MotorcycleDaily.com – Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Ducati and Automakers Demonstrate C-V2X Technology at CES Show

If you don’t like the prospect of a wirelessly interconnected future, you might not want to read the following press release. Ducati, Ford and Audi participated in a demonstration of C-V2X communications at the CES Show in Las Vegas earlier this week.

In essence, this technology aims to make vehicles, both cars and motorcycles, aware of other vehicles, pedestrians, and even road hazards, that could pose a threat. One example provided by a Ford executive: “Imagine a person suddenly steps into the street from out of view and your vehicle stops because it was alerted by that person’s smartphone.”

Here is the press release from Ducati:

  • Ducati continues safety-related research and experimentation
  • Multistrada 1260 used in the first American demonstration of the ConVeX (Connected Vehicle to Everything) project at Consumer Electronics Show® 2019
  • Ducati, Audi AG, and Ford Motor Company together to set new bike safety standards

Borgo Panigale, Bologna, 8 January 2019Ducati continues its safety-focused research by taking part – together with Audi and Ford – in the first US demonstration of a communication system that interlinks vehicles, street infrastructure and pedestrians.
 
This test follows the one completed in Germany last July (here the press release). The latter saw the ConVeX (Connected Vehicle to Everything) project – a key part of Ducati’s “Safety Road Map 2025” strategy which aims to develop new safety systems and technologies – showcased in Europe for the very first time. The initial stages of this strategy will see ABS Cornering extended to the entire Ducati range and the market launch, in 2020, of a bike with front and rear radar.
 
Ducati, Audi AG (NASDAQ: AUDVF), Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F), and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Qualcomm Incorporated (NASDAQ: QCOM), announced the companies’ continued joint efforts to help accelerate commercial deployment for C-V2X direct communication technology for roadside safety, traffic efficiency and automated driving. As a part of the Consumer Electronic Show® 2019 (CES 2019), a Ducati Multistrada 1260 as well as Audi and Ford vehicles, demonstrate driving situations utilizing C-V2X direct communications. All vehicles were equipped with C-V2X technology utilizing the Qualcomm® 9150 C-V2X chipset to demonstrate a cooperative intersection use case, exhibiting how C-V2X can be used between vehicles to negotiate the right of way in entering a four-way, non-signalized intersection where intention sharing and non-line-of-sight (NLOS) conditions make the use of a wireless sensor such as C-V2X ideal.

The companies also exhibited additional Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V), Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) safety scenarios, demonstrating the maturity and potential of C-V2X technology. The V2V use case featured the Intersection Movement Assist (IMA) scenario, which is a key countermeasure to address angle collisions at intersections, while the V2P scenario exhibited how C-V2X can be used to protect vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and bicyclists. The V2I use case featured the Work Zone Warning scenario, which is designed to provide drivers advanced warning of road construction ahead allowing them to maneuver in a safe manner.
 
This week’s Las Vegas demonstrations follow the successful showings of C-V2X trial validations and interoperability conducted throughout 2018 in Europe, Japan, Australia, China and the United States, as well as the first live C-V2X interoperability demonstration between a motorcycle, vehicles and roadside infrastructure, which was hosted by several leading automotive and technology companies, including Ducati and Qualcomm Technologies.
 
Ducati, Audi, and Ford are amongst several global automakers who have closely evaluated C-V2X technology for its reliability, high-performance capabilities and readiness through rigorous testing. Currently, C-V2X is the only V2X alternative that provides a clear evolution path to 5G, in a backward compatible manner, and is designed to deliver reliable and consistent performance in realistic driving scenarios. While complementing other Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) sensors, such as radar, lidar, and camera systems, C-V2X direct communications supports an ever-expanding set of safety use cases, as well as enhanced situational awareness by detecting and directly exchanging vital information. Additionally, C-V2X is designed with a focus on security, benefitting from established security transport layers and application protocols defined by the automotive standards communities, including ISO, ETSI and IEEE 1609. Because C-V2X can be easily integrated into all wireless modems to offer direct and network communications, its implementation is cost-effective, which is especially important as the automotive industry continues to move towards adding wireless connectivity in all vehicles.

“This demonstration is showing use cases in which advanced technologies can significantly improve the safety of motorcycle users,” said Pierluigi Zampieri, Vehicle Innovation Manager at Ducati Motor Holding. “C-V2X communication is one of the key projects of the Ducati 2025 safety road map. There’s no better place than CES to talk about our roadmap towards the future”.

“Audi has demonstrated a novel C-V2X use case together with Ford, Ducati and Qualcomm Technologies. The four-way stop use case provides a glimpse of how cooperative driving will be possible with C-V2X in the future. Besides additional safety, C-V2X is designed to also improve comfort and efficiency, which can be applied to both current and future autonomous driving,” said Anupam Malhotra, Director, Connected Vehicles & Data at Audi of America, Inc. “Audi has demonstrated commercial viability of cellular-based V2X services through the Audi Traffic Light Information service and plays a leading role within the 5GAA to develop this technology further”.

“Imagine a person suddenly steps into the street from out of view and your vehicle stops because it was alerted by that person’s smartphone. This is just one example of how C-V2X can connect smart vehicles to a smart world,” said Don Butler, executive director, Ford Connected Vehicle Platform and Product. “We invite other automakers, governments and tech companies to join the significant momentum building for a C-V2X ecosystem”.

“As part of Qualcomm Technologies’ ongoing work with Ford, Audi and Ducati, we are excited to continue strengthening our mutual efforts towards accelerating C-V2X’s commercial deployment. This new chapter in our longstanding relationships outlines our collective goal to realize the full potential of C-V2X as a global solution for next-generation vehicle connectivity, safety and autonomy,” said Nakul Duggal, senior vice president of product management, Qualcomm Technologies. “We look forward to showcasing the latest results of this relationship as several Ford, Audi and Ducati vehicles demonstrate C-V2X interoperability in real-world driving situations”.

The demonstration by Ducati, Audi, Ford, and Qualcomm Technologies will be conducted live in Las Vegas by appointment and will also be livestreamed at Qualcomm Technologies’ automotive booth in the North Hall (booth #5609), and in the Central Hall (booth #TBD) throughout the show. The demonstration will also be shown in the Audi and Ford booths.


See more of MD’s great photography: Instagram

47 Comments

  1. takehikes says:

    Uh. F*** no.

    • takehikes says:

      I’ll add that a no front brake, raked and flaked chopper is once again appealing to me…..learn to ride it and well and safe or you die. there’s your safety eh?

  2. Grover says:

    I know a rider that was killed the first week out on his new Harley. I also know a group of very old men that have been riding since their teens who still ride everyday. You tend to make your own “safety.” I commuted on a motorcycle to work in the Orange County/Long Beach area for 40 years, safely, at all times of the day and night and never had an accident. I’m still riding about 8,000 miles a year, though I no longer live in that rat’s nest called So Cal. I really do believe that safety is largely what you make it.
    Having said that, I’m not against passive measures that would warn me of an impending collision. I’m not keen of having my control taken away, whether I’m in a car or on a bike and that’s really my main concern. My wife’s Subaru that is equipped with “Eyesight” that will apply full braking to avoid hitting plastic shopping bags or small tumbleweeds at highway speeds regardless of what’s behind it. That’s a good way to become involved in a deadly rear end collision. See what I mean about losing control of the situation and having the machine make choices for you?

  3. Dino says:

    The real world is a messy place.. nothing can ever be perfect, ever. But the stakes are very high when you look at the consequences of a vehicle accident. And on a Cycle, we are at particular risk.

    Ultimately, their best outcome would be a system that is slightly less accident prone than our worst drivers already roaming the public! Manufacturers should be more thorough with their testing. Make sure it is good enough to drive near the ones they love. Then just impose this technology as a punishment on those who aren’t smart enough to drive a regular car?? If you have too many accidents, you are hereby sentenced to “drive” this little Smart Car, where you have no control. Those drivers might just be happy with the AI, and not want to drive on their own anyway.

    Not in my backyard, but the MAN will make sure this goes in someones yard…

  4. Anonymous says:

    All this technology is going to do is give drivers another reason not to pay attention to their surroundings. Now, let me go back to watching my black and white TV.

  5. gpokluda says:

    Oh boy.

  6. Joe says:

    Repeat after me; “SAAAAAFETY”.
    – “Saaaafety”.
    Again; “SAAAAFETY”
    – “Saaafety”.
    Good . Your getting the hang of it.
    It’s all for your own good. Trust us.

  7. My2cents says:

    Freedom of the open road. Well at least if you get lost everybody will know where you are.

  8. gpokluda says:

    We are quickly becoming a society being consumed by the Volvo Syndrome; technology will keep us all safe so we won’t have to be accountable for our actions. We will be free to become crappy riders and drivers because a chip has our back. Sad.

    • Dave says:

      You can pursue riding skills all your life, but you cannot impose a similar level of dedication on others. Nicky Hayden was one of the best two-wheeled riders in the world, and he was killed by an inattentive driver.

      • Bob K says:

        He was killed because he blew through a stop sign into a busy road. Driver had a low accountability and punishment because it was deemed he was going over the speed limit. Regardless, Nicky was given the highest percentage of fault.

      • ocsicnarF naS says:

        Dave, Nicky Hayden was in the middle of sending a text message when he rode through an intersection into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Thus, gpokluda’s comment couldn’t be more salient in the scenario you just referenced. It’s sad but it’s true…

    • Bob K says:

      Quickly???
      .
      Ever since crumple zones and air bags made it to production, cars have been designed for safer crashing. And our government is “all in” when it comes to driving up the price of vehicles in the name of safer crashing by mandating certain technologies. Everything that’s mandated must certain add $10k to the final price.
      .
      Do those technologies work? I can’t state that I’ve ever tried to push my Jeep to the limits to see if it wouldn’t roll over, anti-fishtail…whatever. I’m not dumb enough to try.
      .
      But yes, ever since ABS was introduced, our government stopped caring about educating drivers to be better and instead felt it was easier to be a lawnmower-parent by requiring safety tech instead.
      .
      As Dave stated, we can’t force others to train themselves to be better. This is the solution.

  9. ApriliaRST says:

    For all the words and acronyms the article could have been boiled down to a couple of sentences. In response, readers say, “Fellow poster, you made a grammar mistake.” or “I have a pet peeve I will now introduce.” I am a busy person and I want my five minutes back.

  10. Fastship says:

    No. No and just NO!

  11. Party Stuey says:

    I am all for this technology no matter how intrusive it is. It is way more promising than self driving vehicles, which are useless in the snow, rain and unmarked roads. I am not concerned about intrusion into my private life either, as privacy is already gone. So, bring it on!

    • A says:

      @ Party Stuey: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” credited to Ben Franklin.

      I am well aware of the “controversy” stirred up by those who think Franklin was solely referring to a border security funding tiff between the Penn family appointed governor and the legislature. Bear in mind a major proponent of this analysis is closely tied to the Brookings Institute, a militarist think tank. I supply the link so readers can decide for themselves the veracity of the funding claim vs. the modern generally accepted interpretation.
      https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said

      The world has long since moved on from the Penn family and its dominance of the state “deeded” to them by King Charles II in 1681. Franklin’s quotes must obviously be taken in the context of his time, but some ideas stand above cultural/situational limits.

      The idea that giving up too much personal liberty eventually leads to seriously bad bad outcomes is unassailable. The only measure to be determined is how much is too much. Giving up even more privacy to the US/NATO military/spy system integrated with the Facebook/Amazon/Apple/Google oligopolies is an acceleration down the slippery slope to a full-on surveillance/police state.

      Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

    • Provologna says:

      “Privacy is already gone.” May I please have all your PIN codes and login passwords?

    • Snake says:

      I don’t think you are getting the point of the concerns.

      I, for example, are all for technology such as this: making cars and motorcycles actively aware of one another, reducing the possibility of a car driver hitting a motorcycle whilst claiming the usual “I didn’t see him” clause.

      The issue isn’t the safety between the cars and motorcycles, the issue is the inevitable growth potential that this technology will be pushed into being. If cars and motorcycles are actively self-aware of surroundings, then they are actively keeping track of themselves and *broadcasting* this information out to the world. You want to make a BET that some governments will lock on to that and make a ROAD system that actively senses the avoidance data, calculating everything from following distances to average speeds to lane changes, and create a system that automatically generates traffic infractions when joined up with license plate reading technologies?

      Can we say “Fully Automatic Road Safety and Revenue Enhancement Generator?”

      • A P says:

        All this 5G-based stuff is being pushed using a wide range of promises for road safety, personal/policing security and convenience. Are these achievable promises or money-grabbing data-harvesting scams? I think Facebook and Google show the real agenda, data-harvesting, money-grabbing potential.

        Don’t forget the 5G infrastructure will be billed to the customers and/or gov’t, so there’s no free ride here.

        In developed countries, auto death and injury rates have been steadily declining since the 1930’s. It would be expected that introductions of “safety” devices and use requirement legislation should have showed steep increases in this steady decline when and where used. That is not the case, and some stats show a short but significant INCREASE in deaths/injuries immediately after introduction, then a decline back to the ORIGINAL trend line.

        In developing countries where modern cars were introduced, the death/injury rate begins at nearly the same levels as were seen in developing countries in the 1920-30s. That rate quickly dropped to match the developed countries’ trend line. So modern cars with all the “safety” features included were not much safer in the developing countries than the “unsafe” cars in developed countries in the 1920-30s.

        Also note that the greatest influence on the slope of developed countries’ trend line is “the economy”, aka the price of gasoline and cars/insurance. As one example, the more gas costs, the less people drive, therefore the rate drops… until a new “affordability” level is reached, and the trend line returns to its historical decline slope. But developed countries have now reached the point where the trend line is nearly flat, which means gains from new “safety” devices or legislation is likely to be near zero.

        So now the move to eliminate the driver, as computers/sensors are now deemed “smart” enough to do the job better.

        So far AVs have shown a dismal safety record, and schemes like in the article will not likely prove much better.

  12. todd says:

    Now having a cell phone on you and powered up at all times will be a legal requirement – or at least required to get a decent insurance rate. You might get cited for not having your phone on you. How dangerous! Great.

    • Snake says:

      Remember that Progressive already *has* a system that monitors your driving and Nanny State backs it to the Motherbase when asked – Snapshot.

      And drivers are voluntarily signing up for it, if only to save 9% off their car insurance.

      Proof that Benjamin Franklin knew about us, all along.

  13. WJF says:

    For the price of a Ducati, it should come with a free cell phone

  14. Artem says:

    Do they have Martin-Baker catapult on these, if something goes wrong?

  15. Provologna says:

    OK, back to the subject. On a related matter, at this same CES (note: not “CES Show”), someone had their Tesla S on autopilot or auto assist, whatever. A vendor setting up for CES had his four AI robots legally crossing the street (walking, on their own) at a cross walk. One of the robots slightly walked off the cross walk center line, moving slightly away from the group. The Tesla S hit this errant robot, and “killed” it.

    Was the robot a “rogue,” desiring to leave the group and “run away,” possibly to start it’s own renegade robot enclave? Was it an AI “suicide,” the “creature” desiring to end it’s life of boredom, servitude, mediocrity?

    Lastly, were the police obligated to inform the robot’s family of the loss of one of it’s members?

    Hmmmmmm….makes you wonder…..

    • Anonymous says:

      “…possibly to start it’s own renegade robot enclave…”

      Yeah, that would be “its”. Because grammar.

      (And you did it three times!)

      • Provologna says:

        “Because grammar” is not a sentence, Mr. Grammar Police.

      • Provologna says:

        Anonymous (AKA Grammar Police): public grammar corrections should employ correct grammar. Do you agree? To ignore such advice confirms the author’s arrogance and ignorance more than it corrects anything.

        It’s interesting that your last retort ignored your own grammar error, which some might interpret as a form of hypocrisy. Some might even say you don’t give a damn about grammar as much as you enjoy internet trolling.

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          “Because ‘enter noun or adjective here'” is very common and correct in a modern literary sense, if not a grammatical one. Anonymous certainly did this intentionally to add impact to the point of your own grammatical/autocorrect error.

          Now anyone who would take the time to punch out a comment about pet peeves related to the redundancy created by writing out a portion of an abbreviation along with said abbreviation on a motorcycle forum deserves to get his knuckles rapped. Take the lick and move on! 🙂

    • Kevin White says:

      It was a publicity stunt, through and through.

    • tim Rowledge says:

      If you actually watch the (suspiciously convenient) video you can see the ‘robot’ being pulled over by a rope. It’s news so fake that it makes my head hurt.

  16. Provologna says:

    I’m really, really sorry for this post, but can’t help myself. I have this pet peeve about using an acronym (the purpose is to abbreviate) then redundantly adding a word already part of the acronym, such as “CES show;” “S” stands for show. Another common such error is “LCD display;” “D” stands for display.

    This proves why it’s so dumb: someone either knows what CES and LCD stands for or does not. Needlessly adding the word “Show” or “Display” does not explain the meaning of “CES” or “LCD.” Amiright?

    It’s like typing “JS Smith” as an abbreviation for John Smith. Does “JS Smith” tell you the person’s first name?

  17. joe b says:

    I can just see a couple of kids, dropping a cell phone on a string, from a freeway overpass and laughing.

    • jcott says:

      Joe, I was thinking similar, but of the benefits: Now, when I leave my phone on the top of my car and drive off accidentally, letting it land in the street, no one will run over it, and I can safely retrieve it!