Cooperative Vehicle Highway Systems focus on
sensors, telemetrics, intelligent driver override, roadside computation,
telecommunications, emergency technologies and so on. The stress is on
technological solutions that address a problem with a large social and human
component—e.g., human safety, congestion, efficiency, and reliable
automobility.
CVHS’ goals form a virtuous circle: reduce accident counts
and severity and improve the performance and efficiency of existing
transportation infrastructure while reducing fuel use, emissions, and
congestion. These are a lot of wins.
In general, when thinking about CVHS, we see two components:
vehicle and roadside infrastructure. Also key are intelligent communications
between car and roadside, many-to-many pair-wise communications between
proximate cars, and of course communication among all of these and the cloud.
But there is another critical and elusive component—the driver. I’ll return to
this.
CVHS is highly related to the Connected Vehicle, and
sometimes the distinction get blurred in discussion. I see them as two adjacent
phases on a continuum as we equip vehicles, roadways, and communication
networks for the Connected Age of Automobility already underway. The
Cooperative Vehicle is focused on safety and driver assistance including driver
override, while the Connected Vehicle is focused more on driver information and
trip assistance, including infotainment and payment services. But, a portion of
the enabling fabric can be shared.
A key distinction is that many Cooperative functions involve intrusive control—generally braking
and steering—when the driver is perhaps distracted or not responding
appropriately. Meanwhile, some Connected
functions have the potential to contribute to the distraction problem that is
one of the motivators for the Cooperative
functions in the first place.
All of this
makes the human a mystery component. Will the net benefit make us safer? Will
automation make our species’ driving skills atrophy? Will anyone be able to
parallel park in 30 years?
A well-reported phenomena called risk compensation tells us that drivers tend to invest a perceived
increment in safety by driving a bit faster or a bit more aggressively. Humans
seem to have a risk budget they are eager to spend. The problem is more than
50% of the people in accidents are victims. If you count all immediate family
members to people actually in the cars the percentage of innocents is much
higher.
Surely, if one begins to trust that their vehicle can handle
breaking and steering, the use of infotainment systems and gadgets (Connected
or not) will be perceived as safer. And that may not be a problem in most
cases—we hope. But how good does Cooperative
technology have to be before Connected
technology will not make us less safe?
There are liability reasons ensuring that Cooperative technology will likely never
by installed as an aftermarket upgrade, unless by the original manufacturer.
And there will clearly be resistance to letting the car “take control” from a
driver. Could aftermarket warning systems that beep rather than brake or
whistle rather than steer, be the way to erode that resistance? Could aftermarket
Connected Vehicle platforms be the Trojan Horse to get fledgling Cooperative Vehicle functionality past first base? I think so.
We also know from experience that mandatory safety equipment
requires user acceptance, which in turn implies slow introduction and
consumer-led market penetration prior to mandate. This may be the best reason
that aftermarket Connected Vehicle technology that has at least
some Cooperative-like functions will
the best accelerator to Cooperative
Vehicle evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment