[fruser1]

In the name of safety, more power to the gov.

I imagine it won't be too long before this is used for automated traffic enforcement and giving the police the ability to stop your car. Even tax authorities could turn it off if you don't pay on time.

Regardless of security, hackers will be able to breach the system and turn your car off or veer for fun.

[montag813]

Inevitable, as we move to autonomous “driving”

[WayneS]

Privacy is also protected in V2V safety transmissions. V2V technology does not involve the exchange of information linked or linkable to an individual...

Except maybe - oh, I don't know - the owner of the vehicle.

Privacy protection indeed...

[Rashputin]

Don't forget shutting it down when using it would cause you to exceed the per capita allotment of carbon output.

[neefer]

I sometimes wish there was a way to transmit a message to another driver. Like “your taillight is burnt out.”

[E. Pluribus Unum]

All you communication are belong to us.

[PLMerite]

“New Rule Could Require Cars to Communicate”

I thought that’s what the horn was for...

[NorthMountain]

1) Where in the Constitution is the Congress or any other branch of the government authorized to mandate that cars 'talk' to each other?

2) Hey Donald! Here's a prime example of regulatory overreach for you to quash! Make America Great Again!

[wrench]

“I imagine it won’t be too long before this is used for automated traffic enforcement and giving the police the ability to stop your car”

That ability has been coded and hard wired into new cars for several years, now.

The last link is to get compatible equipment into the field for government employees to utilize it.

[trebb]

Mercedes S700: "Move over Prius, I'm coming through.

Prius: "I'm telling on you"...

[grobdriver]

Great.

ADS-B for cars.

[GailA]

Just how are they going to talk to a pedestrian jay walking or a child running after a ball that rolled into the street? Or the idiot who drives drunk, or high, or sick and runs into a house?

[Plain Old American]

Convience store association - sounds like fake news - but the article mentions 360 degree situational awareness - so while traveling down the highway at 70mph a goofball in the opposite lanes slams on his brake - your vehicle responds with no warning - sounds like a great idea to me. . .

[UCANSEE2]

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Ah yes.....what could possibly go wrong?

The laws of physics will be at front and center when a light duty king-cab pickup truck, traveling at 60mph tries to avoid a collision with a Prius that is in its path and moving at 35mph. All that inertia has to go somewhere. Will it be directed at another vehicle with 6 kids in it? Or will the truck simply roll over killing its occupant(s)?

[Yo-Yo]

I imagine it won't be too long before this is used for automated traffic enforcement and giving the police the ability to stop your car.

Cops have already done so with On*Star equipped vehicles.

[lacrew]

“...to help transportation planners integrate the technologies to allow vehicles to “talk” to roadway infrastructure such as traffic lights, stop signs and work zones to improve mobility, reduce congestion and improve safety.”

Without exaggeration, this would cost a trillion dollars.

[lacrew]

I’m normally not hysterical about being hacked...

But if this is supposed to use inputs from one car (say it slams on its brakes) to another car - to make it slam on its own brakes...

It will take around 27 seconds for teenagers to figure out how to transmit fake signals and get cars to go bonkers.

[hoagy62]

I’d like to see someone hack their car to make it broadcast “F*** you!” to every car it passes.

[bgill]

One speck of dust.

Just one.

[MortMan]

The lawyers are salivating over the liability lawsuits already.