The rhetoric about the technology ran far ahead of the capability. Somehow, it was never considered that a government mandate would require an evidence-based cost-benefit analysis. There was not any experimental data suggesting real-world efficacy. There still isn’t.
This presentation at ITS World Congress in 2014 explains exactly why DSRC V2V would not be mandated, and thus if the industry wanted to move-forward with DSRC, it would have to do so without a mandate.
But the inertia of industry and government interests was such that support for a mandate increased. Advocates rebranded DSRC as “The Safety Spectrum” and began lobbying for it using inaccurate statements not supported by their own research.
The @FCC and @AjitPaiFCC recently proposed reallocating wireless spectrum from the transportation industry to the telecommunications industry and unlicensed devices. It's a big deal to a few nerds like me.
Disclaimer: This thread will not be fair and unbiased.
My eed is currently splattered with people lamenting the loss of “the safety spectrum,” so I feel little need to provide that viewpoint. I am going to focus on the counter-argument, that the FCC proposal should be adopted.
The history of #DSRC goes back to the 1939 World’s Fair in New York. GM’s “Futurama” exhibit imagined automated highway systems enabled by “automatic radio control.” GM has been the driving force behind DSRC ever since.
Utah just sent a autonomous driving regulatory bill to the Governor. It was passed without controversy so I assume it will be signed into law. It's the most ambitious AV legislation that's been passed in a while.
... which is kinda funny because they actually commissioned a good report back in late 2016 that concluded, "it may be premature to ... adopt new legislation at this time." I guess they determined NOW is the time.
I would like to offer some clarity regarding what @Waymo is doing in Arizona with the new Waymo One service and other efforts.
We can divide Waymo's activities into three categories: 1) Pseudo Level 4 Training 2) Pseudo Level 4 Demonstration 3) True Level 4 Testing
These are important because they have distinct purposes and likely use different variations of the software.
Category 1) Pseudo Level 4 Training:
Waymo, previously Google, has been doing this since 2010 or so, continues to do so, and will keep doing so in some respect for as long as the self-driving program exists because this is important to improving and refining the software.
Some people have noted that the pedestrian killed by the Uber test vehicle could have walked 100 yards and crossed at a controlled intersection. THIS is the intersection.
A super-weird aspect of this crash site is that it occurred at a place where a beautiful brick-paved diagonal walking path was provided across the median, along with a sign instructing people not to use it. This is beyond pedestrian-hostile design; it's damn-near entrapment.
Here's an aerial view (facing south). Every entrance to that brick pathway in the median has a sign instructing you not to use it. Per the signage, it is strictly ornamental.