SmartDrivingCar.com/6.30-MBwrong-071418
30th edition of the 6th year of SmartDrivingCars
F. Fishkin,
July 14, "Self
driving taxis from
Mercedes? Princeton
University's Alain
Kornhauser says, "No
thank you". Why?
Tune in as the
faculty chair of
autonomous vehicle
engineering joins
Fred Fishkin for
that and much more
in episode 47 of the
Smart Driving Cars
podcast." Listen
and subscribe."
Hmmmm.... Now
you can just
say "Alexa,
play the Smart
Driving Cars
podcast!"
. Ditto with
Siri,
and GooglePlay.
Alain
B. Barnes, July 11,
"Daveed Diggs and
Rafael Casal stood
squinting in the June
sun, unsure what to
make of the
graffiti-covered walls
of a Boys & Girls
Club here. The bright
blue building in front
of them had been
spotless just a few
months earlier, when
Mr. Casal and Mr.
Diggs, both Oakland
born and bred, had
last seen it.
More jarring was the
new Ford
GoBike docking
station that a
Lyft-owned company had
installed next to the
clubhouse. A trendy
bike-sharing service
in West Oakland? “All
I know is that it was
clean and blue when we
scouted it, and it was
clean and blue when we
shot in front of it,”
said Mr. Diggs, who
stars with Mr. Casal
in “Blindspotting,” an
Oakland-set comic
drama that arrives in
theaters on July 20.
“And then the shiny
bikes came and now
there’s graffiti. That
means something.”
Mr. Casal had a guess.
“I see a neighborhood
screaming, ‘You can’t
erase me,’” he said.
“The rebellion of
graffiti
sometimes is to shout,
‘I’m here. Don’t
forget that I’m here.’
It’s putting your name
on things when you’re
being swept
over.”..." Read
more Hmmmm....
This is an
example of the
residents of a
neighborhood
reacting to
introduction
of a
technology,
Ford GoBike,
that serves
the
gentrifiers
rather than
the existing
population.
Many of the
"Smart Cities"
share
similarities
as do the
privately-owned
driverless car
visions. As
long as these
visions
intrude only
in the 1%ers
neighborhoods,
then fine
(maybe?). But
if they
intrude on
city streets
and city
neighborhoods,
then we may
well face a "
rebellion of
graffiti". My
view is that
such systems
should first
be deployed to
serve the
Mobility
Disadvantaged
in those
communities
where these
systems can
truly improve
quality of
life of the
residents of
those
communities
while
utilizing
their existing
roadway
infrastructure.
This is a
perspective
that I tried
to present in
one of the
Shark Tank
breakouts at
the 2018 AV
conference and
something I
have been
thinking about
lately. How to
ensure that
aTaxi fleets
are welcome by
residents,
whose streets
they share,
and not
harbingers of
gentrification, doomed to be vandalized with graffiti by those who feel
marginalized
or left
behind? Alain
R. Beene, July 13,
"...“At this point the
technology is so
nascent I don’t think
it is appropriate
today to regulate this
technology,” Heidi
King, deputy
administrator of the
National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration, said
in an interview. “It’s
not there yet, but
each and every day we
are open to
identifying when the
time is right.”..." Read
more Hmmmm....
I agree! It
is way too
early.
Regulations
must be
precise and
based on facts
and
knowledge.
Right now we
know so very
little that we
don't actually
know what will
end up being
good and what
will be bad.
Alain
R. Pool, July 2018
"Enforcement is an
ongoing unsolved
problem for HOV, HOT,
and express toll lanes
that offer better
service to vehicles
carrying a specified
number of occupants.
Roadside enforcement
is costly and
ineffective; if actual
violators are 30% of
all vehicles, a patrol
officer can stop and
pull over only a
handful of violators
per hour. Every new
roadside camera system
that has been tested
under real-world
conditions has failed
state DOT
requirements;..." Read
more Hmmmm....
Detection of
car occupancy
is a challenge
but doesn’t
address the
fundamental
measurement
challenge of
HOV lanes.
The objective
of HOV is to
remove
vehicles from
the traffic
stream while
delivering the
same (or
better) person
trip movement.
The theory
goes that if
two (or more)
people
traveling in
two (or more
cars) got
together and
traveled in
one car, then
society would
be better off
because of the
non-linear
speed-volume
relationship
of traffic
flow. Thus
those good
Samaritans
deserve
special
treatment.
So
to determine
if a car
really
deserves
special
treatment
requires the
determination
of “was at
least one
other car
removed from
the traffic
stream”? So
that means
that a couple
“going to the
airport “ to
catch a flight
together are
not eligible.
Nor is an Uber
with one
passenger.
Nor an Uber
taking that
couple to the
airport. Nor a
father taking
a child to the
hospital.
Nor...
So
if we are to
develop a
technology to
solve the
cheating
problem, it
should address
the cheating
problem.
(Bob's
response in an
email: "I’m
100% in
agreement with
you about all
the people who
shouldn’t be
counted as
legitimate
causes of
fewer vehicles
in the lanes.
That’s why my
preferred
solution, set
forth in a TRB
paper some
years ago, is
to grant that
special
treatment only
to registered
carpools of
three or more
occupants,
periodically
certified by
the local
ride-sharing
agency as
still being in
regular
operation.
Those
transponders
would be
identified in
the tolling
software, and
the free
passage or
discounted
toll would
apply only
during
congested
periods—in
most metro
areas during
weekday AM and
PM peak
periods.
Florida DOT
actually does
this (at my
recommendation)
on the I-95
express toll
lanes in
Miami.")
...
By
the way, even
though some
are beginning
to call
ride-hailing”
, “ride
sharing” (see
image) it
rarely is!
Ride-sharing
needs to be
reserved for
when “a car is
left at home”
K. Pyle, July 12,
"Will autonomy augment
or replace the human?
Author, angel investor
and Cannonball Run
record holder, Alex
Roy, addresses this
question in the above
interview, filmed at
the 2018
SmartDrivingCar
Summit. As the founder
of Human Driving
Association, his view
echos that of car
designer and futurist
Michael Robinson in
that the automation
features must improve
safety, while
effectively becoming
an extension of the
human.
Roy describes the
Human Driving
Association and its
efforts to responsibly
implement automation
to improve all aspects
of vehicle
safety...." Read
more Hmmmm....
Agreed, Safety
is not only
most important
but is a
strict
necessary
condition
before one can
even begin to
use automation
to deliver
other services
such as take
hands off
wheel or feet
off brake.
Unfortunately,
as their
crashes have
demonstrated,
Uber's and
Tesla's
Automated
Emergency
Braking (AEB)
systems which
is one of the
fundamental
automated
safety systems
were/are
substantially
ineffective,
if not totally
disengaged in
operating
domains in
which the
automated
system was
supposedly
delivering
comfort &
convenience
services. The
industry can
NOT put this
cart before
this horse.
If Tesla's AEB
is functional
only at speeds
less than X
then AutoPilot
should operate
only at speeds
less than X.
Alain
Interested in
working in Toronto?
Have a good background
and interest in
working on safety and
security for
autonomous driving
vehicles and fleets?
Contact Dr.
Fengmin Gong,
DiDi Labs
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 30, "Self driving technology speeds along in China. Uber looks to resume testing this summer. Public transit, the Koch brothers and Nuro's partnership with Kroger. Join Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin for Episode 46 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast!"
F. Fishkin, June 12, "What is the big mistake California is making in driverless vehicle testing? Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser says the key is to promote ride sharing. Join the professor and co-host Fred Fishkin for Episode 44 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast for more on that, Waymo, Tesla and more.
F. Fishkin, 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."
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 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! "
Waymo team, June
13, "Ariel rides
after school. Neha
hops to the grocery
store. Barbara and
Jim zip around town
while kicking back.
They’re all part of
the Waymo early
rider program we
launched last April.
Today, over 400
riders with diverse
backgrounds use
Waymo every day, at
any time, to ride
all around the
Phoenix area. Their
feedback helps us
understand how fully
self driving cars
fit into their daily
lives.
One year in, our
early rider program
and our extensive
on-road testing is
helping us build the
world’s most
experienced driver.
In fact, our fleet
of cars across the
U.S. is now driving
more than 24,000
miles daily; that’s
the equivalent of an
around the world
road trip! Here’s a
quick report on how
our riders use
Waymo, what we’ve
learned, and what’s
next....As some of
the first people in
the world to use
self-driving
vehicles for their
everyday
transportation
needs, our early
riders are helping
shape this
technology. Thanks
to their feedback,
we’re refining the
rider experience to
make sure that: ...
nobody wants to
carry grocery bags a
block down the
street... " Read
more Hmmmm....
Yipes!! The
personal car
isn't bad
enough in its
focus on
private
single-occupant
parkingSpot2parkingSpot mobility? Are we now going to have Waymo
providing it
Door2Door with
zero
opportunity to
share rides
and while
delivering
negative
public
benefits of
increased
energy,
pollution and
congestion
with all of
its empty
vehicle
repositioning.
No wonder the
CPUC voted to
forbid
ride-sharing.
Did Waymo made
them do it
since Waymo
hasn't done
ride-sharing
in Phoenix?
Having 2 or
more people in
the car isn't
ride sharing
if they would
have all gone
together in
their own car
had Waymo not
been there. So
Bad!!! Without
ride-sharing,
this is just
expensive,
energy
inefficient
and
environmentally
challenged
private
chauffeuring
for the
entitled
privileged
class:
See
video Just
like watching
Oszzie & Harriet
or Leave
it to Beaver.
For Waymo to
"Win it",
they'll need
to embrace
ride-sharing
because no
"Blue-state"
PUC is going
to be as
impressionable
as as
California's.
Alain
F. Piekniewski, "Deep learning has been at the forefront of the so called AI revolution for quite a few years now, and many people had believed that it is the silver bullet that will take us to the world of wonders of technological singularity (general AI). ...We have now mid 2018 and things have changed. ..By far the biggest blow into deep learning fame is the domain of self driving vehicles ..
But by far the
biggest prick punching
through the AI bubble
was the accident in
which Uber self
driving car killed a
pedestrian in Arizona.
From the preliminary
report by the NTSB we
can read some
astonishing
statements:..." Read
more Hmmmm....
Very
interesting.
We still have
an awful lot
to do. See
also,G.
Marcus,
below. Alain
KMay 24, "About 9:58
p.m., on Sunday, March
18, 2018, an Uber
Technologies, Inc.
test vehicle, based on
a modified 2017 Volvo
XC90 and operating
with a self-driving
system in computer
control mode, struck a
pedestrian on
northbound Mill
Avenue, in Tempe,
Maricopa County,
Arizona.
...The vehicle was
factory equipped with
several advanced
driver assistance
functions by Volvo
Cars, the original
manufacturer. The
systems included a
collision avoidance
function with
automatic emergency
braking, known as City
Safety, as well as
functions for
detecting driver
alertness and road
sign information. All
these Volvo functions
are disabled when the
test vehicle is
operated in computer
control..."
Read more Hmmmm....
Uber must
believe that
its systems
are better at
avoiding
Collisions and
Automated
Emergency
Braking than
Volvo's.
At least this
gets Volvo
"off the
hook".
"...According
to data obtained
from the
self-driving
system, the system
first registered
radar and LIDAR
observations of
the pedestrian
about 6 seconds
before impact,
when the vehicle
was traveling at
43 mph..." (=
63
feet/second)
So the system
started
"seeing an
obstacle when
it was 63 x 6
= 378 feet
away... more
than a
football
field,
including end
zones!
"...As
the vehicle and
pedestrian paths
converged, the
self-driving
system software
classified the
pedestrian as an
unknown object, as
a vehicle, and
then as a bicycle
with varying
expectations of
future travel
path..." (NTSB:
Please tell us
precisely when
it classified
this "object'
as a vehicle
and be
explicit about
the expected "future
travel paths." Forget
the path,
please just
tell us the
precise
velocity
vector that
Uber's system
attached to
the "object",
then the
"vehicle".
Why didn't the
the Uber
system
instruct the
Volvo to begin
to slow down
(or speed up)
to avoid a
collision? If
these paths
(or velocity
vectors) were
not accurate,
then why
weren't they
accurate? Why
was the object
classified as
a
"Vehicle" ??
When did it
finally
classify the
object as a "bicycle"?
Why did it
change
classifications?
How often was
the
classification
of this object
done. Please
divulge the
time and the
outcome of
each
classification
of this
object. In the tests that
Uber has done,
how often has
the system
mis-classified
an object as a
"pedestrian"when the object was
actually an
overpass, or
an overhead
sign or
overhead
branches/leaves
that the car
could safely
pass under, or
was nothing at
all??
(Basically,
what are the
false alarm
characteristics
of Uber's
Self-driving
sensor/software
system as a
function of
vehicle speed
and
time-of-day?)
"...At 1.3 seconds before impact, (impact speed was 39mph = 57.2 ft/sec) the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision" (1.3 x 57.2 = 74.4 ft. which is about equal to the braking distance. So it still could have stopped short.
"...According to Uber,
emergency
braking
maneuvers are
not enabled
while the
vehicle is
under computer
control, to
reduce (eradicate??) the potential
for erratic
vehicle
behavior.
..." NTSB: Please describe/define potential and erratic vehicle
behavior Also
please uncover
and divulge
the design
& decision
process that
Uber went
through to
decide that
this risk
(disabling the
AEB) was worth
the reward of
eradicating "
"erratic vehicle behavior". This
is
fundamentally
BAD design.
If the Uber
system's false
alarm rate is
so large that
the best way
to deal with
false alarms
is to turn off
the AEB, then
the system
should never
have been
permitted on
public
roadways.
"...The vehicle operator
is relied on
to intervene
and take
action. " Wow! If Uber's
system
fundamentally
relies on a
human to
intervene,
then Uber is
nowhere near
creating a
Driverless
vehicle.
Without its
own Driverless
vehicle Uber
is past "Peak
valuation".
K. Pyle, May 9, "Safety and, as importantly, the perception of safety could be the pin that pricks the expectations surrounding the autonomous vehicle future. Recognizing the importance of safety to the success of this still nascent industry, autonomous taxi start-up, Voyage, recently placed their testing and reporting procedures in an open source framework. ...Oliver Cameron, Voyage Co-Founder and CEO, is excited to see participation and says, “We can’t wait to have all of these contributions from companies from around the world; contribute to build the actual standard in autonomous safety.” Read more, Hmmmm.... See the video that was played at the Princeton SDC Summit which generated substantial positive discussion at the Summit. See also full length video. Alain
A. Efrati, May 7,
"Uber has determined
that the likely cause
of a fatal collision
involving one of its
prototype self-driving
cars in Arizona in
March was a problem
with the software that
decides how the car
should react to
objects it detects,
according to two
people briefed about
the matter." Read
more Hmmmm....Uber
is "leaking"
this??? Is
this Spin?
Fake News??
I guess Uber
doesn't
believe in
transparency
here. Where
is the official
public
statement of
reassurance???
"The car’s sensors
detected the
pedestrian, who was
crossing the street
with a bicycle,
Hmmmm....Pretty much what I wrote on March 24, the sensors "Saw
something" ...
but Uber’s software
decided it didn’t need
to react right away. ..."right
away" is Fake
News. It never
reacted. Uber
has not
released any
data
indicating
that the
software ever
reacted. "That’s
a result of how the
software was tuned." ...That
was a major
"tuning" faux
pas. What is
being divulged
here is that
Uber's
software never
became
confident
enough that
what it was
seeing was
something that
it should not
hit and, at
least, begin
to apply the
brakes (or
swerve, or
???). Even
the driver in
the video
recognized
that the
object should
not be hit a
split second
before the
crash. So the
Problem
is not
"tuning" it is
outright "fuhgeddaboudit"
Like other autonomous
vehicle systems,
Uber’s software has
the ability to ignore
“false positives,” or
objects in its path
that wouldn’t actually
be a problem for the
vehicle, such as a
plastic bag floating
over a road.... Is
Uber
suggesting
that its
software can't
tell the
difference
between a
plastic bag
floating over
the road and a
pedestrian
with a
bicycle, even
after seeing
the object 30
to 60 or more
times over the
3 or more
seconds that
the object was
in view? If
this isn't
Fake News then
Uber is
hopelessly far
behind... In
this case, Uber
executives believe the
company’s system was
tuned so that it
reacted less to such
objects." It
didn't react at
all!...
But the tuning went
too far, and the car
didn’t react fast
enough, one of these
people said....
... It didn't
react at all!
If this wasn't
so important
I'd put it in
C'mon man.
"False
positives" are the
symptom, not the
problem. The
problem is Uber's
system design and
operational
policy. Uber
system designers
knew that the
sensors under
certain conditions
reported "false
positives" (were
"spooked"). One
of those
conditions was
possibly the
combination of "is
the closing speed
= car's current
speed" AND "is the
car's current
speed greater than
30mph." In
situations in
which both are
true, then Uber's
"tuning" is outright
"fuhgeddaboudit".
This "tuning"
effectively
turns-off Uber's
sensors to
detecting anything
that is stationary
or moving across
its lane ahead. If
Uber has
understood this,
then Uber
would/should have
...
1. limited the operation of its cars to speeds under 30 mph,
2.
limited the
operation of its
cars at speeds
greater than 30
mph only to
roadways where
pedestrians are
extremely unlikely
to cross, and
3.
focus on
substantially
improving its
ability to
interpret its
sensor data so
that the false
alarm rate becomes
so small that
false alarms are
tolerated
throughout Uber's
operational
domain.
..."Meanwhile, the
human driver behind
the wheel, who is
meant to take over and
prevent an accident,
wasn't paying
attention in the
seconds before the car
hit..." ...I
think that this is
a cheap shot
against the
driver. I suspect
that this car had
a screen that
displayed the
real-time status
of the automated
driving system. I
would not be
surprised if that
screen was mounted
below the radio
and that the
driver was
actually
monitoring the
operation of the
automated driving
system prior to
the crash. Why
this display
wasn't on the dash
so that the
driver's
peripheral vision
could remain on
the road ahead
when the driver
was monitoring the
performance of the
system is a
question Uber
should answer,...
if it had any
interest in being
transparent.
Another
question that Uber
could be asked:
Why didn't the
monitoring system
warn the driver
that it was
"seeing
something" and
ask the driver to
look to see if it
should be
"saying/doing
something".
Since
it doesn't look
like Uber is going
to really divulge
anything, it is
incumbent on the
NTSB to dig deeply
into this "false
alarm" issue.
Disregarding
"false positives"
in order to
circumvent a
little
passenger/customer
discomfort enables
"false negatives"
which kill
people. Not
pretty!
A. Madrigal, Mar 28, "On Tuesday, Waymo announced they’d purchase 20,000 sporty, electric self-driving vehicles from Jaguar for the company’s forthcoming ride-hailing service.... But the company embedded a much more significant milestone inside this supposed announcement about a fancy car. With orders now in for more than 20,000 of these vehicles and thousands of minivans that Chrysler announced earlier this year, Waymo will be capable of doing vast numbers of trips per day. They estimate that the Jaguar fleet alone will be capable of doing a million trips each day in 2020. ..." Read more Hmmmm...Yup!! This is HUGE! It will change the city and the key to making it so it doesn't make thing worse is Ride-sharing. If we ride-share we'll reduce energy, pollution & GHG by more than 50% and provide high-quality, affordable mobility indiscriminately for all. It becomes the new high-quality, low-cost mass transit. If it's kept/operated as another alternative for the 1%ers to be chauffeured alone, then the outcome is UGLY. Ride-sharing is KEY! Alain
R. Mitchell,
Mar 22, "Police late
Wednesday released a
video that shows an
Uber robot car
running straight
into a woman who was
walking her bicycle
across a highway in
Tempe, Ariz. The
woman was taken to a
hospital, where she
died Sunday night.
The video, shot from
the car, is sure to
raise debate over
who's to blame for
the accident. In
the video, the
victim, Elaine
Herzberg, 49,
appears to be
illegally jaywalking
from a median strip
across two lanes of
traffic on a dark
road. But she was
more than halfway
across the street
when the car —
traveling about 40
mph, according to
police — hit her.
The car did not
appear to brake or
take any other
evasive action....
Bryant Walker Smith,
a law professor and
driverless
specialist at the
University of South
Carolina, said:
"Although this
appalling video
isn't the full
picture, it strongly
suggests a failure
by Uber's automated
driving system and a
lack of due care by
Uber's driver as
well as by the
victim."..." Read more
Hmmmm... "..."What we
now need is for the
release of the radar
and lidar
data," Princeton's
Kornhauser said in
an email. (Lidar is
a sensing technology
that uses light from
a laser.)
"Obviously, the
video of the driver
is extremely bad for
Uber and probably
implies that Uber
should suspend all
of its
'self-driving'
efforts for a while
if not for a very
long while.
"The 'self-driving'
systems are supposed
to have
'professional'
overseers who are
really supposed to
be paying attention
during these
'tests'. Apparently
Uber didn't make it
clear in this case."
Kornhauser
questioned the
police description
of a situation that
would have been
difficult to avoid.
He said Uber should
reveal what its
collision-avoidance
software was doing
during the couple of
seconds before
impact.
"The front-facing
video suggests that
this person was
crossing the lane at
a slow speed and
should have been
noticed by the
system in time to at
least apply the
brakes, if not stop
the vehicle
completely," he
said. "While a human
may not have been
able to avoid this
crash, a
well-designed,
well-working
collision avoidance
system should have
at least begun to
apply the
brakes."..."
"
...
Again, my
sincerest
condolences to
Elaine
Herzberg's
family and
friends.
The
simple
arithmetic
is: She
crossed more
than a lane
and a half
before being
struck or more
than 15 feet.
Average
walking speed
is about 4.6 ft/sec
which means
that she was
"visible" on
this stretch
of road for
more than 3
seconds.
Uber's speed
of 38 mph =
55.7 ft/sec
means: Uber
was 150 ft
away when she
began crossing
the left-hand
lane and could
have been
visible by an
alert driver.
The car's lidar
and radar
surely must
have "seen"
her beginning
at about that
time. Car
stopping
distance
including
"thinking time
used in The
Highway Code"
@ 38mph is 110
feet. The
driver should
have been able
to stop 40
feet short.
Any Automated
Emergency
Braking (AEB)
system should
have been able
to stop the
car in little
more than the
stopping
distance of 72
feet, half way
to Elaine.
This simple
arithmetic
suggests that
there may be a
very fundamental
fatal flaw in
Uber's AEB.
And
the driver was
not paying
attention. At
3 seconds
prior to
impact, Elaine
was within a
12 degree
field of view
when she began
to cross the
left lane.
While outside
the fovea,
this is well
within a
normal gaze
had the
operator been
looking out
the window.
The
released video
is from a
"dash cam" and
is unlikely to
be the video
captured by
Uber's
"Self-driving"
system (or
whatever Uber
calls it).
That video may
well be at a
much higher
resolution and
frame rate.
Uber MUST
release that
video (not
just the
dash-cam
video) as well
as the radar
and
lidar
data that was
being used by
their
"Self-driving"
system. Uber
was testing
its system at
the time of
the crash and
therefore MUST
have been
logging those
data in case
something went
wrong. Uber
needs those
recorded data
in order to
have a chance
to learn what
went wrong and
fix it.
Something did
go wrong, very
wrong. Uber
and everyone
else MUST also
have the
opportunity to
learn from
this tragedy.
So Uber MUST
release all of
the data.
Alain
R. Mitchell,
Mar 21, "As long as
robot cars roam
public streets and
highways, they will
occasionally kill
people. That's an
ugly truth that no
one in the
driverless vehicle
industry can deny.
Will those robot
cars kill people at
significantly lower
rates than drunk,
stoned, tired or
distracted human
drivers do now?
Automakers,
technology
companies,
politicians and
regulators are
betting they will,
as driverless
vehicles are rolling
out faster than
almost anyone
expected as recently
as a year ago. But
the Sunday night
incident in Tempe,
Ariz., in which an
Uber robot car hit
and killed a woman
walking her bicycle
across the street,
makes clear the
industry is much
further behind in
making its case to
the public.
"It's likely there
will be far fewer
deaths with
driverless cars,"
said Marlene Towns,
a professor at
Georgetown
University's
McDonough School of
Business. "But
getting to the point
where people will be
convinced of that
will be tough."
Speculation by
Tempe's police chief
that the robot may
not be at fault in
the crash may temper
any public or
political backlash.
Uber was testing the
robot car in
autonomous mode with
a human engineer,
who was behind the
wheel but not
driving. Elaine
Herzberg, 49,
walking a bicycle,
stepped in front of
the car from a
center median,
according to video
evidence, police
said...." Read more
Hmmmm...
"...Carmakers
and technology
companies need to
be far more
transparent as
they push forward,
experts said.
"It's important
that we all learn
from this accident
and we make these
technologies even
better, said Alain
Kornhauser, a
professor at
Princeton
University and a
leading authority
on driverless
cars. "To that end
Uber must release
all of the data
leading up to this
crash. All of the
video, radar, lidar
and logic trails
for the three or
so seconds leading
up to the crash.
If this releases
some of Uber's
intellectual
property, so be
it."..."
" ...
My sincerest
condolences to
Elaine
Herzberg's
family and
friends. I
hope that Uber
with its
"$60"B
valuation will
make a very
generous
contribution
to homeless
charities and
think even
more seriously
about "buying"
(by
partnering)
rather than
"making" this
technology.
Alain
G.
Kumparak,
Mar 13, "...." Read more
Hmmmm...
This is REALLY
big news.This
marks the real
beginning of
on-demand
mobility
provided by
vehicles
without a
driver or an
attendant
on-board, only
the passengers
and the
vehicles used
normal public
roadways that
operated in
normal
everyday
manner and
used by
conventional
cars and
trucks. Ng
Waymo
to their o
police
escorts, no
warning signs,
just normal
everyday
operating
conditions.
Except for the
one trip given
to Steve Mahan
in November
2015 in Austin
Texas, this is
the First time
that it kind
of mobility
service has
been delivered
anywhere in
the world. Waymo
has achieved 5
million
vehicle miles
of
Self-driving
(automated
driving on
normally
operating
public
roadway;
however, with
a
driver/attendant
in the car
ready to take
over should
the automated
system begin
to fail. Many
others
including
Uber, Lyft/Aptiv,
GM/Cruise, nVIDIA,
Apple, Tesla,
Nissan and
many others
have also done
many miles of
Self-driving
on normal
roads but each
an everyone
had a
driver/attendant
in the vehicle
ready to "save
the day"
should
something go
bad. Nobody
else anywhere
in the world
is doing what
Waymo
is now doing
in Chandler
AZ. Now that
the first one
has been done,
any community
that is
similar to
Chandler AZ
can now think
seriously
about inviting
Waymo
to provide
affordable
on-demand
mobility to
everyone in
their city.
Be
sure to see
the video.
Congratulations
Waymo!!!!!
Alain
D. Etherington, Feb 27, "California’s Department of Motor Vehicles established new rules announced Monday that will allow tech companies and others working on driverless vehicle systems to begin trialling their cars without a safety driver at the wheel. The new rules go into effect starting April 2 ..." Read more Hmmmm... Even though we have been expecting this, it is a major hurdle for it to actually have occurred. How long after April 2 will Waymo take to begin this type of testing. Again this is only testing and deployment, but NOT commercial service, which may happen first in Arizona, but it is a major step in this r-evolution. Commercial services are regulated by other agencies in California, not CA DMV. It is those other agencies that will need to grant/award the licenses for the various commercial operations where these driverless vehicles would be used. This regulation allows properly licensed commercial operations using CA DMV certified driverless vehicles to have those vehicles use California public roadways in delivering the otherwise licensed commercial activity. Note: CA DMV does not license the commercial transport of people or goods. That is the purview of other CA regulatory agencies. Alain
Andrew Hawkins, Jan 30, “Waymo, the self-driving unit of Google parent Alphabet, has reached a deal with one of Detroit’s Big Three automakers to dramatically expand its fleet of autonomous vehicles. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles announced today that it would supply “thousands” of additional Chrysler Pacifica minivans to Waymo, with the first deliveries starting at the end of 2018.
Waymo currently
has 600 of FCA’s
minivans in its
fleet, some of which
are used to shuttle
real people around
for its Early Rider
program in Arizona.
The first 100 were
delivered when the
partnership was
announced in May
2016, and an
additional 500 were
delivered in 2017.
The minivans are
plug-in hybrid
variants with Waymo’s
self-driving
hardware and
software built in.
The companies
co-staff a facility
in Michigan, near
FCA’s US
headquarters, to
engineer the
vehicles. The
company also owns a
fleet of
self-driving Lexus
RX SUVs that is has
been phasing out in
favor of the new
minivans. (The cute
“Firefly” prototypes
were also phased out
last year.)…” Read
more Hmmmm...
We’ve all been
wondering”
Who’s going to
make the cars?
How will that evolve?Will
they magically
appear???
Well….Looks
like it is FCA
for now. We've
gone from a
handful 5 years
ago, 2 years ago
added 100, added
500 last year,
“thousands”
this/next year,
… Beginning to
look like
exponential
growth! (A Bit
Coin Bubble??)
What is also
most
interesting: no
parallel
announcement
that Waymo
was hiring
“thousands of
attendants” to
ride around as
"drivers" in
these “thousands
of minivans”.
Guess what that
means… The Kornhauser
Scale is
going to start
really going
up!!! J
While
ultimately
they’ll need
about 35 million
of these to
provide
affordable
mobility to all
in the US, this
is a real start
at making this
into a business
as opposed to an
NSF-style study
that collects
dust on a shelf
or, worse yet, a
digital
manuscript that
is never
downloaded by
anyone outside a
"group of
three". This is
a major
announcement!
From Stan Young: It will be interesting to watch. It probably has the OEMs, Uber and Lyft scared out of their wits. Based on any objective comparison of accomplishment with automated vehicles, there is not a close second to Waymo, despite all the claims to the contrary by trade rags – and the competition knows it. Still a huge unknown concerning the ‘social side’ of riding in an un-attended vehicle, but we will likely get over it like we did with elevators. ‘Thousands’ of vehicles if deployed in one city will put it on scale of Uber and Lyft – an interesting study when/if it comes to that.
...An issue is: where will Waymo choose to deploy (and for Waymo, the word "deploy" is the right word... they make the decision where to place these, in some sense take it or leave it... as opposed to waiting for people to show up at a dealership to buy or have it stay on the lot or have some governmental agency thinking that it actually has a role/power/where-with-all to “deploy”) where, when and how many. They could "flood/concentrate" on Chandler/Phoenix/Tuscon area with scale to be really relevant and substantively demonstrate the evolution of mobility, or they could sprinkle them out nationwide and remain irrelevant everywhere. I like the "flood/concentrate" approach in a state (Arizona) where they seem to be truly welcomed and whose climate, topography and road network are "easy". More importantly it would demonstrate the viability/challenges of the at-scale approach. From our simulations we uncovered that at-scale, one might need to be managing as many as 20,000 aTaxis in a 2.5x2.5 mile area (the extreme in Manhattan, which may be the last place that you want to try this) but it can be large. We’ll drill down in our data and take a look at Chandler/Phoenix and report back as to what we think it would take to provide mobility for all. Alain
Jan. 9, T. Papandreou & E. Casson. "... Waymo driverless service..." Read more Hmmmm... Tim and Ellie made presentation at the Transportation Research Board's Vehicle-Highway Automation (AHB30) Committee meeting on Tuesday in which they gave an update on Waymo's progress to launch "Waymo's driverless service" (slide 11), an app-based ride hailing service to the general public in a geo-fenced area of Arizona. To date Waymo has been testing such a service using volunteer riders in their driverless vehicles in various areas around the country (slide 7): however, to date, except for one ride given to Steve Mahan in Austin, TX, rides on normally operating public streets have always had trained Waymo-authorized personnel (an attendant) in the vehicle capable to intervene in the driving of the vehicle should the need arise. Since October, in Arizona, those personnel no longer sit behind the wheel, but are in the back seat so that Waymo can observe the response of the volunteer riders to riding in a vehicle on normal public streets under normal conditions without anyone in the front seats of the vehicle.
Tim said, without providing a specific date, that Waymo will soon launch "Waymo's driverless service" providing mobility to the general public on public roads in a geo-fenced area of Arizona. I asked Tim "Will that service be offered with vehicles that have an attendant in the vehicle?". Tim's answer was "No!". I asked a follow-up question: "Will these vehicle's have telemetry capabilities that enable these vehicles to be closely monitored from a "situation room" or "control center" that would enable remote operation of the vehicle, should the need arise?". Tim's answer was "No!". Another questioner asked if the geo-fenced area included special "connected vehicle" road infrastructure improvement that Waymo's system will be relying on?" Tim's answer was "No!".
While the definition of "soon" was not given, I've taken this as a really big pronouncement that Waymo is actually going to go to launch commercially-viable on-demand mobility to the general public on conventional public roads. This is really big news because this is finally going to enable us to begin to evolve on the "Kornhauser Scale" ( log of (world-wide VMT of Driverless (VMT-D) vehicles without a human attendant/driver on board accumulated while providing mobility to the general public on conventional roadways). So far we are beyond the "undefined value" associated with VMT-D = 0 and are at KS = 1 only by virtue of the one Steve Mahan ride in Austin). :-) Alain
AP,
Nov. 7, 2017 "Waymo,
the self-driving car
company created by
Google, is pulling the
human backup driver
from behind the
steering wheel and
will test vehicles on
public roads with only an
employee in the
back seat.
The company’s move —
which started Oct. 19
with an automated
Chrysler Pacifica
minivan in the Phoenix
suburb of Chandler,
Ariz. — is a major
step toward vehicles
driving themselves on
public roads without
human backup drivers.
..." Read
more Hmmmm... Not to be too critical, but Waymo
is still just
'Self-driving'
. While they
moved the
'engineer' with
the ability to
'take over and
drive the
vehicle' from
behind the wheel
to the back
seat, this is
just a step
along the broad
'Self-driving'
continuum which
is a vehicle
that, under
certain
circumstance,
can drive
itself, but does
that only if
there is a
person ready and
able to take
over if the
unexpected
appears.
The
big-leap/major-step will come when Waymo
removes the
'engineer'
entirely from
the vehicle and
it is human-less
when it arrives
to pick up a
passenger and
drives away
human-less after
the last
passenger(s)
disembark. That
enormous
leap-of-faith in
the technology
will mark Waymo's
inception of the
Driverless
Era. (or
what Waymo
prefers to call
'Fully
Self-driving'
era.)
Just
to be clear,
when that time
comes, I'm sure
that
Waymo
will have
telemetry
throughout that
Driverless
vehicle and
there will be a
room full of
engineers in Waymo's
'Situation
Room'
ready to take
over the driving
should the need
arise.
However, until
that time, Waymo
is just like all
the other
wanabes,
they are just
'Self-driving'
without the
'Fully'.
The
reason why
'remote
emergency
driving' is
'Driverless' is
because it
scales. By that
I mean that it
takes the
provision of
horizontal
mobility on our
public streets
from needing at
least one human
per vehicle to
needing less
than one human
per vehicle.
Initially the
remote driver
will monitor one
car. Before you
know it that
person will be
monitoring two,
four, eight, ...
vehicles and
truly Driverless
with zero remote
human oversee-ers
will be
approached
asymptotically.
But just like
the old saw
between the
engineer and the
mathematician:
engineer and
mathematician
were sitting on
a bench
recalling their
youth...
Engineer said
"Long ago, I was
sitting on this
very bench with
my girl. We
wanted to kiss
but we were too
far apart. So
we agreed to
move towards
each other by
halving the
distance between
us on each
move. The
mathematician
blared " You're
so stupid! If
you did that,
you never came
together!" The
engineer just
smiled: "we got
close enough!".
Alain
Rulemaking
Actions, Oct 1The following 3 PDFs are important:
1.
Autonomous Vehicles
Notice of
Modification (PDF)
Act
2.
Autonomous Vehicles
Statement of Reasons
(PDF) Act
3.
Autonomous Vehicles
15 Day Express Terms
(PDF) Act Hmmmm..This is all about Driverless! Thank you
California, and
especially Dr.
Bernard Soriano,
for leading this
noble effort and
for continuing
to distinguish
this technology
from Self-driving
and all of the
various other
names seemingly
meant to
confuse. Alain
The
docket material is
available at: https://go.usa.gov/xNvaE"
Read more Hmmmm... A few comments...
1.
Since lateral
control
(swerving)
couldn't have
avoided this
crash (the truck
is almost 70 ft
long (6 lanes
wide) stretching
broadside across
the highway) ,
it doesn't
matter if Josh
Brown ever had
his hands on the
steering wheel.
That's totally
irrelevant.
2.
Why didn't
autobrake kick
in when the
tractor part of
the
tractor-trailer
passed in front
of the Tesla?
3.
How fast was the
truck going when
it cut off the
Tesla. I
couldn't find
the answer in
500 pages.
4.
With sight
distances of
greater than
1,000 feet, why
didn't the truck
driver see the
Tesla? Was it
the drugs?
5.
This
intersection
invites
"left-turn
run-throughs"
(no stop or
yield and a 53
foot median and
turn lane need
to be crossed
before one slips
through a gap in
two traffic
lanes. So you
certainly roll
into it, (plenty
of room to stop
if you see
something
coming) and if
you don't see
anything, you
hit it. If
you're in the
Tesla, you think
you've been
clearly seem,
you expect the
truck to stop,
it doesn't, you
can't believe
it, BAM! All in
probably a
second or so.
6.
The head injury
description (Table 1
p2 of 3)
certainly
suggests that
Joshua Brown was
seated upright
facing forward
at impact. The
bilateral
lacerations on
the lower arm
from the elbow
to the wrist may
indicate that he
saw it coming in
the last second
and raised his
arms in an
attempt to
protect his
head. The
evidence
reported doesn't
seem to suggest
he saw this
early enough to
bend toward the
passenger seat
and try to pass
underneath.
7.
About 40 feet of
tractor and
trailer passed
directly in
front of the
Tesla prior to
impact.
Depending on how
fast the truck
was traveling,
that takes some
time. Has NTSB
run Virtual
Reality
simulations of
various truck
turn
trajectories and
analyzed what
the truck driver
and the Tesla
driver
could/should
have seen?
Seems like a
relatively
simple thing to
do. We know
what the Tesla
was doing prior
to the crash
(going 74 mph
straight down
the road.) and
we know where it
hit the truck.
How fast the
truck was
traveling
doesn't seem to
be known.
8.
Why wasn't there
any video
captured from
the Tesla.
Didn't that
version of the MobilEye
system store the
video; I guess
not, :-(
Anyway,
lots to read in
the 500
pages, but
there is also a
lot missing.
I'm not linking
the many
articles
reporting on
this because I
disagree with
many of their
interpretations
of the facts
reported by
NTSB. Please
reach your own
conclusions.
Alain
May
18, Enormously
successful inaugural
Summit starting with
the Adam
Jonas video and
finishing with
Fred Fishkin's
live interview with
Wm. C Ford III.
In between, serious
engagement among
over 150 leaders from
Communities at the
bleeding edge of
deployment, Insurance
struggling with how to
properly promote the
adoption of technology
that may well force
them to re-invent
themselves and AI
(Artificial
Intelligence) and the
various technologies
that are rapidly
advancing so that we
can actually deliver
the safety,
environmental,
mobility and quality
of life opportunities
envisioned by these
“Ultimate
Shared-Riding
Machines”.
Save the Date for the
2nd Annual... May 16
& 17, 2018,
Princeton NJ Read
Inaugural Program
with links to Slides.
Fishkin Interview of
Summit Summary
and
Interview of Yann LeCun.
Read Inaugural
Program with links
to Slides. Hmmmm... Enormous thank you to all who
participated.
Well done! Alain
Video similar to part of Adam's Luncheon talk @ 2015 Florida Automated Vehicle Symposium on Dec 1. Hmmm ... Watch Video especially at the 13:12 mark. Compelling; especially after the 60 Minutes segment above! Also see his TipRanks. Alain
This
list is maintained by
Alain
Kornhauser and
hosted by the Princeton
University
Leave
|Re-enter
[log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.39&filename=dhbhaandkmfbffia.png" class="" height="88" width="106" border="0"> [log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.40&filename=lglcejopfgfnajaj.png" class="" height="92" width="238" border="0">[log in to unmask]">Mailto:[log in to unmask]