Prevent "another death", get "move over", ...

[ConversantCars]

Dear CHP Officers,

You don't need to die, people don't need to die in traffic accidents. Tell Caltrans? to have GoCalifornia imitate the DARPA Grand Challenge with a Transportation Challenge for Conversant Cars, fully described at http://conversantcars.com. It is eminently practical. The technology is already available in the General Motors V2V program and a Neiman Marcus dog collar.

Please don?t be offended as the web site is geared more toward traffic congestion relief. Unfortunately, congestion relief gets the money, the attention of most people, and the political will. In fact, our society?s general acceptance of accidents as ?just the price of operating cars? is exactly why your input is important.

Please encourage Governor Schwarzenegger or Caltrans? GoCalifornia project manager, Tom West to make driving safer with a Transportation Challenge. I suspect the results will be faster with California than with a national effort. California has the 7th or 8th largest economy in the world. California has among the worst traffic congestion on multi-lane highways (as opposed to surface streets). California has all the intellectual and fiscal talent needed to succeed with a transportation challenge. Elevating the Challenge to the national level introduces 50x the politics, which means 2 or 3x the delays.

Please express your support for a GoCalifornia Transportation Challenge for Conversant Cars.

Sincerely,
Mark Capron, PE Civil

[warriorsn]

It seems like this is kind of what like they used in the movie iRobot, is this correct? It is a great idea, but how practical is it? I was searching the site and see not specifics about what actually happends. Do people steer the cars out of they way or are they moved remotely? It will be very interesting to see whether or not any city or state picks up the technology.

WARRIORSN

[FuelInjection09]

I thought it was pretty neat seeing those Buicks drive themselves on an unopened freeway a few years back, and those universities competing in the desert with that unmanned vehicle race. But, it'll be a long very time before we see anything like that put to use on public highways. The technology is still in its infant stages of development.

Back in the 1980's, automotive engineers predicted that we would have flying cars by the year 2000. :lol: It's 2006 now and we still can't even competitively sell electric vehicles. I doubt there'll be as much red tape and special interest groups trying to halt the project, but it'll still take an eternity. BTW, GM's V2V program isn't anything special. It uses the existing OnStar communication satellite network which is seriously flawed.

Keep up the good work though; change is bound to take place sooner or later, but most likely later.

[ConversantCars]

Yes. You could think of this as iRobot, sort of. You'll need a faster than phone modem connection to see and hear the movie. To get into the technology, you need to read the Semi-Academic info and the Q & A.

The key to seeing Conversant Cars happen in a decade is the Transportation Challenge, an imitation of the DARPA Grand Challenge but carried out over a decade with this technology racing in every possible situation. Use the race to improve from groups with 10 feet bumper to bumper to smaller. Use the race to set the best between-groups distances to allow for glitches like junk falling off a truck, or a flat tire. Use the race to ID the optimum spacing of devices that refine the accuracy of the GPS. GPS can be accurate within fractions of an inch given either sufficient time or local (nearby ground mounted) correction signals.

The hardware is all available, just need the software and to make the hardware/communication robust. The situation is not unlike the first personal computers. All that had to happen for a spreadsheet to appear is for people to ask for spreadsheets. Or ask for drag & drop file copying. Or ...

The technology is at the point where people who need it should be asking for it. You, CHP Officers, have more credibility about what you need. Please tell Governor Schwarzenegger the Transportation Challenge for Conversant Cars is what you need. Let the GoCalifornia guys at Caltrans worry about how to make it happen. If you don't ask, then it isn't happening.

[TheForceCHP]

i assume that this is the same GM technology that was discussed in Motor Trend last month.

my opinion is that i want nothing to do with it. not only do i like driving my own car, but the fact of the matter is that it will be impossible to protect against hackers, imagine what damage they would cause!

[FuelInjection09]

i assume that this is the same GM technology that was discussed in Motor Trend last month.

my opinion is that i want nothing to do with it. not only do i like driving my own car, but the fact of the matter is that it will be impossible to protect against hackers, imagine what damage they would cause!

Yes, good point. I can reflash the ECU map on my own car just using a special USB cable anyone can purchase at their dealership's parts dept, a lab top computer and some inexpensive software sold online. Anyone can delete the new "black box" recording feature on GM ECUs, cancel out the cars top speed governor and rev limiter, and fine tune it to get an easy 30hp. I also love driving, so I would hate sitting in some uniform car controlled by a processor.

And how much will all of this cost the state? It's hard just to get potholes repaired here in Cali, so like I said, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

[TheForceCHP]

the motor trend article said that GM wants the gov. to make it a mandated thing that all cars have a sending unit(they SAY $50). then if you want your car to be able to be a smart car then you would have to pay to have an integrated unit that could use the info. that the other cars are sending out. i want to see you put a sending unit in a 65' mustang for $50 that can transmit your breaking and lane changes... they wouldn't be able to, so they would either have to make a more expensive unit or ban old cars from being on the road. if the old cars didn't have the unit then the "high tech, smart" cars wouldn't be able to see them. the unit is designed to see the other cars by what they trasmit and not use radar or other expensive devices

[retchp]

Ah yes, flying cars by 2000. I remember those predictions from my childhood. Just imagine the typical California driver flying around and the consequences of what would happen when they ran out of gas, ran out of oil, forgot to see the building, got too close to the other flying car, got cut off by the flying big rig, tried to insert a cd into the changer as they were landing on a playground etc. :lol:

[ConversantCars]

I?ll guess you don?t like to drive when the freeway is a parking lot. And I agree the concepts must be paired, the Transportation Challenge with the Conversant Cars. And we never tried a Challenge for flying cars. DARPA tried a challenge, and it worked. We tried a challenge for human-powered flight, and it worked. We tried a challenge for human-powered bicycles and they have exceeded 80 mph. President Kennedy challenged the Nation to get to the moon before 1970, and we did.

Conversant technology is the seat belt and congestion relief of the 21st Century. But it protects you on the side of the road, construction workers, bicyclists, and pedestrians as well as you on the highway and all other drivers.

Just like seat belts derived from and were introduced to the driving public by automobile racing, so to should conversant technology. DARPA spent about $20 million staging its Grand Challenge. An effective Transportation Challenge might cost Caltrans $1 billion. Grand Challenge contestants provided about $100 million of effort. (Mark Twain?s Tom Sawyer fence painting effect.) Transportation Challenge contestants might be spending a few billion dollars.

But compare the alternatives. With the 20th Century approach to traffic congestion, California spends $107 billion for no real safety improvement and reduces traffic congestion from 100 hours per year to 80 hours per year. With Conversant technology, Californian?s spend $1 billion of public funds on the Transportation Challenge and perhaps $15 billion in private funds at $300 per car. But the conversant technology could save thousands of lives, billions of dollars (from accidents), and drops congestion toward 10 hours per year.

Think of this situation like President Kennedy thought of the space race ?America will put a man on the moon within the decade.? But the transportation challenge even makes economic sense. Ask not if conversant technology will happen! Ask what you can do to make conversant technology happen!

[x MAIT]

Fuel, explain how you delete the "black box" recording feature. What is the purpose of the "black box"?

[ConversantCars]

Thank you all for the input. I?ve adjusted http://conversantcars.com to answer your questions and comments:

Warrior ? See Semi-Academic page, The Technology of Conversant.
Fuel ? See Q&A #1, Q&A #15. And remember: that?s way they play the game. Also, check out the Semi-Academic page, Order of Magnitude Cost Analysis.
TheForce ? See Q&A #2, Q& A #14, Q&A #8.
Retchp ? See the movie (takes a high speed connection), See Q&A #15.
x Mait ? See Q&A #3.

Remember, this technology will be happening with or without you. If you convince Caltrans to give the Transportation Challenge a try, you will have more control of the results.

[FuelInjection09]

Fuel, explain how you delete the "black box" recording feature. What is the purpose of the "black box"?

Well, if you don't already know, then you should find these articles quite interesting; since you were a member of the elite CHP Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/edr-site/uploads/GMs_Black_Box--Corvette.pdf

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/44307.html

Going back to answer the first half of your question - - the "Black Box" unit is typically part of a car's Engine Control Unit (ECU) network. Without getting too much into complex terminology, the gist an is ECU is that it's a mini-computer, that controls Engine Management (Timing, Air/Fuel Ratio, O2 sensors, trouble codes to activate Check Engine lights, etc). It's amazing how sophisticated some manufacturer's ECUs are. On my car alone the ECU controls all of the above, plus the intelligent AWD system, and adjusts timing and the Air/Fuel Ratio for changing elevations while driving... plus a handful of other things. So, instead of messing around with the carburetor, like back in the day, one can simply plug in a special cable into an access port, typically located under the dash, and into their lap top.

With the proper software and training, one can alter pretty much anything; such as reflashing the Engine Management Map or loading in a completely different map, changing the amount of fuel delivered to the injectors at certain RPMs, deleting or disabling certain features (like the Black Box), and so on. There's even software out now that will allow a person to run multiple modes on their ECU, allowing them to switch over maps with a push on a button. One can have a stock map for daily driving, then an aggressively tuned map if they take the car to the track that day, a valet map where the car can't rev past 3,000 rpm, and an anti-theft map where it's impossible to start the vehicle; unless the thieve has an extra ECU handy (which costs a grip), and has the sweet time to rip out the dash to change out the ECU. :lol:

[bcjack]

Another site with a couple of articles on "Black Boxes".

http://www.hurt911.org/accident/car-accident-reconstruction.html

[x MAIT]

I just wanted to see how Fuel would respond. Actually, the SDM, or "Black Box" does not record data until it has a deployment or near deployment event. I wanted to see if Fuel could explain how he would erase this data.

[TheForceCHP]

black boxes in cars do record data. i have heard of issues with people hitting the rev limiters and the dealers having fits about it and blaming the driver and their driving for engine problems. the BMW 7series actually records info on its key so that when you go to the dealership they can check it to fix problems. i am not to concerned in regards to the black box issue being discussed though

conversantcars- sorry but you "answers" don't work. your answer for our old classic cars is to keep them off the roads!!! that will never stand. your answers for #14 are especially funny FALLACY!!! don't make an argument with a fallacy. i would never cut somebody's break lines, but to be honest the idea of telling a whole freeway to stop, with some well placed key strokes, would be fun(a slow stop not a dangerous hitting of the breaks) i would NEVER EVER do this, but the idea is interesting.


i know on many sites that i am on, Advertising for a product like this is not allowed. i don't know about this site, but i can't stand somebody joining to just push an agenda!

[FuelInjection09]

I just wanted to see how Fuel would respond. Actually, the SDM, or "Black Box" does not record data until it has a deployment or near deployment event. I wanted to see if Fuel could explain how he would erase this data.

If one disables the Sensing Diagnostic Module (SDM), either electronically (reflash) or manually (by cutting the appropriate wires in the harness), then it would never be able to deploy to record data in the first place. I don't think it's illegal to disable it because it doesn't qualify as a safety device, like airbags and seatbelts do. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[FuelInjection09]

Correction: The SDM actually controls Airbag deployment, so then it would be illegal... unless one could only disable certain features with a reflash.

[ConversantCars]

Dear Force,

Fair enough observations. I am trying to include humor at http://conversantcars.com.

Allow me to address the agenda and advertising issues first. Everyone and every forum have many agendas. I?m on chpforums with the paired concepts of Transportation Challenge for Conversant Cars because of my impression of chpforums? prime agenda. That is to share information resulting in CHP officers better able to protect the public safety (reduce accidents, keep themselves alive, etc.) That matches my prime agenda. Like everyone, I do have additional agenda that would be useful benefits to the prime such as keeping me alive on a bicycle in the midst of robotic cars, spending less money for a lot better congestion relief, etc.

I?m not advertising in the sense that I don?t expect to make money or benefit a political party or candidate. I have no idea who will make money or gain fame off the paired concept. Yes, my wife, family, and friends do think I?m nuts for not attempting some personal cash payoff. Instead I pray for the strength to keep the quicker implementation of the paired concepts ahead of my needs for money or fame. So far, no temptations.

The potential hacker concerns are valid. They are best defended by including a sub-challenge to hackers within the Transportation Challenge.

Classic cars can be semi-conversant as easily as a bicycle or a pedestrian. They could run on city streets in semi-conversant mode for decades. Semi-conversant vehicles might be restricted to the slow lane on congested freeways within the decade. In two decades the need to avoid congestion will mean that only fully-conversant cars could get on high-traffic freeways.

[TheForceCHP]

wow, you are a little more then i can take on a daily basis! let me ask when you have the car in auto-pilot and sitting back watching TV what happens when a deer runs into the road? the point of this technology includes not using expensive radar so how would it see the deer? damm, if only i had been paying attention to the road instead of watching TV then maybe i wouldn't have hit it.

[not5150]

This is not meant to be a flame... and your stuff does look interesting, BUT

Posting Conversant Cars and Transportation Challenge in every one of your messages, almost looks like you are trying to Google Bomb your website.

Description of the google bomb - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb

[Welpe]

not5150 I agree, it does seem that way.

[ConversantCars]

Dear Force,

Thank you for joining the Challenge design team. We should include "survive hitting animals" as a sub-challenge. Isn't your current advise for a deer in headlights to hit hit the deer rather than take evasive action?

The fully-conversant mode is intended for 3+ lane freeways at times when not running fully-conversant means traffic slows. It could be a long time before one could watch TV on rural roads.

On the google bomb thing - Sorry I'm new enough not to realize how that might appear, but have read enough to know what you mean.

Don't watch TV without seatbelt fastened.

[warriorsn]

I like watching TV right now in the car, especially on those ruaral roads... It passes the time. On the subject at hand I think the best way to reduce accidents is the old fashion way... education, experience, and safer cars. Being that I recently got back from a 3 year stay in Germany, I have learned that American take the art of driving too lightly. I may sound a little Eurocentric, but they (Germans) pay over 1,500 euro for their license and close to 5 euro a gallon of gas. They have a lot more respect for the road than most Americans. Although they routinely drive over 100MPH, they have far less accidents and, what seemed, less congestion on the roadways.

Being here in Clovis, NM I have seen the worst drivers. Most of them do not know what a turning lane is. Some will make a left trun from the far right lane crossing three lanes of traffic plus the turning lane. I adocate education. I see way too many people of the road who just do not know the basics; they are the largest threat to our safety (aside from DD).

WARRIORSN

[ConversantCars]

Warriors - Hoping you don't mind the funny sarcasm mode.

Maybe you can expect to educate the ten drivers in all of New Mexico. And the roads are so empty, everyone can safely travel at 65 mph all the time. In Southern California, the vast numbers of drivers guarantee at least two uneducated, inattentive, drowsy, or drugged drivers on the road even at 2 am. And somehow those two cause several accidents every day. Plus, all the good drivers try to cram into the fast lane, and then all 3, 4, 5, or 6 lanes start doing the wave at 0 to 20 mph.

For this forum, I focused on the potential safety advantages, but those aren't the only advantages. Even if you don't like the loss of control, fully conversant cars allow for 70 mph on an existing 3 lanes with so many cars (say 20,000 vehicles per hour with 2005 size cars) that you being in control would require 10 lanes. We aren't able to find the money for 7 extra lanes (trillions of dollars). We can find the money for conversant cars (a few billion dollars, including the additional cost for the cars).

[ConversantCars]

If you were doubting this technology was going to be available soon, check out this article from the Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060202/BUSINESS01/602020617/1014.