http://SmartDrivingCar.com/6.47-AnotherHurdle-110118
47th edition of the 6th year of SmartDrivingCars
T. Lee, Oct
30, "Earlier
this month,
Shawn Hudson's
Tesla Model S
crashed into a
stalled car
while moving
at about 80
miles per hour
on a Florida
freeway.
Tesla's
Autopilot
technology was
engaged at the
time, and
Hudson has now
filed a
lawsuit
against Tesla
in state
courts.
"Through a
pervasive
national
marketing
campaign and a
purposefully
manipulative
sales pitch,
Tesla has
duped
consumers"
into believing
that Autpilot
can "transport
passengers at
highway speeds
with minimal
input and
oversight,"
the lawsuit
says.
Hudson had a
two-hour
commute to his
job at an auto
dealership. He
says that he
heard about
Tesla's
Autopilot
technology
last year and
went to a
Tesla
dealership to
learn more.
"Tesla's sales
representative
reassured
Hudson that
all he needed
to do as the
driver of the
vehicle is to
occasionally
place his hand
on the
steering wheel
and that the
vehicle would
'do everything
else,'" the
lawsuit
claims.
R. Beene,
Oct 23,
"Autonomous
vehicle
manufacturers
need a better
yardstick to
show that
their products
are safe, said
Derek Kan,
under
secretary for
policy at the
U.S.
Department of
Transportation.
The metrics
that are most
widely used by
self-driving
car developers
-- miles
driven and the
frequency of
human
intervention
-- alone are
insufficient
to demonstrate
the safety of
an autonomous
automobile,
Kan said at a
conference in
Washington on
Tuesday.
Kan’s comments
strike at a
key aspect of
the driverless
car industry’s
competition
for public
perception,
where
companies such
as General
Motors Co. and
Alphabet
Inc.’s Waymo
unit tout
millions of
test miles
traveled under
computer
control and
the number of
times a test
engineer had
to intervene
to measure the
vehicles’
self-driving
progress.
Both of those
metrics have
flaws, Kan
said. For one,
all miles
aren’t created
equal.
Navigating the
complex
streets of
Manhattan is
far more
challenging
than, say,
cruising on an
empty highway.
Disengagements
-- or
instances when
an engineer
takes over
from a
self-driving
system -- can
be influenced
by driving and
engineering
choices, and
“don’t provide
a very rich
data set,” Kan
said.... " Read
more Hmmmm...
I
certainly
agree that we
need something
better than
miles or we
need to add to
the miles a
"traffic
density map"
that shows
where those
miles were
accumulated.
It would also
be nice if the
map showed the
volumes
(number of
vehicle trips)
by time of
day. One
could then get
a feel about
the
concentration
(or lack there
of) of "miles"
by road, by
direction, by
time.
Beyond
"Miles" we
need
"scenarios".
Many of the
scenarios
could/should
be done in
simulation.
Not a simple
thing to do so
it needs to
have industry
cooprately
involved in
doing it.
From a public policy perceptive, the biggest need may be anti-trust immunity from prosecution for collusion if industry works together to develop, test and implement scenario formulation and the development of the simulation test environments. Alain
T. Lee, Nov
1, "Elon Musk
took to
Twitter late
on Wednesday
night to tout
Tesla's
forthcoming
"advanced
summon"
feature, which
he says is due
out in about
six weeks.
"Car will
drive to your
phone location
& follow
you like a pet
if you hold
down summon
button on
Tesla app," Musk
tweeted.
In another
tweet,
Musk said that
"you’ll be
able to drive
it from your
phone remotely
like a big RC
car"—though
only if the
car is within
the line of
sight..." Read
more Hmmmm....This
is simply Elon
being totally
irresponsible. This isn't cute anymore. It is deadly serious.
Technically,
his system can
do that in
very limited
domains. But
since he
doesn't bother
to clearly
identify the
limits to
those domains,
his customers
may
over-reach the
system's
capabilities
and people
will get hurt
and may die.
If the SEC
won't/can't
get him to
stop tweeting,
then maybe the
tort system
will.
Apparently
Wall Street
loves this
stuff. Why
doesn't he
focus on
getting his
Automated
Emergency
Braking system
to work so
that we don't
have another "Joshua
Brown", "Wei
Huang", "Shawn
Hudson"
or rear-ending
of fire trucks
Alain
F. Lambert,
Oct 30,
"Faraday
Future’s story
has been a
roller-coaster.
Once seen as
the number one
EV startup, it
has since been
crippled by
severe
financial and
management
problems. It
seems like the
startup was
finally out of
the woods
after a large
Chinese
holding
company
promised a
massive $2
billion
investment in
Faraday
Future, but
after a
fallout with
the investors,
the company
recently had
to lay off
employees and
cut salaries.
The Chinese
holding
company,
Evergrande,
agreed to take
a 45% stake in
the company
for $2 billion
in funding
starting with
“initial
payments
totaling $800m
payment
through early
2018, and the
remaining $1.2
billion over
time.”
According to
FF, the firm
failed to do
additional
payments and
“tried to take
control of the
startup.”..."
Read more
Hmmmm....It
is not easy to
be successful.
You actually
have to
produce
something that
is better than
your
competition.
At some point
" talking the
talk" doesn't
cut it. You
need to "walk
the walk".
Alain
E. Feng,
Oct 31, "Ford
and Baidu
announced
Wednesday that
they are
beginning a
two-year
project to
test
driverless
cars on roads
in China. The
firsts tests
will be in
Beijing on
roads
designated for
autonomous
vehicle
testing. ..."
Read more Hmmmm...
OK,
but who will
own the IP?
and does Ford
really believe
that they'll
be able to
compete with
DiDi when it
comes to using
the results of
this testing
to deliver
mobility to
anyone in
China. Ford
should have
teamed up with
Waymo or maybe
anyone else in
the Western
world.
Driverless is
a mobility
machine whose
business case
is
substantially
different from
Henry's.
Alain
N.
Rolander, Nov
1, "Volvo Cars
and Baidu Inc.
are joining
forces to
develop
robotaxis in
China, set to
become the
world’s top
market for
driverless
vehicles...."
Read more Hmmmm...
What.
Is poligamy
acceptable in
China? Where
does that
leave Ford?
At least this
is two Chinese
companies.
(See above).
Alain
RB
E-Circular
236: National
Academies, Oct
5, "Success is
not assured.
.... To
encourage
widespread
deployment and
acceptance,
research
should address
not only the
successful
launches of
these
technologies
but also the
societal
impacts.
Research
undertaken by
the public,
private, and
academic
sectors needs
to complement
and keep pace
with the rapid
developments
in the private
sector. " Read
more Hmmmm....
Do read more,
but it is
tough to find
anything in
here that is
more than
platitudes.
From my
perspective,
two things are
clear:
1.
Safety is an
absolute
necessary
condition. Yet
it is not
realized that
achieving
safety is a
process that
has several
key elements:
Approach
cautiously.
As you uncover
issue, be
transparent
and engage all
to a common
objective to
"fixing the
problem" The
report doesn't
even mention
the issue.
Is safety part
of the private
IP or is
safety a
community
thing that
everyone
should
cooperate to
achieve. Is
cooperation to
overcome
safety issues
a form of
collusion?
2.
Sharing. The
report uses
the term
Shared
Mobility
rather than
Ride-sharing
and doesn't
recognize the
fundamental
difference in
the two terms;
else, The
title would
have been "TRB
Forum ... Ride
Sharing!
Sharing a
Car.. I use
it, then you
use it,...
does
essentially no
good. You and
I occupying
two seats in
one car rather
than one
filled seat in
two cars does
enormous
good. It
reduces
congestion and
cuts pollution
and energy
consumption in
half. Those
vast
differences
shared
Mobility and
Ride-sharing
should be
highlighted
and not
relegated to,
at best, some
nuance.
Alain
T. Mogg,
Oct 30, "Uber
has launched a
subscription
service that
gives riders
exclusive
access to
“consistent,
low prices”
for a monthly
fee. It
appears to be
an effort by
Uber to boost
loyalty among
riders and
discourage
them from
hopping
between
different
ridesharing
services.
Ride Pass is
available for
UberX and
UberPool trips
in Austin,
Orlando,
Denver, and
Miami for $15
a month, and
Los Angeles
for $25 a
month. The
higher fee for
Los Angeles is
because folks
there will
soon get free
access to
Uber’s ebikes
and scooters,
too, as part
of the
package...." Read
more Hmmmm....Same
as what Lyft
put out
earlier in the
month. All
about
increasing app
downloads
prior to IPO.
Is there any
fundamental
substance in
this pricing
initiative
without
driverless or
substantial
ride-sharing?
Alain
I
Kottasova, Oct
29, "Cars and
traffic
signals are
talking to
each other,
leaving the
driver — if
there even is
one — out.
Top automakers
including
Volkswagen,
Honda (HMC),
Ford (F) and
BMW (BMWYY)
are
experimenting
with
technology
that allows
cars and
traffic lights
to communicate
and work
together to
ease
congestion,
cut emissions
and increase
safety....
The idea is
that the
system will be
able to tell
the driver (or
a self-driving
car in the
future) when
to expect a
wave of green
lights. The
goal is to
eventually
make the
system work
with a range
of cars and
brands..." Read
more Hmmmm....
Great idea if
"Top
Automakers"
are paying the
full cost of
the traffic
light gizmos
and passing
that onto the
cost of each
car that they
sell that may
utilize the
gizmo. If
these "Top
Automakers"
were really
interested in
safety, they
get their AEB
systems to
actually work
and would stop
trying to
circumnavigate
emission
standards and
pay to simply
have countdown
clocks
that everyone
can read place
next to each
traffic light
as is done
throughout
China. C'mon
Top Automakers!!!
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, 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, 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! "
Oct 16, Establishes
fully
autonomous
vehicle pilot
program A4573
Sponsors:
Zwicker (D16);
Benson (D14)
Oct 16, Establishes New
Jersey
Advanced
Autonomous
Vehicle Task
Force AJR164
Sponsors:
Benson (D14);
Zwicker (D16);
Lampitt (D6)
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
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. 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&qu ot;
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
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]