• Anonymous Coward Posted: 6/12/2010 9:02am PDT

    "One likely start is by replacing our outdated traffic-signal system with one that's networked—or, better yet, one that can communicate with vehicles in real time."
    I'm all for networked traffic signal systems. It would be great to combine the methods some places use for altering signal timing based on traffic (like cameras) and the approximate time it takes to reach one signal from the previous one (as places without the aforementioned systems do). However, I'm not comfortable having traffic signals communicate with my car. It's simply too ripe for abuse of privacy. With cars becoming more and more computer oriented and having a default of no trust in programmers when it comes to security (being one myself), I'd rather the programmers who work on such things have fewer things to worry about.

  • Jeff Jacobberger Posted: 6/7/2010 9:35pm PDT

    As a bicycle and pedestrian advocate, I am a little concerned about the implications of this automaker-driven project. Are we going to adjust traffic signals to "whatever speed provides a 'green wave,'" even if that is a relatively high speed that makes streets less safe for bicyclists and pedestrians? And any technology that causes drivers to focus on dashboard displays rather than the street in front of them cannot be good for cyclists and pedestrians.

  • Alex T Posted: 6/5/2010 12:01pm PDT

    Agree with Sabling. If we're not going to crack down on those who are driving distracted, we need to ramp up the infrastructure and tech for city streets.

  • autowatch411 avatar autowatch411 Posted: 6/3/2010 7:43pm PDT

    This sounds like great technology, though sadly not something we will see anytime soon in actual use. With integration of cars and internet already, this seems like the logical next step and cannot wait to see how it can help traffic flow in some major areas.

  • sabling Posted: 6/3/2010 6:11pm PDT

    Bring it ALL on, I say. When you get teen drivers complaining that the need to drive "distracts from" their texting and Internet time, then it's a far, far better thing that cars DO drive themselves than some idiot using a few spare brain cycles to pilot a two-ton guided missile at 70-mph.

  • Damien Thomas Posted: 6/3/2010 4:52pm PDT

    My only fear is that most people are already distracted enough when driving - adding another feature to "concentrate" on will only make people more distracted.

  • fb_709357878 avatar David Posted: 6/3/2010 4:43pm PDT

    This will be a very exciting field as it matures. Certainly there will be a lag as new cars using the system replace older cars--and there will always be older cars that do not--and the technology moves into bikes and trains and other vehicles.
    As for better running freeways it will probably be more difficult. You can get a huge gain by having the cars negotiate speeds with each other, draft each other, perform seamless merges, etc. But any car that isn't hooked up to the [Matrix] system will break the link.

  • Joe D. Posted: 6/3/2010 4:05pm PDT

    Hopefully they'll figure out something for the freeways and tell slower drivers to move to the right.a

  • Eric Berlin Posted: 6/3/2010 3:27pm PDT

    Viva la travolution !

  • Tech FTW Posted: 6/3/2010 3:27pm PDT

    This is great technology that could eventually help us all. No matter what cars are driven by (gas, diesel, electricity, etc), traffic will always be an issue. Solutions to that problem are always welcome.

  • Simon Dual Cowl Posted: 6/3/2010 3:03pm PDT

    For a moment I thought they meant smoke signals. So much for CO2!