37th edition of the 5th year of SmartDrivingCars
J. Lowy, AP, Nov 1, “he Trump administration has quietly set aside plans to require new cars to be able to wirelessly talk to each other, auto industry officials said, jeopardizing one of the most promising technologies for preventing traffic deaths….
…The administration has decided not to pursue a final V2V mandate, said two auto industry officials who have spoken with White House and Transportation Department officials and two others whose organizations have spoken to the administration. The industry officials spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize their relations with the administration….” Read moreHmmmm… This basically completes Washington’s “540 degree turn” on Safety for cars. A complete spin from V2V and CV and on to AV. 🙂
One could sense this coming when it took until his 6th slide for Carl Andersen from US DoT to even mention the word ‘Connected’. Four years ago at the 2nd AV conference in Palo Alto, the US DoT folks from would only talk about Connected Vehicles even though it was an AV conference. More recently the pivot was underway when Washington coined CAVs (Connected & Automated Vehicles; I complained that this gave only lip service to AVs since an alphabetic ordering was passed over. Connected was obviously favored.) Secretary Foxx continued the pivot into a spin with his Federal AV Policy statement in September 2016. More spin a month ago with Automated Driving Systems v2.0 and now this to put the nail in the coffin. Jerome Lutin and I have begun to sit Shiva and Paul Brubaker has started covering the mirrors for DSRC.
This substantial change in Washington has profound implications because so many in State & Local government were following the Washington lead and will now need to pivot. Europe, Japan and others in transport planning around the world were also following Washington in the promotion of CVs. Much of the “Smart Cities” and ITS objectives are/were all about Connectivity and the implied control and orchestration of societies to achieve some optimized utopia. Always seemed too “1984” for my taste. Seeking some perfect “Best” when one can’t even reach a consensus on what “Best” is really the enemy of “good enough” . Give everyone a little room and let them individually work towards what they consider is best from their perspective. In my politics, this is my view of “Smart Cities” and SmartDrivingCars.
This change has also made obsolescent, if not completely obsolete, some recent reports such as much of the NCHRP 20-102 research which was initially motivated by CV and reports such as the recently released Future Cities: Navigating the New Era of Mobility.
The fundamental problem with V2V is that it doesn’t work unless there are other cars with which to communicate. That doesn’t happen until the adoption level is substantial. Assume that if the V2V communications works (is fast enough and the right data is communicated perfectly) it has no chance of improving safety unless BOTH vehicles that are about to crash have the technology. The chance that exists, ie the probability that BOTH cars have the technology, is the square of the adoption level. At the beginning it is zero times zero which is zero. But even at a 10 % penetration level, which would take an exhaustive mandate at least two year to achieve, it would only reach a 1% chance of being relevant. When half of the cars have it (and ‘it’ works in all of the cars that have it, whatever ‘it’ is) the chances are only 1 in 4 that it is relevant, It takes a 70% adoption (and working) level, which would take at least 10 years to achieve, before it become better than a coin flip. That’s a long time before those that bought the hardware can have a reasonable expectation of capturing some benefits. Alain
F. Fishkin, Oct 25, Episode10 “HHost Fred Fishkin along with Princeton University’s Alain Kornhauser are joined by internationally recognized expert Michael Sena from Sweden. The latest from Washington D. C., the ITS World Congress in Montreal and headlines from Nvidia, Waymo, GM, Elon Musk and Sony!
Oct 30 – Nov 2 Hmmmm… My view of the ITS World Congress…
1. Richard Bishop’s INTERNATIONAL TASK FORCE ON VEHICLE-HIGHWAY AUTOMATION (ITFVHA)
TWENTY FIRST ANNUAL MEETING. Once again this was an excellent way to spend the Sunday before the ITS World Congress. Especially good presentations from the Australian contingent and from the Netherlands. I’ll link the presentations next week.
2. Richard Mudge organized one of the better sessions on the macro-impacts of Automated Vehicles. A large room was full with many asking questions and making good comments. Linked (pdf ppt) is my presentation.
3. The ITS focus continues to be on centralized management of vehicles and platoons as a way to address congestion. Essentially no interest in ride-sharing. I continue to promote ride-sharing as the ‘solution’. Doubling Daily Average Vehicle Occupancy eliminated essentially all congestion without forcing vehicles to platoon or telling everyone what route to take. Challenge is for ride-sharing to become commonplace. Alain
S. Abuelsamid, Oct 27, “… The latest move is today’s announcement that Ford subsidiary Argo AI has purchased Cranbury, New Jersey-based Princeton Lightwave for its lidar technology….” Read more, Hmmmm… Congratulations Mark & Sabbir!! 🙂 Alain
D. Etherington, Oct 31, “Waymo has been very protective of its testing process in past, but recently it started opening up – likely as a bid to help get the public more comfortable with self-driving vehicle technology as it moves towards broad deployment of its autonomous cars…
…Krafcik opened by giving a rundown of the various terms that have been applied to self-driving technology, ranging from “driver assistance” to “semi-driverless cars,” noting that there’s been “a lot of confusion about what the terminology means.” Part of Waymo’s aim is to clear up the confusion – and by implication, perhaps douse the cold water of reality on some of its competition’s more grandiose claims.
It also helps Waymo clearly explain where they sit on the spectrum of driverless vehicle technologies, and how they concluded that they would focus only on technologies that would classify as Level 4 and Level 5 by the SAE’s standards – fully driverless tech requiring no intervention by a human driver.
Waymo classifies anything from Levels 1 through 3 as technically “driver assist” features, according to Krafcik, and this is an “important divide” which Waymo has observed first hand, concluding early on that it’s not an area they’re interested in pursuing….
…This is why Waymo has been very vocal in the past and today about focusing on Level 4 (full autonomy within specific ‘domains’ or geographies and conditions) and Level 5 (full, unqualified autonomy)….
…It’s not just a matter of having somewhere Waymo can test without worrying about state regulations – it’s about a place where serendipity can be manufactured” Unfortunately we don’t know what we don’t know about the serendipity (reality) and thus we can’t really manufacture it. 🙁 …” Read more, Hmmmm… I’m thrilled to learn that Waymo and I are on the same page about the confusion in terminology; however, the article dowses the confusion with more fuel by mislabeling various technologies. We know that mislabeling is the death knell of AI (Artificial Intelligence). It is also the death knell of HI (Human Intelligence). This is the challenge of the SAE “Levels”. They need to be unambiguously correlated to normal human discourse. Not everyone went to MIT so not everyone is comfortable with having things, say buildings, be referred to by numbers (Building 32) instead of names (Sherrerd Hall). Sequences of binary integers are nice in the computer/AI world. In the human world we are much more comfortable with words which associate with concepts and previous knowledge/interrelationships. While words do have multiple meanings which, unfortunately, leads to ‘Double Entendre’s. Thankfully, double meanings are usually in such widely separated contexts that real confusion is rare. What has happened in the automated vehicle world is that SAE failed to associate a specific word or simple phrase with each of its levels and thus writers, such as Darrel Etherington (who is otherwise excellent), have used the same word to reference different Levels and then tried to use prefixes to even further confuse. There is no difference between fully-ubiquitous and ubiquitous. Fully is redundant. Similarly with Driverless. If we wish to clearly identify the technology in which a human driver is not needed, nor desired, and likely a detriment, then this situation needs an unambiguous word like, ubiquitous, or pregnant or in this case I’ve suggested ‘Driverless’.
With respected to the technologies that require a driver in order to handle the difficult situations, the big difference is between those that allow the driver to take ‘hands-off-wheel and feet-off-pedals’ some of the time, I’ve suggested that we call “Self-Driving” and those that don’t allow that at any time, “Safe-driving”.
Again, the ‘Safe-driving’ is a clear entity where there is zero expectation that the car can relieve the driver from doing the best that he/she can do unless the driver is misbehaving. Its only purpose it to keep the driver from misbehaving, either unknowingly or willfully. The Safe-driving technology is a self and public security blanket. It protects the driver from crashing, and its ensuing personal liability consequences. It also protects the driver’s family, occupants and the general public from the liability consequences of the driver’s misbehavior. This enhances everyone’s Safety deserves its own label.
The key here is that this technology addresses the safety with no enhancement of comfort and possibly even degrades the ‘comfort’ for those individuals that get a ‘thrill’ out of misbehaving while driving. This perceived degradation of ‘comfort’ degrades the attractiveness of ‘Safe-driving’ cars by the legacy auto manufacturers, especially those that have used misbehavior to promote the attractiveness of their cars. (See video) To include technology that counters misbehavior that they promoted for many years is hard for them. That is why Insurance needs to demand adoption of Safe-driving technology. Insurance can readily do this through pricing by not forcing those that acquire Safe-driving cars to cross-subsidize the extra liability exposure that is caused by those that don’t.
Another approach is to have car manufacturers be liable for the consequences of NOT having incorporated technologies that would have precluded the car that they manufactured from being misused. That would really shake up the availability of Safe-driving cars.
‘Self-driving’ is then the extension of ‘Safe-driving’ that contains all of the ‘Safe-driving’ aspects and provides perceived comfort and convenience to the driver. From a consumer perspective, this is very attractive, but if it is in ‘No Man’s Land’ between ‘Safe-driving’ and ‘Driverless’, then it is going to need additional technologies to ensure that there isn’t user misbehavior associated with taking ‘hands-off-wheel and feet-off-pedals’ some of the time. Cadillac in their Super Cruise is a step forward. While it doesn’t contain sufficient ‘Safe-driving’ technology, (for example, always on speed limiting to not allow the car at any time to exceed the speed limit by a reasonable amount ) it does have a driver awareness system that “safely” disables the ‘Self-driving’ features should the driver cease to pay attention to the road ahead. This vehicle is definitely not a Driverless car. It is a Self -driving car. Just trying to help reduce some of the confusion. Alain
D. Etherington, Oct 31, “Today was a first for me: I drove in a fully autonomous vehicle on roads without anyone behind the wheel. They weren’t public roads…Read more, Hmmmm… Darrell, the important aspect is that “… They weren’t public roads…” The real news would be for Waymo to offer you a Driverless ride on an un-staged normal public road ! Alain
J. Butters, Nov 2, ” AutoNation Inc., the largest car-dealer group in the U.S., reached an agreement to maintain and help manage fleets for Waymo, the self-driving car unit of Alphabet Inc. The multi-year service agreement starts with AutoNation supporting Waymo’s autonomous vehicle programs in Phoenix and Northern California and will expand to markets across the U.S. With its expertise in detailing, repairs and maintenance, AutoNation’s role is to keep the cars on the road for longer…” Read moreHmmmm… To me this is further proof that Waymo looks to be in the business of using its technology to provide mobility rather than selling/licensing the technology to other mobility providers. Waymo must understand, as it does in the ‘Search’ business, it is important/profitable to be the leader and be market dominant. This is especially true in the provision of mobility. We have just a few airlines, and, from an airport perspective, there is only one dominant airline at each. Same was/is true about taxicab companies in cities and we can see what is happening with the ‘Uber/Lyft/Didi’s of the world. Waymo is going to use its driverless technology to dominate the Mobility-as-a-Service market. Alain
M. Sena, Oct 31, “There is something in this issue for those of who are following NHTSA’s journey on the path of automated vehicles. As you will read, the usual suspects set up false detour signs, and the NHTSA chauffeur fell for the ruse. I decided it was time to take a closer look at a company that is investing its way into the automotive industry, SoftBank. You will find one of my ‘sphere’ diagrams showing its current connections. I have followed up with a Part 2 on Cybersecurity, and the lack of concentration on the problem among both government and industry.
There is also a piece on yet another attempt to pinpoint ourselves and others on planet earth’s surface. When you get to the end of the article on what3words, you will find the location of where I was when I wrote it. Those of you who can tell me where I was will get a free subscription to The Dispatcher for the coming year. For the rest, the subscription price will be doubled.
B. Vlasic, Nov 2, “The Republican tax proposal has clouded the outlook for electric vehicles in the United States. The congressional plan presented on Thursday, which would abolish a $7,500 federal income-tax credit for electric vehicles, arrives just as automakers are gearing up to expand their lineups. The credit for purchases of all-electric and plug-in hybrid cars has been a key incentive for consumers to consider switching from traditional gasoline-powered models….” Read more, Hmmmm… More than 1/3rd (34.7% 2016) electricity in the US is generated from coal and only 7% by solar, wind & geothermal combined. Why is it that electric cars deserve such public subsidy. They aren’t ‘Green’! Wouldn’t it be a better public benefit to offer that subsidy to Safe-driving Cars that don’t crash and deliver the substantive direct public benefit of fewer deaths and personal injuries? Alain
J. Owens, Nov 2, “Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk on Wednesday hinted at a new direction for the company in the hardware it uses for its Autopilot self-driving initiative, which seemed to hurt partner Nvidia Corp.’s shares in late trading….,When asked about recent advances in Nvidia’s self-driving efforts beyond the hardware Tesla is supplying to customers currently, Musk suggested the hardware may not be strong enough to pass muster with regulators seeking autonomy better than human capabilities, then suggested a change ahead….” Read moreHmmmm… Seems as if Elon is trying to change the subject from the poor Q3 Model 3 production report. Alain
t. Paaaddenburg, Oct 24, “PASSENGERS aboard WA’s first driverless bus have given the technology a resounding nod, saying they feel safe in an automated vehicle and believe it will cut the road toll.
The RAC launched Australia’s first public autonomous vehicle trial – called the RAC Intellibus – last year and it has completed more than 1800 trips carrying 5000 passengers for more than 6000km on its 30-minute, 3.5km route through South Perth….RAC general manager of public policy Anne Still said the trial had been so successful the motoring group was planning on extending the length and complexity of the bus route….” Read moreHmmmm… Seems positive. If the vehicle has been operating demand-responsively 24/7 without a driver or an attendant, then the town of Princeton should try it as a replacement to the pathetic ‘FreeB‘. Else, it is just a fancy FeeB. Alain
Oct 26, “German railway company Deutsche Bahn has introduced an autonomous bus to drive passengers along a pre-programmed route in Bavaria. In case of an emergency, a human driver can take control with a joystick….” Read moreHmmmm… So depressing. Just a fancy pathetic FreeB until they get rid of that ‘human driver‘. We have yet to start anything worthwhile in the Driverless space. We are still stuck at absolute zero. 🙁 Alain
F. Fishkin, Oct 25, Episode 9 “Host Fred Fishkin with Princeton University’s Alain Kornhauser and guest Fred Payne, council member from Greenville County, South Carolina. Greenville’s autonomous taxis are rolling. Bank of America analysts see big investment opportunities in vehicle technology. The latest from London, China and New York. And on demand pilotless planes?
F. Fishkin, Oct 19, Episode 8 “…the latest jump in vehicle deaths in the U.S. Tech is distracting more drivers, but the right tech can turn things around. And there’s more from Waymo, Tesla, Apple, GM and the plans to test self driving cars in Manhattan.”
Some other thoughts that deserve your attention
T. Simonite, Nov 1, “But Hinton now belittles the technology he helped bring to the world. “I think the way we’re doing computer vision is just wrong,” he says. “It works better than anything else at present but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”
In its place, Hinton has unveiled another “old” idea that might transform how computers see—and reshape AI. That’s important because computer vision is crucial to ideas such as self-driving cars, and having software that plays doctor.
Late last week, Hinton released two research papers that he says prove out an idea he’s been mulling for almost 40 years. “It’s made a lot of intuitive sense to me for a very long time, it just hasn’t worked well,” Hinton says. “We’ve finally got something that works well.”
Hinton’s new approach, known as capsule networks, is a twist on neural networks intended to make machines better able to understand the world through images or video….” Read moreHmmmm… Very interesting!! Here are the links to the papers: Matrix capsules with EM routing and Dynamic Routing Between Capsules Alain
D. Coldewey, Nav 4, ” The International Conference on Computer Vision just wrapped up… Here are a handful of the most interesting projects…” Read moreHmmmm… Very interesting!!! Alain
B. Vlasic, Nov 1, “…But after disrupting the automotive world with innovative technology, stunning designs and its commitment to an all-electric lineup, Tesla is hamstrung on the most basic part of the car business: getting new vehicles built on time…Mr. Musk said he expected Tesla to be producing 5,000 Model 3 cars a week by early next year.,, ‘ . Read more, Hmmmm… Here a Read more, Hmmmm… From Tesla Third Quarter 2017 Update: “…Several manufacturing lines … have demonstrated a manufacturing ability in excess of 1,000 units
per week during burst builds of short duration…. Other lines, such as battery pack assembly, body shop welding and final vehicle assembly, have demonstrated burst builds of about 500 units per week Hmmm…so the burst build of cars is at best 500/month, but by “..early next year…” it is going to be 10x “and are ramping up quickly….In Q3, we delivered … 222 Model 3″ 222??? …you’ll need a heck of a ramp to go from 222/Q (or about 20/week in Q3) to 5,000/week in 6 months. That’s 250x! Are the Short Sellers at Tesla’s door? Alain
Half-baked stuff that probably doesn’t deserve your time
K. Wadell, Oct 28, “…But it appears India and China are the only countries that contain both driving chaos and local companies developing autonomous vehicles. Unsurprisingly, their efforts face extra hurdles. India’s Tata has created a testing track outside Bangalore to simulate local roads, complete with fearless pedestrians and stray cattle, Bloomberg reported. The company still has a long way to go:..” Read moreHmmmm… Since we are still very much at the beginning of these systems with essentially none in public hands, why don’t we get them to work really well where it is easy. Stay away from the difficult places where we are nowhere close to doing anything real. These staged tests and demos are essentially totally useless. Alain
C’mon Man! (These folks didn’t get/read the memo)
Calendar of Upcoming Events:
Las Vegas, NV
Smart City, Smart Transit, Smart Energy
May 16 & 17, 2018
Save the Date
Recent Highlights of:
Strategic Plan for FY 2018 -2022 Draft for Public Comment, October 19, 2017, “This Strategic Plan establishes the strategic goals and objectives for the DOT for FY2018 through FY2022. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRA) aligns strategic planning with the beginning of each new term of an Administration, requiring every Federal agency to produce a new Strategic Plan by the first Monday in February following the year in which the term of the President commences. The Strategic Plan, therefore, presents the long-term objectives an agency hopes to accomplish at the beginning of each new term of an Administration by describing general and long-term goals the agency aims to achieve, what actions the agency will take to realize those goals, and how the agency will deal with challenges and risks that may hinder achieving results….” Read more Hmmmm… Nice…seems to be void of all references to Connected Vehicles (CV), V2V and V2I that were in the previous FY 2014-2018 strategic plan (Gone is any reference like footnote 13, p.24: “Transforming Transportation through Connectivity: ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014- Program Update, 2012 “ (even the link is 404)
This may finally be a realization by US DoT that the Connected Vehicle (CV) program was a fatally flawed concept, especially in light of having viable Automated Vehicles. CV was a grandiose plan to have the public sector (Washington, States & Municipalities) pay to deploy electronic Gizmos everywhere and have all of our vehicular mobility be centrally controlled (think 1984). It was part of the America’s National ITS Architecture which ITS America has been promoting for years in support of its Gizmo manufacturing members. Unfortunately, the fatal flaw in Architecture is that the benefits (Safety) would not begin to really kick-in until the Architecture was largely deployed throughout the highway infrastructure and installed in most vehicles. It is essentially all-or-nothing, and “all” need to be so ubiquitous, consequentially so expensive, that the public sector was was the only potential financier.However, along came the private sector and said…”maybe we can address this Safety thing by automating the vehicle so that it is much less likely to Crash while it shares the existing infrastructure without asking for any improvements (except maybe better paint and readable signs; both of which are really needed anyway for all existing users) “.Sure, safe automation is hard and expensive, but nowhere near as expensive, especially in its early commitments, as the CV approach. And if successful, at least one vehicle and its occupants are safer. PLUS, the cost of the automated vehicle technology is likely get cheaper (it scales) as we replicate for the 2nd, 4th, 8th, 16th… vehicles
and likely to become very affordable very quickly (Moore’s Law) AND the cost of replicating the software is essentially zero and … So, with what amounts to a little bit of money we can get started with one vehicle and it is likely to scale very nicely to initiate viral adoption. Wow! (Deja vu all over again… Steve Jobs’ garage).So.. it is very nice that US DoT has finally recognized through its strategic planning process that it is time to pivot from its fundamentally flawed CV concept to the SmartDrivingCar/Automated Vehicle (SDC/AV) concept, even though historically US DoT has been all about the infrastructure (roads) and not-so-much about vehicles (cars).
Moreover, this frees US DoT from an enormous future financial obligation. Congratulations for making the pivot. We are all anxious to help you succeed. Alain
J. Murphy, Oct 18, “Auto industry’s identity crisis: a need for speed, ease, cost. Given all the hype surrounding the automotive industry and incremental technological developments (electrification, autonomy, and connectivity), that we believe are important interim steps, we believe some have lost sight of the industry’s fundamental purpose: safely transporting people (goods) from A to B in the fastest manner possible. The next Big Bang(s), in our view, will be the convergence of all of the ongoing and new technological developments that will materially increase the value of a vehicle/driving experience to the consumer (and by extension value to companies and shareholders), including: 1) Increased efficiency of travel; 2) Autonomous ride/drive on demand (marginal economic positive); and 3) Increased speed of travel (material economic stimulus).
… the revenue/profit for OEMs or technology companies in this evolution may be far-dated…. we believe more companies will attempt in the nearterm, even before commercialization, to ring-fence and monetize “future auto” businesses, separate traditional businesses, or even sell technology/assets.
…We believe the best-positioned companies are those with vertically integrated business models, offering vehicle connectivity, autonomous driving capabilities (likely on electrified vehicle platforms), and a user interfaces for ride-sharing/hailing applications, which will then enable them to operate vehicle fleets and generate a recurring stream of revenue/profits. However, the most critical aspect and barrier to entry appears to be the manufacturing expertise to build production-ready models for deployment. For this reason, there is actually a competitive moat around the OEMs that we think provides them with an advantage in this evolutionary process.
…In this report, we identify a number of sectors within (suppliers, distribution, etc.) and outside of the auto industry (real estate, energy, other transportation, etc.) that may be disrupted in the Big Bang. However, in our view, distribution networks may be most susceptible to a potential shock if fully autonomous, connected, high speed mobility on demand was offered at a low cost, which may represent one of the few cases in which a company like Amazon may be a disrupted entity (barring its own evolution). Read more Hmmmm… Fascinating!! In-depth analysis of the fundamental economic forces at play in this mobility r-evolution. A lot to digest here! Alain
Washington DC, Oct 20, “The U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is committed to the safe deployment of automated vehicles. NHTSA hosted a public workshop today to get feedback on the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments discussed in the Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety guidance released last month. …The workshop , overall, was a productive, open forum, where manufacturers, suppliers, safety advocates, and other entities shared the types of information that could be made available, and opportunities for making that information public. There were over 100 attendees present, and many more who participated via a LIVE Webcast. A full transcript will be available in the coming weeks. ” Read more Hmmmm… Congratulations Nat, I agree that it was productive. The comments the by Global Automakers, AAMVA, MEMA Waymo and AAM were positive and helpful.
The …opening remarks by NHTSA Acting Administrator Heidi King: “… At DOT and NHTSA, of course, our central focus is always on safety. NHTSA’s mission remains to help Americans drive, ride and walk safely…” Given that Safety is central, It is unfortunate that Automated Driving systems 2.0 skips over ‘Safe-driving‘ (ADAS or Level1/2 or whatever) and jumps right into Self-driving (Level 3/4/5 or whatever) to address Safety. Essentially all of the Automated Vehicle Safety achievements (crash avoidance, lane departure avoidance, etc..) will be achieved by Safe-driving vehicles that always over-ride our failures and do the right thing even if they don’t let us take our hands off the wheel or feet off the pedals. These systems are beginning to be made available today and it is not an understatement to say that they don’t work as well as they should/could and there is essentially total confusion in the marketplace/showroom about the capabilities/consumer-expectations about these systems. NHTSA’s 5-Star Safety Ratings program doesn’t even consider any of these systems. Since ‘Safe-driving‘ has the greatest and nearest term potential impact on Safety, why is it NOT part of this AV program? These systems are being tested; shouldn’t NHTSA be calling for a Self-assessment of these systems. Safe-driving systems are beginning to be here now and I contend the public is totally confused.
“…Public trust is essential to the advancement of automated technology….” I wholeheartedly agree!! That trust needs to be earned and its first exposure is mixed. Anti-lock brakes and Electronic Stability Control are automated systems that have earned public trust event though they automatically detect erroneous driver behavior and automatically over-ride those actions in order to do the best that they can to keep the driver safe. But what about these Safe-driving (Level 1/2, …) systems. These are automated systems focused on Safety, yet NHTSA hasn’t even bothered to include any of these systems in its 5-Star Safety Ratings program. The public is totally confused about what is being offered and there seems to be no public trust evernthough these systems are the very foundations of Self-driving and Driverless systems. It is necessary that Safety and public trust be established first in Safe-driving systems. This forms the basis on which to expand that public trust to the downstream systems that deliver other societal benefits, comfort & convenience for Self-driving and affordable mobility for all for Driverless, while providing very little, if any incremental Safety benefits over Safe-driving technology. So… NHTSA’s 1st order of business should be to ensure that Safe-driving technology actually works and is valued by car buyers.
A substantial part of the problem here is that the terminology that is being used is totally confusing. NHTSA’s decision to give up on its original 4-Level nomenclature was good, they just chose to adopt an even worse one, SAE’s. It focuses entirely on the details of the technology, rather than on the value that is to be derived from the technology. The Levels invoke no fundamental cognitive relationships; nothing that would inspire…”tell me more”. Thus, engineers might eventually pay attention long enough to absorb the more than 7+/-2 chunks of cognitive information needed to understand the differences in the “Levels”. Unfortunately, corporate buyers, journalists, planning, policy and/or legislative officials and the general public/consumers remain totally confused.
I’ve suggested three categories: Safe-driving…, Self-driving… and Driverless… Not necessarily perfect, because the leader of Driverless chose long ago (~8 years) to call itself Self-driving. Unfortunately, the term Self-driving with human supervision, reinforces the auto industry’s 100-year old business model of selling personal comfort and convenience to consumers. The auto industry doesn’t bother emphasizing the partial nature of its Self-driving. Waymo has chosen to add the prefix “Fully” in an effort to differentiate itself as really Driverless that is fundamentally attractive to a different business model focused on Fleets delivering mobility services to a public that doesn’t own cars. But few are aware of the enormous difference implied by the the existence of the prefix.
In its efforts to engender public trust, NHTSA needs to rethink what it calls these things. An opportunity exists in the re-framing of its Star Ratings, Or maybe, this crash-avoidance technology is so different from the crash-mitigation technology that is NHTSA’s sweet-spot, that a new agency or a new division of NHTSA should be created to provide the crash-avoidance safety oversight. Alain
Rulemaking Actions, Oct 1The following 3 PDFs are important:
1. Autonomous Vehicles Notice of Modification (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
Press Release, Oct 4, “Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) officials today awarded a $4 million Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) grant to South Carolina’s Greenville County for its automated taxis.
“Technology is the future of U.S. transportation,” said Acting Federal Highway Administrator Brandye L. Hendrickson. “These funds will help Greenville County lead the nation into a future with more driverless vehicles, which will improve mobility for some and reduce traffic congestion for all.”
County officials will use the funds to deploy an integrated system of “taxi-shuttles,” known locally as “A-Taxis,” on public roads. These are driverless taxis providing shuttle service to and from employment centers–expected to improve access to transportation for disadvantaged and mobility-impaired residents…” Read more Hmmmm… Wow!! FHWA is actually going to fund aTaxis!!! Congratulations, Fred Payne! This is a non-trivial achievement. Alain
Press Relaes, Sept 12, “The National Transportation Safety Board determined Tuesday that a truck driver’s failure to yield the right of way ( a fact )and a car driver’s inattention due to overreliance on vehicle automation ( a deduction among several others that can easily be made, including: the failure to yield was so egregious that there was nothing that he could do about it except lift his arms to protect his head and he wasn’t inattentive. What the truck was doing was so absurd, it wasn’t believable. ) are the probable cause of the fatal May 7, 2016, crash near Williston, Florida…” Read carefully as well as links below. Hmmmm… Wow! Seems as if NTSB has decided to use this crash as a platform to weigh-in on automation. A fact and a questionable deduction are given equal weight in reaching ‘probable’ cause. Interesting Probability Theory going on here. “… Findings in the NTSB’s report include:
- The Tesla’s automated vehicle control system was not designed to, and could not, identify the truck crossing the Tesla’s path or recognize the impending crash. Therefore, the system did not slow the car, the forward collision warning system did not provide an alert, and the automatic emergency braking did not activate. ” This is an enormously damaging finding that should motivate the NTSB to investigate ALL of the forward collision warning and emergency braking systems that are on the market today. Are any of them designed and do any of them work in cutoff situations?
- …, highway design … were not factors in the crash. The turn lanes at this intersection have no traffic control devices, or signs (yield or stop) to discourage the running of the turn. This isn’t a design issue? Doesn’t seem as if the NTSB considered that maybe, because there was no traffic or ???, the truck driver ran the turn wide, crossing Brown’s lane at maybe even 590 ft/sec.
…The NTSB issued a total of seven safety recommendations based upon its findings, with one recommendation issued to the US Department of Transportation, three to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, two to the manufacturers of vehicles equipped with Level 2 vehicle automation systems, and one each to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Global Automakers. …
As a result of its investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board reiterates the following safety recommendations:
To the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Develop minimum performance standards for connected vehicle technology for all
highway vehicles. (H-13-30)
Once minimum performance standards for connected vehicle technology are developed,
require this technology to be installed on all newly manufactured highway vehicles. (H-
13-31) What??? C’Mon Man!!! Hasn’t the NTSB gotten the memo? This has NOTHING to do with “Connected Vehicles” .
…”The abstract of the NTSB’s final report, that includes the findings, probable cause and safety recommendations is available online at https://go.usa.gov/xRMFc. The final report will be publicly released in the next several days. The docket for this investigation is available at https://go.usa.gov/xNvaE. …. Alain
A. Marshal, Sept 7, “ON WEDNESDAY, THE House of Representatives did something that’s woefully uncommon these days: It passed a bill with bipartisan support. The bill, called the SELF DRIVE (Safely Ensuring Lives, Future Deployment and Research In Vehicle Evolution) Act(H.R. 3388), lays out a basic federal framework for autonomous vehicle regulation, signaling that federal lawmakers are finally ready to think seriously about self-driving cars and what they mean for the future of the country…. Lawmakers, for their part, hope the legislation strikes a balance between allowing tech and car companies to test whatever, wherever, and giving them enough leeway to try stuff out, collect some data, and determine the best way to operate vehicles without a driver….
First, the legislation works out a way for the federal government’s rules to trump state laws and rules. It officially gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration power to regulate vehicle design, construction, and performance—the way it does with, well, normal cars. States still have authority over vehicle registration and licensing, but they’ll have a harder time making demands about what goes on inside the car….
Second, the legislation requires autonomous vehicle manufacturers be deliberate about the way they share their passengers’ data….
Finally, the legislation makes it a lot easier for self-driving cars to hit the road….
What’s Next? Well, this is just the first half of this process. Now the Senate has to pass its own bill. Then both houses will work together to come up with compromise legislation that the president can sign….” Read more Hmmmm… While not a high bar, this is likely to be the best thing Congress has done so far this year. Putting the burden on NHTSA when it has so much to do with conventional cars may be just too much. Since all of this, especially Driverless, is so radically new, it probably deserves a new ‘Administration’, a new entity, that has a clean sheet of paper with which to work this technology, much as trucks and airlines have with their own ‘Administration’. Alain
M. Sena, Sept, ’17, “ARE WE MOVING too fast to get ‘No Humans Needed’ automated vehicles onto our roads, or are we dragging our feet? The Move Faster lobby says every day that passes without robots driving all our cars, close to a million people die needlessly in traffic accidents. Here are the numbers, and they are grim:…
The Move Slower camp says that we don’t really know for sure that robots are better drivers than humans, we are not yet certain what changes will be required to the transport infrastructure to accommodate a mix of human and robot-driven vehicles and, perhaps most importantly, turning over our cars, trucks and buses to robots may be just another nail in the human race’s coffin….
… I am arguing in favor of caution….” Read more Hmmmm… First, as I have pointed out many times, the safety objective can be fully obtained with Safe-driving (automated collision avoidance and lane keeping) and doesn’t need Self-driving (automated with a ready and able driver just waiting to “save the day” and take control and drive conventionally) or Driverless (no one is there to take control and/or there are no controls available to drive conventionally). The mobility objective (leveling the mobility ‘playing field’ (affordable on-demand ubiquitous mobility) for everyone (including goods) requires Driverless (is not addressed by Safe- or Self-driving vehicles). With respect to safety, there can be no support for anything more than politically-correct caution because there is no evidence to date that any of the automated collision avoidance systems and automated lane centering systems cause any crashes. So it should be ‘ full steam ahead’!
With respect to our desire to address the mobility objective, which requires Driverless, extreme caution is where we are (we are still at ‘absolute zero’) and the enormity of the undertaking is so large that extreme caution is all that is possible. To my knowledge, we have had only one ride (by Waymo) that was ‘Driverless in mixed traffic on an unaltered/unprepared public street’. (and that ride was likely (and appropriately) monitored remotely by an army of Waymo engineers ready to take over if anything bad or challenging was about to happen. So while we have logged ‘the first VMT (vehicle mile traveled)’, we aren’t yet to even two decimal places of VMT (100th VMT). Caution is what we have been doing and is the only thing that we can do. But we must get on with it else we make zero dent in the mobility objective. (Self-driving is all about enhancing the comfort and convenience of the conventional private automobile and enhancing the existing legacy auto industry. While it claims, it doesn’t deserve, the safety kudos and it exacerbates rather than soothe the mobility gap between the haves and have-nots.). See also the other articles in this issue of The Dispatcher. Alain
A. Madrigal, aUG 23, ” a corner of Alphabet’s campus, there is a team working on a piece of software that may be the key to self-driving cars. No journalist has ever seen it in action until now. They call it Carcraft, after the popular game World of Warcraft….Hmmmm… Waymo’s naming should have been a play of GTA V such as “Maximus Furtum IV”. Oh, but that’s our version of this. 🙂 Alain
…Scenarios like this form the base for the company’s powerful simulation apparatus. “The vast majority of work done—new feature work—is motivated by stuff seen in simulation,” Stout tells me. This is the tool that’s accelerated the development of autonomous vehicles at Waymo…
…Collectively, they now drive 8 million miles per day in the virtual world. In 2016, they logged 2.5 billion virtual miles…
…In that virtual space, they can unhitch from the limits of real life and create thousands of variations of any single scenario, and then run a digital car through all of them….
…Not surprisingly, the hardest thing to simulate is the behavior of the other people. It’s like the old parental saw: “I’m not worried about you driving. I’m worried about the other people on the road.”…
…They call it “fuzzing,” and in this case, there are 800 scenarios generated by this four-way stop. It creates a beautiful, lacy chart—and engineers can go in and see how different combinations of variables change the path that the car would decide to take….
…“That iteration cycle is tremendously important to us and all the work we’ve done on simulation allows us to shrink it dramatically,” Dolgov told me. “The cycle that would take us weeks in the early days of the program now is on the order of minutes.”…
…The power is that they mirror the real world in the ways that are significant to the self-driving car and allow it to get billions more miles than physical testing would allow. For the driving software running the simulation, it is not like making decisions out there in the real world. It is the same as making decisions out there in the real world…” Read more Hmmmm… Excellent!! However, the description focuses on the ‘testing’ side. What about the ‘training’ side? Not much divulged here. Alain
E. Boudette, Aug 8, “…Mobileye will remain based in Israel, and its co-founder Amnon Shashua will head all of Intel’s autonomous-vehicle efforts. The other founder, Ziv Aviram, is retiring from Mobileye to focus on another company he started, OrCam, which makes artificial-vision devices that allow the visually impaired to understand text and identify objects…” Read more Hmmmm… Will Intel really not screw this up? Alain
M Burns, Aug 3, “Cadillac is about to start selling vehicles with an autonomous driving mode …Once the light bar on top of the steering wheel turns green, the driver can let go…
“Wait for the green light and let go,” the Cadillac engineer instructed. That’s it. The car was driving itself. I, the person behind the steering wheel, was no longer the driver. Cadillac’s Super Cruise system was driving. The 2018 Cadillac CT6 sped along US-23 under the direction of Super Cruise. Traffic was light and the weather was perfect. The system held the Cadillac sedan in lane and responded appropriately to traffic. I spent an hour on the expressway and touched the steering wheel and pedals only a few times. Super Cruise made the drive boring. I think that’s the point….
When active, Super Cruise controls the steering and speed, but again, only on an expressway. This is done through on board sensors and using GPS and mapping data. GM employed GeoDigital, a startup in GM Venture’s portfolio, to map 160,000 miles of expressways in the U.S. and Canada. The car company then used Super Cruise-equipped vehicles to test each mile.
Cadillac’s system also lacks several autonomous features found on Autopilot including the ability to pull the car out of a garage and change lanes by using the turn signals. Hmmmm… fluff features with little value.
Super Cruise’s IR sensors tracks eye location and head movements. As long as the driver looks at the road every seven to 20 seconds, the system works as expected. Hmmmm… Fantastic!
General Motors will have to rely on independently owned dealerships to correctly position this product and train buyers on its capabilities. Hmmmm… Yup!
For better or worse, Super Cruise is built into the CT6 like a standard system and not something a driver must use every time they’re on an expressway. This should help timid buyers. Super Cruise feels like a feature ready for the masses. The system is deeply integrated into the vehicle and using it is akin to using cruise control or turning on the lights. There’s a button for Super Cruise on the steering wheel. Press the button when the system is available and it works. It’s that easy to turn a driver into a passenger. Read moreHmmmm… Over the air updates? See also Motor Trend’s view: “… a stand-alone option (as yet unpriced) on CT6 models with the premium luxury trim package and as standard equipment on top Platinum models (the price of which went up $500 for 2018, if that’s any indication)….” Finally, I guess that I’ll have to go test drive one. Alain
M. Sena, Vol 4, issue 9, “UNCERTAINTY IS TROUBLING for businesses, individuals and governments…. In one way or another, all businesses, including and especially transport, are completely reliant on four macro factors:.. I’d add one more: where are children learn and play …. A United Nations study projects world population to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, up from 7.5 billion today, driven by growth in developing countries…India will have traded places with China as the world’s most populous country in around seven years…So the large bulk of those additional one billion inhabitants of the planet by 2030 will be looking for places to live in Mumbai, not in Madrid. The takeaway from this is that the so-called ‘developed’ countries, with a few notable exceptions, are either losing population due to not producing enough children or seeing their populations staying basically stable. In 2030, Tokyo will still be the most populated city with an estimated population of 37.2 million.
Delhi will be in second place with 36.1 million, up from 3.5 million in 1970! (How has it coped?) Shanghai will be in third place and New York/Newark will have dropped off the top ten list. But what will it be like to live in these cities? The Economist Intelligence Unit ranks cities as the most and least liveable. … It ranked Melbourne, Australia as number one, … Melbourne’s density is 460 persons per km2 compared to 6,158/km2 for Tokyo and 2,059/km2 for Shanghai…. None of the most liveable cities is among the top ten places where venture capitalists have been placing their money bets during the past year….These four city regions are ranked below 30th place on the EIU Liveability Index. In other words, they may be successful, but not that liveable… (in US) 50% live in rural or less urban areas occupying more than 90% of the land area. Is there any wonder why over 50% of the vehicles sold in the U.S. are not passenger cars but SUVs and pick-up trucks?…If everyone who lived in the dense urban areas stopped buying cars, there would still be over 50% of the population who would continue to be car purchasers.
Can we conclude from this that the exodus from city regions to the suburbs of both jobs and families has now stopped and central cities once again will be where people live and work? No, not unless people will be willing to give up everything they have come to value in terms of living standards and will accept being packed into sardine can-sized apartments stacked a mile high…. Living in a central city in the most desirable neighborhoods will continue to be the privilege of the wealthy and very wealthy…They also have homes and dachas in the Hamptons, Vinyard and Vermont, else they couldn’t stand it. … When younger people build families and need more space, preferably with a yard, and that space is too expensive in the city, they find it further out…Visions of young professionals dashing around in robotic cars gobbling up mobility as a service are, to put it kindly, a bit fanciful. Read more Hmmmm…I love it!! So many good one-liners. Alain
L. Vincent, “For a long time, we at Lyft have shared our plan to help end car ownership in order to usher in a transportation revolution that improves our communities and quality of life. To do so we need to build an ecosystem that offers a variety of ride types, including both rides with drivers as well as rides from self-driving vehicles…
This news builds on the announcement we made earlier this year, when we created the world’s first open self-driving platform. Lyft’s self-driving vehicles will operate on that network, alongside vehicles introduced by Lyft partners. In the years ahead, we will continue to bring the world’s leading automotive and technology companies onto this single platform to serve a nationwide passenger network. And together, we will continue to drive toward a single, shared objective: to build the world’s best transportation ecosystem.
To be clear, we aren’t thinking of our self-driving division as a side project. It’s core to our business. That’s why 10% of our engineers are already focused on developing self-driving technology — and we’ll continue to grow that team in the months ahead. Their efforts will be housed in a brand-new development facility in Palo Alto, which we are calling the Level 5 Engineering Center…
We believe Lyft is in the best position to demonstrate what a great overall user experience can be. Lyft is also uniquely positioned to build technology in collaboration with partners in a way that makes it possible to roll out self-driving cars at scale in the fastest, safest, most efficient way.
This is true for a few reasons. First, Lyft has significant scale, which enables us to rapidly train our self-driving system. Every day, there are over one million rides completed on our network in over 350 cities. This translates into tens of millions of miles on a daily basis…
Lyft will always operate a hybrid network, with rides from both human-driven and self-driving cars. When a passenger requests a ride that a self-driving car can complete, we may send one to complete the trip. If that person needs to go somewhere self-driving cars are unable to navigate, or their needs call for a different level of service, they will have a driver. But in either event, we’ll make sure everyone can get where they need to go. …” Read moreHmmmm…Luc, congratulations! At least you’re calling it “Level 5…” so that there is little doubt that you are focusing on “Driverless” and that what seems to be the auto industry’s view of “Self-driving” doesn’t cut it, which is why one gets the confused reporting in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. I agree that Lyft (and everyone else) will always need a hybrid fleet, serving rides using both “Driverless Cars” for trips that can so be served and human-driven “Safe-driving Cars” for those trips that haven’t been certified as capable of being served safely with “Driverless Cars”. The fundamental economic advantage of “Driverless Cars” (substantially lower labor cost per person trip served) fuels this investment initiative. Moreover, its operational simplification enables it to scale such that once it becomes technologically achievable Lyft’s share of the rides market will explode. With “Driverless Cars” Lyft will achieve, in the words of Joseph Schumpeter, “… [I]n capitalist reality…, it is not [price] competition which counts but the competition from the new commodity, the new technology…- competition which commands a decisive cost or quality advantage and which strikes not at the margins of the profits and the outputs of the existing firms but at their foundations and their very lives.” Alaint in Washington State, IDEA Program Final Report J. Lutin, May 19 “The Rosco/Mobileye Shield+ system is a collision avoidance warning system (CAWS) specifically designed for transit buses. This project involved field testing and evaluation of the CAWS in revenue service over a three-month period. The system provides alerts and warnings to the bus driver for the following conditions that could lead to a collision: 1) changing lanes without activating a turn signal (lane departure warning was disabled for this pilot), 2) exceeding posted speed limit, 3) monitoring headway with the vehicle leading the bus, 4) forward vehicle collision warning, and 5) pedestrian or cyclist collision warning in front of, or alongside the bus. Alerts and warnings are displayed to the driver by visual indicators located on the windshield and front pillars. Audible warnings are issued when collisions are imminent. …” Read more Hmmmm… Very interesting. This is the first substantive report of realities of retrofiring existing transit buses with active safety collision-warning technology. Anyone in the public transit industry should be paying attention to this report. This is the very beginning of actually implementing safety-oriented automated technology in transit buses and it was motivated and led by insurance (Jerry Spears & Al Hatten @ WSTIP + Mike Scrudato @ Munich Re). Insurance finally stepping up and leading. 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
R. Abrams, June 16, “Shares of Walmart, Target, Kroger and Costco, the largest grocery retailers, all tumbled on Friday. And no wonder.. Grocery stores have spent the last several years fighting against online and overseas entrants. But now, with its $13.4 billion purchase of Whole Foods, Amazon has effectively started a supermarket war. Armed with giant warehouses, shopper data, the latest technology and nearly endless funds — and now with Whole Foods’ hundreds of physical stores — Amazon is poised to reshape an $800 billion grocery market that is already undergoing many changes….” Read more Hmmmm… Since Jeff Bezos doesn’t need to have you impulse buy on your walk through the store while you get a quart of milk, he simply has to get you click on organic milk and he’ll present you with everything you absolutely can’t checkout without. All he then needs is to get all those impulse buys (and the quart of organic milk) to your home from the hundreds of physical stores. That’s where low speed driverless local delivery vans come in (operating initially in the early morning hours when the streets connecting those stores to our houses are completely empty and simply drop off everything you’ll need for the day ahead in your “Amazon Box” that’s replaced your 20th Century mailbox). So in the end it will be Jeff Bezos’86 battling Eric Schmit’76 for deploying the first fleets of driverless vehicles sharing our neighborhood streets. If they should decide to join forces and have these vehicles providing mobility whenever anyone wants to travel and moving groceries and other goods the rest of the time, watch-out!!! Then everybody wins!! (except Walmart, Target, Kroger and Costco) See also..Amazon and Whole Foods and Self-Driving Cars Alain
S. Burgstaller, May 23,”The c.$7 tn global mobility market is speeding into the era of the “pay-as-you-go” car. Ride-hailing services such as Uber and Didi are pioneering a ‘cloud’ mobility system, which is using data to change
how the wealthiest cities move. In Rethinking Mobility, we model how the ride-hailing opportunity can grow to $285 bn by 2030, and is the precursor to a broader technological and social transformation. We examine how the market might live up to the high valuations of its pioneers, why car sales may prove surprisingly resilient despite the change, and where automakers have a chance to transform their profitability as operators of fleets of autonomous cars….” Read moreHmmmm… Nice to see GoldMine Sachs finally weigh in. The report is chock full of information and there is a lot here to absorb.
The big impact will be if we ever get to Driverless without which you don’t replace even one Uber driver.
Without Driverless, the issue centers on the 8x penetration of hailing rides. At 8x only car rental and little else is effected. At 80x it effects car ownership but there will not be enough gig workers to support it. So it doesn’t scale without Driverless.
With Driverless, then it is all about ridesharing as with elevators. If it is as easy as elevators, then car ownership diminishes greatly.
The report doesn’t respect the enormous difference between Driverless and Non-driversless (Self-driving and Safe-Driving; Levels 0 -> 4). It seems to assumes Driverless, yet it does not deal with the likelihood that Driverless will be achieved and fails to realize/identify the enormous forces that may come to bear that will attempt to derail Driverless at all costs. The strongest of which may well be the “GMs” of this world. GMs are all about Self-driving which REQUIRES a driver ( thus consumer ownership) and perpetuates their 100 year old business model. Driverless scales ‘cloud mobility’ beyond the ‘8x’ limits of a gig economy and enables horizontal ‘cloud mobility’ to become as ubiquitous as the elevator is in vertical mobility. Yes, there are still stair cases, and private ‘cloud-mobility” elevators for the 0.01%, but the masses will just grin&share the on-demand ‘cloud-mobility’ elevators without a 2nd thought. Driverless assuaged vertical mobility anxiety. Driverless is the critical technological element that will assuage horizontal mobility anxiety and enable widespread horizontal ‘cloud mobility’.
Communities may find, as tall buildings have found, that they really work best (even at all) if they accommodate shared ‘cloud’ mobility and provide it for ‘free’ simply because it is so effective in capturing the enhanced land values that are unlocked by such mobility. We’ve always been able to walk up and down a couple of flights of stair, but once we were easily able to go (via on-demand ‘cloud’ mobility available 24x7x365) more than four or so, then the sky became the limit. Are similar horizontal land values waiting to be unlocked if they simply pick up the tab for that on-demand horizontal ‘cloud’ mobility? If so, then the GMs of this world are in a heap of trouble. 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
D. Hall, Apr 17, “In the race to the autonomous revolution, developers have realized there aren’t enough hours in a day to clock the real-world miles needed to teach cars how to drive themselves. Which is why Grand Theft Auto V is in the mix.
The blockbuster video game is one of the simulation platforms researchers and engineers increasingly rely on to test and train the machines being primed to take control of the family sedan. Companies from Ford Motor Co. to Alphabet Inc.’s Waymo may boast about putting no-hands models on the market in three years, but there’s a lot still to learn about drilling algorithms in how to respond when, say, a mattress falls off a truck on the freeway….The idea isn’t that the highways and byways of the fictional city of Los Santos would ever be a substitute for bona fide asphalt. But the game “is the richest virtual environment that we could extract data from,” said Alain Kornhauser…” Read MoreHmmmm... Well…we have a slightly different view of history wrt to GTA5. The ‘Alain view’ is that Chenyi Chen*16 independently started investigating the use of virtual environments as a source of Image – Affordances data sets to use as the training sets in a ‘Direct Perception’ approach to creating a self-driving algorithm. Images of the road ahead are converted into the instantaneous geometry that is implied by those image. An optimal controller then determines the the steering, brake and throttle values to best drive the car. The critical element in that process are the Image – Affordances data sets which need to be pristine. Chenyi demonstrated in his PhD dissertation , summarized in the ICCV2015 paper, that by using the pristine Image – Affordances data sets from an open-source game TORCS one could have a virtual car drive a virtual race course without crashing. More importantly, when tested on images from real driving situations, the computed affordances were close to correct.
This encouraged us to look for more appropriate virtual environments. For many reasons, including: “wouldn’t it be amazing if ‘Grand Theft Auto 5’ actually generated some positive ‘redeeming social value’ by contributing to the development of algorithms that actually made cars safer; saving grief, injuries and lives”. Consequently, in the Fall of 2015, Artur Filipowicz’17 began to investigate using GTA5 to train Convolutional Neural Networks to perform some of the Direct Perception aspects of automated driving. With Jeremiah Liu, he continued his efforts in this direction last summer which were presented at TRB in January. Yesterday, he and Nyan Bhat’17 turned in their Senior Theses focused on this topic.
Indeed, GTA5 is a rich virtual environment that begins to efficiently and effective address the data needs of Deep Learning approaches to safe driving. Alain
Press release, Feb. 15, “NSC offers insight into what drivers are doing and calls for immediate implementation of proven, life-saving measures…
With the upward trend showing no sign of subsiding, NSC is calling for immediate implementation of life-saving measures that would set the nation on a road to zero deaths:…” Read more Hmmm…”Automated Collision Avoidance” or anything having to do with ‘Safe-driving Cars‘ is not mentioned anywhere in the Press Release. One of us is missing something very fundamental here!! So depressing!! 🙁 Alain
Serving the Nation’s Personal Mobility Needs with the Casual Sharing of autonomousTaxis & Today’s Urban Rail, Amtrak and Air Transport Systems
A. Kornhauser, Jan 14, “Orf467F16 Final Project Symposium quantifying implications of such a Nation-wide mobility system on Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO), energy, environment and congestion, including estimates of fleet size, needed empty vehicle repositioning, and ridership implications on existing rail transit systems (west, east, NYC) and Amtrak of a system that would efficiently and effectively perform their ‘1st mile’/’last-mile’ mobility needs. Read moreHmmm… Now linked are 1st Drafts of the chapters and the powerPoint summaries of these elements. Final Report should be available by early February. The major finding is, nationwide there exists sufficient casual ridesharing potential that a well–managed Nationwide Fleet of about 30M aTaxis (in conjunction with the existing air, Amtrak and Urban fixed-rail systems) could serve the vehicular mobility needs of the whole nation with VMT 40% less than today’s automobiles while providing a Level-of-Service (LoS) largely equivalent and in many ways superior than is delivered by the personal automobile today. Also interesting are the findings as to the substantial increased patronage opportunities available to Amtrak and each of the fixed rail transit systems around the country because the aTaxis solve the ‘1st and last mile’ problem. While all of this is extremely good news, the challenging news is that since all of these fixed rail systems currently lose money on each passenger served, the additional patronage would likely mean that they’ll lose even more money in the future. 🙁 Alain
September 2016, “Executive Summary…For DOT, the excitement around highly automated vehicles (HAVs) starts with safety. (p5)
…The development of advanced automated vehicle safety technologies, including fully self-driving cars, may prove to be the greatest personal transportation revolution since the popularization of the personal automobile nearly a century ago. (p5)
…The benefits don’t stop with safety. Innovations have the potential to transform personal mobility and open doors to people and communities. (p5)
…The remarkable speed with which increasingly complex HAVs are evolving challenges DOT to take new approaches that ensure these technologies are safely introduced (i.e., do not introduce significant new safety risks), provide safety benefits today, and achieve their full safety potential in the future. (p6) Hmmm…Fantastic statements and I appreciate that the fundamental basis and motivator is SAFETY. We all have recognized safety as a necessary condition that must be satisfied if this technology is to be successful. (unfortunately it is not a sufficient condition, (in a pure math context)). This policy statement appropriately reaffirms this necessary condition. Alain
“…we divide the task of facilitating the safe introduction and deployment (…defines “deployment” as the operation of an HAV by members of the public who are not the employees or agents of the designer, developer, or manufacturer of that HAV.) of HAVs into four sections:(p6) Hmmm…Perfect! Alain
“…2. Model State Policy (p7) The Model State Policy confirms that States retain their traditional responsibilities…but… The shared objective is to ensure the establishment of a consistent national framework rather than a patchwork of incompatible laws…” Hmmm… Well done. Alain
“…3. NHTSA Current Regulatory Tools (p7) … This document provides instructions, practical guidance, and assistance to entities seeking to employ those tools. Furthermore, NHTSA has streamlined its review process and is committing to…” Hmmm… Excellent. Alain
“…4. New Tools and Authorities (p7)…The speed with which HAVs are advancing, combined with the complexity and novelty of these innovations, threatens to outpace the Agency’s conventional regulatory processes and capabilities. This challenge requires DOT to examine whether the way DOT has addressed safety for the last 50 years should be expanded to realize the safety potential of automated vehicles over the next 50 years. Therefore, this section identifies potential new tools, authorities and regulatory structures that could aid the safe and appropriately expeditious deployment of new technologies by enabling the Agency to be more nimble and flexible (p8)…” Hmmm… Yes. Alain
“…Note on “Levels of Automation” There are multiple definitions for various levels of automation and for some time there has been need for standardization to aid clarity and consistency. Therefore, this Policy adopts the SAE International (SAE) definitions for levels of automation. ) Hmmm… I’m not sure this adds clarity because it does not deal directly with the difference between self-driving and driverless. While it might be implied in level 4 and level 5 that these vehicles can proceed with no one in the vehicle, it is not stated explicitly. That is unfortunate, because driverless freight delivery can’t be done without “driverless”; neither can mobility-on-demand be offered to the young, old, blind, inebriated, …without “driverless”. Vehicles can’t be “repositioned-empty” (which (I don’t mean to offend anyone) is the real value of a taxi driver today). So autonomousTaxis are impossible.
Also, these levels do not address Automated Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems and Automated Lane Keeping Systems which are the very first systems whose on-all-the-time performance must be perfected. These are the Safety Foundation of HAV (Highly Automated vehicles). I understand that the guidelines may assume that these systems are already perfect and that “20 manufacturer have committed” to have AEB on all new cars, but to date these systems really don’t work. In 12 mph IIHS test, few stop before hitting the target, and, as we may have seen with the Florida Tesla crash, the Level 2/3 AutoPilot may not have failed, but, instead, it was the “Phantom Level 1” AEB that is supposed to be on all the time. This is not acceptable. These AEB systems MUST get infinitely better now. It is a shame that AEBs were were not explicitly addressed in this document.
“…I. Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles (p11) A. Guidance: if a vehicle is compliant within the existing FMVSS regulatory framework and maintains a conventional vehicle design, there is currently no specific federal legal barrier to an HAV being offered for sale.(footnote 7) However, manufacturers and other entities designing new automated vehicle systems
are subject to NHTSA’s defects, recall and enforcement authority. (footnote 8) . and the “15 Cross-cutting Areas of Guidance” p17)
In sum this is a very good document and displays just how far DoT policy has come from promoting v2v, DSRC and centralized control, “connected”, focus to creating an environment focused on individual vehicles that responsibly take care of themselves. Kudos to Secretary Foxx for this 180 degree policy turn focused on safety. Once done correctly, the HAV will yield the early safety benefits that will stimulate continued improvements that, in turn, will yield the great mobility, environmental and quality-of-life benefits afforded by driverless mobility.
What are not addressed are commercial trucking and buses/mass transit. NHTSA is auto focused, so maybe FMCSA is preparing similar guidelines. FTA (Federal Transit Administration) seems nowhere in sight. Alain
Hmmm…What we know now (and don’t know):
U.S. DOT and IIHS announce historic commitment of 20 automakers to make automatic emergency braking standard on new vehicles
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 LISTSERV.