News from Partners:

Remote control

B due to the frequent cases of real or perceived control remote interception of vehicles resulted in an accident or a catastrophe, will share his thoughts on this subject.

In recent years the development of technology and lobbying work of its producers were so successful that in the foreseeable future is already really a tendency not only to autonomous vehicles.

Increasingly, voices about the desired ban in the long term by the people drive the cars in general is "in the name of security" because notorious human factor is the main reason for the alleged traffic accidents.

The first machine does not provide any possibility of intervention "passengers" in the management of this vehicle develops and already feeling the Google way. There just do not have any controls!

For a real implementation of such technology in the foreseeable future until there are legal barriers, but the fact that today is used universally and with increasing masshtabnostyu, gives cause for concern not only to specialists but also ordinary users.

This is primarily a "Drive by wire", which means that the car controls (steering wheel, pedals, etc.) are not connected mechanically performing movements. All control signals are transmitted from controls, i.e. Computers on-board by the driver as a "driver's desire," and the computer gives the necessary commands actuators, taking into account the feasibility of (!) received from the driver's commands. In theory, it's not bad, because It does not allow the person to "do stupid things", but real control driver no longer has to get him already can not.

The second alarming term from car news is "Connected sar". This means that your car without your knowledge communicates with "someone" via the Internet. And what and when the machine transmits or accepts you is not known. So far, no attempts by consumer protection societies, automobile clubs and other organizations to oblige manufacturers to at least tell consumers which data the machine remembers, transmits and accepts, and ideally achieves a "red button" for the driver disconnecting data transmission and erasing any car-saved information by success have not been crowned.

Today quadrupeds large number of cases where consumers have come to the dealership service problems in the car and look forward to repair under warranty, the dealer had been "sent to the forest" after connecting to the car service computer. Truck owners tell when and how much they are overloaded car, sports car owners to tell when and where they went on the race track (which also voids your warranty), etc.

Police have long ago reads memory navigation systems for traffic routes and recovery time staying at the addresses and the suspects, and their victims or witnesses. And even if in the menu system, the owner has erased the memory of the last routes.
Due to the continuous online system connected to the machine, connect the machine to a computer or when the crime lab will no longer be necessary.

But the lack of consumer control over their data is one evil, but the lack of separation between the media system and other electronic systems of the car really makes you wonder.

At the last Motor Show in Frankfurt in September 2015 years, several automakers have been featured remote control car with a smartphone. The goal - a convenient and secure parking. Out of the car and walking around it to manage it with the smartphone when parking "by millimeters." Everything was sedate and safe. Once the user has removed the finger from the screen - the car immediately stopped.

To my question about the reliability and protection against sabotage, ie, by intercepting driving during normal driving, they looked at me as insane.

As a working in the development and testing of road vehicles, I declare with full responsibility that sabotage is possible. And no one needs to intercept control on the clock and "roll" you along the roads in a remotely locked car. Let's leave it to the directors of the horror films. It is enough at the right time from the car next to you, or thanks to the latest active safety systems of a car with built-in stereo cameras, through the connected car simply "pull the wheel" in the right place and at the right time and the headlines will be like "President of a certain concern , the judge, the prosecutor general, the great scientist, etc. - choose to taste) tragically died without coping with the management (it's not important himself or his driver) and crashing into the oncoming truck (bridge support, pillar, tree - again to taste) ... Prove interventions in from the outside after the termination of the connection, even theoretically it will not be possible.

The main argument of supporters of such systems - "can not be the same because of unreasonable fear, worried fans pumped conspiracy theories give up benefits of civilization."

My Colleges of the department dealing with such systems, I proudly showed much more developed capabilities of such systems. And already in today's vehicles has the potential for this "bright future". Some systems can technically be included simply apdeyt management program.

Far to go is not necessary: ​​Elon Mask announced that the electric car Tesla S has the potential for a full "autopilot", which will be activated on all machines already sold (!) After settling juridical inconsistencies. It is about responsibility in the event of an accident. Today, this responsibility is borne by the driver. In the case of driving on autopilot, the driver becomes a passenger, and the producer must bear responsibility in the event of an accident. And they (the producers) have such a headache to nothing. If the "responsibility" of the "driver-passenger" is mistaken if an autopilot fails, then similar systems will appear "almost" for almost all advanced manufacturers.

But for potential hackers important presence of technical ability and not legal technicalities. And the possibilities are there today!

A simple example of the beginning of the twenty-first century. Mercedes released with great fanfare when a new model with a sensational innovation: the SBC brake system, which is a so-called Brake by wire. The brake pedal was almost detached from the actuators (in case of failure of electronics and pressure on the brake pedal "struggle" was realized braking force in 20% of the nominal and only on the rear wheels that at high speeds, not only ineffective, but also dangerous because of the high probability of loss stability - the car could simply deploy).

Began to report on accidents in which drivers blamed faulty brakes. All machines have been tested by Mercedes. It is clear - there were no problems found. Drivers "culprits" were carrying material, administrative, and sometimes criminal penalties. Mass such accidents were not. But one Danish taxi driver was very lucky if you can even talk about luck in the accident happened.

At the exit from the motorway, he drove into the ass in front of the car. Thank God - no one was hurt. Arriving police and angry owner of the car, which he drove, the taxi driver argued that his new Mercedes brakes were refused. Everything would have gone as usual, but the angry owner of the crumpled car was not only a member of the Danish parliament, but also the chairman of the parliamentary road safety commission (sic!). The car was sent not to the Mercedes service, but to the appropriate independent laboratory. The studies conducted there were strictly controlled by the above-mentioned parliamentary commission, which prevented any interference from outside. Mechanics and hydraulics were in order. A request was sent to Mercedes with a request to provide data on the software, which was almost ignored with a standard unsubscription. But it turned out "not on those attacked" - a parliamentary decision was passed to ban the sale of Mercedes cars in Denmark before the end of the proceedings and the police request to report up to all the accidents with the Mercedes with the SBC braking system.

Subtleties of further developments, I do not know. I know that the taxi driver was found not guilty in an accident and he received compensation from Mercedes. Mercedes could not help but burst scandal and was forced to withdraw in the 2004 680.000, the machines in the workshops due to possible brake failure. As a result, a review was expanded to 1,3 million. Machines worldwide.

So without bringing to mind the SBC system Mercedes abandoned it in 2006, the return to the familiar system of brakes.

In this story remarkable is not a technique or behavior Mercedes. Technology today is reliable enough and works from other manufacturers without fail.

producer behavior by only public pressure is controlled with respect to customers: VW example in Europe and wants to hear anything about the unreliability of their preselektivnoy gearbox (DSG). In China, after the mass consumer complaints and "hitting" on VW by the government, all (!) Cars were repaired under warranty, which was expanded from two to seven years!

But the most important thing is that in the case of brakes Brake by wire Mercedes, no one manufacturer to prove and could not, because the manufacturer has not opened its software citing commercial secrecy. His (producer) just took by the throat closing the market and then surrendered to the manufacturer.

The same is true in the case of sabotage of the system Drive by wire from the outside (Connected car). Next No software - secret.

But it is not just Europeans fatalists, "our", too, saying, "... well, okay, live forever anyway will not, not at the same UAZ ride or 21-th Volga" ...

No, why go to extremes, but in fact the people themselves committed to this "smartphone on wheels." And you do not even need to go on this. Stop if "they are among us." If such a "tank" in 2,5 tons (and such miracles are introduced first to the flagship models) moves into an ordinary family car, then ... all probably seen in the news that was once Lada driven in a Rolls-Royce ...


GTranslate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!