SmartDrivingCar.com/6.39-Nuro-091418
39th edition of the 6th year of SmartDrivingCars
A. Hawkins, Sept
13, "Nuro, the
self-driving
delivery startup
founded by a
pair of Google
veterans,
released its voluntary
safety report on
Thursday. Titled
“Delivering Safety,”
the 33-page document
outlines the
technology and
procedures Nuro is
using to safely
deploy its fleet of
autonomous delivery
robots.
Formed in 2016, Nuro has set itself apart from other
companies that are
working on
self-driving
technology by
focusing on delivery
rather than
ride-hailing. The
startup recently
announced a pilot
delivery service
in Arizona in
partnership with
grocery giant
Kroger. In its
report, Nuro touts
what it believes are
its competitive
advantages....
With no driver or passengers to worry about, our vehicle can be built to keep what’s outside even safer than what’s inside. It’s lighter, nimbler, and slower than a passenger car, and is equipped with state-of-the-art software and sensing capabilities that never get distracted. With its smaller size and manufacturing costs, we can make vehicles more rapidly. And because it’s electric and fully self-driving, our vehicle can deliver life’s needs at an affordable price...." Read more Hmmmm.... And if Jeff Bezos is watching, watch out. Link to the report. Alain
F. Lambert, Sept
13, "If your truck
is completely
autonomous, why
would you need a
cab? Volvo Trucks
believes that you
don’t and that’s why
they built a new
all-electric and
autonomous truck
without a cab called
Vera.
Claes Nilsson,
President of Volvo
Trucks, the idea
behind Vera:
“The full potential
of the transport
industry is yet to
be seen. Everything
suggests that the
global need for
transportation will
continue to
significantly
increase in the
coming decade. If we
are to meet this
demand in a
sustainable and
efficient way, we
must find new
solutions. In order
to secure a smoothly
functioning goods
flow system we also
need to exploit
existing
infrastructure
better than
currently. The
transport system we
are developing can
be an important
complement to
today’s solutions
and can help meet
many of the
challenges faced by
society, transport
companies and
transport buyers,”
The solution is
mainly for urban
transport since
while the lack of
cab does reduce
weight
significantly, it
also bad for
aerodynamic
performance, which
is important at
higher speeds.
Volvo Trucks sees
companies using this
between their own
locations..." Read more Hmmmm....
See video See
also,
Certainly can see
this moving
chassis and
containers around
port facilities
and doing local
drayage. This is
Volvo Truck,
different company
from Volvo Cars.
Alain
A. Walker, Sept 7,
"...I don’t see how
the 360c concept
fits in with Volvo’s
safety claims.
Expanding the U.S.’s
car infrastructure
so “first-class”
passengers can drive
longer distances
runs completely
counter to Volvo’s
own efforts to
eliminate traffic
deaths. And its auto
execs, from a
country that prides
itself on its fast
trains, reliable
transit, and safe
streets, should be
ashamed for trying
to sell our country
on an idea of more
highways, more
driving, and more
cars." Read more Hmmmm...
Someone else
doesn't like
the 360c.
Yea!! (See
Half-baked
below). The
problem is the
focus on
providing
private
personal
mobility,
rather than
mobility that
is shared.
Trains and
buses do well
when a lot of
people want to
go between the
same places at
about the same
time.
However, this
high density
rarely occurs
and trying to
make it less
rare tends to
conflict with
improved
quality of
life. There
are many
places/times
when a few
folks want to
go between the
same places at
about the same
time. These
folks have no
options except
driving
themselves in
their own
cars. The
operational ,
informational
and pricing
systems don't
exist that
would offer a
vible
alternative.
A completely
redesigned
360c focused
on that market
by serving
two, three or
a few more
riders at a
time, when the
demand
existed, would
be fantastic
for cities in
terms of
energy,
pollution, and
affordability. Focusing only on individuals traveling alone has ZERO
societal value.
Volvo, please
go back to the
drawing
board. Even
Mercedes may
be having 2nd
thoughts..
see next
article.
Alain
D. Gibson, Sept 10,
"Mercedes-Benz Vans
has dusted off its
crystal ball and
revealed its vision
of future urban
mobility, the Vision
Urbanetic concept.
Bosses claim that
this fully
autonomous design
study showcases what
city transportation
will look like in
2030 and beyond,
with the basis of
the concept being a
fully autonomous
chassis with
interchangeable
bodies to cater for
different demands,
24 hours a day.
As part of the
concept's reveal,
Mercedes showcased a
cargo version and a
passenger carrier,
both of which are
interchangeable with
the full electric
chassis. The
platform features
what Mercedes
describes as an 'IT
infrastructure',
which uses computer
learning and
real-time traffic
info and a 'supply
and demand' model
that allows
Urbanetic to switch
between cargo and
passenger bodies as
and when they're
needed...." Read more Hmmmm....
See
the images.
Maybe
interesting. A
real turn-around
for Daimler.
Alain
S. O'Kane, Sept 12,
"Motorcycle riders
die at a rate 28
times higher than
that of people
behind the wheel of
a car. It’s safe to
say, then, that
motorcycles
theoretically stand
to benefit from the
recent boom in the
development of
driver assistance
technology. There
are unique
challenges, to be
sure, but the
application looks
more possible than
ever, thanks to a
new video of a
self-driving
motorcycle released
by BMW Motorrad, the
company’s
two-wheeler
division.
BMW Motorrad says
it’s been working on
the technology for
more than two years,
and the effort
shows. The short
video showcases a
BMW motorcycle
cruising around a
test track with no
driver, starting
from a stop, leaning
into turns, and
braking all by
itself.... " Read more
Hmmmm...
Couple of
comment... 1.
See
video. it
is very good.
2. There are
realy good
reasons why
this
Safe-driving
Motorcycle" is
a really good
idea,
especially the
safety
reason as
to why a
cyclist should
want this.
and 3. (The)
Anthony
Levandowski
did this (sort
of, or at
least wanted
to do it) back
in the 2005
Grand
Challenge
See
video
Alain
P. Cao, Sept 11,
"...Today, the
California
Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) has
confirmed (via
macReports) that
Apple now has 70
vehicles and 139
drivers permitted to
test autonomous
vehicles, up from 66
vehicles and 111
drivers back in
July...."
Read
more Hmmmm....
See CA DMV Collision
Reports, Permit
Holders, 2017
Disengagement
Reports,
T. Lee, Aug 31,
"Arlington, Texas,
has the dubious
distinction of being
the largest American
city without a
conventional bus
system. Sandwiched
between Dallas and
Fort Worth, the town
of nearly 400,000
people launched a
single bus line
called the MAX in
2013—but even that
got shut down last
year.
But just as some
developing countries
have leapfrogged
past landline
telephones in favor
of cellular
technology,
Arlington is trying
to turn its status
as a mass-transit
laggard into an
advantage by
embracing
cutting-edge
transportation
technologies.
Last week, the city
announced a new
partnership with
the self-driving
car startup
Drive.ai.
Starting in October,
free Drive.ai
shuttles will
circulate on public
streets in
Arlington's
Entertainment
District, past a Six
Flags amusement park
and the stadiums
where the Dallas
Cowboys and Texas
Rangers play.
At the same time,
Arlington is
sponsoring a
human-driven
on-demand service
operated by Via, a
competitor to Uber
and Lyft that
focuses on shared
rides. Residents in
a portion of
Arlington can use an
app to take $3 rides
anywhere in the
service area, which
includes Arlington's
major stadiums and
Six Flags, as well
as the University of
Texas at Arlington,
city hall, and at
least three high
schools.
Together, these two
projects point
toward a radically
different vision for
public
transportation in
the 21st century.
Rather than having
full-size city buses
with fixed routes
and schedules, Via's
service uses
six-passenger
Mercedes vans to
offer on-demand,
nearly door-to-door
service. Right now,
Via's service is
heavily subsidized.
But self-driving
technology could
help to bring down
these costs, making
fares of $3 per
ride—or even
less—economically
viable...." Read more Hmmmm....
Very
interesting!
Alain
M. Slaby, Sept 12,
"Two years ago,
reporters from
across the country
flocked to
Pittsburgh for two
days of secretive
media briefings on a
new pilot program
from Uber. The
company had opened
its Advanced
Technologies Group
here the previous
year and was already
testing autonomous
cars on Pittsburgh
streets. But two
years ago Friday,
Uber started
allowing ride share
users to be picked
up and dropped off
in its self-driving
cars.
While Uber wasn’t
the first autonomous
vehicle tester in
Pittsburgh — or the
latest one — the
company has been the
most visible, both
on the streets and
in headlines. But
Uber paused testing
for nearly four
months this year
after a fatal crash
in Arizona,
effectively ending
the pilot program
for riders for now.
" Read more Hmmmm....
Very
interesting!
Alain
N. Shahmanesh, Sept 11, "...The Volvo 360c concept car we are about to see represents a grand vision. It is at once a self-driving office offering hot-desking on the move, as well as a social hub with food and champagne, relaxing imagery and moody music. Or it can be a tranquil bedroom-on-wheels – upper-class air travel on land...." Read more Hmmmm.... Is this absolutely the last thing that we need? Even more for those who already have too much???? Alain
3rd
Annual
Princeton SmartDrivingCar
Summit
evening May 14
through May 16,
2019
Save the Date; Reserve your Sponsorship
Catalog
of Videos of
Presentations
@ 2nd Annual
Princeton
SmartDrivingCar
Summit
Photos
from 2nd Annual
Princeton
SmartDrivingCar
Summit
Program
& Links to
slides from
2nd Annual
Princeton
SmartDrivingCar
Summit
F. Fishkin, Sept 6, "The coming new world of driverless cars! In Episode 55 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast former GM VP and adviser to Waymo Larry Burns chats with Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and Fred Fishkin about his new book "Autonomy: The Quest to Build the Driverless Car and How it Will Reshape Our World"
F. Fishkin, Aug 26, "The impact of the Hitch service murders in China on ride sharing, Toyota's investment in Uber and the issue of who controls data...are the focus of Episode 54 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast. Co-hosts Alain Kornhauser of Princeton University and Fred Fishkin are joined by The Dispatcher publisher Michael Sena."
F. Fishkin, Aug 26, "Ralph Nader weighs in when it comes to safety regulations for self driving vehicles.... but is his focus in the right place? Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser offers up his thoughts on that and more ...from Zoox, to Waymo, Lyft and Drive.AI in Episode 53 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast with co-host Fred Fishkin. Tune in and subscribe!"
F. Fishkin, Aug 18, "Uber's future is linked to it's ability to deploy self driving vehicles. That's what Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser says in Episode 52 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast with co-host Fred Fishkin. Also...the latest from Ford, Tesla, Elon Musk, Kroger and more. Tune in and subscribe!"
F. Fishkin, Aug 11, "Waymo worth 175 billion dollars before it starts charging for rides? Join Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin for Episode 51 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast. And the latest on Uber and the battle with New York City, Olli shuttles off to Buffalo, Tesla and BMW."
Aug 3, F. Fishkin, , "Drive.ai gets ready for self driving tests in Texas, Waymo partners with public transit, Tesla's self driving chips and the latest on Uber and Lyft. All that and more in Episode 50 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast with Princeton University's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin. Tune in and subscribe!"
F. Fishkin, July 27, "When will we shift from buying cars to buying rides? In Episode 49 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast, entrepreneur, speaker and co-author of "The End of Driving: Transportation Systems and Public Policy Planning for Autonomous Vehicles" ...Bern Grush joins co-hosts Alain Kornhauser of Princeton and Fred Fishkin. That along with the latest on Ford, Waymo, Uber and more."
F. Fishkin, 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."
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 45 F. Fishkin, June 15, "Waymo marks the first year of its early rider program. The news is good but Princeton's Alain Kornhauser says it could be better. How? Tune in to Episode 45 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast for that and the latest on GM, Voyage, Ford and more "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, 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]