SmartDrivingCar.com/6.26-NJ_Barrier-060818
26th
edition of the 6th year of SmartDrivingCars
F. Fishkin, June 8, "What is missing from the NTSB's preliminary report on the March Tesla crash? Princeton's Alain Kornhauser's speaks out along with co-host Fred Fishkin in Episode 43 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast. Plus... Waymo to bring self driving vehicles to Europe? Self driving shuttles in Canada. And GM bringing Super Cruise to more vehicles. Listen and subscribe."
Hmmmm.... Now you can just say "Alexa, play the Smart Driving Cars podcast!" . Ditto with Siri, and GooglePlay. AlainA. Li, May 30, "Widely regarded as the leader in autonomous vehicles, Waymo is slated to launch a public ride service later this year in Arizona. To build public awareness for the Uber/Lyft competitor and its technology, the Alphabet division appears to be embarking on an advertising campaign with the first ad going live today.
Tweeted by the official Jimmy Kimmel
Live! account this afternoon, the over
two-minute video features a hashtag
labeling it as an advertisement. It is
very much in the style of the late night
comedian’s regular sketches and involves
show personality Guillermo riding in a
Chrysler Pacifica.
This being comedy, the long running
“security guard” on the show was
apparently not aware of the car’s
self-driving nature, with the human
“driver” leaving just before the vehicle
autonomously took off. While video
chatting with Kimmel, the ad tries to
capture the normality of such cars and
ride sharing services...."
K. Pyle, June 6, "An autonomous
first/last-mile circulator/shuttle
combined with autonomous buses that
connect disparate business districts could
be the long-term solution to Houston’s
traffic and congestion woes. Speaking at
the SmartDrivingCar
Summit, Sam Lott, Research Assistant
Professor at Texas Southern University and
Principal at Automated Mobility Services,
LLC, describes a soon-to-be pilot that
will launch on the campuses of Texas
Southern University and the University of
Houston that will provide, low-speed,
autonomous mini-buses to ferry people
across campus.
Eventually, these shuttles will connect
directly with the METRO, high-capacity,
transit system. What makes the Houston
METRO system unique is that is essentially
a freeway-within-a-freeway, protected from
single occupancy car traffic and with
separate ingress and egress points for the
buses that ply this 21st century
alternative to rail..." Read
more Hmmmm....Nice
job Sam. Alain
K. Pyle, June 2, What was the bigger
announcement? That the Valley Transit
Authority is looking at how they transform
the organization to become a mobility
manager or that they are looking at
autonomous buses in rights-of-way they
own, instead of fixed rail solutions.
These were just a few of the may insights
from ProspectSV’s Innovation and Impact
Symposium, held on May 31st, 2018 at San
Jose’ City Hall...." Read
more
Mmmmm.... I agree. Alain
June 7, "The BDD100K
data set, made up of 100,000 videos
recorded onboard autonomous cars, is now
available for download from the University
of California, Berkeley.
Some background: Similar data has
previously been released—Baidu, for
example, dropped a bunch of
self-driving-car data in March—but
Berkley’s set is 800 times larger.
The data: All of the approximately
40-second-long clips are taken from roads
in the US. They contain an
array of labeled objects, including
1,021,857 cars, 343,777 signs, 129,262
people, and 179 trains. Lane markings and
driveable areas are color-coded in the
video, and approximate driving paths are
indicated..." Read
more Hmmmm....Valuable!
Alain
3rd
Annual
Princeton SmartDrivingCar
Summit
evening May 14 through May 16, 2019
Save the Date;
Reserve your Sponsorship
Photos
from 2nd Annual Princeton
SmartDrivingCar Summit
Program
& Links to slides from 2nd
Annual Princeton SmartDrivingCar
Summit
F. Fishkin, June 3, "Softbank makes a multibillion dollar investment in GM's self driving company and Google's Waymo orders more than 60 thousand additional Chrysler minivans for a self driving fleet. Where does Uber fit in? Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser dives in along with co-host Fred Fishkin in Episode 42 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast. Listen and subscribe."
F. Fishkin, May 31, "Artificial Intelligence may be able to drive better than humans most of the time....but is that good enough? Join Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser and Co-host Fred Fishkin for Episode 41 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast. More on the latest from Uber, Tesla and Nuro. Listen and subscribe."
F. Fishkin, May 17, "How close is California to giving the green light to driverless testing on public roads? Deputy DMV Director Bernard Soriano joins Alain Kornhauser, Fred Fishkin and guest Michael Sena on Episode 39 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast. And we review some highlights of the just concluded 2nd annual Princeton Smart Driving Car Summit. Listen and subscribe!"
F. Fishkin, May 10, "The continuing Uber crash investigation, Waymo and Ohio rolls out the welcome mat for the testing of self driving cars. All that and more in Episode 38 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast. This week Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin are joined by Bryant Walker Smith of the University of South Carolina and Stanford. Tune in and subscribe!"
F. Fishkin, Apr 26, "Getting SmartDrivingCar companies to share their data on safety. It's a move that could benefit all says Princeton University Professor Alain Kornhauser in the latest Smart Driving Cars Podcast. He joins co-host Fred Fishkin...to chat about the move by Voyage. Also...Tesla, Waymo and more..
F. Fishkin, Apr 4, "
Waymo is making
it real! In Episode 33 of the Smart
Driving Cars Podcast, hosts Fred Fishkin
and Princeton's Alain Kornhauser are
joined by Michael Sena,
publisher of The Dispatcher newsletter.
Take a deep dive into Waymo's deals
with Jaguar and talks with Honda..
Tesla, Volvo, Uber and Ambarella. And
the Princeton Smart Driving Car Summit
is coming up! "
F. Piekniewski, "Deep learning has been at the forefront of the so called AI revolution for quite a few years now, and many people had believed that it is the silver bullet that will take us to the world of wonders of technological singularity (general AI). ...We have now mid 2018 and things have changed. ..By far the biggest blow into deep learning fame is the domain of self driving vehicles ..
But by far the biggest prick punching through the AI bubble was the accident in which Uber self driving car killed a pedestrian in Arizona. From the preliminary report by the NTSB we can read some astonishing statements:...
Aside from general system design failure apparent in this report, it is striking that the system spent long seconds trying to decide what exactly is sees in front (whether that be a pedestrian, bike, vehicle or whatever else) rather than making the only logical decision in these circumstances, which was to make sure not to hit it. ...
In fact if there is anything at all we learned from the outburst of deep learning, is that (10k+ dimensional) image space has plenty enough spurious patterns in it, that they actually generalize across many images and make the impression like our classifiers actually understand what they are seeing. Nothing could be further from the truth, as admitted even by the top researchers who are heavily invested in this field....
the problem is that the input space is
incredibly high dimensional, while the
action space is very low dimensional.
Hence the "amount" of "label" (readout) is
extremely small compared to the amount of
information coming in..." Read
more Hmmmm....
Very interesting. We still have
an awful lot to do. See also,G. Marcus, below. Alain
KMay 24, "About 9:58 p.m., on Sunday,
March 18, 2018, an Uber Technologies, Inc.
test vehicle, based on a modified 2017
Volvo XC90 and operating with a
self-driving system in computer control
mode, struck a pedestrian on northbound
Mill Avenue, in Tempe, Maricopa County,
Arizona.
...The vehicle was factory equipped with
several advanced driver assistance
functions by Volvo Cars, the original
manufacturer. The systems included a
collision avoidance function with
automatic emergency
braking, known as City Safety, as well as
functions for detecting driver alertness
and road sign information. All these Volvo
functions are disabled when the test
vehicle is operated in computer
control..."
Read more Hmmmm....
Uber must believe that its systems
are better at avoiding Collisions
and Automated Emergency Braking
than Volvo's.
At least this gets Volvo "off the
hook".
"...According
to data obtained from the self-driving
system, the system first registered
radar and LIDAR observations of the
pedestrian about 6 seconds before
impact, when the vehicle was traveling
at 43 mph..." (=
63 feet/second) So the system
started "seeing an obstacle
when it was 63 x 6 = 378 feet
away... more than a football
field, including end zones!
"...As the
vehicle and pedestrian paths
converged, the self-driving system
software classified the pedestrian as
an unknown object, as a vehicle, and
then as a bicycle with varying
expectations of future travel path..."
(NTSB:
Please tell us precisely
when it classified this
"object' as a vehicle
and be explicit about the
expected "future
travel paths." Forget
the path, please just tell us the
precise velocity vector that
Uber's system attached to the
"object", then the "vehicle". Why
didn't the the Uber system
instruct the Volvo to begin to
slow down (or speed up) to avoid a
collision? If these paths (or
velocity vectors) were not
accurate, then why weren't they
accurate? Why was the object
classified as a
"Vehicle" ??
When did it finally classify the
object as a "bicycle"? Why did it
change classifications? How often
was the classification of this
object done. Please divulge the
time and the outcome of each
classification of this object. In the
tests that Uber has done, how
often has the system
mis-classified an object as a
"pedestrian"when the
object was actually an
overpass, or an overhead
sign or overhead
branches/leaves that the
car could safely pass
under, or was nothing at
all?? (Basically, what are
the false alarm
characteristics of Uber's
Self-driving
sensor/software system as
a function of vehicle
speed and time-of-day?)
"...At 1.3 seconds before impact, (impact speed was 39mph = 57.2 ft/sec) the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision" (1.3 x 57.2 = 74.4 ft. which is about equal to the braking distance. So it still could have stopped short.
"...According
to Uber, emergency braking
maneuvers are not
enabled while the
vehicle is under computer
control, to reduce (eradicate??)
the potential for
erratic vehicle
behavior. ..."
NTSB: Please
describe/define potential
and
erratic vehicle
behavior
Also
please uncover
and divulge
the design
& decision
process that
Uber went
through to
decide that
this risk
(disabling the
AEB) was worth
the reward of
eradicating "
"erratic vehicle behavior". This
is
fundamentally
BAD design.
If the Uber
system's false
alarm rate is
so large that
the best way
to deal with
false alarms
is to turn off
the AEB, then
the system
should never
have been
permitted on
public
roadways.
"...The vehicle operator
is relied on
to intervene
and take
action. " Wow! If Uber's
system
fundamentally
relies on a
human to
intervene,
then Uber is
nowhere near
creating a
Driverless
vehicle.
Without its
own Driverless
vehicle Uber
is past "Peak
valuation".
K. Pyle, May 9, "Safety and, as importantly, the perception of safety could be the pin that pricks the expectations surrounding the autonomous vehicle future. Recognizing the importance of safety to the success of this still nascent industry, autonomous taxi start-up, Voyage, recently placed their testing and reporting procedures in an open source framework. ...Oliver Cameron, Voyage Co-Founder and CEO, is excited to see participation and says, “We can’t wait to have all of these contributions from companies from around the world; contribute to build the actual standard in autonomous safety.” Read more, Hmmmm.... See the video that was played at the Princeton SDC Summit which generated substantial positive discussion at the Summit. See also full length video. Alain
A. Efrati, May 7, "Uber has determined
that the likely cause of a fatal collision
involving one of its prototype
self-driving cars in Arizona in March was
a problem with the software that decides
how the car should react to objects it
detects, according to two people briefed
about the matter." Read
more Hmmmm....Uber
is "leaking" this??? Is this
Spin? Fake News?? I guess Uber
doesn't believe in transparency
here. Where is the official
public statement of
reassurance???
"The car’s sensors detected the
pedestrian, who was crossing the street
with a bicycle,
Hmmmm....Pretty much what I wrote
on March 24, the sensors "Saw
something" ...
but Uber’s software decided it didn’t need
to react right away. ..."right
away" is Fake News. It never
reacted. Uber has not released
any data indicating that the
software ever reacted. "That’s
a result of how the software was tuned." ...That
was a major "tuning" faux pas.
What is being divulged here is
that Uber's software never became
confident enough that what it was
seeing was something that it
should not hit and, at least,
begin to apply the brakes (or
swerve, or ???). Even the driver
in the video recognized that the
object should not be hit a split
second before the crash. So the Problem
is not "tuning" it is outright
"fuhgeddaboudit"
Like other autonomous vehicle systems,
Uber’s software has the ability to ignore
“false positives,” or objects in its path
that wouldn’t actually be a problem for
the vehicle, such as a plastic bag
floating over a road.... Is
Uber suggesting that its software
can't tell the difference between
a plastic bag floating over the
road and a pedestrian with a
bicycle, even after seeing the
object 30 to 60 or more times over
the 3 or more seconds that the
object was in view? If this
isn't Fake News then Uber is
hopelessly far behind... In
this case, Uber executives believe the
company’s system was tuned so that it
reacted less to such objects." It didn't react at
all!...
But the tuning went too far, and the car
didn’t react fast enough, one of these
people said....
... It didn't react at all! If
this wasn't so important I'd put
it in C'mon man.
"False
positives" are the symptom, not the
problem. The problem is Uber's system
design and operational policy. Uber
system designers knew that the sensors
under certain conditions reported
"false positives" (were "spooked").
One of those conditions was possibly
the combination of "is the closing
speed = car's current speed" AND "is
the car's current speed greater than
30mph." In situations in which both
are true, then Uber's "tuning" is outright
"fuhgeddaboudit".
This "tuning" effectively turns-off
Uber's sensors to detecting anything
that is stationary or moving across
its lane ahead. If Uber has understood
this, then Uber would/should have ...
1. limited the operation of its cars to speeds under 30 mph,
2. limited the
operation of its cars at speeds
greater than 30 mph only to
roadways where pedestrians are
extremely unlikely to cross, and
3. focus on
substantially improving its ability to
interpret its sensor data so that the
false alarm rate becomes so small that
false alarms are tolerated throughout
Uber's operational domain.
..."Meanwhile, the human driver behind
the wheel, who is meant to take over and
prevent an accident, wasn't paying
attention in the seconds before the car
hit..." ...I
think that this is a cheap shot
against the driver. I suspect that
this car had a screen that displayed
the real-time status of the automated
driving system. I would not be
surprised if that screen was mounted
below the radio and that the driver
was actually monitoring the operation
of the automated driving system prior
to the crash. Why this display wasn't
on the dash so that the driver's
peripheral vision could remain on the
road ahead when the driver was
monitoring the performance of the
system is a question Uber should
answer,... if it had any interest in
being transparent.
Another question
that Uber could be asked: Why didn't
the monitoring system warn the driver
that it was "seeing something" and
ask the driver to look to see if it
should be "saying/doing something".
Since it doesn't
look like Uber is going to really
divulge anything, it is incumbent on
the NTSB to dig deeply into this
"false alarm" issue. Disregarding
"false positives" in order to
circumvent a little passenger/customer
discomfort enables "false negatives"
which kill people. Not pretty!
A. Madrigal, Mar 28,
"On Tuesday, Waymo
announced they’d purchase 20,000 sporty,
electric self-driving vehicles from
Jaguar for the company’s forthcoming
ride-hailing service.... But the company
embedded a much more significant
milestone inside this supposed
announcement about a fancy car. With
orders now in for more than 20,000 of
these vehicles and thousands of minivans
that Chrysler announced earlier this
year, Waymo
will be capable of doing vast numbers of
trips per day. They estimate that the
Jaguar fleet alone will be capable of
doing a million trips each day in 2020.
You could quibble with their math (will
it really be that many daily trips per
car?) or their overall utilization rate
(how many cars will be lost to
maintenance per day?), but if Waymo is even
within 50 percent of that number in two
years, the United States will have
entered an entirely new phase in
robotics and technology.
The company’s autonomous vehicles have
driven 5 million miles since Alphabet
began the program back in 2009. The
first million miles took roughly six
years. The next million took about a
year. The third million took less than
eight months. The fourth million took
six months. And the fifth million took
just under three months. Today, that
suggests a rate on the order of 10,000
miles per day. If Waymo
hits their marks, they’ll be driving at
a rate that’s three orders of magnitude
faster in 2020. We’re talking about
covering each million miles in hours.
But the qualitative impact will be even
bigger. Right now, maybe 10,000 or
20,000 people have ever ridden in a
self-driving car, in any context. Far
fewer have been in a vehicle that is
truly absent a driver. Up to a million
people could have that experience every
day in 2020.
2020 is not some distant number. It’s
hardly even a projection. By laying out
this time line yesterday, Waymo is telling
the world: Get ready, this is really
happening. This is autonomous driving at
scale, and not in five years or 10 years
or 50 years, but in two years or
less...." Read
more Hmmmm...Yup!!
This is HUGE! It will change the
city and the key to making it so
it doesn't make thing worse is
Ride-sharing. If we ride-share
we'll reduce energy, pollution
& GHG by more than 50% and
provide high-quality, affordable
mobility indiscriminately for
all. It becomes the new
high-quality, low-cost mass
transit. If it's kept/operated as
another alternative for the 1%ers
to be chauffeured alone, then the
outcome is UGLY. Ride-sharing is
KEY! Alain
R. Mitchell, Mar 22,
"Police late Wednesday released a video
that shows an Uber robot car running
straight into a woman who was walking
her bicycle across a highway in Tempe,
Ariz. The woman was taken to a hospital,
where she died Sunday night.
The video, shot from the car, is sure to
raise debate over who's to blame for the
accident. In the video, the victim,
Elaine Herzberg, 49, appears to be
illegally jaywalking from a median strip
across two lanes of traffic on a dark
road. But she was more than halfway
across the street when the car —
traveling about 40 mph, according to
police — hit her. The car did not appear
to brake or take any other evasive
action....
Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor and
driverless specialist at the University
of South Carolina, said: "Although this
appalling video isn't the full picture,
it strongly suggests a failure by Uber's
automated driving system and a lack of
due care by Uber's driver as well as by
the victim."..." Read more
Hmmmm... "..."What we now need
is for the release of the radar and lidar data,"
Princeton's Kornhauser said in an email.
(Lidar is a sensing technology that uses
light from a laser.) "Obviously, the
video of the driver is extremely bad for
Uber and probably implies that Uber
should suspend all of its 'self-driving'
efforts for a while if not for a very
long while.
"The 'self-driving' systems are supposed
to have 'professional' overseers who are
really supposed to be paying attention
during these 'tests'. Apparently Uber
didn't make it clear in this case."
Kornhauser questioned the police
description of a situation that would
have been difficult to avoid. He said
Uber should reveal what its
collision-avoidance software was doing
during the couple of seconds before
impact.
"The front-facing video suggests that
this person was crossing the lane at a
slow speed and should have been noticed
by the system in time to at least apply
the brakes, if not stop the vehicle
completely," he said. "While a human may
not have been able to avoid this crash,
a well-designed, well-working collision
avoidance system should have at least
begun to apply the brakes."..."
" ...
Again, my sincerest condolences to
Elaine Herzberg's family and
friends.
The simple
arithmetic is: She crossed more
than a lane and a half before
being struck or more than 15
feet. Average walking speed is
about 4.6 ft/sec
which means that she was "visible"
on this stretch of road for more
than 3 seconds. Uber's speed of
38 mph = 55.7 ft/sec
means: Uber was 150 ft away
when she began crossing the
left-hand lane and could have been
visible by an alert driver. The
car's lidar
and radar surely must have "seen"
her beginning at about that time.
Car
stopping distance including
"thinking time used in The Highway
Code" @ 38mph is 110 feet. The
driver should have been able to
stop 40 feet short. Any Automated
Emergency Braking (AEB) system
should have been able to stop the
car in little more than the
stopping distance of 72 feet, half
way to Elaine. This simple
arithmetic suggests that there may
be a very fundamental
fatal flaw in Uber's AEB.
And the
driver was not paying attention.
At 3 seconds prior to impact,
Elaine was within a 12 degree
field of view when she began to
cross the left lane. While outside
the fovea, this is well within a
normal gaze had the operator been
looking out the window.
The
released video is from a "dash
cam" and is unlikely to be the
video captured by Uber's
"Self-driving" system (or whatever
Uber calls it). That video may
well be at a much higher
resolution and frame rate. Uber
MUST release that video (not just
the dash-cam video) as well as the
radar and
lidar data that was being
used by their "Self-driving"
system. Uber was testing its
system at the time of the crash
and therefore MUST have been
logging those data in case
something went wrong. Uber needs
those recorded data in order to
have a chance to learn what went
wrong and fix it. Something did
go wrong, very wrong. Uber and
everyone else MUST also have the
opportunity to learn from this
tragedy. So Uber MUST release all
of the data. Alain
R. Mitchell, Mar 21,
"As long as robot cars roam public
streets and highways, they will
occasionally kill people. That's an ugly
truth that no one in the driverless
vehicle industry can deny.
Will those robot cars kill people at
significantly lower rates than drunk,
stoned, tired or distracted human
drivers do now? Automakers, technology
companies, politicians and regulators
are betting they will, as driverless
vehicles are rolling out faster than
almost anyone expected as recently as a
year ago. But the Sunday night incident
in Tempe, Ariz., in which an Uber robot
car hit and killed a woman walking her
bicycle across the street, makes clear
the industry is much further behind in
making its case to the public.
"It's likely there will be far fewer
deaths with driverless cars," said
Marlene Towns, a professor at Georgetown
University's McDonough School of
Business. "But getting to the point
where people will be convinced of that
will be tough."
Speculation by Tempe's police chief that
the robot may not be at fault in the
crash may temper any public or political
backlash.
Uber was testing the robot car in
autonomous mode with a human engineer,
who was behind the wheel but not
driving. Elaine Herzberg, 49, walking a
bicycle, stepped in front of the car
from a center median, according to video
evidence, police said...." Read more Hmmmm... "...Carmakers and
technology companies need to be far
more transparent as they push forward,
experts said. "It's important that we
all learn from this accident and we
make these technologies even better,
said Alain Kornhauser, a professor at
Princeton University and a leading
authority on driverless cars. "To that
end Uber must release all of the data
leading up to this crash. All of the
video, radar, lidar
and logic trails for the three or so
seconds leading up to the crash. If
this releases some of Uber's
intellectual property, so be it."..."
" ... My
sincerest condolences to Elaine
Herzberg's family and friends. I
hope that Uber with its "$60"B
valuation will make a very
generous contribution to homeless
charities and think even more
seriously about "buying" (by
partnering) rather than "making"
this technology. Alain
G. Kumparak, Mar
13, "...." Read more Hmmmm... This is
REALLY big news.This
marks the real beginning of
on-demand mobility provided by
vehicles without a driver or an
attendant on-board, only the
passengers and the vehicles used
normal public roadways that
operated in normal everyday manner
and used by conventional cars and
trucks. Ng
Waymo to their o police
escorts, no warning signs, just
normal everyday operating
conditions. Except for the one
trip given to Steve Mahan in
November 2015 in Austin Texas,
this is the First time that it
kind of mobility service has been
delivered anywhere in the world.
Waymo
has achieved 5 million vehicle
miles of Self-driving (automated
driving on normally operating
public roadway; however, with a
driver/attendant in the car ready
to take over should the automated
system begin to fail. Many others
including Uber, Lyft/Aptiv,
GM/Cruise, nVIDIA,
Apple, Tesla, Nissan and many
others have also done many miles
of Self-driving on normal roads
but each an everyone had a
driver/attendant in the vehicle
ready to "save the day" should
something go bad. Nobody else
anywhere in the world is doing
what Waymo
is now doing in Chandler AZ. Now
that the first one has been done,
any community that is similar to
Chandler AZ can now think
seriously about inviting Waymo to
provide affordable on-demand
mobility to everyone in their
city.
Be sure to
see the video. Congratulations Waymo!!!!!
Alain
D. Etherington,
Feb 27, "California’s Department of Motor
Vehicles established new rules announced
Monday that will allow tech companies and
others working on driverless vehicle
systems to begin trialling
their cars without a safety driver at the
wheel. The new rules go into effect
starting April 2.
Until now, the DMV has allowed companies
approved for autonomous vehicle testing to
run their cars on the roads, with
autonomous driving systems engaged,
provided that there’s a trained safety
driver behind the wheel ready and able to
take over manual control. Now, the
regulators are updating their rules to
allow for fully driverless test, which is
a key step along the route towards
actually deploying self-driving vehicles
in a commercial capacity.
This doesn’t mean test vehicles will be
out there on the roads without any kind of
human intervention backup – the DMV will
require that those testing autonomous cars
without a driver present have a dedicated
communications channel that ties the
car to a remote operator, who can
take over if needed. ..." Read more Hmmmm... Even
though we have been expecting
this, it is a major hurdle for it
to actually have occurred. How
long after April 2 will Waymo take
to begin this type of testing.
Again this is only testing and
deployment, but NOT commercial
service, which may happen first in
Arizona, but it is a major step in
this r-evolution. Commercial
services are regulated by other
agencies in California, not CA
DMV. It is those other agencies
that will need to grant/award the
licenses for the various
commercial operations where these
driverless vehicles would be
used. This regulation allows
properly licensed commercial
operations using CA DMV certified
driverless vehicles to have those
vehicles use California public
roadways in delivering the
otherwise licensed commercial
activity. Note: CA DMV does not
license the commercial transport
of people or goods. That is the
purview of other CA regulatory
agencies. Alain
Andrew Hawkins, Jan 30, “Waymo, the self-driving unit of Google parent Alphabet, has reached a deal with one of Detroit’s Big Three automakers to dramatically expand its fleet of autonomous vehicles. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles announced today that it would supply “thousands” of additional Chrysler Pacifica minivans to Waymo, with the first deliveries starting at the end of 2018.
Waymo currently
has 600 of FCA’s minivans in its fleet,
some of which are used to shuttle real
people around for its Early Rider
program in Arizona. The first 100 were
delivered when the partnership was
announced in May 2016, and an additional
500 were delivered in 2017. The minivans
are plug-in hybrid variants with Waymo’s
self-driving hardware and software built
in. The companies co-staff a facility in
Michigan, near FCA’s US headquarters, to
engineer the vehicles. The company also
owns a fleet of self-driving Lexus RX
SUVs that is has been phasing out in
favor of the new minivans. (The cute
“Firefly” prototypes were also phased
out last year.)…” Read
more Hmmmm...
We’ve all been wondering” Who’s
going to make the cars? How will
that evolve?Will
they magically appear???
Well….Looks
like it is FCA for now. We've gone
from a handful 5 years ago, 2 years
ago added 100, added 500 last year,
“thousands” this/next year, …
Beginning to look like exponential
growth! (A Bit Coin Bubble??) What
is also most interesting: no
parallel announcement that Waymo was
hiring “thousands of attendants” to
ride around as "drivers" in these
“thousands of minivans”. Guess what
that means… The Kornhauser
Scale is going to start really
going up!!! J
While
ultimately they’ll need about 35
million of these to provide
affordable mobility to all in the
US, this is a real start at making
this into a business as opposed to
an NSF-style study that collects
dust on a shelf or, worse yet, a
digital manuscript that is never
downloaded by anyone outside a
"group of three". This is a major
announcement!
From Stan Young: It will be interesting to watch. It probably has the OEMs, Uber and Lyft scared out of their wits. Based on any objective comparison of accomplishment with automated vehicles, there is not a close second to Waymo, despite all the claims to the contrary by trade rags – and the competition knows it. Still a huge unknown concerning the ‘social side’ of riding in an un-attended vehicle, but we will likely get over it like we did with elevators. ‘Thousands’ of vehicles if deployed in one city will put it on scale of Uber and Lyft – an interesting study when/if it comes to that.
...An issue is: where will Waymo choose to deploy (and for Waymo, the word "deploy" is the right word... they make the decision where to place these, in some sense take it or leave it... as opposed to waiting for people to show up at a dealership to buy or have it stay on the lot or have some governmental agency thinking that it actually has a role/power/where-with-all to “deploy”) where, when and how many. They could "flood/concentrate" on Chandler/Phoenix/Tuscon area with scale to be really relevant and substantively demonstrate the evolution of mobility, or they could sprinkle them out nationwide and remain irrelevant everywhere. I like the "flood/concentrate" approach in a state (Arizona) where they seem to be truly welcomed and whose climate, topography and road network are "easy". More importantly it would demonstrate the viability/challenges of the at-scale approach. From our simulations we uncovered that at-scale, one might need to be managing as many as 20,000 aTaxis in a 2.5x2.5 mile area (the extreme in Manhattan, which may be the last place that you want to try this) but it can be large. We’ll drill down in our data and take a look at Chandler/Phoenix and report back as to what we think it would take to provide mobility for all. Alain
Jan. 9, T. Papandreou & E. Casson. "... Waymo driverless service..." Read more Hmmmm... Tim and Ellie made presentation at the Transportation Research Board's Vehicle-Highway Automation (AHB30) Committee meeting on Tuesday in which they gave an update on Waymo's progress to launch "Waymo's driverless service" (slide 11), an app-based ride hailing service to the general public in a geo-fenced area of Arizona. To date Waymo has been testing such a service using volunteer riders in their driverless vehicles in various areas around the country (slide 7): however, to date, except for one ride given to Steve Mahan in Austin, TX, rides on normally operating public streets have always had trained Waymo-authorized personnel (an attendant) in the vehicle capable to intervene in the driving of the vehicle should the need arise. Since October, in Arizona, those personnel no longer sit behind the wheel, but are in the back seat so that Waymo can observe the response of the volunteer riders to riding in a vehicle on normal public streets under normal conditions without anyone in the front seats of the vehicle.
Tim said, without providing a specific date, that Waymo will soon launch "Waymo's driverless service" providing mobility to the general public on public roads in a geo-fenced area of Arizona. I asked Tim "Will that service be offered with vehicles that have an attendant in the vehicle?". Tim's answer was "No!". I asked a follow-up question: "Will these vehicle's have telemetry capabilities that enable these vehicles to be closely monitored from a "situation room" or "control center" that would enable remote operation of the vehicle, should the need arise?". Tim's answer was "No!". Another questioner asked if the geo-fenced area included special "connected vehicle" road infrastructure improvement that Waymo's system will be relying on?" Tim's answer was "No!".
While the definition of "soon" was not given, I've taken this as a really big pronouncement that Waymo is actually going to go to launch commercially-viable on-demand mobility to the general public on conventional public roads. This is really big news because this is finally going to enable us to begin to evolve on the "Kornhauser Scale" ( log of (world-wide VMT of Driverless (VMT-D) vehicles without a human attendant/driver on board accumulated while providing mobility to the general public on conventional roadways). So far we are beyond the "undefined value" associated with VMT-D = 0 and are at KS = 1 only by virtue of the one Steve Mahan ride in Austin). :-) Alain
AP,
Nov. 7, 2017 "Waymo,
the self-driving car company created by
Google, is pulling the human backup driver
from behind the steering wheel and will
test vehicles on public roads with
only an
employee in the back seat.
The company’s move — which started Oct. 19
with an automated Chrysler Pacifica
minivan in the Phoenix suburb of Chandler,
Ariz. — is a major
step toward vehicles driving themselves on
public roads without human backup drivers.
..." Read
more Hmmmm... Not
to be too critical, but Waymo is
still just 'Self-driving' . While
they moved the 'engineer' with the
ability to 'take over and drive the
vehicle' from behind the wheel to
the back seat, this is just a step
along the broad 'Self-driving'
continuum which is a vehicle that,
under certain circumstance, can
drive itself, but does that only if
there is a person ready and able to
take over if the unexpected
appears.
The
big-leap/major-step will come when Waymo
removes the 'engineer' entirely from
the vehicle and it is
human-less when it arrives to pick
up a passenger and drives
away human-less after the last
passenger(s) disembark. That
enormous leap-of-faith in the
technology will mark Waymo's
inception of the Driverless Era.
(or what Waymo
prefers to call 'Fully Self-driving'
era.)
Just to be
clear, when that time comes, I'm
sure that
Waymo will have telemetry
throughout that Driverless vehicle
and there will be a room full of
engineers in Waymo's
'Situation
Room' ready to take over the
driving should the need arise.
However, until that time, Waymo is
just like all the other wanabes,
they are just 'Self-driving' without
the 'Fully'.
The reason
why 'remote emergency driving' is
'Driverless' is because it scales.
By that I mean that it takes the
provision of horizontal mobility on
our public streets from needing at
least one human per vehicle to
needing less than one human per
vehicle. Initially the remote
driver will monitor one car. Before
you know it that person will be
monitoring two, four, eight, ...
vehicles and truly Driverless with
zero remote human oversee-ers will be
approached asymptotically. But just
like the old saw between the
engineer and the mathematician:
engineer and mathematician were
sitting on a bench recalling their
youth... Engineer said "Long ago, I
was sitting on this very bench with
my girl. We wanted to kiss but we
were too far apart. So we agreed to
move towards each other by halving
the distance between us on each
move. The mathematician blared "
You're so stupid! If you did that,
you never came together!" The
engineer just smiled: "we got close
enough!". Alain
Rulemaking
Actions, Oct 1The following
3 PDFs are important:
1.
Autonomous Vehicles Notice of
Modification (PDF) Act
2.
Autonomous Vehicles Statement of Reasons
(PDF) Act
3.
Autonomous Vehicles 15 Day Express Terms
(PDF) Act Hmmmm..This is all about
Driverless! Thank you
California, and especially Dr.
Bernard Soriano, for leading this
noble effort and for continuing to
distinguish this technology from Self-driving
and all of the various other names
seemingly meant to confuse. Alain
The
docket material is available at: https://go.usa.gov/xNvaE"
Read more Hmmmm... A few
comments...
1. Since
lateral control (swerving) couldn't
have avoided this crash (the truck
is almost 70 ft
long (6 lanes wide) stretching
broadside across the highway) , it
doesn't matter if Josh Brown ever
had his hands on the steering wheel.
That's totally irrelevant.
2. Why
didn't autobrake kick in when the
tractor part of the tractor-trailer
passed in front of the Tesla?
3. How fast
was the truck going when it cut off
the Tesla. I couldn't find the
answer in 500 pages.
4. With
sight distances of greater than
1,000 feet, why didn't the truck
driver see the Tesla? Was it the
drugs?
5. This
intersection invites "left-turn
run-throughs" (no stop or yield and
a 53 foot median and turn lane need
to be crossed before one slips
through a gap in two traffic lanes.
So you certainly roll into it,
(plenty of room to stop if you see
something coming) and if you don't
see anything, you hit it. If you're
in the Tesla, you think you've been
clearly seem, you expect the truck
to stop, it doesn't, you can't
believe it, BAM! All in probably a
second or so.
6. The head
injury description (Table
1 p2 of 3) certainly suggests
that Joshua Brown was seated upright
facing forward at impact. The
bilateral lacerations on the lower
arm from the elbow to the wrist may
indicate that he saw it coming in
the last second and raised his arms
in an attempt to protect his head.
The evidence reported doesn't seem
to suggest he saw this early enough
to bend toward the passenger seat
and try to pass underneath.
7. About 40
feet of tractor and trailer passed
directly in front of the Tesla prior
to impact. Depending on how fast
the truck was traveling, that takes
some time. Has NTSB run Virtual
Reality simulations of various truck
turn trajectories and analyzed what
the truck driver and the Tesla
driver could/should have seen?
Seems like a relatively simple thing
to do. We know what the Tesla was
doing prior to the crash (going 74
mph straight down the road.) and we
know where it hit the truck. How
fast the truck was traveling doesn't
seem to be known.
8. Why
wasn't there any video captured from
the Tesla. Didn't that version of
the MobilEye
system store the video; I guess not,
:-(
Anyway, lots
to read in the 500
pages, but there is also a lot
missing. I'm not linking the many
articles reporting on this because I
disagree with many of their
interpretations of the facts
reported by NTSB. Please reach
your own conclusions. Alain
May
18, Enormously successful inaugural Summit
starting with the Adam
Jonas video and finishing with
Fred Fishkin's
live interview with Wm. C Ford III.
In between, serious
engagement among over 150 leaders
from Communities at the bleeding edge of
deployment, Insurance struggling with how
to properly promote the adoption of
technology that may well force them to
re-invent themselves and AI (Artificial
Intelligence) and the various technologies
that are rapidly advancing so that we can
actually deliver the safety,
environmental, mobility and quality of
life opportunities envisioned by these
“Ultimate Shared-Riding Machines”.
Save the Date for the 2nd Annual... May 16
& 17, 2018, Princeton NJ Read
Inaugural Program with links to Slides.
Fishkin Interview of Summit Summary
and
Interview of Yann LeCun.
Read Inaugural Program with links to
Slides. Hmmmm...
Enormous thank you to all who
participated. Well done! Alain
Video similar to part of Adam's Luncheon talk @ 2015 Florida Automated Vehicle Symposium on Dec 1. Hmmm ... Watch Video especially at the 13:12 mark. Compelling; especially after the 60 Minutes segment above! Also see his TipRanks. Alain
This list is maintained by
Alain
Kornhauser and hosted by the Princeton
University
Leave
|Re-enter
[log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.39&filename=dhbhaandkmfbffia.png" class="" height="88" width="106" border="0"> [log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.40&filename=lglcejopfgfnajaj.png" class="" height="92" width="238" border="0">[log in to unmask]">Mailto:[log in to unmask]