Conspiracy Theory? IBM patent to remotely shut down your car

[bigearl]

From http://jalopnik.com/5546841/ibm-want...ntrol-your-car

"A patent application filed by IBM engineers reveals the company's developing technology that will allow governments to shut down the engines of private automobiles via traffic signals. It's like Skynet... only much worse.

"The present disclosure is directed to a method for managing engines in response to a traffic signal. The method may comprise establishing communications with a plurality of participating vehicles; responding to a stop status indicated by the traffic signal, further comprising: receiving a position data from each participating vehicles; determining a queue comprising a list of participating vehicles stopped at the traffic signal; determining a remaining duration of the stop status; sending a stop-engine notification to the list of participating vehicles stopped at the traffic signal when the remaining duration is greater than a threshold of time; responding to a proceed status indicated by the traffic signal, further comprising: sending a start-engine notification to a first vehicle in the queue; calculating an optimal time for an engine of a second vehicle in the queue to start when the first vehicle starts moving; and sending the start-engine notification to the second vehicle in the queue at the optimal time.

The goal of the system is to lower fuel usage and optimize the movement of vehicles through intersections by controlling engine operations remotely via traffic signals. A railroad crossing could sense the vehicles in the general vicinity were going to be stuck for a while and would then cut the power to save gas. It's similar to the start/stop systems on a few modern cars but taken to perverse extremes."

LOL have fun with that conspiracy theorists.

[lil_chef]

i dont ever see that being put into use in private vehicles, however it could work great with public transportation vehicles.

[motorhead]

I guess I'll be going back to a 69 camaro without a computer. Try to stop that.

[Mr_Draco]

Originally Posted by bigearl

The goal of the system is to lower fuel usage and optimize the movement of vehicles through intersections by controlling engine operations remotely via [/I]traffic signals[I].

Apparently no body told IBM that the starting of a car engine consumes more gas then simply letting it idle for those couple minutes. Not to mention the increased wear and tear on the engine. Stop and go traffic is hard enough on the engine as it is. Doing this would decrease engine life drastically.

[WiccaJew]

And while there at it I might as well let them install camera's in my car to make sure that I am not hauling WMD's!

[Brokinarrow]

From what I heard this was being looked at by CHINA for use in vehicles. It would never get put into use here, I can guarantee that.

[WiccaJew]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

From what I heard this was being looked at by CHINA for use in vehicles. It would never get put into use here, I can guarantee that.

Ya I would agree people would be going crazy here over it. China I could see it happening.

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

From what I heard this was being looked at by CHINA for use in vehicles. It would never get put into use here, I can guarantee that.

The funny thing about that is that it's a US patent application. I never say never anymore, especially if a large oil shortage hits (even if it's contrived or short term-like a mideast war or something). Engine idle start/stop systems have already been identified as a must have long term for fleets to reach CAFE standards. It doesn't hurt your engine to use those systems btw, they're designed to handle it.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

Apparently no body told IBM that the starting of a car engine consumes more gas then simply letting it idle for those couple minutes. Not to mention the increased wear and tear on the engine. Stop and go traffic is hard enough on the engine as it is. Doing this would decrease engine life drastically.

Yeah ... um ... no. Thats an old myth. The fuel used to start a warm engine is negligible and is recouped within seconds of leaving it off. And just so you know, nearly every hybrid car on the market turns the engine off when the vehicle stops. Automakers would use this even more (ie, on non-hybrids) if the EPA test required more stops during their cycle. I'm not sure how much wear is induced on a warm start either. It would probably shorten the life of the starter motor a bit, but I can't see too many problems beyond that.