VANETs
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs) are created by applying the principles of mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) - the spontaneous creation of a wireless network for data exchange - to the domain of vehicles. They are a key component of intelligent transportation systems (ITS).
Example applications of VANETs are:
Electronic brake lights, which allow a driver (or an autonomous car or truck) to react to vehicles braking even though they might be obscured (e.g., by other vehicles).
Platooning, which allows vehicles to closely (down to a few inches) follow a leading vehicle by wirelessly receiving acceleration and steering information, thus forming electronically coupled "road trains".
Traffic information systems, which use VANET communication to provide up-to-the minute obstacle reports to a vehicle's satellite navigation system
>>54517654
Yeah, and?
>>54517654
>MANLETs
>>54517654
Bump
It's sad to see that interesting threads don't get any attention here
>>54518236
/g/ is not for interesting threads it's for endless circlejerking and meme posting
>>54517654
"platooning" sounds like quite a bad idea, if the "platoon leader" has to brake hard and i'm a few inches behind the guy my life depends on the network latency, not to mention if the road is slick :P
>>54517654
The problem is that the internet isn't made in a way that allows for such a type of netwoek to be useful. Everything we do, every internet service we use relies on a number of central servers, if you are stuck in a jam on a highway, you might be in a network with 200 more other people, but you wont engage with them in any way since everybody relies on Facebook or some other shit to communicate or interact. We need to redefine our approach to networks to allow for such ad hoc networks to be useful to the users. The only way I can see this working with the current way of doing things is, if we continue with the traffic jam example, some system allows for combining the mobile bandwith of all cars, that is cars share all data they receive from the mobile network and even retrieve data for other users if idle.
>>54517729
wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to fumble with apps like WAZE while driving, the decision making was built into your vehicle and public infrastructure
>>54518365
hm, i see the more useful applications as the ones that are totally ad-hoc (vehicle to vehicle with no centralization), and for control signals like speed and traffic that are used to make very specific decisions, not general internet communication (Facebook, etc) like you mention
>>54518236
Because nobody wants fucking automated vehicles, I'm sure I don't, as a matter of fact, I want a vehicle that I have more control over. same reason I prefer cars without tcs and abs.
>>54518670
there's no requirement that VANETs be used by fully automated vehicles. there are many applications where information can be presented to a "live" driver to be used at his own discretion. Hazard/crash/traffic notification, collision warnings, smarter routing and route specific advertisements, parking availability, electronic toll collection..there's a lot of exciting applications IMO
>>54518670
i would like a fully automatic vehicle to drive me home when i drink too much
>>54517654
This seems way too exploitable, and without the proper wireless security measures, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen (or a hacker's dream come true)
Y'all /g/entoomen can keep your computerized soapboxes, I'll just stick to my 20 year old shitbox like the rest of /o/.
>>54518835
yes there is potential for great mischief, but it might not be significant in the cost-benefit analysis if more intelligent transport systems can actually save lives (a big if. i actually agree with you in my heart of hearts)
