http://SmartDrivingCar.com/7.37-CluelessAEB-090619
1. Figure 4, The speed of the Tesla in the last 221 seconds before the crash showing that the Tesla was traveling rather slowly in the 100 seconds before the crash (under 20 mph), but then accelerated (as discussed above) in the 3 seconds just prior to the crash, beginning as soon as the lead SUV changed lanes,
2. Figure 5, the distance between the Tesla and its lead vehicle, showing that the TACC worked really well until the lead vehicle "disappeared" (changed lanes), and"... Data show that at about 490 msec before the crash, the system detected a stationary object in path of the Tesla. At that time, the forward collision warning was activated; the system presented a visual and auditory warning. Data also shows that the AEB did not engage and that there was no driver-applied braking of steering prior to the crash. According to Tesla, the AEB was active at the time of the crash, and considering that the stopped fire truck was detected about half a second before impact, there likely was not sufficient time to activate the AEB." ...This implies that the AEB and its functioning in collaboration with the TACC needs to be substantially re-evaluated/re-designed. Alain
3. Figure 6 which clearly depicts the movement of the Tesla relative to the lead vehicle and the Firetruck in the 15 seconds before the crash. The Tesla's radar and front facing camera mush have "seen' the firetruck 4 seconds before the crash and every sensing loop (1/10th of a second) during the last 4 seconds yet...
Press Release, Aug 27, "Some alerts on Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are so annoying or bothersome that many drivers disable the systems and may try to avoid them on future vehicle purchases, according to the J.D. Power 2019 U.S. Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study,SM released today. This is a major concern for automakers keen to market these lucrative technologies and pave the way for more highly automated vehicles in the future.
"Automakers
are spending
lots of money
on advanced
technology
development,
but the
constant
alerts can
confuse and
frustrate
drivers," said
Kristin
Kolodge,
Executive
Director of
Driver
Interaction
& Human
Machine
Interface
Research at
J.D. Power.
"The
technology
can't come
across as a
nagging
parent; no one
wants to be
constantly
told they
aren't driving
correctly."
A prime
example of
this is
lane-keeping
and centering
systems. On
average, 23%
of customers
with these
systems
complain that
the alerts are
annoying or
bothersome.
This ranges
from just 8%
for one
domestic brand
to more than
30% for a
couple of
import brands.
For these
owners, 61%
sometimes
disable the
system,
compared with
just 21% of
those that
don't consider
the alerts
annoying or
bothersome.
Owners wanting
the feature on
their next
vehicle ranges
from 63% for
those that
consider the
alerts
annoying or
bothersome to
91% for those
who do not.
..." Read
more Hmmm... This highlights the
fundamental
problem with
"warning
systems" as
opposed to
"doing
systems". "
Warning
systems" are
"warning
systems"
because they
aren't good
enough at
being "doing
systems". If
they were,
they'd be
"doing"
instead of
just "Hey,
Yo!, something
screwy may be
going on
ahead. I'm
not sure if
you're paying
attention so
maybe you
should start
paying
attention.
Just sayin',
I'm not sure
of what to do,
hope you
know!"
Lane keeping systems should be keeping you in your lane and be good enough to "cheat a little" if "cheating a little" is both available and necessary. If it is not available and necessary, then the bakes need to be applied. If it is not necessary and available, let the driver be the driver. If the system isn't good enough to determine necessity, then JD Power or some trusted "Good Housekeeping" should rate it as poor/useless 'cause you'll turn it off".
Unfortunately this study conflates driving technologies with comfort & convenience technologies. Yes, driving technologies deliver comfort & convenience but their objective is primarily crash avoidance. Those technologies should be clearly differentiated and rated separately from the other technologies, some of which, like Apple CarPlay and Android Auto may actually net out to detract from alert driving. Alain
E.
Griffith, Sept
4, "The first
thing you
notice in San
Diego’s
historic
Gaslamp
Quarter is not
the brick
sidewalks, the
rows of bars
and the roving
gaggles of
bachelorette
parties and
conferencegoers,
or even the
actual gas
lamps.
It’s the
electric
rental
scooters.
Hundreds are
scattered
around the
sidewalks,
clustered in
newly painted
corrals on the
street and
piled up in
the gutters.
In early July,
one corner
alone had 37.
In the area
around Mission
Beach, one of
the city’s
main beaches,
a single side
of one block
had 70. Most
sat unused.
Since scooter rental companies like Bird, Lime, Razor, Lyft and Uber-owned Jump moved into San Diego last year, inflating the city’s scooter population to as many as 40,000 by some estimates, the vehicles have led to injuries, deaths, lawsuits and vandals. Regulators and local activists have pushed back against them. One company has even started collecting the vehicles to help keep the sidewalks clear. ...
Safety has become a big issue. A three-month study published in May from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Public Health and Transportation Departments of Austin, Tex., found that for every 100,000 scooter rides, 20 people were injured. Nearly half of the injuries were to the head; 15 percent of those showed evidence of traumatic brain injury....
San Diego initially took a hands-off approach. The scooters became popular, with an average of 30,000 riders per day, according to city officials....
In July 2018, he teamed up with John Heinkel, owner of a local towing company, to haul away scooters that they deemed to be parked on private property. They charge Bird, Lime and others a retrieval fee of $50 per scooter, plus $2 for each day of storage....Their company, ScootScoop, has essentially turned them into scooter bounty hunters. They said they have struck deals with 250 local businesses and hotels and have towed more than 12,500 scooters....
In
December, a
man in Chula
Vista, a San
Diego suburb,
died after he
was hit by a
car while
riding a Bird
scooter,
according to
the Chula
Vista Police
Department. A
tourist died a
few months
later after
crashing his
rental scooter
into a tree.
Another
visitor died
of “blunt
force torso
trauma” after
his scooter
collided with
another, the
San Diego
Police
Department
said.
The department
said it
counted 15
“serious
injury
collisions”
involving
scooters in
the first half
of this year.
Last month,
three separate
scooter-related skull fractures happened in one week...." Read
more Hmmm... Scooters have
advocates,
customers and
investors, but
if they aren't
"welcomed" in
the
neighborhoods
they traverse
they'll at
best be a hula-hoop craze and
vanish.
Driverless
Mobility-as-a-Service
could/will
face similar
insurmountable
challenges if
it doesn't
earn, before
starting
services, a
"welcoming" by
each and every
community that
it traverses
in delivering
its
Mobility-as-a-Service.
Doing an
"Uber"/"Scooter"
(we're doing
this , like it
or not, so
lawyer-up!)
isn't going to
work for
Driverless
Mobility-as-a-Service
any better
than it worked
for "Uber" or
"Scooter".
Good to start,
pick the
pockets of
investors and
then get
completely
wiped. Alain
J.
Bariso, Sept.
3, "...
"Starting
today, we're
launching
Tesla
Insurance, a
competitively
priced
insurance
offering
designed to
provide Tesla
owners with up
to 20 percent
lower rates,
and in some
cases as much
as 30
percent," Tesla
announced on
its website
last week.
According to
the statement,
Tesla
Insurance
offers
comprehensive
coverage and
claims
management to
customers in
California,
with planned
expansion to
additional
U.S. states in
the future.
The insurance
problem is one
Musk has been
itching to
solve for some
time. Tesla
vehicles are
notoriously
expensive to
insure,
despite the
company's
claims that
its cars are
the safest in
the world.
Analysts claim
the reasons
Teslas are so
expensive to
repair has to
do with the
cars' aluminum
construction,
limited
expertise on
the part of
mechanics and
auto-body
repair
experts, and
cost of
replacement
parts....
Instead,
all
indications
are that
Tesla's plan
is quite
brilliant ....
Through all of
this, the
company gets
to leverage a
major
strength, one
of Tesla
owners'
favorite
things about
the company:
Its customer
service.
Of course, if
Tesla can
prove that it
will carry
that same
customer
service over
to the
insurance
side, it will
gain consumer
trust and
loyalty.
...." Read
more Hmmmm... What is most important about the data
collected by
Tesla, is that
it can readily
"prove" who is
at fault.
AutoPilot is
focused on
reducing
crashes, so if
a fender
bender/crash
does occur,
the likelihood
that it is
Tesla's fault
is reduced,
plus the data
allows Tesla
to
inexpensively
determine who
is at fault,
thus allowing
them to more
cheaply pay,
if at fault,
or make the
other guy pay
if the Tesla
is not at
fault. That's
what is really
brilliant
about this.
This may be so
brilliant that
it pays Elon
to make
AutoPilot even
better, and
certainly
allows him to
benefit from
the AutoPilot
beyond its
initial
selling
revenue. By
improving
AutoPilot and
disseminating
the improved
software using
over-the-air
updates, he
gets to keep
forever more
of the
insurance
revenue. That
is real
customer
service...
"Buy AutoPilot
now and save
on insurance
for as long as
you own the
car." Or,
"Buy insurance
from me and
I'll turn on
AutoPilot for
free." (If
you buy from
the other the
Gecko of Flo
then they'll
have to pay me
to turn on
AutoPilot.)
... Plus fee
updates,
because we'll
get to keep
even more of
the insurance
premium. Life is good!! :-)
See also Tesla
Stakes
Insurance
Claim by
Roger Lanctot,
Aug 23 Alain
E. Niedermeyer, Sept 3, "Anthony Levandowski is back in the news after being indicted on 33 criminal counts related to his alleged theft of autonomous drive technology secrets from his former employer Google. Though the indictment doesn't reveal much new information that didn't come out in the 2017 Waymo vs. Uber civil lawsuit, it has once again thrust the most infamous man in autonomy into a much brighter spotlight than individuals in the close-knit AD community are accustomed to. But as easy as it is to dismiss Levandowski as a uniquely grotesque villain, his story calls as much for self-reflection in Silicon Valley as moralizing....
Buried in Silicon Valley's lionization of "the crazy ones," established as high-tech orthodoxy by Apple's memorable "think different" ad, is an implicit ends-justify-the-means morality that has simmered even as the tech sector has accumulated unprecedented financial and cultural clout. The logic isn't even unique to The Valley, as badly-behaved rainmakers have enjoyed protection and prestige everywhere from Wall Street to Washington DC to Hollywood, but the technology business has gone farther in embracing and normalizing an explicit tradeoff between genius and rectitude than anywhere else....
With few remaining doubts that autonomous science projects can share public roads, AV development from here on out is fundamentally a pursuit of safety and trust. ..." Read more Hmmmm... "AV development from here on out is fundamentally a pursuit of safety and trust. " FUNDAMENTAL!!! Amen! Alain
Staff, Aug. 23, "The DRIVE Labs video series takes an engineering-focused look at a range of self-driving challenges, from perceiving paths to handling intersections. These short clips illustrate how the NVIDIA DRIVE™ AV Software team is creating safe and robust self-driving systems...." Read more Hmmm... See the various videos. What is obvious from the "Ride in NVDIA's Self-Driving Car" is that the system is disregarding stationary objects in the lane ahead. else it would be labeling overpasses and the clearance available under the overpass as opposed to assuming that sufficient clearance exists. It would be identifying not only the lane ahead but also the height clearance envelope ("clearance tunnel") ahead that will permit the whole car to pass through and not just a sliver along the surface of the roadway. That's why this is "Do it yourSelf-driving" and absolutely requires an alert licensed driver behind the wheel, as is clearly proclaimed, (and NOT Driverless Mobility-as-a-Service). Alain
Staff,
Sept 3, "As
August
temperatures
climbed in San
Francisco, so
did the miles
driven by
Cruise’s
all-electric,
self-driving
cars. In
addition to
testing in
temperatures
as high as 90
degrees, this
month Cruise:
... " Read
more Hmmmm... Interesting to see what Cruise is doing is
SF with
Community
relations.
They certainly
highlight the
fact that they
use EVs but I
could not find
a mention, nor
any interest
in casual
ride-sharing,
which is THE
answer to
"congestion,
energy and
pollution".
There is an
excellent
claim in one
of the
articles
..."Cruise
works closely
with many
neighborhood
and merchant
associations
to better
understand San
Francisco’s
transportation
needs block by
block so that
we’ll be able
to help small
businesses
reach more
customers and
connect more
people to the
places they
want to
go....".
Alain
Metro
Labs, Aug
2019, "... As
an extension
of the
Foundation’s
work in the
Greater
Seattle
region, the
Community and
Civic
Engagements
(CCE) Team set
out to learn
more about the
use and impact
of data and
technology on
civic and
community
priorities. In
particular,
the team was
interested in
exploring
models that
inspire and
enable civic
innovation and
participation
to develop a
healthy and
vibrant
community. In
the spring of
2018, MetroLab
Network
kicked-off a
year-long
effort with
the CCE team
to help inform
their learning
process. That
process
included six
sight visits
to leading
cities in
civic
innovation,
data,
technology,
and
engagement.
The visits
focused on a
range of
themes,
including:
• Economic
Mobility and
Human Services
• Built and
Natural
Environment
• Civic
Engagement
•
Transportation
and Public
Services
• Data
•
Institutional
Partnerships
....
There has been
a groundswell
of interest in
driving change
and progress
in communities
by leveraging
data,
technology,
and civic
engagement.
Such efforts
take advantage
of numerous
technological
advancements,
including
cloud storage
and computing,
sensor
technology,
machine
learning and
artificial
intelligence,
next-generation connectivity, all while considering social and
behavioral
dynamics in
communities.
As each
community
defines their
vision of
civic
innovation and
engagement,
their work
will serve as
“laboratories
of
innovation,”
serving as
guides for the
approaches
that, if
successful,
will be
adopted at
greater scale.
Through this
exercise, The
Gates
Foundation and
MetroLab were
struck by the
commitment and
passion from
communities
seeking to
leverage civic
technology and
innovation to
drive social
equity, policy
priorities,
and service
delivery.
There are a
number of
take-aways
that emerged
from the site
visits:
1. The secret
to effective
civic
innovation
ecosystems is
more about a
network of
human
relationships
than data- or
technology
approaches.
..." Read
more Hmmmm... Very interesting 1st conclusion that human
relationship/interaction
is dominant.
This is really
important for
the proper
launch and
evolution of
the
SmartDrivingCar
r/evolution.
Alain
G.
Rapier, Sept
5, "Fourteen
victims of
sexual assault
have filed a
lawsuit
against Lyft
accusing the
company of
failing to
respond
adequately to
what they call
a "sexual
predator
crisis" among
drivers on its
platform.
"Complaints to
Lyft by female
customers who
have been
attacked by
Lyft drivers,
combined with
subsequent
criminal
investigations
by law
enforcement,
...
The lawsuit also notes that many Lyft drivers have installed cameras in their cars to prevent — or help after the fact — any attacks from riders. One particular attack on a driver in New York earlier this year went viral after the driver shared it with local news outlets. Many other drivers speaking to Business Insider have outlined similarly harrowing incidents. ..." Read more Hmmmm... We must behave better as a society, else we cease to be a community. We must be sure that these types of issues are absent from Driverless Mobility-as-a-Service; else, ride-sharing have no-chance, and the whole Driverless Mobility-as-a-Service concept will be DoA. Appropriately addressing this issue is a game-changing socio-technological challenge that, to date, has received essentially zero intellectual attention. Alain
Staff, Sept 4, "AVs might help make evacuations more efficient, former Florida emergency management chief Bryan Koon, now a vice president at disaster consulting firm IEM, wrote in a blog..." Read more Hmmmm...Totally Half-baked. The Self-driving features are USELSS in evacuation. People are available. They are being evacuated! In this Operational Design Domain, Driverless is simply C'Mon Man! Alain
F. Fishkin, May 18,, "From the 3rd Annual Princeton Smart Driving Car Summit, join Professor Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin. In this special edition, the summit's focus on mobility for all with guests Anil Lewis, Executive Director of Blindness Initiatives at the National Federation of the Blind and ITN America Founder Katherine Freund."
April 5, F. Fishkin, "The success of on demand transit company Via is proving that ride sharing systems can work. Public Policy head Andrei Greenawalt joins Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin for a wide ranging discussion. Also: Uber, Tesla, Audi, Apple and Nuro are making headlines"
April 5, F. Fishkin, "Here comes congestion pricing in New York City...but what will it mean? Former city Taxi and Limousine Commission head and transportation expert Matthew Daus joins Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin. Also...Tesla, VW and even Brexit! All on Episode 98 of Smart Driving Cars."
March 28, F. Fishkin, "The Future Networked Car? From Sweden, The Dispatcher publisher, Michael Sena, joins Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin for the latest edition of Smart Driving Cars. Plus ...the Boeing story has much to do with autonomous vehicles and more. Tune in and subscribe."
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"
M. Isaac,
Aug 27,
"Anthony
Levandowski
was once one
of Silicon
Valley’s most
sought after
technologists.
As a pioneer
of
self-driving
car
technology, he
became a
confidant of
Larry Page, a
co-founder of
Google, and
helped develop
the search
giant’s
autonomous
vehicles. Uber
wooed him to
gain an edge
in
self-driving
techniques.
Venture
capitalists
threw their
money at him.
But on
Tuesday, Mr.
Levandowski,
39, fell far
from that
favored
stature.
Federal
prosecutors
charged him
with 33 counts
of theft and
attempted
theft of trade
secrets from
Google. ...
The criminal
indictment
against Mr.
Levandowski
from the
United States
Attorney’s
Office for the
Northern
District of
California
opens a new
chapter in a
legal battle
that has
embroiled
Google, its
self-driving
car spinoff
Waymo and its
rival Uber in
the
high-stakes
contest over
autonomous
vehicles. The
case also
highlights
Silicon
Valley’s
no-holds-barred
culture, where
gaining an
edge in new
technologies
versus
competitors
can be
paramount....
According to the indictment, Mr. Levandowski downloaded more than 14,000 files containing critical information about Google’s autonomous-vehicle research before leaving the company in 2016. He then made an unauthorized transfer of the files to his personal laptop, the indictment said. Mr. Levandowski joined Uber later that year when the ride-hailing firm bought his new self-driving trucking start-up, which was called Otto....
“The Bay
Area has the
best and
brightest
engineers, and
they take big
risks,” John
Bennett, the
F.B.I. special
agent in
charge of the
San Francisco
Division, said
at a news
conference on
Tuesday. “But
Silicon Valley
is not the
Wild West. The
fast-paced and
competitive
environment
does not mean
federal laws
do not
apply.”Mr.
Levandowski’s
next court
date is Sept.
4. If he is
convicted, he
could face a
maximum of 10
years in
prison, a
$250,000 fine
for every
count and
additional
restitution.
“All of us are
free to move
from job to
job,” said
David L.
Anderson,
United States
attorney in
the Northern
District of
California.
“What we
cannot do is
stuff our
pockets on the
way out the
door.”..." Read
more Hmmm... Central to this
technology is
the perception
of
personal
safety and
trust. Lying,
cheating &
stealing can't
be part of
this industry,
else it will
never emerge
from the
venture
stage. If DeiselGate
and the Uber
crash weren't
enough, let
this be the
next wake-up
call to this
industry to
clean up its
ethical
behavior.
Hopefully the
FBI will also
aggressively
pursue all
cyber
attackers. It
isn't cute,
nor a virtual
reality game.
It is hard
serious work
and creativity
focused on
improving the
quality of
everyday life.
Alain
J.
Browne, Aug
16,
"Autonomous
vehicles are
the future.
Self-driving
cars could
change our
lives,
heralding an
era of greater
convenience,
improved
productivity
and safer
roads...." Read
more Hmmmm.... Actually much of this opening sentence
is a myth...
It doesn't
take
Self-driving
or Driverless
to have
automation
technology
yield safer
roads. It
takes
safe-driving
technology
that works,
like Automated
Emergency
Braking (front
and rear)...
And ... are we
really going
to do our
"manufacturing
or service job
" (increase
"productivity")
if we don't
have to do the
work of
driving
anymore??? Of
the few
"riding
shotgun to
work" what
percentage are
doing work
while riding
shotgun?
Certainly less
than 10%.
Less than 1%?
So much for
productivity
improvements
If we get to Driverless, then the myths aren't
myths. There
will be fewer
private cars,
downtown
congestion
will be
reduced, the
environment
will be saved,
the insurance
industry's
gross revenues
will go down substantially (but
their profits
will go up)
and AVs are
already safer
than humans
that text
and/or are
"under the
influence"
while
driving.
If we don't get to Driverless, then we'll remain with "Do-it-yourself private mobility" that will include Self-driving assistance. Armed with that form of personal mobility, then all the myths are myths: More private cars ... and the policy implications are clear. See: J. M. Greenwald, A. L. Kornhauser "It’s up to us: Policies to improve climate outcomes from automated vehicles". Also, to have a proper perspective of the role of transportation and car/"FordF150s" in greenhouse gas emissions see... M. Sivak, Aug 22, "Increased relative contribution of medium and heavy trucks to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions" Alain
K.
conger, Aug
7, "Uber set
two dubious
quarterly
records on
Thursday as it
reported its
results: its
largest-ever
loss,
exceeding $5
billion, and
its
slowest-ever
revenue
growth. The
double whammy
immediately
renewed
questions
about the
prospects for
the company,
the world’s
biggest
ride-hailing
business. Uber
has been
dogged by
concerns about
sluggish sales
and whether it
can make
money, worries
that were
compounded by
a
disappointing
initial public
offering in
May.
For the second
quarter, Uber
said it lost
$5.2 billion,
the largest
loss since it
began
disclosing
limited
financial data
in 2017. A
majority of
that — about
$3.9 billion —
was caused by
stock-based
compensation
that Uber paid
its employees
after its
I.P.O.
Excluding that
one-time
expense, Uber
lost $1.3
billion, or
nearly twice
the $878
million that
it lost a year
earlier. On
that sariesme
basis and
excluding
other costs,
the company
said it
expected to
lose $3
billion to
$3.2 billion
this
year...Lyft
has also
reported a
series of deep
losses. This
week, it said
it lost $644.2
million in the
second
quarter,
though it
added that it
expected that
amount to
abate. Several
months
earlier, Lyft
had also
posted a
particularly
steep loss
related to
stock-based
compensation
payouts to its
employees..."
Read
more Hmmmm.... No wonder Uber looked so good prior to
its IPO, it
hadn't "paid"
its
employees. So
is this really
a "one time"
expense??
Anyway,
Driverless is
their only
potential
savior as a
$40 stock.
They can't
afford to pay
their
employee,
their gig
workers can't
feed families,
new customers
can't afford
their prices
and food
delivery
generates only
chump change.
Uber
Stock price,
See also...Uber and Lyft keep losing money while driving up the
number of cars
on our
overcrowded
streets.
Alain
A. Hawkins,
July 24,
"Cruise will
miss its goal
of launching a
large-scale
self-driving
taxi service
in 2019, the
GM
subsidiary’s
CEO Dan Ammann
said in an
interview
Tuesday. The
company plans
to
dramatically
increase the
number of its
autonomous
test vehicles
on the road in
San Francisco,
but will not
be offering
rides to
regular people
this year.
Previously, GM
executives
told investors
that its
autonomous
ride-hailing
service would
be open to the
public by the
end of this
year. Now it
seems as if
Cruise is
moving away
from deadlines
and launch
dates
altogether.
Ammann, GM’s
former
president who
now leads its
autonomous
vehicle unit
in San
Francisco,
wouldn’t even
commit to
launching the
service next
year, in
2020....
Cruise is still waiting for the federal government to accept or reject its request to deploy a fleet of fully driverless Chevy Bolt vehicles without steering wheels or pedals. The request was in limbo until this past March, when the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said it would solicit public comments and conduct a review. That process concluded in May, and now Cruise is waiting for a final verdict. “We’re in dialogue with them,” Ammann said of NHTSA. “And nothing further to comment on at this point.”...
It will
also host
community
events to
answer
questions from
residents of
San Francisco
who, in some
respects, are
the company’s
unwitting test
subjects in
its public
self-driving
experiments...."
Read
more Hmmmm.... Starting in the Blue Chip cities trying
to serve those
that already
have lots of
mobility
options is
turning out to
be a
fundamentally
flawed
approach.
Wouldn't it be better to start providing mobility to those in areas that aren't currently well served by existing mobility options... cars and transit. Find such places like Central Jersey, Chandler AZ, South Carolina, The Villages and Peoria be precursors to the MountainViews, Washington DCs, Miamis, SFs and LAs. Start there where the need exists and real benefits can be delivered. See also Timothy Lee's take on this. Alain
Tesla,
July 16, "At
Tesla, we
believe that
technology can
help improve
safety. That’s
why Tesla
vehicles are
engineered to
be the safest
cars in the
world. We
believe the
unique
combination of
passive
safety, active
safety, and
automated
driver
assistance is
crucial for
keeping not
just Tesla
drivers and
passengers
safe, but all
drivers on the
road. It’s
this notion
that grounds
every decision
we make – from
the design of
our cars, to
the software
we introduce,
to the
features we
offer every
Tesla owner.
Model S, X and
3 have
achieved the
lowest
probability of
injury of any
vehicle ever
tested by the
U.S.
government’s
New Car
Assessment
Program.
... In the 2nd quarter, we registered one accident for every 3.27 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.19 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 1.41 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 498,000 miles.... " Read more Hmmmm.... This summary uses "accident" for Teslas and "crash" for NHTSA. This may suggest that the Tesla and NHTSA are not comp[arable... Tesla is reporting about apples and NHTSA is referring to "oranges". That notes; however, it does seem that for Teslas with and without AutoPilot and the other active safety features, there is consistency in the measure. A more detailed question arises about the equivalence of the driving domain for each category as well as who is at fault in each of these situations. Even in light of these issues and details, the large variation in the rates: 3.27 v 2.18 v 1.41 is very significant among Teslas. Seems as if AutoPilot and Tesla's other active collision avoidance safety features are improving safety of Teslas. The spread from the 0.5 value for NHTSA is really astonishing making Teslas much safer than the average of all other cars. Unfortunately these numbers only scratch the surface and beg for more details. In the past I have called for an independent evaluation of the Tesla crash statistics and I do that again there today. I'll offer to do it. Tesla should encourage someone to do it. As it stands today, not enough people believe or trust Tesla (see below) Tesla. That's unfortunate because improved safety is THE major objective of SmartDrivingCar technology. Alain
A. Hawkins,
July 12, "In a
widely
anticipated
move, Ford and
Volkswagen
announced
Friday their
plan to expand
their
seven-month-old
alliance to
include
autonomous and
electric
vehicles.
As part of the
deal, VW will
invest a
whopping $2.6
billion in
Argo AI, the
autonomous
vehicle
startup based
in Pittsburgh
that
practically no
one had heard
of until
Ford’s own
eye-popping $1
billion
investment in
2017. VW
will invest $1
billion in
cash, as well
as $1.6
billion in
assets that
include the
auto giant’s Munich-based
Autonomous
Intelligent
Driving team,
which will be
absorbed by
Argo. After
the deal goes
through,
Argo’s
post-money
valuation will
be over $7
billion....
The deal also gives Argo a global reach. The company, which was founded by former Uber engineers with ties to Carnegie Melon University’s famed robotics lab, has been testing its cars with Ford’s backing in Pittsburgh, Detroit, Miami, and Washington, DC. Now it can also deploy its vehicles on European roads under VW’s guidance....
A month ago VW severed a partnership with Aurora Innovation, the autonomy startup founded by former Google self-driving head Chris Urmson. Argo was co-founded by Bryan Salesky, another former member of the Google self-driving team. He was also on the same team as Urmson in the 2007 DARPA autonomous vehicle challenge, which is seen as a watershed moment in the pursuit for self-driving cars. Ford dumped $1 billion into Argo in 2017 and has worked closely with the startup ever since....
Companies have been pairing up to work on self-driving cars for years now, but only recently has that relentless coupling taken on more serious overtones. Over the last few months:Press
Release, June
19,
"...Collisions
that result in
injury can
often be
caused by a
delay in a
driver’s
recognition of
the situation
and his or her
ability to
react
accordingly.
In a move to
help prevent
such accidents
before they
happen, the
Lexus Safety
System+ will
be a standard
feature in all
US Lexus
vehicles
starting with
the 2020 model
year. “We are
working toward
preventing
crashes before
they happen,”
said David
Christ, group
vice president
and general
manager, Lexus
Division.“
That's why we
have developed
some of the
most advanced
safety
features on
the road
today, and now
those systems
will be
standard
equipment on
every model we
sell. ..Nice!...
Designed to
help protect
drivers,
passengers and
pedestrians,
the Lexus
Safety System+
is an
integrated
suite of four
advanced
active safety
packages
anchored by
automated
pre-collision
warning and
braking. They
include:
This system is engineered to help detect a preceding vehicle or a pedestrian ... why not also a stationary fire truck, or a car stopped at a controlled intersection, or a brick wall, or...??? NotGoodEnough!... Below see Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: The ADAS Road to AV Reality - #SmartDrivingCar... in front of the Lexus under certain conditions . Should the system detect a pedestrian or a potential frontal collision, it’s designed to activate an audible and visual alert while automatically preparing Brake Assist for increased braking response... why not also begin immediately to brake and slow down ? (Hint..."not sure" is not the right answer.) If the situation is sufficient for you to alert the driver why isn't it good enough to immediately start to reduce the speed of the car. Worse case is that you added a couple of seconds to the trip. The driver can always override the brakes by pushing harder on the gas pedal if the driver insists on tailgating or is committing suicide or ???. NotGoodEnough!.... If the driver does not brake in time,... are you kidding?? You knew a crash was impending, and you waited until it was too late??? NotGoodEnough!... the system is designed to automatically begin braking before impact... and then you'll slam on the brakes??? NotGoodEnough!... and, in some cases... Not most/many cases; just some cases??? NotGoodEnough!..., can even bring the vehicle to a stop
This system
uses radar and
camera
technology to
help maintain
a preset speed
and following
distance from
the vehicle
ahead. If
driving at
highway speeds
and the road
ahead clears,
the vehicle
returns to its
preset speed.
.... Great, but a couple of questions... 1. If the
system is on
and I tap the
brakes, does
the system
turn off just
the
acceleration
function
because it
understands
that I tapped
the brakes
because I felt
that I was
going too fast
so the system
should not
override my
explicit
signal.
Nice!!
However, does
it also assume
that I really
know what I'm
doing?
Consequently,
it also turns
off the brake
function even
in situations
in which I am
not applying
enough brake
forces and a
crash is
imminent?
Does it again
wait until it
is too late
and and refuse
to help me in
those critical
moments? Then
you'll slam on
the
NotGoodEnough!
(Note... my S
Anti-lock
Braking ystem
explicitly
overrides the
way that I'm
applying the
brakes and
keeps me from
doing the
wrong thing.
Thank you
ABS! What
makes the AEB
situation
different when
the system
knows better
and could
really help me
in an as
critical
situation?
2. What happens if the system is on and I'm following a car at my preset distance going 10 mph under my desired speed. The car ahead changes lanes because she sees that a parked fire truck is in our lane ahead. Once her car clears my lane ahead, does the Dynamic Radar Cruise Control system take into account the existence of the parked firetruck ahead and brings me to a smooth stop before hitting the Firetruck? Or, does the system begin to accelerate to my desired speed and simply leave it to the Pre-Collison System with Pedestrian Detection system to try to "save the day" after it is too late?........"
Read more Hmmmm... Again, very nice that these features will be standard. It is really unfortunate that they are not better. Hopefully, since the limitations that I expressed above are all software related, Lexus will be able to do over-the-air (or otherwise) updates of the software as soon as Lexus has put more effort into the "intelligence" that uses the data streams generated by their cameras and radars AlainT. Lee,
June 13, "It
has been a
busy week for
Aurora, the
self-driving
startup
founded by
veterans of
the Google,
Tesla, and
Uber
self-driving
programs. On
Monday, Aurora
announced it
had forged a
partnership
with Fiat
Chrysler. On
Tuesday,
Aurora said it
was ending its
partnership
with
Volkswagen.
Now Hyundai is
deepening its
partnership
with Aurora
with an equity
investment.
It's the
latest example
of an
industry-wide
pattern: one
after another,
car companies
have made big
investments in
self-driving
startups. And
these deals
mean that
carmakers are
effectively
entering into
self-driving
alliances with
one
another....
All of the
recent deals
between car
companies and
self-driving
companies
could put
Waymo in a
difficult
position.
Waymo has been
working on
self-driving
technology
much longer
than any of
its rivals,
and the
company aimed
to introduce a
driverless
taxi service
long before
others came to
market. In
that scenario,
Waymo would
have its
choice of
automotive
partners, so
Waymo has been
keeping its
options open.
But the
reality is
that Waymo
will need help
from
automakers to
scale up
rapidly. As
more and more
automakers
commit to
Waymo's
rivals, Waymo
risks becoming
stranded—with
industry-leading sensors and software but limited capacity to integrate
the technology
into a large
number of
vehicles...."
Read
more Hmmmm... Good summary of "self-driving car"
partnerships
but, by
including
Waymo in the
mix, it is
conflating
what I
continue to
contend are
two VERY
different
markets...
Self-driving
and
Driverless.
What makes
them like oil
& vinegar
is that
self-driving
vehicles are
for the
Consumer
market and are
little
different from
conventional
cars.
Driverless
cars are for
the
Fleet/Business
market.
Self-driving
cars require a
driver in
order to
deliver any
meaningful
mobility or
value. Their
automation
stack delivers
additional
comfort,
convenience
and safety to
the auto
industry's
existing
customer
base. As such
it is a
"consumer
play" and
requires no
regulations or
public
oversight
other than
what exists
today. Any
safety issues
can be handled
through
standard
"product
liability" and
standard "NHTSA
recall"
procedures.
Its market
penetration
evolution is
like going
from manual
transmission
to automatic
transmission,
as Tesla is
demonstrating
with
AutoPilot.
From outside
the car, one
can't tell if
it has it or
doesn't. It
is a consumer
choice at time
of purchase.
Tesla
is creating
its own
"automatic
transmission"/"AutoPilot
stack". Other
OEMs are
hedging their
bets by
partnering
with
technology
provider for
their
self-driving
technology
stack. They'll
continue to
produce the
rest of the
car, as they
have done for
years, and
possibly
outsource
their "automatic transmission"
when the time
comes.
Driverless
cars are
"mobility
machines" when
managed as a
fleet
delivering
mobility to
individuals.
They are a
"business
play". It is
all about the
economic
efficiency/profitability
in delivering
mobility to
individuals.
The
fundamental
value is in
the
opportunity to
provide
consistent
reliable
affordable
mobility at
scale. The
technology
stack has
taken the
inconsistency,
unreliability
and monetary
cost of a
human driver
out of the
loop. Since
algorithms,
rather than
people, tailor
the service to
meet
individual
needs, such
systems scale
attractively.
All of this
MUST be done
safely without
a
driver/attendant,
else the
economics/affordability/scalability
completely
collapses.
From
outside the
car one can
tell that
there isn't a
driver in the
driver's
seat.
Consequently,
public
oversight at
all levels
from top to
grass roots
will need to
be comfortable
with this
thing with no
driver in it
going down
their street
and invading
their
neighborhood
and
transporting
their kids,
grandmas,
mobility
disadvantaged,
... .
Everyone is
going to
weigh-in with
perceptions
and
regulations.
Consequently,
the deployment
of the
technology is
going to need
to be
"welcomed" .
"Uber-like
swashbuckling
bravado isn't
going to cut
is.
Driverless
Mobility-as-a-Service is the market that Waymo (and GM/Cruise and
Ford/Argo)
have been
going after.
Because of its
need to be
"welcomed" (or
at least not
disdained) by
the residents
and businesses
that abut the
streets over
which these
vehicles
deliver their
mobility, the
deployment
dynamics for
Driverless is
very different
from
Self-driving.
All
Self-driving
needs is for
Madison Avenue
/ "Elon Musk"
to convince
individuals of
the comfort
and
convenience of
being able to
have the car
drive itself
some of the
time and they
are sold.
Driverless
requires
substantial
public
relations/education
of communities
to achieve
"welcoming".
A real "ground
war".
That is what
Waymo (and
GM/Cruise and
Ford/Argo)
needs to
conduct to
just get
started. Once
started Waymo
need to
continue it to
scale (Value
is achieved
only with
scale).
Finding
OEMs that will
sell Waymo
cars on which
to affix its
technology
stack will not
be the
problem. The
car is the
commodity. The
welcoming of
the technology
stack by
communities is
the
fundamental
differentiator.
Waymo is
sitting on an
order for at
least 82,000
cars from FCA
and Jaguar.
The order has
been
announced, but
not executed
because
insufficient
"ground
warfare" has
even been
waged, let
alone been
successful
(except in
Arizona).
With welcoming
environment
these 82,000
mobility
machines could
be serving 4
million person
trips per day
in communities
throughout the
country.
(Note... our
nation's
transit
systems today
(only) serve
an equivalent
number of
person trips;
although they
are longer
trips taken in
much more
densely
populated
areas. The
Waymo-served
trips would
likely be
trips that our
conventional
transit
systems can't
effectively
serve and thus
complement
conventional
transit. Some
of the trips
would replace
auto trips.
The others
would be new
trips by
persons who
can't or don't
want to drive
their own car
for whatever
reason and
whose lives
have been
substantially
disadvantaged
because their
mobility needs
aren't
effectively
served by
either the
personal car
or
conventional
mass transit.
A. Krok,
May 2, "You
can't please
all the people
all the time,
but Volkswagen
wants to make
sure that when
it moves into
the next era
of mobility,
it won't leave
any groups
behind.
Volkswagen
this week
unveiled its Inclusive Mobility Initiative,
which sees the
automaker
working
directly with
outside groups
to ensure that
its future
vehicles are
capable of
catering to
people with
disabilities..."
Read
more Hmmmm...This is fantastic and may well be in line
with the focus
we've taken
with the
upcoming 3rd Annual
Princeton SmartDrivingCar
Summit
10 days from
now. Our
focus is on all
people who
have been
marginalized
by the
unnecessary/non-inclusive/exclusive designs of our current forms of
mobility, .
These designs
are especially
irresponsible
when one no
longer needs a
person to
drive... to
keep the car
from crashing
while on its
way from where
people are to
where the want
to go. What
an enormous
opportunity to
be of service
to so many
that for what
ever reason
don't want or
can't perform
that task.
Yes, there are
situations in
which a
professional
is required.
At times, we
all need we
all need that
the help of a
professional.
But for all of
those
situations in
which a
professional
is not needed,
we have an
enormous
opportunity to
be so much
more inclusive
by removing
the other
unnecessary
exclusivities
that have
consciously or
unconsciously
crept into our
cars and
transit
systems. Our
mobility
systems no
longer need to
be big and
hold many
people to make
them
affordable, no
driver needs
to be paid.
They no longer
need to be
constrained to
only go
between the
few places
than many want
to go between
at only
certain
times. They
can readily
serve where
only a few,
even one, want
to go between
at whatever
time. The
skill set
needed to use
and be served
diminishes to
the skill set
needed by the
easiest to use
elevator. And
so on...
A. Kornhauser, March 13, "The following testimony was provided to the New Jersey State Assembly’s Transportation and Independent Authorities Committee on Monday, March 11....
What we need, what my ask is, that we create in New Jersey a “welcoming environment” for the research, testing and demonstration of this technology and work to focusing it on improving the mobility of the mobility disadvantaged...
While such
a
demonstration
is not
prohibited in
New Jersey, it
is not
permitted.
Consequently,
this provides
excuses and
hurdles to
bringing such
mobility to
our
communities
and tarnishes
any other
welcoming
efforts aimed
at enabling
New Jersey to
lead instead
of follow in
what may well
address the
fundamental
objective of
this
hearing." Read
more
Hmmmm....Seems
so simple. I
have found it
so incredibly
hard. Alain
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)
May
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".
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="" width="106" height="88" 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="" width="238" height="92" border="0">[log in to unmask]">Mailto:[log in to unmask]