[log in to unmask]" alt="" class="" height="23" width="78"> Transition To Autonomous Cars Will Take Longer Than You Think, Waymo CEO Tells Governors

S. Abuelsamid, July 20,  "Speaking in a fireside chat at the National Governors Association meeting Friday, Waymo CEO John Krafcik told the gathering that the “time period will be longer than you think” for automated vehicles to be everywhere..."everywhere" makes the statement meaningless.    ...  "“There are no autonomous systems available, zero on the road today,” said Krafcik. “Anything you can buy on the road today is a driver assist system, that means the driver is completely responsible for the car and I think there is so much confusion on that.”...  Agree 100%!  "...What Krafcik was referring to was some of the issues caused by consumers believing that the assist systems currently on the market are more capable than they actually are, ..." ...In particular the Automated Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems on those vehicles and the perception that these vehicles have AEBs that are actually functioning (which in many cases they are not functioning) while the lane centering and intelligent cruise control systems are doing the nominal lateral and longitudinal control of the car.   "...the problem is not unique to Tesla. Systems from Volvo, Mercedes-Benz, BMW and other manufacturers have similar limitations.
...“We humans are becoming used to some of the semi-autonomous technology, and I don’t like that term that's on the road, that's driver assist technology,” added Krafcik. We still have to be completely alert and in control of the cars that were driving every minute, every second that we're on the road driving.”...

Waymo’s goal is to replace that sort of technology with systems that don’t require any human supervision, something that the company decided several years ago was not a viable solution. Instead, Waymo plans to launch its automated ride hailing service commercially in the Phoenix area later this year and gradually expand to other cities as the technology continues to mature and is proven safe in those locations....Despite the rapid accumulation of testing miles, Krafcik warned the governors not to end all of their infrastructure investments just yet....Widespread adoption in the millions of vehicles globally is unlikely before the latter half of the 2020s"  ...Given that we are just in the hundreds of vehicles today, getting to millions in less than 10 years is fairly optimistic and not "longer than you think".  A few million in the US would serve about 100 million person trips a day, or more than 10% of total personTrips,...more than twice that served by all public transit today.  While that's not "everywhere", everyone will not be more than one person removed from someone who is using aTaxis everyday...
".... Krafcik was equally non-committal to Sandoval’s query about when he might be able to purchase his own car with Waymo technology. While Waymo and Fiat Chrysler are in talks about utilizing this virtual driver system on cars for retail sale, Krafcik said it’s going to be some time yet. The emphasis for now is the ride-hailing service, trucking and logistics and working with transit authorities. Supplying systems for personal use cars is last on the timeline...."  Read more Hmmmm.... Amen!!!  Driverless cars are mobility providing machines.  "Mothballing" them by selling them to individuals who will use them "4% of the day" has to be last on everybody's time-line.   Plus those individuals are  likely to be  uninterested and incapable of properly maintaining them so they will become a public nuisance and public liability.   Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.4&filename=fkcoajjkbhnffcof.png" class="" height="37" width="91" border="0"> Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 48

F. Fishkin, July 22, "What to make of Waymo as it passes 8 million miles of automated driving on public roads? Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser joins Fred Fishkin for Episode 48 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast. This week... Waymo, Zoox, Embark, Nvidia and new reports from Brookings." Hmmmm.... Now you can just say "Alexa, play the Smart Driving Cars podcast!" .  Ditto with Siri, and GooglePlay.  Alain

Real information every week.  Lively discussions with the people who are shaping the future of SmartDrivingCars.  Want to become a sustaining sponsor and help us grow the SmartDrivingCars newsletter and podcast? Contact Alain Kornhauser at [log in to unmask]!  Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class=""> The End of Driving: Transportation Systems and Public Policy Planning for Autonomous Vehicles

B Grush & J. Niles, June 2018, "The End of Driving: Transportation Systems and Public Policy Planning for Autonomous Vehicles explores both the potential of vehicle automation technology and the barriers it faces when considering coherent urban deployment. The book evaluates the case for deliberate development of automated public transportation and mobility-as-a-service as paths towards sustainable mobility, describing critical approaches to the planning and management of vehicle automation technology. It serves as a reference for understanding the full life cycle of the multi-year transportation systems planning processes, including novel regulation, planning, and acquisition tools for regional transportation...." Read more Hmmmm.... This is a substantive textbook on the role, opportunities and implications of Driverless vehicles for cities.  It is a serious publication aimed at researchers, planners, policy makers and practitioners.  Most highly recommended.  It is the antithesis of the articles in the Half-Baked section below.  Enjoy!   Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class=""> $800 Million Says a Self-Driving Car Looks Like

A. Vance, July 17, "...Of the many self-driving ... Driverlesst ... car hopefuls, Zoox Inc. may be the most daring. The company’s robot taxi could be amazing or terrible. It might change the world—not in the contemporary Silicon Valley sense, but in a meaningful sense—or it might be an epic flop. At this point, it’s hard to tell how much of the sales pitch is real. Luckily for the company’s founders, there have been plenty of rich people excited to, as Hunter S. Thompson once put it, buy the ticket and take the ride....

It’s in the city, though, where Zoox really shines. The screens inside the vehicle show an overwhelming amount of information, as the computer vision software keeps tracks of cars, people, stoplights, and road markers all at the same time. Unlike many self-driving cars, it glides to stops. At an intersection with a left turn, it allows oncoming traffic to pass and then waits for some slow pedestrians. Overall, the vehicle performs so well that you forget no one is driving....

Zoox has managed to hire away hundreds of engineers from Tesla, Apple, Google, Ferrari, and Amazon.com, in large part because it offers a harder engineering challenge than anywhere else....Zoox, in essence, wants to beat Waymo at self-driving car technology, Tesla at electric vehicles, and Uber at ride-sharing. “If anything goes bad with one piece of that, you’re f---ed,” Levandowski says. “But they’ve heard that a billion times.” ..." Read more Hmmmm.... Best insight yet on Zoox who remains focused on also designing/building the car as well as the driver and the fleet manager.  Waymo gave up on the the designing/building the car. GM hasn't really tackled the fleet manager (although has invested in Lyft).  It is non-trivial to be a scholar, star athlete and a  party animal.  Some can do two.  While many have tried, I've not known one that can do all three.  Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class=""> America’s commuting choices: 5 major takeaways from 2016 census data

A. Tomer, Oct 3, 2017, "While Americans travel for a variety of reasons, there’s arguably no more important trip each day than their commute to work....It’s impossible to look at American commuting habits and not report the obvious: Americans are still largely dependent on the automobile. Over 76 percent of Americans drive alone to work every day, while another 9 percent carpool with someone else. Considering that ACS counted 150 million workers in 2016, that’s at least 115 million cars and trucks hitting American streets every day. It’s no wonder congestion is so pervasive during morning and afternoon rush hours.

These driving rates come at a real cost to American households. Owning and maintaining a private vehicle is expensive, and one of the reasons transportation is the second-highest average expense after housing. With median incomes stalled in inflation-adjusted terms—and many metro areas seeing even deeper inclusion challenges—driving represents a significant cost burden for many....
[log in to unmask]" alt="" class="">
Read more Hmmmm.... Just a stark reminder of the importance of the private automobile in putting food on the table.  Throwing in fact that half of the transit trips are in the NYC metropolitan area and if done on a personTripDistance basis, Drive alone would be well over 80%.  Mobility's societal challenges of congestion, energy utilization and pollution all stem from the "Drive alone".  Even if all of the transit were to "Drive alone" their incremental contribution to those societal challenges would be less than 10% of what the current "Drive alone" currently contribute.  Public policy can be most effective by first focusing on the current "Drive alone" and getting them do something other than "Drive alone".  It isn't easy, because work @ home isn't an option, they live too far from work to walk or cycle, acceptable conventional public transit can not be affordably provided and conventional carpooling is too rigid.  Eliminating the rigidity in carpooling and encouraging/incentivising ride-sharing not only with one's private car but in the oversight on TNC operations may well be the best pubic policy options to address the "Drive alone" problem.  Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt=""> Taxing New Mobility Services: What’s Right? What’s Next?

S. Kim, July 23, "Transportation network companies (TNCs)—Uber, Lyft, and Via—are now established parts of many cities’ urban mobility systems. Given their popularity, they are also attractive targets for state and local policymakers looking for a way to fund transit and infrastructure, to establish parity with taxis ... Why???  ..., to cover regulatory costs ... Reduce regulations  ..., and to support programs that improve equitable mobility ... What's un-equitable about it?   TNCs deliver aaccessibility to a much larger share of the population.  TNCs serve essentially any O-D pair any time, where as conventional transit serves few O-D pairs at very few times.  Thus TNCs serve the many and conventional transit serves the very few.     .... 
Today, seven major cities and 10 states have some type of fee or tax on TNC trips. While it may be a straightforward way to raise revenue, these charges are often shortsighted budget exercises rather than deliberate public policy. As more states and cities consider taxes on TNC services, policymakers should be cautious and thoughtful about how their decisions affect transportation behavior. ... affect quality of life of its citizens....

This uncertainty has pitted transit and new mobility advocates ... transit advocates tend to be those who are enamored plus those that want others to use conventional transit ... against each other in an unhelpful debate that has hindered new kinds of shared-service partnerships and collaborative thinking about the best way to get around increasingly congested places. As services like TNCs proliferate around the globe, it is important to understand what these fees are, what purpose they intend to serve, and how they fit into broader metropolitan transportation policies....

Can TNC taxes and fees offset negative effects of urban congestion?

TNCs are criticized for exacerbating congestion, particularly in busy downtown areas where they are routinely used for work trips. Despite the growing presence of TNCs on the streets, the vast majority of U.S. commutes are in privately owned, single-occupant vehicles (SOVs). Yet, no major city specifically taxes SOVs for their disproportionate impact.  ... excellent!!...  ..."  Read more Hmmmm.... Cities should realize that TNCs are high quality public transportation (mobility offered to everyone to go anywhere for a reasonable price).  Cities should be praising and even subsidizing TNC service.  Cities might also work to encourage/incentivize real ride-sharing to make TNC service even more affordable, address congestion in  a meaningful way and to help energy and environmental initiatives.  TNCs  improve quality of life to the mobility disadvantaged and as such should be championed and praised by cities rather that scorned and taxed.  Alain 

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class=""> Waymo’s autonomous vehicles are driving 25,000 miles every day

k. Korosec, July 20, "Waymo, ...has driven 8 million miles on public roads using its autonomous vehicles.... Waymo has self-driven 8 million miles on public roads, now at a rate of 25K miles per day. This real-world experience, plus over 5 billion miles in simulation, is how we're building the world’s most experienced driver....  See video, [log in to unmask]" alt="" class="" height="188" width="155">Read more Hmmmm... complements lead article.  Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class="" height="23" width="78"> Robot Truck Upstart Embark Hauls In $30 Million To Take On Waymo And Uber

A. Ohnsman, July 19, "...  Silicon Valley VC firm Sequoia Capital agrees and just led a $30 million Series B round for the San Francisco-based company, boosting total funding to $47 million for Embark two years after it was founded by Rodrigues and Brandon Moak, its CTO. The funds will help Embark’s fleet expand to 100 trucks from five, load them up with Velodyne lidar sensors, cameras, radar and computing system and compete for software talent..."  See video
Read more Hmmmm.... Maybe, but there is a lot of heavy lifting to be done ahead and $47M isn't that much.   Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class=""> SELF-DRIVING CARS FINALLY GET AN EASY-TO-READ RULE BOOK

A. Davies, July 17, "FOR A SPECIES that would like to see self-driving cars stick to the letter of the law, we humans don’t make things easy. We let lane lines fade and stop signs fall down. We fail to mark speed limits and flag pop-up construction sites. For the most part, humans can handle this lack of clarity. For robots, it can be baffling.

So consider the AV Road Rules Platform a helping hand. The new effort, launched today by transportation analytics firm Inrix, is a tool that lets cities pull together all the rules they expect human drivers to follow, and translate them into a computer-friendly format that any self-driving developer can fold into its software.   ..."  Read more Hmmmm.... Very interesting, but maybe fundamentally naive... The challenge will still be in the practical interpretation of the rules.  Grey areas are substantial. At times, rules are meant to be broken!!!  Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class=""> Lyft buys the biggest bike-sharing company in the US

S. O'kane, July 2,  "Lyft has acquired Motivate, the bike-sharing company that operates Citi Bike in New York City and Ford’s GoBike program in San Francisco. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, though it was reported in June to be around $250 million.

Motivate, which Lyft says accounts for about 80 percent of bike-share trips in the US, also operates networks in Chicago; Boston; Washington, DC; Portland, Oregon; Columbus; and Minneapolis. Lyft says it “will invest to establish bike offerings in our major markets and pursue growth and innovation in the markets where Motivate currently operates,” but it’s unclear where or when it might expand beyond the cities Motivate is currently in. The company also did not share when Motivate’s bikes will be available in the Lyft app.  “Together Lyft and Motivate will revolutionize urban transportation and put bike-share systems across the country on a path toward growth and innovation,” the company wrote in a blog post announcing the acquisition...."  Read more Hmmmm.... I'll admit it...  I just don't see the fit unless Lyft really doesn't want its drivers to serve short rides and will then direct short ride request to the nearest bike stand.  It just seems like a totally different market and clientele.  ???  Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class="" height="22" width="85"> Nvidia Is Taking Over the Autonomous Driving Industry -- Here's How

B. Kenwell, July 20, "Why is Nvidia a likely winner? It doesn't program the systems that pilot AVs nor does it make all the hardware components that may be commoditized in the future. But it develops all the necessary equipment to make autonomous driving efficient, safe and a reality. Nvidia is also quietly building an ecosystem that will thrive as autonomous driving gains traction over the years. How? Let's break it down with a little help from Nvidia's senior director of automotive Danny Shapiro.

I was able to catch up with Shapiro after it was announced that Daimler and Bosch selected the company to power to its mobility-as-a-service ambitions.

To start, Nvidia's DRIVE Pegasus is the onboard source that makes self-driving cars a reality. It's roughly the size of a license plate and Shapiro calls it the most energy-efficient solution in the market right now. The system can deliver 320 trillion deep learning operations per second.  ..."  Read more Hmmmm.... Somewhat over the top, but nVIDIA is a very serious player.  Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class=""> A Broad Look Into Autonomous Vehicles

A. Saadi, July 23,  "

• A major shapeshift is underway in consumers' sentiment towards self-driven cars.
• A dramatic decline in disengagements indicates that improvements are happening faster.
• My model attempts to estimate potential value of the autonomous vehicle market....

Read more Hmmmm.... Take a look, there may be something here for you.  I put little credibility behind any of the consumer surveys because, to me, they all seem so flawed.  The disengagement data from California is very important, but primarily to the development of Driverless.  (AutoPilot, SuperCruise, Dystronic Plus, ..., the Self-driving Systems, are not part of the California tests.) As far as Driverless goes, the data clearly shows that Google is way out in front, GM/Cruise a distant 2nd and the rest aren't even in the same universe.  The Market model fails to recognize the difference from Safe- (Automated Collision Avoidance), Self- (AutoPilot,...) and Driverless (Waymo, Cruise, Zoox, ...)  Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class=""> Driverless Rail Cars??

K. Pyle, July 11 "6 double decker railcars with 1 hour frequency. Would be an interesting study to compare that to autonomous, battery (electric) self-propelled, railcars with, say, 5 minute frequency with regards to capital & operational cost & customer experience. "  Read more  Hmmmm.... Many of us that travel know the experience. It is what we experience at any major airport.  Can you imagine having to check a schedule or wait a half hour for a "6 car train" to go from one terminal to another or to get to baggage at any major airport.  When is the last time that you checked a schedule to ride the Paris Metro or the London Tube?  Frequency makes an enormous difference. 

Why haven't railroads done it?...  Improving frequency isn't all that important!  If you've put up with the inconvenience of getting to AND from the stations, then modifying your schedule to the trains schedule is just a little insult that you have to put up with.  In-frequency is all about cost of labor.  The Westinghouse Sky Bus (Failure for cities more than 50 years ago, but savior of air travel) delivered frequency independent of costs beginning in 1971 at Tampa Airport.  That enabled a revolution in air travel.  The objective was getting to, from and between ever larger airplanes and the front door of an airport.  Since the stations/stops are not actually the places people want to get from and to, getting between those points needed to be made as easy and frequent as possible; else, people wont use the airplane.

Also, unfortunately,  the cost of automating Commuter Rail is perceived to be so much greater than any perceived benefits that could accrue to increased frequency that it isn't even on anyone's radar screen.  That perception may not be correct.  The Paris Metro is automating.  All new metros being built are automated.  At some point freight railroads may awaken to the virtues of on-demand (frequent) service which is enabled only by automation.  The issue with railroads is how to best utilize its rail infrastructure.  Is the future incremental revenue opportunity sufficient to offset the long-term capital costs of the investment required to automate the infrastructure?.  Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt=""> Commuters will be able to use e-scooters at this N.J. train station

L. Higgs, July 23, " Uber came to New Jersey in 2013, CitiBike in 2015.

This fall, commuters in one suburban community will get the chance to try riding an e-scooter to travel between a train station and home. The borough of Madison and Boxcar Inc., a company that provides bus trips and parking through its app, are bringing the state's first electric-powered scooters for commuters through a joint venture...." Read more  Hmmmm.... Should be interesting to watch what happens.  It could improve accessibility to the Madison station for Madison residents who don't have a car to leave at the station (not likely to be many), but could improve the accessibility of destinations in Madison of "reverse commuters" and visitors (these are people that are probably "Driving alone" today).  Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class=""> MaaS Players Transforming into Mobility Ecosystem Providers

R. Citron, July 19, "Mobility as a service (MaaS) providers are increasingly integrating their business with other transport options through acquisitions, partnerships, and internal technology development....The next stage of transformation is likely to involve widespread and comprehensive levels of MaaS platform integration with public transit services. MaaS needs to be coordinated with mass transit services to ensure that optimal use is made of available road infrastructure while meeting the needs of the local community. Without this type of coordination, the potential improvements to congestion, safety, and cost could be squandered.  Read more Hmmmm.... Hopefully so, but not just yet.  I really doubt that the next time I request Lyft to take me to Newark airport Lyft is going to recommend that the driver just drop me off at Princeton Junction and have me take NJ Transit the rest of the way, even though that might actually be a faster, environmentally better and cheaper way to go.  Alain

Jobs

Interested in working in Toronto?   Have a good background and interest in working on safety and security for autonomous driving vehicles and fleets?  Contact Dr. Fengmin Gong, DiDi Labs

Half-baked stuff that probably doesn't deserve your time

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class="" height="39" width="50"> Pave Over the Subway? Cities Face Tough Bets on Driverless Cars

 E. Badger, July 20, "..."  Read more Hmmmm.... There isn't a sentence in the whole article that isn't hyperbole from one end of the spectrum or the other.  No one is looking to replace NYC's subways, nor replace mass transit where mass transit exists today.  Light rail isn't antiquated, it is just a very expensive way to serve a few trips.  Nashville, Indianapolis and Detroit don't have the density.  They aren't Manhattan, nor even Brooklyn, Queens or the Bronx and probably don't desire to be any of them.  Is there a light rail system in the US that has exceeded, or even came close to achieving the projections of its proponents? (Have U.S. Light Rail Systems Been Worth the Investment?, Y. Fremark, Apr 10, 2014).  This article may not even be Half baked.  C'mon NYT, you can do better.  Alain 

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class=""> Lyft buys the biggest bike-sharing company in the US

S. O'kane, July 2,  "Lyft has acquired Motivate, the bike-sharing company that operates Citi Bike in New York City and Ford’s GoBike program in San Francisco. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, though it was reported in June to be around $250 million.

Motivate, which Lyft says accounts for about 80 percent of bike-share trips in the US, also operates networks in Chicago; Boston; Washington, DC; Portland, Oregon; Columbus; and Minneapolis. Lyft says it “will invest to establish bike offerings in our major markets and pursue growth and innovation in the markets where Motivate currently operates,” but it’s unclear where or when it might expand beyond the cities Motivate is currently in. The company also did not share when Motivate’s bikes will be available in the Lyft app.  “Together Lyft and Motivate will revolutionize urban transportation and put bike-share systems across the country on a path toward growth and innovation,” the company wrote in a blog post announcing the acquisition...."  Read more Hmmmm.... I'll admit it.  I just don't see the fit unless Lyft really doesn't want its drivers to serve short rides and will then direct short ride request to the nearest bike stand.  It just seems like a totally different market and clientele.  ???  Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class=""> Navigant Research Leaderboard: Automated Driving Vehicles

Navigant, 1Q2018, "...

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class="">

..." Read more Hmmmm.... Must be an old graph. What is encompassed in "Automated Driving Vehicles"?  What are the equations for the graph coordinates??? "Execution = ???"; "Strategy = ???"  The only way that GM is ahead of Waymo in "Execution" is if "Automated Driving" includes more than Driverless (It also includes Self-driving and/or Safe-driving.  Things that Waymo is not doing.) 

Again, "Automated Vehicles" encompasses three very different markets:  Safe-, Self- and Driverless.  Navigant, or someone else,would be helpful if they put out leaderboards for each element of this "triathlon".  Some participants are focused on one or two of the events (Waymo, Uber, Zoox (absent), and Navya on Driverless; Tesla on Self,; Volvo (absent) focused on Safe & Self and maybe only GM focused on all three.  Anyway, what is graphed is at best good for a "Sunday Supplement" and not a serious publication.   Alain

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class=""> A Reality Check on Advanced Vehicle Technologies

C. Giffi, July 2018, "...the current pace of investment in advanced vehicle technologies can be described as a game of high-stakes poker where the players are all in, and the outcome is largely undetermined, though unlikely to favor everyone at the table...."  That's true of every poker game.  This isn't a Marxist game.  A more interesting statement might have been "since we are so early in the evolution, is/are the ultimate winner(s) even at the table?...  Considering the headwinds of slowing demand and cooling global conditions that threaten to derail several key automotive markets around the world, it is unlikely that OEMs, suppliers and technology companies will be able to sustain the frantic pace of capital allocation currently flowing into autonomous drive and electric powertrain development.

Going forward, the following three takeaways should be kept in mind ...

• New business models will be necessary to capture a return...
• Keep a watchful eye on regulators and policy makers
• Don't loose sight of the present while chasing the future"  
  

Read more Hmmmm.... The last point is probably the best takeaway.  Also, mixing the powertrain technology with the all automated vehicle technologies (Safe, Self & Driverless) is not helpful because they are each very different markets, deserving different investment approaches and different business models to capture the return.  In the end, this report is not really helpful.  Alain

 C'mon Man!  (These folks didn't get/read the memo)

Calendar of Upcoming Events:

[log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.5&filename=lmjdiniodjkflpia.png" class="" height="52" width="46" border="0">

3rd Annual Princeton SmartDrivingCar Summit
evening May 14 through May 16, 2019
Save the Date; Reserve your Sponsorship

Catalog of Videos of Presentations @ 2nd Annual Princeton SmartDrivingCar Summit
Photos from 2nd Annual Princeton SmartDrivingCar Summit
Program & Links to slides from 2nd Annual Princeton SmartDrivingCar Summit

[log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.4&filename=fkcoajjkbhnffcof.png" class="" height="24" width="67" border="0">

Recent PodCasts

 Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 47

F. Fishkin, July 14, "Self driving taxis from Mercedes? Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser says, "No thank you". Why? Tune in as the faculty chair of autonomous vehicle engineering joins Fred Fishkin for that and much more in episode 47 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast."

 Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 46

F. Fishkin, June 30, "Self driving technology speeds along in China. Uber looks to resume testing this summer. Public transit, the Koch brothers and Nuro's partnership with Kroger. Join Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin for Episode 46 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast!"

 Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 45

F. Fishkin, June 15, "Waymo marks the first year of its early rider program. The news is good but Princeton's Alain Kornhauser says it could be better. How? Tune in to Episode 45 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast for that and the latest on GM, Voyage, Ford and more "

 Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 44

F. Fishkin, June 12, "What is the big mistake California is making in driverless vehicle testing? Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser says the key is to promote ride sharing. Join the professor and co-host Fred Fishkin for Episode 44 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast for more on that, Waymo, Tesla and more.

 Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 41

F. Fishkin, May 31, "Artificial Intelligence may be able to drive better than humans most of the time....but is that good enough? Join Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser and Co-host Fred Fishkin for Episode 41 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast. More on the latest from Uber, Tesla and Nuro. Listen and subscribe."

 Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 39

F. Fishkin, May 17, "How close is California to giving the green light to driverless testing on public roads? Deputy DMV Director Bernard Soriano joins Alain Kornhauser, Fred Fishkin and guest Michael Sena on Episode 39 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast. And we review some highlights of the just concluded 2nd annual Princeton Smart Driving Car Summit. Listen and subscribe!"

 Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 38

F. Fishkin, May 10, "The continuing Uber crash investigation, Waymo and Ohio rolls out the welcome mat for the testing of self driving cars. All that and more in Episode 38 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast. This week Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin are joined by Bryant Walker Smith of the University of South Carolina and Stanford. Tune in and subscribe!"

Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 34

F. Fishkin, Apr 13, "Should a brand new regulatory agency be formed to oversee self driving and driverless vehicles? Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser says yes in Episode 34 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast with co-host Fred Fishkin. Also...Uber's CEO calls self driving vehicles are in the student driver phase....and Tesla feuds with the NTSB."

Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 33

F. Fishkin, Apr 4, " Waymo is making it real! In Episode 33 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast, hosts Fred Fishkin and Princeton's Alain Kornhauser are joined by Michael Sena, publisher of The Dispatcher newsletter. Take a deep dive into Waymo's deals with Jaguar and talks with Honda.. Tesla, Volvo, Uber and Ambarella. And the Princeton Smart Driving Car Summit is coming up!         "

[log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.16&filename=lebihbcnmgcofiio.png" class="" height="76" width="129" border="0">

Saturday, July 14,  2018

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class="" height="22" width="99"> MERCEDES WILL LAUNCH SELF-DRIVING TAXIS IN CALIFORNIA NEXT YEAR

J. Stewart, July 10, "...Mercedes-Benz parent company Daimler took a cautious step into the swamp stomp, announcing plans to launch a self-driving car pilot somewhere in Silicon Valley, next year.

Daimler is calling its service an “automated shuttle,” but it's not referring to some blobby, slow-moving van. It’s going to start out using a fleet of S-Class luxury sedans and B-Class hatchbacks, with long-term plans for vehicles designed for autonomous driving, like the F 015 “Luxury in Motion” concept it showed off a few years back..."  Read more  Hmmmm....  Daimler, please DON'T!!!! This is such the wrong concept by the wrong company.  Daimler is singularly focused on 1%ers and the last thing that 1%ers need are Driverless aTaxis!  1%ers already have more personal mobility than they can throw a stick at. 1%ers  can easily afford a driver/attendant, so they have no need for Driverless. And one suspects that those who seek elite modes of transportation will not be the first to share rides with others. Daimler, this isn't your market.  Please stick to the Safe-driving and Self-Driving (with adult supervision) worlds.  You are doing a great job with those, but, please,  don't ruin the the Driverless, mobility-for-all world with your "F 015 “Luxury in Motion”concept, which reeks of exclusivity. Daimler's proposed design seems fundamentally focused on the very few.  Driverless is a technological opportunity to provide life-enhancing mobility to the many, which is NOT in Daimler's DNA and unfortunately NOT is the EU's DNA, because Daimler has played such a strong role in the evolution of the EU's perspective on AV technology.  Driverless must focus on shared-riding whenever practical, else it will fail.  So please, Daimler, stay away for  now.  Alain

Saturday, June 30,  2018

Friday, June 15,  2018

Tuesday, June 12,  2018

[log in to unmask]" alt="" class="" height="45" width="52"> CPUC AUTHORIZES PASSENGER CARRIERS TO PROVIDE FREE TEST RIDES IN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES WITH VALID CPUC AND DMV PERMITS

Press Release, May 31, "...Today’s decision also allows TCP permit-holders that hold a “DMV Manufacturer’s Testing Permit – Driverless Vehicles” to operate autonomous vehicles without a driver in the vehicle, subject to certain restrictions. Authorization to provide this service is available only to TCP permit-holders with driverless autonomous vehicles that have been in DMV-permitted driverless operation on California roads for a minimum of 30 days. Entities seeking to participate in the pilot program are not allowed to operate from or within airports; must limit the use of the vehicle to one chartering party at any given time (i.e., fare-splitting is not permitted); must ensure that the service can only be chartered by adults 18 years and older; and may not accept monetary compensation for the ride. Participants are also required to continuously comply with all DMV regulations, and to report certain data to the CPUC on a quarterly basis that will be publicly available...."  Read more  Hmmmm.....Good News:  Able to serve customers with autonomousTaxis.  Bad news: Not able to Share Rides.  (This is really bad news because having the public oversight body focus Driverless serving single occupants thereby making even worse the fundamental problem of the personal auto is simply REALLY BAD!.  Their opportunity is to encourage ride-sharing whenever possible so as to alleviate  congestion and reduce energy and pollution.  C'mon CPUC!!  The fact that the rides are free is largely irrelevant at this time, except as, once again, a subsidy to the 1%ers who are a disproportionate element of the early adopters that are likely to hail this service.  Alain

Friday, June 8,  2018

Sunday, June 3,  2018

  SOFTBANK FLIPS THE VENTURE-CAPITAL SCRIPT AGAIN WITH GM DEAL

E. Griffith, May 31, "GENERAL MOTORS, THE 10th-largest company by revenue in the US, is eager to lay the groundwork for future growth by developing self-driving technology. But its shareholders are dubious of too much spending as revenue declines—it fell 5.5 percent last year.

Japanese conglomerate SoftBank has the opposite problem: a giant pile of cash but not enough opportunities to spend it. The company’s Vision Fund does not make investments smaller than $100 million, and there are only so many startups worthy of such a large check. That’s why the firm has taken a loose interpretation of its artificial-intelligence-focused investment thesis, including aspects of human needs that won’t be replaced by technology.

It also helps explain SoftBank’s $2.25 billion investment in GM’s self-driving car unit, Cruise, announced Thursday. The move further complicates the tangled web of connections among startups, automakers, big tech companies, and venture investors angling for a piece of the market for autonomous vehicles—a market that doesn’t yet exist but is expected one day to generate trillions of dollars in revenue.

The overlapping investments and alliances have become so prevalent that they border on conflicts. And SoftBank sits at the center.

To wit: SoftBank invested in Uber after it had already backed Uber competitors in India (Ola), Singapore (Grab), Brazil (99), and China (Didi). Didi, which also invested in Ola, Grab, 99, and Lyft, eventually merged with Uber’s China business. Uber continues to compete with Ola in India and 99 (which Didi acquired) in Brazil. Meanwhile SoftBank’s Vision Fund has taken investment from Apple, which has its own autonomous vehicle program, and Uber has taken investment from the venture arm of Alphabet, owner of autonomous competitor Waymo, which recently settled a nasty lawsuit against Uber and received a small slice of equity in its rival. Oh, and SoftBank portfolio company Alibaba has invested in Uber rival Lyft, along with Ford, GM, and CapitalG, the late-stage investment arm of Alphabet...." Read more  Hmmmm.... Most interesting.  Must be a realization that Uber's "Driverless Initiative" is so hopelessly 3rd rate, that SoftBank invested up to the 2nd pick in order to salvage the Uber IPO valuation.  SoftBank has a tangled web of investments but it is strategically biases in a desperate attempt to catch the breakout leader Waymo.  All the while Waymo seems to be putting the pedal to the metal. (next article).     Alain

  Waymo’s fleet of self-driving minivans is about to get 100 times bigger

A. Hawkins, May 31, "The size of Waymo’s fleet of self-driving Chrysler Pacifica minivans just got radically bigger. The Alphabet unit announced today that it struck a deal with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), one of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, for an additional 62,000 minivans to be deployed as robot taxis." Hmmmm.... Wow!!  What is Waymo going to do with 60,000 more aTaxis on top of the 20,000 Jaguars they ordered a few months back???  I guess that they will send a couple thousand to NJ. .   Those 80,000 aTaxis will serve about 4 million person trips/day (~50 personTrips/aTaxi-day).  That's about 0.5% of all personTrips greater than 0.5 miles in the USA on a typical day, roughly equal to the number of personTrips that Uber serves today in the US on a typical day today in the USA and is ~10% of the personTrips riding today's conventional transit systems.  Wow!!!
Moreover, the two companies have also begun discussions about how to eventually sell self-driving cars to customers as personally owned vehicles..." Read more  Hmmmm.... What????  Waymo can't be serious.  No way Waymo or anyone else is going to allow these vehicles to be in the hands of consumers.  The professional maintenance and adult supervision required by these vehicles today makes such a suggestion preposterous.  Moreover, this would be Uber's biggest windfall, to be able to buy the best driverless car rather than having to make it themselves.  No way Waymo allows Uber this windfall.  The floor price for a goose that lays golden eggs is the investment required to purchase an annuity of golden eggs.  Not only is that a big number, Uber doesn't have any secret sauce that can extract more value out of those eggs than Waymo can.  So, if Uber bids high enough to buy them, they'll lose money.  This "rumor" deserves a super C'mon Man!!! Alain

Thursday, May 31,  2018

AI Winter Is Well On Its Way

F. Piekniewski, "Deep learning has been at the forefront of the so called AI revolution for quite a few years now, and many people had believed that it is the silver bullet that will take us to the world of wonders of technological singularity (general AI). ...We have now mid 2018 and things have changed. ..By far the biggest blow into deep learning fame is the domain of self driving vehicles ..

But by far the biggest prick punching through the AI bubble was the accident in which Uber self driving car killed a pedestrian in Arizona. From the preliminary report by the NTSB we can read some astonishing statements:..." Read more  Hmmmm.... Very interesting.  We still have an awful lot to do.  See also,G. Marcus, below. Alain

Friday, May 25,  2018

PRELIMINARY REPORT: HIGHWAY: HWY18MH010 (Uber/Herzberg Crash)

KMay 24, "About 9:58 p.m., on Sunday, March 18, 2018, an Uber Technologies, Inc. test vehicle, based on a modified 2017 Volvo XC90 and operating with a self-driving system in computer control mode, struck a pedestrian on northbound Mill Avenue, in Tempe, Maricopa County, Arizona.

...The vehicle was factory equipped with several advanced driver assistance functions by Volvo Cars, the original manufacturer. The systems included a collision avoidance function with automatic emergency
braking, known as City Safety, as well as functions for detecting driver alertness and road sign information. All these Volvo functions are disabled when the test vehicle is operated in computer control..." Read more  Hmmmm.... Uber must believe that its systems are better at avoiding Collisions and Automated Emergency Braking than Volvo's.  At least this gets Volvo "off the hook". 

"...According to data obtained from the self-driving system, the system first registered radar and LIDAR observations of the pedestrian about 6 seconds before impact, when the vehicle was traveling at 43 mph..." (= 63 feet/second)  So the system started "seeing an obstacle when it was 63 x 6 = 378 feet away... more than a football field, including end zones!   

"...As the vehicle and pedestrian paths converged, the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle with varying expectations of future travel path..." (NTSB: Please tell us precisely when it classified this "object' as a vehicle and be explicit about the expected "future travel paths."  Forget the path, please just tell us the precise velocity vector that Uber's system attached to the "object", then the "vehicle".  Why didn't the the Uber system instruct the Volvo to begin to slow down (or speed up) to avoid a collision?  If these paths (or velocity vectors) were not accurate, then why weren't they accurate?  Why was the object classified as a   "Vehicle" ??  When did it finally classify the object as a "bicycle"?  Why did it change classifications?  How often was the classification of this object done.  Please divulge the time and the outcome of each classification of this object.  In the tests that Uber has done, how often has the system mis-classified an object as a "pedestrian"when the object was actually an overpass, or an overhead sign or overhead branches/leaves that the car could safely pass under, or was nothing at all?? (Basically, what are the false alarm characteristics of Uber's Self-driving sensor/software system as a function of vehicle speed and time-of-day?)  

"...At 1.3 seconds before impact, (impact speed was 39mph = 57.2 ft/sec) the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision" (1.3 x 57.2 = 74.4 ft. which is about equal to the braking distance. So it still could have stopped short.

"...According to Uber, emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce (eradicate??) the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. ..." NTSB:  Please describe/define potential  and erratic vehicle behavior   Also please uncover and divulge the design & decision process that Uber went through to decide that this risk (disabling the AEB) was worth the reward of eradicating " "erratic vehicle behavior".  This is fundamentally BAD design.  If the Uber system's false alarm rate is so large that the best way to deal with false alarms is to turn off the AEB, then the system should never have been permitted on public roadways. 

"...The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. " Wow!  If Uber's system fundamentally relies on a human to intervene, then Uber is nowhere near creating a Driverless vehicle.  Without its own Driverless vehicle Uber is past "Peak valuation".  

"...The system is not designed to alert the operator. " That may be the only good part of Uber's design.  In a Driverless vehicle, there is no one to warn, so don't waste your time.  If it is important enough to warn, then it is important enough for the automated system to start initiating things to do something about it.  Plus, the Driver may not know what to do anyway.  This is pretty much as I stated in PodCast 30 and the March 24 edition of SmartDrivingCar, See below.  Alain 

Friday, May 18,  2018

 The Open Source Solution to Autonomous Safety #smartdrivingcar

K. Pyle, May 9, "Safety and, as importantly, the perception of safety could be the pin that pricks the expectations surrounding the autonomous vehicle future. Recognizing the importance of safety to the success of this still nascent industry, autonomous taxi start-up, Voyage, recently placed their testing and reporting procedures in an open source framework. ...Oliver Cameron, Voyage Co-Founder and CEO, is excited to see participation and says, “We can’t wait to have all of these contributions from companies from around the world; contribute to build the actual standard in autonomous safety.”  Read more, Hmmmm.... See the video that was played at the Princeton SDC Summit which generated substantial positive discussion at the Summit. See also full length video. Alain

Thursday, May 10,  2018

  Uber Finds Deadly Accident Likely Caused By Software Set to Ignore Objects On Road 

A. Efrati, May 7, "Uber has determined that the likely cause of a fatal collision involving one of its prototype self-driving cars in Arizona in March was a problem with the software that decides how the car should react to objects it detects, according to two people briefed about the matter." Read more  Hmmmm....Uber is "leaking" this???  Is this Spin?  Fake News??   I guess Uber doesn't believe in transparency here.  Where is the official public statement of reassurance??? 

"The car’s sensors detected the pedestrian, who was crossing the street with a bicycle, Hmmmm....Pretty much what I wrote on March 24, the sensors "Saw something" ...   but Uber’s software decided it didn’t need to react right away. ..."right away" is Fake News.  It never reacted.  Uber has not released any data indicating that the software ever reacted.  "That’s a result of how the software was tuned." ...That was a major "tuning" faux pas.  What is being divulged here is that Uber's software never became confident enough that what it was seeing was something that it should not hit and, at least,  begin to apply the brakes (or swerve, or ???).  Even the driver in the video recognized that the object should not be hit a split second before the crash.  So the Problem     is not "tuning" it is outright "fuhgeddaboudit"  Like other autonomous vehicle systems, Uber’s software has the ability to ignore “false positives,” or objects in its path that wouldn’t actually be a problem for the vehicle, such as a plastic bag floating over a road.... Is Uber suggesting that its software can't tell the difference between a plastic bag floating over the road and a pedestrian with a bicycle, even after seeing the object 30 to 60 or more times over the 3 or more seconds that the object was in view?    If this isn't Fake News then Uber is hopelessly far behind...   In this case, Uber executives believe the company’s system was tuned so that it reacted less to such objects."  It didn't react at all!... But the tuning went too far, and the car didn’t react fast enough, one of these people said.... ... It didn't react at all! If this wasn't so important I'd put it in C'mon man.

"False positives" are the symptom, not the problem.  The problem is Uber's system design and operational policy.  Uber system designers knew that the sensors under certain conditions reported "false positives" (were "spooked").  One of those conditions was possibly  the combination of "is the closing speed = car's current speed" AND "is the car's current speed greater than 30mph."  In situations in which both are true, then Uber's "tuning"  is outright "fuhgeddaboudit". This "tuning" effectively turns-off Uber's sensors to detecting anything that is stationary or moving across its lane ahead. If Uber has understood this, then Uber would/should have ...

1.  limited the operation of its cars to speeds under 30 mph,

2.  limited the operation of its cars at speeds greater than 30 mph only to roadways where pedestrians are extremely unlikely to cross, and

3.  focus on substantially improving its ability to interpret its sensor data so that the false alarm rate becomes so small that false alarms are tolerated throughout Uber's operational domain.

..."Meanwhile, the human driver behind the wheel, who is meant to take over and prevent an accident, wasn't paying attention in the seconds before the car hit..."  ...I think that this is a cheap shot against the driver.  I suspect that this car had a screen that displayed the real-time status of the automated driving system.  I would not be surprised if that screen was mounted below the radio and that the driver was actually monitoring the operation of the automated driving system prior to the crash.  Why this display wasn't on the dash so that the driver's peripheral vision could remain on the road ahead when the driver was monitoring the performance of the system is a question Uber should answer,...  if it had any interest in being transparent.

Another question that Uber could be asked: Why didn't the monitoring system warn the driver that it was "seeing something"  and ask the driver to look to see if it should be "saying/doing something".

Since it doesn't look like Uber is going to really divulge anything, it is incumbent on the NTSB to dig deeply into this "false alarm" issue.  Disregarding "false positives" in order to circumvent a little passenger/customer discomfort enables "false negatives" which kill people.  Not pretty! 

"...Uber has reached its own preliminary conclusion..."  .The problem was what the broader system chose to do with that information". .... Is Uber going to tell us????  This is way more than a "tuning problem".  This is a design and culture problem...       

"...In the collision investigation, Uber found that a vital piece of the self-driving car was likely working properly: the “perception” software, which combines data from the car’s cameras, lidar and radars to recognize and “label” objects around it. In this case, the software is believed to have seen the objects. The problem was what the broader system chose to do with that information..."  .......NO!!!!  The problem is in the "recognize & label".  If it didn't miss-recognize and miss-label then the ride wouldn't be jerky.  The "perception" software is so intent on "seeing something" in certain domains that it ends up "imagining that it saw something that wasn't there" (false positive) so the broader system  turns off the perception system in those domains.  It is the "vital" "perception" system that is at fault and needs the work. 

I suspect that this mess will be discussed at the   [log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.5&filename=lmjdiniodjkflpia.png" class="" height="21" width="18" border="0">  2nd Annual Princeton SmartDrivingCar Summit  [log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.5&filename=lmjdiniodjkflpia.png" class="" height="21" width="18" border="0">   Uber isn't the only company with a "false alarm" issue.   Alain

Thursday, May 3,  2018

 As the Number of Driverless Cars Increase, So Does the Need for Car Maker Transparency

R. Mitchell, Apr 30, "...A schism is developing in the driverless-car world — but not between fans and foes of robot cars.

Instead, on one side are driverless-car advocates who believe data transparency will lead to safer deployment of driverless vehicles and help alleviate public fears about the strange and disruptive new technology. On the other are some automobile and technology companies that, for good commercial reasons perhaps, prefer to keep their workings cloaked in mystery.

The lack of transparency about the workings of sensors, logic processors, mapping systems and other driverless technology, like the debate over robot-car regulation, could shape public perception of the nascent industry, said Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina.  "Essentially, [the public will be] looking to see whether these companies are trustworthy," he said...

In the Uber death, a video recorded by a dashboard camera — turned over to and released by Tempe, Ariz., police — showed the driverless-car system failed to brake for the pedestrian. It left open the question of whether the system sensors might have failed to notice the pedestrian at all.

Uber's reaction was to apologize, then dip into some of its $15 billion in investment capital to pay the victim's family in a legal settlement, thus avoiding a public trial.

Uber declined to make a company executive available to discuss data and transparency on the record, as did Waymo, Tesla and Lyft. Other companies — including Zoox, Nutonomy and General Motors, parent of Cruise Automation — agreed to talk.

Even driverless-car advocates are growing concerned about the silence from the industry's major players. Grayson Brulte, a well-known consultant in the driverless industry, worries that recent polls have consistently shown the public is wary about driverless technology, while companies appear reluctant to engage with the public.  "They're like Rapunzel up in the tower," he said. "They have to let down their hair and climb down."

Alain Kornhauser, who heads the driverless-vehicle program at Princeton University, said he believes that robot cars will improve safety, reduce driver stress, add productive time to the day and offer the elderly and disabled more independence. But the technology is far from perfect, he said, and some robot-induced deaths are inevitable.

Rather than wall off the lessons learned in fatalities such as the recent Uber and Tesla incidents, Kornhauser said, the companies should be sharing crash data with one another, with outside researchers and with the general public. And not just black-box data, but driverless-system data as well. That would make driverless cars safer and faster, he said.

"Uber should not gain a safety advantage over everyone else because they were involved in this crash," Kornhauser said. "All of the video, radar, lidar and logic trails in the seconds leading up to the crash should be released to the public.

"If this reveals some of Uber's intellectual property, so be it. If they want to protect their intellectual property, they shouldn't crash on public roads." ..."  Read more 

Hmmmm... Amen!  This article addresses what may well be the most important issue facing this industry.  Crashes will happen.  The industry has been holding its breath knowing that one, two, three, ... deaths are coming.  Deaths are associated with every substantial technological advance in transportation.  Deaths occurred with cable cars, with electric traction, with steam trains, with airplanes, with conventional cars, with elevators, ..., even with airbags... why do you have yellow stickers affixed to the passenger-side sun visor of your car.  That's right... airbags kill children.  No one expected that.  But when it was "tripped over", then that event was made transparent to everyone.  Similarly, total transparency needs to be created.  Uber needs to release the data that shows that their system did, in fact "see" Elaine for four (4), or however many, seconds before the crash, but didn't see her reliably enough to convince itself to apply the brakes.  The details of that decision logic and the uncertainty/stochastic characteristics of that decision process needs to be divulged.  Why wasn't it sure enough that a collision with Elaine was imminent for it to apply the brakes?  It is totally disingenuous for Uber to claim that its system never saw Elaine (Uber hasn't said that.  They've said nothing.  (They'd better not even try to say that. Their system is at least pretty good.  it was developed by competent individuals from CMU and other very good places.  It saw Elaine, it just didn't see her well enough or it chose to disregard what it saw for whatever reason.  The nitty gritty details of those uncertainties MUST be divulged in all of their minute, gory and transparent details.  Once made then everyone else in the industry can look at their comparable processes/algorithms and fix them so that the next time an "Elaine" is "seen" she will not be disregarded.  It is these situations that deserve the most serious attention.  These are infinitely more important and more challenging than the "Trolley (navel contemplation) Problem".  

We will be addressing, with some of the best people in the world, this and other fundamentally important issues at the 2nd Annual Princeton SmartDrivingCar Summit    May 16 & 17.  Come join in and contribute to the conversations on these issues.  Russ Mitchell will be there. Bryant Walker-Smith will be there.  Grayson Brulte will be there. Raymond Martinez (Head of FMCSA) will be there.  Bernard Soriano (#2 @ CA DMV) will be there.  Nat Beuse (#2 @ NHTSA) will be there.  Oliver Cameron (CEO, Voyage) will weigh in,  Adam Jonas (#1 Auto Analyst, Morgan Stanley) will be there.  Fengmin Gong (Head, DiDi Research) will be there. Justin Erlich (Head AV Policy, Uber) will be there,  Sami Naim, (Manager, Public Policy, Lyft) will be there, Mike Jellen (President, Velodyne) will be there, Paul Brubaker (CEO ATI21) will be there, Matt Moore (SVP, Highway Loss Data Institute) will be there, Mike Scrudato (#1 AV Insurance guy, SVP, Munich Re) will be there, Ro Gupta (CEO Carmera) will be there. Insurance/risk assessment related: Ann Gergen (Exec. Dir. AGRIP), Jerry Spears ( Montana Association of Governments), Laura Kornhauser (President, Stratyfy), David Harmer, Head, Virginia transit Reliability Pool) plus many others will be there.  From the investment community: Sheldon, Sandler (CEO, Bel Air Partners) will be there.  And the list goes on...

Please come join in the discourse.  Click to register.  Alain

Thursday, April 26,  2018

 This startup’s CEO wants to open-source self-driving car safety testing

M. Harris, Apr 24, "... "I had to spend time after [the Uber crash] calming people down, telling folks at our deployments that it was an isolated incident," says Voyage CEO Oliver Cameron in an exclusive interview with Ars Technica. "But the truth is that everyone in the industry is reinventing the technology and safety processes themselves, which is incredibly dangerous. Open source means more eyes, more diversity, and more feedback.".

Starting today, Voyage will begin to share safety requirements, test scenarios, metrics, tools, and code that it has developed for its own Level 4 self-driving taxis. Five Voyage cars are currently deployed carrying passengers within two retirement communities in California and Florida..."  Read more  Hmmmm... This is a very positive step taken by Voyage's Oliver Cameron to address the enormous safety aspects of this technology.  It isn't obvious how everyone involved in this industry needs to work together to assemble the best "...safety requirements, test scenarios, metrics, tools, and code....".  There are serious concerns about collusion and protecting fundamentally valuable IP.  

None the less, what is important is that it is in everyone's best interest to have everyone be safe.  The Uber crash negatively affected everyone, even Waymo.   Everyone would be better off today, had Uber not crashed.  Similarly with the Tesla crashes.  They've also had a negative impact on everyone.  This is a market where the faster the better products are available in the marketplace, the larger the sum of benefits to society, and, arguably, the large the accumulated benefits to each individual contributor/producer.   That argues for everyone working together, aka sharing: "...safety requirements, test scenarios, metrics, tools, and code....".  Whether  "open-source" his the exact right mechanism for "optimal sharing" , or it is Standards Committees, or Regulations (heaven forbid), working together for Safety rather competing on Safety is absolutely necessary in this r/evolution.  Kudos to Oliver for this initiative.  Alain

Thursday, April 12,  2018

 The way we regulate self-driving cars is broken—here’s how to fix it

T. Lee, Apr 10,"...Federal car safety regulation has traditionally been based on a thick book of rules called the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). These regulations, developed over decades, establish detailed performance requirements for every safety-related part of a car: brakes, tires, headlights, mirrors, airbags, and a lot more....

Federal regulations don't say much about how companies develop and test cars before bringing them to market. ... But that approach doesn't work for driverless cars. Companies can do some testing of driverless cars on a closed course, but it's impossible to reproduce a full range of real-world situations in a private facility. So at some point, carmakers need to put self-driving cars on public roads for testing purposes—before a manufacturer is able to clearly demonstrate that they're safe. In effect, this makes the public involuntary participants in a dangerous research project.

But updating the FMVSS is neither necessary nor sufficient for effective regulation of driverless cars....  Read more  Hmmmm...What needs to be recognized is that Driverless cars (much more so than Safe- and Self-driving cars) are really a NEW MODE. They are in many ways closer to an elevator than a conventional car.  Sure they run on conventional roads and not vertical shafts and they can run into each other and have to deal with conventional drivers and "pedestrians". but they will not be owned nor operated by consumers, but fleet operators (think buildings) .  They will serve demand upon request to everyone and anyone, be shared when appropriate and convenient and don't even have a driver's seat, let alone the controls of a conventional car. Driverless cars are enormously different than conventional cars. 

Just as railroads and airplanes have their own safety legislation and regulatory administration tailored to their needs, so should Driverless cars.  The best way to approach regulation of Driverless is to start fresh by declaring them as a new mode.  Alain

Thursday, April 5,  2018

Waymo Isn’t Going to Slow Down Now

M. Bergen, "Apr 2, " Waymo, the self-driving car company started by Google, did nothing after an autonomous vehicle run by Uber killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona. It didn’t pull back on tests in the nearby suburb of Chandler, where passengers are already taking rides with no one behind the wheel. Its fleets elsewhere didn’t abandon public streets, a precautionary move made by Toyota.   For Krafcik, the crash video validated the philosophy Waymo had been following long before he joined, back when it was still part of Google: Never trust humans in cars....

Some onlookers question if Krafcik will be around to see Waymo’s alliances through. “You can’t meet John,” said Noble, the consultant, “and not think he’s someone that would have fun running a carmaker.”

For now, though, Krafcik looks to be having fun running a company that’s resolutely not making cars. On the convention floor in Las Vegas, he spotted a Ford Transit Wagon. It’s a hulking eight-seat model he worked on years ago that looks best suited for shuttling around a troop of Girl Scouts or a military platoon.

Krafcik leaped into the second row and turned to the nearest Ford employee: “Do you have a self-driving version?” The answer was no.  “Coming soon,” Krafcik said with a laugh."  Read more  Hmmmm... Wow, this is more info than has been put out by Google/Waymo in the previous 9 years combined.  Looks like Waymo has entered the market/sales phase of its metamorphosis.  By the way, who gets to benefit from the deployment of the 1st 20k  of the Jaguars.  Phoenix and Mountain View don't have enough demand.  Is there going to be a competition a la the frenzy created by the "who wants the 2nd Amazon HQ”?   Alain

Saturday, March 31,  2018

The Most Important Self-Driving Car Announcement Yet

A. Madrigal, Mar 28, "On Tuesday, Waymo announced they’d purchase 20,000 sporty, electric self-driving vehicles from Jaguar for the company’s forthcoming ride-hailing service.... But the company embedded a much more significant milestone inside this supposed announcement about a fancy car. With orders now in for more than 20,000 of these vehicles and thousands of minivans that Chrysler announced earlier this year, Waymo will be capable of doing vast numbers of trips per day. They estimate that the Jaguar fleet alone will be capable of doing a million trips each day in 2020. ..."   Read more  Hmmmm...Yup!! This is HUGE!  It will change the city and the key to making it so it doesn't make thing worse is Ride-sharing.  If we ride-share we'll reduce energy, pollution & GHG by more than 50% and provide high-quality, affordable mobility indiscriminately for all.  It becomes the new high-quality, low-cost mass transit.  If it's kept/operated as another alternative for the 1%ers to be chauffeured alone, then the outcome is UGLY.  Ride-sharing is KEY!  Alain

Saturday, March 24,  2018

Experts say video of Uber's self-driving car killing a pedestrian suggests its technology may have failed

R. Mitchell, Mar 22, "Police late Wednesday released a video that shows an Uber robot car running straight into a woman who was walking her bicycle across a highway in Tempe, Ariz. The woman was taken to a hospital, where she died Sunday night.

The video, shot from the car, is sure to raise debate over who's to blame for the accident.   In the video, the victim, Elaine Herzberg, 49, appears to be illegally jaywalking from a median strip across two lanes of traffic on a dark road. But she was more than halfway across the street when the car — traveling about 40 mph, according to police — hit her. The car did not appear to brake or take any other evasive action....

Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor and driverless specialist at the University of South Carolina, said: "Although this appalling video isn't the full picture, it strongly suggests a failure by Uber's automated driving system and a lack of due care by Uber's driver as well as by the victim."..."  Read more  Hmmmm...  "..."What we now need is for the release of the radar and lidar data," Princeton's Kornhauser said in an email. (Lidar is a sensing technology that uses light from a laser.) "Obviously, the video of the driver is extremely bad for Uber and probably implies that Uber should suspend all of its 'self-driving' efforts for a while if not for a very long while.

"The 'self-driving' systems are supposed to have 'professional' overseers who are really supposed to be paying attention during these 'tests'. Apparently Uber didn't make it clear in this case."

Kornhauser questioned the police description of a situation that would have been difficult to avoid. He said Uber should reveal what its collision-avoidance software was doing during the couple of seconds before impact.

"The front-facing video suggests that this person was crossing the lane at a slow speed and should have been noticed by the system in time to at least apply the brakes, if not stop the vehicle completely," he said. "While a human may not have been able to avoid this crash, a well-designed, well-working collision avoidance system should have at least begun to apply the brakes."..."
"  ...  Again, my sincerest condolences to Elaine Herzberg's family and friends.

The simple arithmetic is:  She crossed more than a lane and a half before being struck or more than 15 feet.  Average walking speed is about 4.6 ft/sec which means that she was "visible" on this stretch of road for more than 3 seconds.  Uber's speed of 38 mph =  55.7 ft/sec means: Uber was 150 ft away when she began crossing the left-hand lane and could have been visible by an alert driver.  The car's lidar and radar surely must have "seen" her beginning at about that time.   Car stopping distance including "thinking time used in The Highway Code" @ 38mph is 110 feet.  The driver should have been able to stop 40 feet short.  Any Automated Emergency Braking (AEB) system should have been able to stop the car in little more than the stopping distance of 72 feet, half way to Elaine.  This simple arithmetic suggests that there may be a very fundamental fatal flaw in Uber's AEB.

And the driver was not paying attention.  At 3 seconds prior to impact, Elaine was within a 12 degree field of view when she began to cross the left lane. While outside the fovea, this is well within a normal gaze had the operator been looking out the window. 

The released video is from a "dash cam" and is unlikely to be the video captured by Uber's "Self-driving" system (or whatever Uber calls it).  That video may well be at a much higher resolution and frame rate.  Uber MUST release that video (not just the dash-cam video) as well as the radar and lidar data that was being used by their "Self-driving" system.  Uber was testing its system at the time of the crash and therefore MUST have been logging those data in case something went wrong.  Uber needs those recorded data in order to have a chance to learn what went wrong and fix it.  Something did go wrong, very wrong.  Uber and everyone else MUST also have the opportunity to learn from this tragedy.  So Uber MUST release all of the data.  Alain

Tuesday, March 20,  2018

Robot drivers may be safer than humans, but tech companies are way behind in proving it

R. Mitchell, Mar 21, "As long as robot cars roam public streets and highways, they will occasionally kill people. That's an ugly truth that no one in the driverless vehicle industry can deny.

Will those robot cars kill people at significantly lower rates than drunk, stoned, tired or distracted human drivers do now? Automakers, technology companies, politicians and regulators are betting they will, as driverless vehicles are rolling out faster than almost anyone expected as recently as a year ago.  But the Sunday night incident in Tempe, Ariz., in which an Uber robot car hit and killed a woman walking her bicycle across the street, makes clear the industry is much further behind in making its case to the public.

"It's likely there will be far fewer deaths with driverless cars," said Marlene Towns, a professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. "But getting to the point where people will be convinced of that will be tough."

Speculation by Tempe's police chief that the robot may not be at fault in the crash may temper any public or political backlash.

Uber was testing the robot car in autonomous mode with a human engineer, who was behind the wheel but not driving. Elaine Herzberg, 49, walking a bicycle, stepped in front of the car from a center median, according to video evidence, police said...."  Read more  Hmmmm...  "...Carmakers and technology companies need to be far more transparent as they push forward, experts said. "It's important that we all learn from this accident and we make these technologies even better, said Alain Kornhauser, a professor at Princeton University and a leading authority on driverless cars. "To that end Uber must release all of the data leading up to this crash. All of the video, radar, lidar and logic trails for the three or so seconds leading up to the crash. If this releases some of Uber's intellectual property, so be it."..."
"  ...  My sincerest condolences to Elaine Herzberg's family and friends.  I hope that Uber with its "$60"B  valuation will make a very generous contribution to homeless charities and think even more seriously about "buying" (by partnering) rather than "making" this technology.  Alain

Tuesday, March 13,  2018

Waymo shows off what it is like to ride in a truly driverless self-driving car

G. Kumparak, Mar 13, "...."  Read more  Hmmmm... This is REALLY big news.This marks the real beginning of on-demand mobility provided by vehicles without a driver or an attendant on-board, only the passengers and the vehicles used normal public roadways that operated in normal everyday manner and used by conventional cars and trucks.  Ng Waymo to their o police escorts, no warning signs, just normal everyday operating conditions.  Except for the one trip given to Steve Mahan in November 2015 in Austin Texas, this is the First time that it kind of mobility service has been delivered anywhere in the world.  Waymo has achieved 5 million vehicle miles of Self-driving (automated driving on normally operating public roadway; however, with a driver/attendant in the car ready to take over should the automated system begin to fail.  Many others including Uber, Lyft/Aptiv, GM/Cruise, nVIDIA, Apple, Tesla, Nissan and many others have also done many miles of Self-driving on normal roads but each an everyone had a driver/attendant in the vehicle ready to "save the day" should something go bad.  Nobody else anywhere in the world is doing what Waymo is now doing in Chandler AZ. Now that the first one has been done, any community that is similar to Chandler AZ can now think seriously about inviting Waymo to provide affordable on-demand mobility to everyone in their city.

Be sure to see the video.  Congratulations Waymo!!!!! Alain

Wednesday, February 28,  2018

California to allow testing of self-driving cars without a driver present

D. Etherington, Feb 27,  "California’s Department of Motor Vehicles established new rules announced Monday that will allow tech companies and others working on driverless vehicle systems to begin trialling their cars without a safety driver at the wheel. The new rules go into effect starting April 2 ..." Read more  Hmmmm... Even though we have been expecting this, it is a major hurdle for it to actually have occurred.  How long after April 2 will Waymo take to begin this type of testing.  Again this is only testing and deployment, but NOT commercial service, which may happen first in Arizona, but it is a major step in this r-evolution.  Commercial services are regulated by other agencies in California, not CA DMV.  It is those other agencies that will need to grant/award the licenses for the various commercial operations where these driverless vehicles would be used.  This regulation allows properly licensed commercial operations using CA DMV certified driverless vehicles to have those vehicles use California public roadways in delivering the otherwise licensed commercial activity. Note: CA DMV does not license the commercial transport of people or goods.  That is the purview of other CA regulatory agencies.  Alain  

Friday, February 23, 2018

Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Between Public Transit, Shared Mobility, and Personal Automobiles

Friday, February 16, 2018

Billionaire Bets On a World Without Car Crashes

Thursday, February 1, 2018

Waymo strikes a deal to buy ‘thousands’ more self-driving minivans from Fiat Chrysler

Andrew Hawkins, Jan 30, “Waymo, the self-driving unit of Google parent Alphabet, has reached a deal with one of Detroit’s Big Three automakers to dramatically expand its fleet of autonomous vehicles. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles announced today that it would supply “thousands” of additional Chrysler Pacifica minivans to Waymo, with the first deliveries starting at the end of 2018.

Waymo currently has 600 of FCA’s minivans in its fleet, some of which are used to shuttle real people around for its Early Rider program in Arizona. The first 100 were delivered when the partnership was announced in May 2016, and an additional 500 were delivered in 2017. The minivans are plug-in hybrid variants with Waymo’s self-driving hardware and software built in. The companies co-staff a facility in Michigan, near FCA’s US headquarters, to engineer the vehicles. The company also owns a fleet of self-driving Lexus RX SUVs that is has been phasing out in favor of the new minivans. (The cute “Firefly” prototypes were also phased out last year.)…” Read more  Hmmmm... We’ve all been wondering”  Who’s going to make the cars?  How will that evolve?Will they magically appear???

Well….Looks like it is FCA for now. We've gone from a handful 5 years ago, 2 years ago added 100, added 500 last year, “thousands” this/next year, …  Beginning to look like exponential growth! (A Bit Coin Bubble??)   What is also most interesting: no parallel announcement that Waymo was hiring “thousands of attendants” to ride around as "drivers" in these “thousands of minivans”.  Guess what that means… The Kornhauser Scale is going to start really going up!!! J 

While ultimately they’ll need about 35 million of these to provide affordable mobility to all in the US, this is a real start at making this into a business as opposed to an NSF-style study that collects dust on a shelf or, worse yet, a digital manuscript that is never downloaded by anyone outside a "group of three". This is a major announcement!  

From Stan Young: It will be interesting to watch.  It probably has the OEMs, Uber and Lyft scared out of their wits.  Based on any objective comparison of accomplishment with automated vehicles, there is not a close second to Waymo, despite all the claims to the contrary by trade rags – and the competition knows it.   Still a huge unknown concerning the ‘social side’ of riding in an un-attended vehicle, but we will likely get over it like we did with elevators.   ‘Thousands’ of vehicles if deployed in one city will put it on scale of Uber and Lyft – an interesting study when/if it comes to that.

...An issue is:  where will Waymo choose to deploy (and for Waymo, the word "deploy" is the right word...  they make the decision where to place these, in some sense take it or leave it... as opposed to waiting for people to show up at a dealership to buy or have it stay on the lot or have some governmental agency thinking that it actually has a role/power/where-with-all to “deploy”) where, when and how many.  They could "flood/concentrate" on Chandler/Phoenix/Tuscon  area with scale to be really relevant and  substantively demonstrate the evolution of mobility, or they could sprinkle them out nationwide and remain irrelevant everywhere.  I like the "flood/concentrate" approach in a state (Arizona) where they seem to be truly welcomed and whose climate, topography and road network are "easy".  More importantly it would demonstrate the viability/challenges of the at-scale approach.  From our simulations we uncovered that at-scale, one might need to be managing as many as 20,000 aTaxis in a 2.5x2.5 mile area  (the extreme in Manhattan, which may be the last place that you want to try this) but it can be large. We’ll drill down in our data and take a look at Chandler/Phoenix and report back as to what we think it would take to provide mobility for all.  Alain

Monday, January 29, 2018

Didi Chuxing looks beyond ride-hailing to help Chinese cities tackle transport challenge

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Say hello to Waymo

Jan. 9, T. Papandreou & E. Casson. "... Waymo driverless service..."  Read more Hmmmm...  Tim and Ellie made presentation at the Transportation Research Board's  Vehicle-Highway Automation (AHB30) Committee meeting on Tuesday in which they gave an update on Waymo's progress to launch "Waymo's driverless service" (slide 11), an app-based ride hailing service to the general public in a geo-fenced area of Arizona.  To date Waymo has been testing such a service using volunteer riders in their driverless vehicles in various areas around the country (slide 7): however, to date, except for one ride given to Steve Mahan in Austin, TX, rides on normally operating public streets have always had  trained Waymo-authorized personnel (an attendant) in the vehicle capable to intervene in the driving of the vehicle should the need arise.  Since October, in Arizona, those personnel no longer sit behind the wheel, but are in the back seat so that Waymo can observe the response of the volunteer riders to riding in a vehicle on normal public streets under normal conditions without anyone in the front seats of the vehicle. 

Tim said, without providing a specific date, that Waymo will soon launch "Waymo's driverless service" providing mobility to the general public on public roads in a geo-fenced area of Arizona.  I asked Tim "Will that service be offered with vehicles that have an attendant in the vehicle?".  Tim's answer was "No!".  I asked a follow-up question: "Will these vehicle's have telemetry capabilities that enable these vehicles to be closely monitored from a "situation room" or "control center" that would enable remote operation of the vehicle, should the need arise?".  Tim's answer was  "No!".  Another questioner asked if the geo-fenced area included special "connected vehicle" road infrastructure improvement that Waymo's system will be relying on?"  Tim's answer was "No!".

While the definition of "soon" was not given, I've taken this as a really big pronouncement that Waymo is actually going to go to launch commercially-viable on-demand mobility to the general public on conventional public roads.  This is really big news because this is finally going to enable us to begin to evolve on the "Kornhauser Scale" ( log of (world-wide VMT of Driverless (VMT-D) vehicles without a human attendant/driver on board accumulated while providing mobility to the general public on conventional roadways).  So far we are beyond the "undefined value" associated with VMT-D = 0 and are at KS = 1 only by virtue of the one Steve Mahan ride in Austin).  :-) Alain

Saturday, December 2, 2017

  Personal Sedan Sales in Jeopardy as U.S. Auto Market Transitions to “Islands” of Autonomous Mobility: KPMG Research

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Volvo to supply Uber with up to 24,000 self-driving SUVs for taxi fleet

Friday, November 17, 2017

THE TECH & DESIGN ISSUE: LIFE AFTER DRIVING

Friday, November 10, 2017

Waymo will now put self-driving vans on public roads with nobody at the wheel

AP, Nov. 7, 2017 "Waymo, the self-driving car company created by Google, is pulling the human backup driver from behind the steering wheel and will test vehicles on public roads with only an employee in the back seat.

The company’s move — which started Oct. 19 with an automated Chrysler Pacifica minivan in the Phoenix suburb of Chandler, Ariz. — is a major step toward vehicles driving themselves on public roads without human backup drivers. ..." Read more Hmmmm...  Not to be too critical, but Waymo is still just 'Self-driving' .  While they moved the 'engineer' with the ability to 'take over and drive the vehicle' from behind the wheel to the back seat, this is just a step along the broad 'Self-driving' continuum which is a vehicle that, under certain circumstance, can drive itself, but does that only if there is a person ready and able to take over if the unexpected appears. 

The big-leap/major-step will come when Waymo removes the 'engineer' entirely from the vehicle and it is human-less when it arrives to pick up a passenger and drives away human-less after the last passenger(s) disembark.  That enormous leap-of-faith in the technology will mark Waymo's inception of the Driverless Era. (or what Waymo prefers to call 'Fully Self-driving' era.) 

Just to be clear, when that time comes, I'm sure that Waymo will have telemetry throughout that Driverless vehicle and there will be a room full of engineers in Waymo's 'Situation Room' ready to take over the driving should the need arise.  However,  until that time, Waymo is just like all the other wanabes, they are just 'Self-driving' without the 'Fully'.

The reason why 'remote emergency driving' is 'Driverless' is because it scales.  By that I mean that it takes the provision of horizontal mobility on our public streets from needing at least one human per vehicle to needing less than one human per vehicle.  Initially the remote driver will monitor one car.  Before you know it that person will be monitoring two, four, eight, ... vehicles and truly Driverless with zero remote human oversee-ers will be approached asymptotically.  But just like the old saw between the engineer and the mathematician: engineer and mathematician were sitting on a bench recalling their youth... Engineer said "Long ago, I was sitting on this very bench with my girl.  We wanted to kiss but we were too far apart.  So we agreed to move towards each other by halving the distance between us on each move.  The mathematician blared " You're so stupid!  If you did that, you never came together!"  The engineer just smiled: "we got close enough!".  Alain

Saturday, November 4, 2017

APNewsBreak: Gov't won't pursue talking car mandate

Friday, October 27 , 2017

Strategic Plan for FY 2018 -2022

Sunday, October 15 , 2017

Proposed Driverless Testing and Deployment Regulations – Released October 11, 2017

 Rulemaking Actions, Oct 1The following 3 PDFs are important:
1. Autonomous Vehicles Notice of Modification (PDF)  Act

2. Autonomous Vehicles Statement of Reasons (PDF)  Act

3. Autonomous Vehicles 15 Day Express Terms (PDF)   Act  Hmmmm..This is all about Driverless!  Thank you California, and especially Dr. Bernard Soriano, for leading this noble effort and for continuing to distinguish this technology from Self-driving and all of the various other names seemingly meant to confuse.  Alain

Friday, October 6 , 2017

FHWA Awards $4 Million Grant to South Carolina’s Greenville County for Automated Taxi Shuttles

Friday, September 1, 2017

Automated Vehicles: Are We Moving Too Fast or Too Slow?

Friday, August 25, 2017

Inside Waymo's Secret World for Training Self-Driving Cars

Monday, August 21, 2017

Driverless-Car Outlook Shifts as Intel Takes Over Mobileye

Monday, August 7, 2017

Cadillac’s Super Cruise ‘autopilot’ is ready for the expressway

Sunday, June 25, 2017

NTSB Opens Docket on Tesla Crash

The docket material is available at: https://go.usa.gov/xNvaE" Read more  Hmmmm... A few comments...
1.  Since lateral control (swerving) couldn't have avoided this crash (the truck is almost 70 ft long (6 lanes wide) stretching broadside across the highway) , it doesn't matter if Josh Brown ever had his hands on the steering wheel. That's totally irrelevant. 
2.  Why didn't autobrake kick in when the tractor part of the tractor-trailer passed in front of the Tesla?
3.  How fast was the truck going when it cut off the Tesla.  I couldn't find the answer in 500 pages.   
4.  With sight distances of greater than 1,000 feet, why didn't the truck driver see the Tesla?  Was it the drugs?
5.  This intersection invites "left-turn run-throughs" (no stop or yield and a 53 foot median and turn lane need to be crossed before one slips through a gap in two traffic lanes.  So you certainly roll into it, (plenty of room to stop if you see something coming) and if you don't see anything, you hit it.  If you're in the Tesla, you think you've been clearly seem, you expect the truck to stop, it doesn't, you can't believe it, BAM!  All in probably a second or so.
6.  The head injury description (Table 1 p2 of 3) certainly suggests that Joshua Brown was seated upright facing forward at impact.  The bilateral lacerations on the lower arm from the elbow to the wrist may indicate that he saw it coming in the last second and raised his arms in an attempt to protect his head.   The evidence reported doesn't seem to suggest he saw this early enough to bend toward the passenger seat and try to pass underneath. 
7.  About 40 feet of tractor and trailer passed directly in front of the Tesla prior to impact.   Depending on how fast the truck was traveling, that takes some time.  Has NTSB run Virtual Reality simulations of various truck turn trajectories and analyzed what the truck driver and the Tesla driver could/should have seen?  Seems like a relatively simple thing to do.  We know what the Tesla was doing prior to the crash (going 74 mph straight down the road.) and we know where it hit the truck.  How fast the truck was traveling doesn't seem to be known.
8. Why wasn't there any video captured from the Tesla.  Didn't that version of the MobilEye system store the video; I guess not, :-( 
Anyway, lots to read in the 500 pages, but there is also a lot missing.  I'm not linking the many articles reporting on this because I disagree with many of their interpretations of the facts reported by NTSB.   Please reach your own conclusions.   Alain

Monday, June 19, 2017

Amazon Deal for Whole Foods Starts a Supermarket War

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Rethinking Mobility: The 'pay-as-you-go' ca: Ride hailing, just the start

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

[log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.5&filename=lmjdiniodjkflpia.png" class="" height="52" width="46" border="0">Princeton SmartDrivingCar Summit

May 18, Enormously successful inaugural Summit starting with the Adam Jonas video and finishing with Fred Fishkin's live interview with Wm. C Ford III.  In between, serious engagement among over 150 leaders from Communities at the bleeding edge of deployment, Insurance struggling with how to properly promote the adoption of technology that may well force them to re-invent themselves and AI (Artificial Intelligence) and the various technologies that are rapidly advancing so that we can actually deliver the safety, environmental, mobility and quality of life opportunities envisioned by these “Ultimate Shared-Riding Machines”.

Save the Date for the 2nd Annual... May 16 & 17, 2018, Princeton NJ  Read Inaugural Program with links to Slides. Fishkin Interview of Summit Summary and Interview of Yann LeCun.  Read Inaugural Program with links to Slides. Hmmmm... Enormous thank you to all who participated.  Well done!  Alain

Tuesday, April 17, 2017

  Don't Worry, Driverless Cars Are Learning From Grand Theft Auto

[log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.36&filename=ajafjpkfaclhelpc.png" class="" height="50" width="44" border="0">Extracting Cognition out of Images for the Purpose of Autonomous Driving

announce historic commitment of 20 automakers to make automatic emergency braking standard on new vehicles

Sunday, December 19, 2015

[log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.38&filename=ccalfjfhllohpdpa.png" class="" height="63" width="96" border="0">Adam Jonas' View on Autonomous Cars

Video similar to part of Adam's Luncheon talk @ 2015 Florida Automated Vehicle Symposium on Dec 1.  Hmmm ... Watch Video  especially at the 13:12 mark.  Compelling; especially after the 60 Minutes segment above!  Also see his TipRanks.  Alain

This list is maintained by Alain Kornhauser and hosted by the Princeton University

Leave |Re-enter

[log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.39&filename=dhbhaandkmfbffia.png" class="" height="88" width="106" border="0">  [log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.40&filename=lglcejopfgfnajaj.png" class="" height="92" width="238" border="0">[log in to unmask]">Mailto:[log in to unmask]