What sane person who could afford it, wouldn't pay $5k, once, for a chauffeur?
Well, that's kind of the issue .. the people who have $5k will, and everybody else won't. I sure as fuck wouldn't pay $5k for it.
V2V stands to be fucked up for a multiplicity of reasons: shitty engineering, corporations trying to monetize it, and privacy issues are the ones which immediately come to mind.
I maintain that all technologies which are touted as "so awesome we can't say no", but which are predicated on consumers paying for, are usually doomed to fail. Precisely because they require everybody else pays for your vision of the awesome future.
Because the people saying "so awesome we can't so no" are either the people selling us the technology, in which case they've got a vested interest .. or it's by naive futurists who don't think about such pesky details as who pays for it.
And when the technology morphs from "the car ahead will turn left soon" into "Bob Smith is turning left in 50 yards and his GPS is taking him to the liquor sore", people will realize what a cesspool this kind of technology is. No thanks.
So, you can buy it. You can be a cheerleader for it. You can even drive in a car with it.
And some of us will continue to see it as just more crap being sold to us, and which has both financial and privacy considerations beyond simply "well, who wouldn't want that?".
Just like all technologies which seem to be predicated on the world shelling out huge sums of money to bring in the shiny new future, but which will mostly benefit the wealthy, the government, and corporations.
In fact, over the last 20 years my signpost has been "how much does this technology require everybody else to pony up to make it work?".
The more reliance on everybody else footing the bill to benefit a small percentage of people, the less likely it is to be adopted.