[log in to unmask]"
alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.2&filename=hejedgabmgkdglfj.png"
class=""
height="100"
width="169"
border="0">
42nd edition of the 6th year of SmartDrivingCars
E. Chao,
Oct 4,
"...Automation
has the
potential to
improve our
quality of
life and
enhance the
mobility and
independence
of millions of
Americans,
especially
older
Americans and
people with
disabilities...."
Read more Hmmmm....
I hope and I'm
sure that
included in
"disabilities"
are those
households
that are most
mobility
disadvantaged...
those that are
poor, don't
have access to
a car and
aren't served
by
conventional
transit.
Their quality
of life can be
dramatically
improved by
the mobility
potentials of
shared-ride
autonomousTaxis.
Alain
F. Lambert,
Oct 3, "GM is
scheduled to
increase
production of
the Chevy Bolt
EV by the end
of the year,
but sales are
slumping in
the US in the
meantime. The
automaker says
that it is
because they
are focusing
production for
other
markets. GM
delivered
3,949 Bolt EVs
during the
last three
months versus
6,710 units
during the
same period
last year.
That’s a 41.1%
decrease in
sales in the
U.S., the
biggest market
for GM’s
flagship
all-electric
vehicle...."
Read more Hmmmm....
Ouch!! Alain
A. Nasser,
Sept 2018,
"This report
examines the
feasibility of
transferring
13 current
automated
systems
technologies
from
light-duty
vehicles and
commercial
trucks to
40-ft diesel
transit buses.
It explores
the associated
technical and
safety
challenges of
implementing
those systems
in transit
buses and ways
to overcome
some of the
identified
barriers to
implementation.
The
transferability
of each
systems was
given a grade
of Red,
Yellow, or
Green, with
Green
indicating
most ready to
be
transferred.
System Transferability Summary
The
following
summarizes the
grading of the
13 systems
considered:
• Green
– Object
Detection and
Collision
Avoidance
(ODCA)
• Yellow
– Lane
Keeping/Lane
Centering
(LK/LC)
– Steering
Assist
– Docking
– Park Assist
– Park Out
– Yard Park
• Red
– Automatic
Emergency
Braking (AEB)
– Reverse
Brake Assist
– Full Park
Assist
– Valet
Parking (Bus
Yard)
– Adaptive
Cruise Control
(ACC)
with/without
Stop-and-Go
– Traffic Jam
Assist (TJA)
with Lane
Keeping/Lane
Centering
(LK/LC)
Read more Hmmmm.... Well, the one and only green one is the big one where "Object" = "Pedestrians". Alain
E. Woyke, Oct 4, "Self-driving cars navigate using both onboard sensors that spot obstacles and detailed, 3-D maps of streets, signs, and infrastructure. But building these maps, and keeping them up to date, is a huge undertaking. Mapper.ai, a San Francisco–based startup, wants to make the process simpler with a service that provides continuously updated maps on demand. ...
Mapper credits its broad reach and speed to its network of freelancers....
The drivers use their own cars, and Mapper provides the mapping devices, which cost about $350 to build. One device model, which wraps around a car’s rear-view mirror, has four machine-vision cameras and sensors that measure linear and angular motion. Another sits on top of a car’s roof and consists of two machine-vision cameras, motion sensors, and a simple lidar. Drivers use that device to map dense city streets, because lidar is good at capturing the geometry of three-dimensional structures. The company claims its approach captures details that are accurate within five centimeters...
“With this new type of map, you get that localization baked in, which is really important because GPS alone isn’t stable or predictable enough.”..." Read more Hmmmm.... Whew!!! This one needs "many grains of salt" to believe. Alain
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
F. Fishkin, Sept 6, "The coming new world of driverless cars! In Episode 55 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast former GM VP and adviser to Waymo Larry Burns chats with Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and Fred Fishkin about his new book "Autonomy: The Quest to Build the Driverless Car and How it Will Reshape Our World"
F. Fishkin, Aug 26, "The impact of the Hitch service murders in China on ride sharing, Toyota's investment in Uber and the issue of who controls data...are the focus of Episode 54 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast. Co-hosts Alain Kornhauser of Princeton University and Fred Fishkin are joined by The Dispatcher publisher Michael Sena."
F. Fishkin, Aug 26, "Ralph Nader weighs in when it comes to safety regulations for self driving vehicles.... but is his focus in the right place? Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser offers up his thoughts on that and more ...from Zoox, to Waymo, Lyft and Drive.AI in Episode 53 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast with co-host Fred Fishkin. Tune in and subscribe!"
F. Fishkin, Aug 11, "Waymo worth 175 billion dollars before it starts charging for rides? Join Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin for Episode 51 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast. And the latest on Uber and the battle with New York City, Olli shuttles off to Buffalo, Tesla and BMW."
Aug 3, F. Fishkin, , "Drive.ai gets ready for self driving tests in Texas, Waymo partners with public transit, Tesla's self driving chips and the latest on Uber and Lyft. All that and more in Episode 50 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast with Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin. Tune in and subscribe!"
F. Fishkin, July 27, "When will we shift from buying cars to buying rides? In Episode 49 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast, entrepreneur, speaker and co-author of "The End of Driving: Transportation Systems and Public Policy Planning for Autonomous Vehicles" ...Bern Grush joins co-hosts Alain Kornhauser of Princeton and Fred Fishkin. That along with the latest on Ford, Waymo, Uber and more."
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 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 "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.
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!"
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! "
A. Hawkins,
Sept 13,
"Nuro, the
self-driving
delivery
startup
founded by a
pair of Google
veterans,
released its voluntary
safety report
on
Thursday.
Titled
“Delivering
Safety,” the
33-page
document
outlines the
technology and
procedures
Nuro is using
to safely
deploy its
fleet of
autonomous
delivery
robots.
Formed in
2016, Nuro
has set itself
apart from
other
companies that
are working on
self-driving
technology by
focusing on
delivery
rather than
ride-hailing.
The startup
recently
announced a pilot
delivery
service in
Arizona in
partnership
with grocery
giant Kroger.
In its report,
Nuro touts
what it
believes are
its
competitive
advantages....
With no driver or passengers to worry about, our vehicle can be built to keep what’s outside even safer than what’s inside. It’s lighter, nimbler, and slower than a passenger car, and is equipped with state-of-the-art software and sensing capabilities that never get distracted. With its smaller size and manufacturing costs, we can make vehicles more rapidly. And because it’s electric and fully self-driving, our vehicle can deliver life’s needs at an affordable price...." Read more Hmmmm.... And if Jeff Bezos is watching, watch out. Link to the report. Alain
Waymo team,
June 13,
"Ariel rides
after school.
Neha hops to
the grocery
store. Barbara
and Jim zip
around town
while kicking
back.
They’re all
part of the
Waymo early
rider program
we launched
last April.
Today, over
400 riders
with diverse
backgrounds
use Waymo
every day, at
any time, to
ride all
around the
Phoenix area.
Their feedback
helps us
understand how
fully self
driving cars
fit into their
daily lives.
One year in,
our early
rider program
and our
extensive
on-road
testing is
helping us
build the
world’s most
experienced
driver. In
fact, our
fleet of cars
across the
U.S. is now
driving more
than 24,000
miles daily;
that’s the
equivalent of
an around the
world road
trip! Here’s a
quick report
on how our
riders use
Waymo, what
we’ve learned,
and what’s
next....As
some of the
first people
in the world
to use
self-driving
vehicles for
their everyday
transportation
needs, our
early riders
are helping
shape this
technology.
Thanks to
their
feedback,
we’re refining
the rider
experience to
make sure
that: ...
nobody wants
to carry
grocery bags a
block down the
street... " Read
more Hmmmm....
Yipes!! The
personal car
isn't bad
enough in its
focus on
private
single-occupant
parkingSpot2parkingSpot mobility? Are we now going to have Waymo
providing it
Door2Door with
zero
opportunity to
share rides
and while
delivering
negative
public
benefits of
increased
energy,
pollution and
congestion
with all of
its empty
vehicle
repositioning.
No wonder the
CPUC voted to
forbid
ride-sharing.
Did Waymo made
them do it
since Waymo
hasn't done
ride-sharing
in Phoenix?
Having 2 or
more people in
the car isn't
ride sharing
if they would
have all gone
together in
their own car
had Waymo not
been there. So
Bad!!! Without
ride-sharing,
this is just
expensive,
energy
inefficient
and
environmentally
challenged
private
chauffeuring
for the
entitled
privileged
class:
See
video Just
like watching
Oszzie & Harriet
or Leave
it to Beaver.
For Waymo to
"Win it",
they'll need
to embrace
ride-sharing
because no
"Blue-state"
PUC is going
to be as
impressionable
as as
California's.
Alain
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
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".
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
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!
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]