NHTSA May Mandate That New Cars Broadcast Location, Direction
and Speed
November 19, 2013 - 4:10 PM
By Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - Before the end of this year, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration will decide whether or not to begin the
rulemaking process to mandate that newly manufactured cars include what is
being called “vehicle-to-vehicle” (V2V) communications technology that
constantly broadcasts via radio wave the car’s location, direction, speed and,
possibly, even the number of passengers it is carrying.
“NHTSA expects to make a decision on V2V technology by
the end of the year,” a spokesman for the agency told CNSNews.com.
That point was reaffirmed by NHTSA Administrator David
Strickland in testimony in the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee today, where he said the agency will “decide this year whether to
further advance the technology through regulatory action, additional research,
or a combination of both.”
“We expect to issue decisions on light duty vehicles this
year, followed by a decision on heavy-duty vehicles in 2014,” he said.
NHTSA sees this technology as the first step on a
“continuum” of automotive evolution that will ultimately lead to fully
automated vehicles navigated by internal electronics linked to external
infrastructure, communications and database systems.
The upside of a government-mandated movement toward cars
that are not controlled by the people riding in them is that it could make
transportation safer, allow people to use time spent in a vehicle for work,
rest or entertainment, and give people who are currently incapable of driving
because of age or disability the opportunity to move as freely as those who can
now drive.
The downside is that such a transportation system would
give the government at least the capability to exert increasing control over
when, where, if--or for how much additional taxation--people are allowed to go
places in individually owned vehicles. It could also give government the
ability to track where people go and when.
The Obama administration says this is something it has
“no plans” to do even if it does mandate V2V technology in all new cars.
“NHTSA has no plans to modify the current V2V system
design in a way that would enable the government or private entities to track
individual motor vehicles,” a NHTSA spokesman told CNSNews.com.
In October 2011, the Department of Transportation (DOT)
published a plan for researching the safety applications of this technology. It
summarized how the technology would work and the information it could transmit from
vehicles.
“V2V communication for safety refers to the exchange of
data over a wireless network that provides critical information that allows
each vehicle to perform calculations and issue driver advisories, driver
warnings, or take pre-emptive actions to avoid and mitigate crashes,” said the
DOT plan. “Data that may be exchanged includes each vehicle’s latitude,
longitude, time, heading angle, speed, lateral acceleration, longitudinal
acceleration, yaw rate, throttle position, brake status, steering angle,
headlight status, turn signal status, vehicle length, vehicle width, vehicle
mass, bumper height, and the number of occupants in the vehicle.”
Earlier this month, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) released a report noting that NHTSA could act this year to mandate V2V in
new cars and describing the “challenges” deploying these technologies would
present.
“The continued progress of V2V technology development
hinges on a decision that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
plans to make in late 2013 on how to proceed with these technologies,” said the
GAO report. “One option would be to pursue a rulemaking requiring their
inclusion in new vehicles.”
The report summarized six components that would be
deployed in vehicles equipped with V2V. These included: 1) a Dedicated Short
Range Communications (DSRC) radio that “receives and transmits data through
antennae,” 2) a GPS receiver that “provides vehicle position and time to DSRC
radio” and “provides timekeeping signal for applications,” 3) an “internal
communications network” that incorporates the “existing network that
interconnects components” in the vehicle, 4) an electronic control unit that
“runs safety applications,” 5) a driver-vehicle interface that “generates
warning[s] issued to driver,” and 6) a memory that “stores security
certificates, application data and other information.”
The proper functioning of these components in helping a
driver safely operate a vehicle, according to the GAO, would depend on a
“communication security system” that “provides and verifies V2V security
certificates to ensure trust between vehicles.”
In August 2012, then-Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
initiated the “Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot Model Deployment,” the main phase
of which was completed in August of this year. In this pilot program, conducted
in Ann Arbor, Mich., DOT partnered with divisions of eight automobile
companies—Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes Benz, Nissan, Toyota,
and Volkswagen—to road test V2V systems.
A total of 2,700 vehicles participated in the test,
according to GAO. Each of the eight automobile manufacturers provided eight
automobiles a piece with fully integrated V2V systems of the type that would be
installed in new cars. Additionally, according to the GAO, 79 commercial
vehicles in Ann Arbor and 88 mass transit vehicles were equipped with V2V.
The rest of the cars were retrofitted with the sort of
V2V equipment that would go into cars that were already on the road before the
technology became available.
“What was once previously thought of as science fiction
and decades away from reality may now appear to be just around the corner,”
NHTSA Administrator Strickland told the Senate Commerce Committee in written
testimony in May.
Two weeks later, Strickland’s agency released “A
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles.” It said NHTSA
believed the U.S. was heading down a “continuum” of vehicle development that
would end with fully automated vehicles. V2V was a step on this continuum.
“NHTSA finds that it is helpful to think of these
emerging technologies as part of a continuum of vehicle control automation,”
said NHTSA. “The continuum … runs from vehicles with no active control systems
all the way to full automation and self-driving.
John Lee, a professor of industrial and systems
engineering at the University of Wisconsin, testified in the same Senate
Commerce Committee hearing as the NHTSA administrator.
“We think of cars as mechanical systems, but they are
actually rolling computers,” said Lee in his written testimony. “These
computers are changing what it means to drive.”
“Moore's law suggests the capacity of automation and
entertainment systems will change rapidly, doubling every 18 months,” Lee said.
“This exponential increase means that in fifteen years we are likely to be
discussing whether people should be allowed to drive--because autonomous
vehicles may be much less error prone than people.”
In preparing its report on V2V, the GAO surveyed a group
of 21 experts on this technology and related issues. It also interviewed
representatives of public interest groups.
The GAO asked the experts to rate various potential
challenges to deploying V2V on a scale that ran from no challenge, to slight
challenge, to moderate challenge, to great challenge, to very great challenge.
“Of the 21 experts we interviewed, 12 cited the technical
development of a V2V communication security system as a great or very great
challenge to the deployment of V2V technologies,” said the GAO report. “One
expert told us that it is challenging to establish technical specifications for
a system that attempts to maintain users’ privacy while providing security for
over-the-air transmission of data.
“Another expert noted that a public key infrastructure
system the size of the one needed to support the nationwide deployment of V2V
technologies has never been developed before,” said the GAO, “the sheer
magnitude of the system will pose challenges to its development.”
Six experts said that establishing “acceptable end use
privacy” would be a “very great” challenge.
“Public interest groups we interviewed said that
overcoming concerns about privacy under a system that involves the sharing of
data among vehicles will pose a challenge,” said the GAO. “One group suggested
that the possibility that V2V data could be obtained by third parties such as
law enforcement agencies could harm the deployment of these technologies.
Similarly, one expert suggested that public acceptance of V2V technologies
might be limited without rules prohibiting the use of vehicles’ speed and
location data to issue tickets or track drivers’ movements.
“Three experts we interviewed suggested that legislation
may be needed to limit the potential use of V2V data,” said the GAO.
“Further,” said the GAO, “one automobile manufacturer …
said that it could be difficult to explain how V2V technologies work to the
public without raising concerns related to privacy.”
Like any inanimate tool, V2V and automated vehicle
technology can be used for good or ill, depending on the aims and intentions of
those who use it.
The Obama administration has included at least two senior
officials who have expressed a desire to use government power to curb the use
of vehicles.
John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, co-authored a 1973 book—Human Ecology: Problems
and Solutions—with population-control advocates Paul and Anne Ehrlich.
In this book, Holdren and his co-authors said a “massive
campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North
America and to de-develop the United States.” Part of their vision involved
automobiles.
“We believe,” wrote Holdren and the Ehrlichs, “a Federal
task force should be established immediately to do the planning and lay the
groundwork for dealing with the automobile problem without great disruption of
the national economy. Such a task force might be part of a larger institution
with the responsibility to devise policies for making the transition to a
stable, ecologically sound economy. The task is enormous but it is both
possible and necessary.”
“In the short term,” wrote Holdren and his co-authors,
“alternative activities must be found for various industries, including those
related to the automobile.”
Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote that action would be
needed in the “political arena.”
“And when solutions to the problems of human ecology are
considered, all roads seem to lead to the political arena,” they wrote.
“If you … decided to buy a small car that would last 30
years, be easily repairable and recyclable, and have a low-compression engine,
you would find it impossible to do,” they wrote. “A manufacturer who wanted to
produce such a car today probably could not; no one would put up the huge
amount of capital required for fear that the ‘Eco-special’ would not sell. Only
when society makes other kinds of cars illegal (or too expensive) will the
money become available for such ventures.”
Thirty five years after Holdren and the Ehrlichs
published this book, President Obama named Holdren his science and technology
adviser. He also named Ray LaHood, who had been a Republican congressman from
Illinois, his transportation secretary.
A month after Obama’s inauguration, LaHood told the
Associated Press: "We should look at the vehicular miles program where
people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled.”
At that time, however, White House press spokesman Robert
Gibbs told reporters the administration would not pursue the policy of taxing
people by the mile.
LaHood, nonetheless, soon announced the DOT’s “livability
initiative,” which was designed to get people to live in denser housing near
public transit lines.
At a May 21, 2009 appearance at the National Press Club,
LaHood was asked: “Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to
coerce people out of their cars?
“It is a way to coerce people out of their cars,” said
LaHood, adding a moment later that “we have to create opportunities for people
that do want to use a bicycle or want to walk or want to get on a streetcar or
want to ride a light rail.”
LaHood was asked a follow-up: “Some conservative groups
are wary of the livable communities program, saying it's an example of
government intrusion into people's lives. How do you respond?”
“About everything we do around here is government
intrusion in people’s lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.”
The GAO report on V2V said that the Department of
Transportation saw a need for the system to “identify bad actors” but wanted to
“minimize risks to privacy.”
“DOT officials have emphasized the need to distinguish
between the ability to identify bad actors through a V2V communication security
system and the ability to monitor the movements of individual vehicles,” said
the GAO report. “DOT stated that as currently conceived, a V2V communication
security system would contain multiple technical, physical, and organizational
controls to minimize privacy risks—including the risk of vehicle tracking by
individuals and government or commercial entities.”
In a speech in New York in April, NHTSA Administrator
Strickland said his agency believed V2V technologies and the eventual
automation of automobiles could help manage traffic and preserve the
environment.
“In addition to the potential safety impact of V2V and
automation, the agency is also aware that these technologies have significant
added potential to contribute to intelligent management of roadway traffic and
reduce the burden of highway traffic on the environment,” he said. “These
potential benefits are additional reasons why the continued exploration of
these technologies is an extremely worthwhile endeavor.”
CNSNews.com contacted David Wise, director of the
physical infrastructure team at GAO that conducted the study of V2V, and asked
him two questions raised by this technology.
Question: “Is it true that V2V technology and the
communication system that goes with it, would at least give the government the
potential to track the movement of vehicles if that is what it wanted to do?”
Wise: “It would depend on the specific design of the
security communications system which, as we say in the report, is not
finalized. As we state in our report, according to automobile industry
representatives, the security system now under development is being designed to
ensure data privacy structure that prevents the association of a vehicle’s V2V
communication security certificates with any unique identifier of drivers of
their vehicles. In addition, according to DOT, as currently conceived, a V2V
communication security system would contain multiple technical, physical, and
organizational controls to minimize privacy risks—including the risk of vehicle
tracking by individuals and government or commercial entities. DOT officials
also told us that the department will continue to assess any risks to privacy
posed by the introduction of V2V technologies and identify mitigation measures
to minimize those risks as more aspects of a system of V2V communications are
defined.”
Question: “DOT’s indication that it wants to distinguish
between the ability to identify ‘bad actors’ and ‘the ability to monitor
movements of individual vehicles’ indicates there is already an interest by the
government in using this emerging technology to track ‘bad actors’”?
Wise: “Yes. However the term ‘bad actors’ refers to
vehicles and their devices that are misbehaving or potentially misbehaving.
According to CAMP VSC 3 officials [the eight auto companies that joined in the
Ann Arbor pilot test], in-vehicle V2V equipment must be able to detect and
automatically report potentially misbehaving devices—such as devices that are
malfunctioning, used maliciously, or hacked—to a communication security system.
The communication security system must also detect and automatically revoke
certificates from vehicles with such devices. This is so that vehicles can be
sure that the data they receive from other vehicles is valid and can be
trusted.”
Wise also said: “I think it is fair to add that DOT and
industry are taking steps to try to minimize privacy risks. Also, while we do
not explicitly say this in our report, we did not see or hear any indication
that DOT has any plan or desire to use V2V to track peoples’ movements.”
CNSNews.com also contacted NHTSA to ask why DOT wanted
the "ability to identify bad actors" in a V2V system, and whether DOT
was permanently ruling out developing any system that would track individual
vehicles on any basis or developing any system that would allow any agency of
government to remotely control or deactivate an individual's or individuals'
vehicles?”
“At the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), safety is our top priority, and we are always looking for ways that
innovative technology can be harnessed to improve driver safety,” said a NHTSA
spokesman. “As we look ahead to the next stage of roadway safety in America,
connected vehicle technology has the potential to significantly reduce injuries
and fatalities from crashes.
“NHTSA would seek to develop a V2V system that increases
consumer safety, while protecting privacy,” said the spokesman. “Identifying
‘bad actors,’ which could include anything from malfunctioning vehicles to
intentional malfeasance (such as hacking), is crucial to ensuring that the V2V
security system functions properly.
“The design under consideration for a security system does
not collect any personally identifying information, nor does it enable
real-time tracking of individual vehicles,” said the spokesman. “NHTSA has no
plans to modify the current V2V system design in a way that would enable the
government or private entities to track individual motor vehicles. The V2V
requirements that NHTSA is currently exploring only involve warnings to drivers
to help them avoid crashes.
“The information collected from the year-long model
deployment and additional research will be used by NHTSA to determine the best
course of action for proceeding with additional V2V communication activities,
including possible future rulemakings, additional research, or a combination of
both,” said the spokesman. “NHTSA expects to make a decision on V2V technology
by the end of the year.”
Comments
Post a Comment