric applications. If drivers know that 'the system' is going to alert them about unsafe intersections, then those drivers are going to drive more aggressively near those intersections - does this not result in an ever-escalating arms race between 'the system' and people's risky behavior?

[Ali]

Aside from the mass adoption issue, there are many other barriers that V2V must overcome before gaining full acceptance by the public.

For example, the police could use the system to track drivers and catch speeders on the highway. So obviously some drivers won't be too happy with this saying that it's a violation of privacy.

Security is also a major barrier. There are already devices and products designed to block WiFi transmission. If a hacker could block or impair V2V communications (which is bound to happen), it would definitely be a huge safety concern.