http://SmartDrivingCar.com/7.39-Drivered-092019
K. Korosec,
Sept 16,
"Waymo
transported
6,299
passengers in
self-driving ...drivered,
not
driverless...Chrysler
Pacifica
minivans in
its first
month
participating
in a robotaxi
pilot program
in California,
according to a
quarterly
report the
company filed
with the
California
Public
Utilities
Commission.
In all, the
company
completed
4,678
passenger
trips in July
— plus another
12 trips for
educational
purposes. It’s
a noteworthy
figure for an
inaugural
effort that
pencils out to
an average of
156 trips
every day that
month. And it
demonstrates
that Waymo has
the resources,
staff and
vehicles to
operate a
self-driving
vehicle pilot
while
continuing to
test its
technology in
multiple
cities and
ramp up its
Waymo One
ride-hailing
service in
Arizona...
The CPUC
authorized in
May 2018 two
pilot programs
for
transporting
passengers in
autonomous
vehicles. The
first one,
called the Drivered
Autonomous
Vehicle
Passenger
Service Pilot
program,
allows
companies to
operate a
ride-hailing
service using
autonomous
vehicles as
long as they
follow
specific
rules.
Companies are
not allowed to
charge for
rides, a human
safety driver
must be behind
the wheel and
certain data
must be
reported
quarterly.
The second
CPUC pilot
would allow
driverless
passenger
service —
although no
company has
yet to obtain
that
permit...."Read
more Hmmmm.... Be sure to look at the Waymo
Quarterly
Report and
that of the
other 3
companies: Zoox,
AutoX
and Pony.ai.
Those 4
companies
reported
respectively [ 4,678; 103; 9; 0] vehicleTrips; [
6,299; 134;
13; 0]
personTrips;
[59,917; 352; ?; 0] vehicleMiles, and [
55; 10; 1; 0]
number
of unique
vehicles used
throughout the
quarter. Note
Waymo only
began
operating on
July 2, the
last month of
the quarter [May, June, July]. Note: the CPUC does not permit
casual
shared-ride
services
(serving
individuals or
groups of
individuals
who weren't
predisposed to
travel
together). Go
figure??? Alain
Also note: This is Drivered Service,
meaning there
is an
attendant/driver
inside each
vehicle for
each trip; so
this is
actually
conventional
ride-hailing,
a la Lyft/Uber
with fancy
schmancy
vehicles. The
CPUC did NOT
require
"disengagement
reporting" so
one has no
idea as to the
extent of
driver/attendant
involvement is
the provision
of the
Drivered
service. It
will be
interesting to
learn if Waymo
considers this
activity to be
part of its AV
testing
program and
includes the
disengagement
performance of
these vehicles
in its
disengagement
report to the
CA DMV at the
end of the
year. We'll be able to infer if that the
disengagement
performance is
exemplary when
Waymo decides
to begin Driverless
service
(w/o an
attendant, as
opposed to Drivered
service).
If Waymo wants the public to judge
if they are
really making
progress
towards
driverless
MaaS, they
will make
public the
disengagement
reports on
their Drivered
driverless
services in
California,
Arizona and
where ever
they are
providing
Drivered
driverless
services. So
should Uber,
Lyft/Aptive,
... Alain
Princeton
Future, Sept
18, "What
would it take
to make
Princeton an
accessible
community for
all, even
those who
cannot or who
choose not to
own or drive a
car?..." Read
more Hmmmm....Come, Saturday Sept. 28,
9:00am,
Princeton
Library.
Alain
Press
release, Sept
18, "U.S.
Secretary of
Transportation
Elaine L. Chao
today
announced
nearly $60
million in
federal grant
funding to
eight projects
in seven
states to test
the safe
integration of
automated
driving
systems (ADS)
on our
nation’s
roadways.
These grants
aim to gather
significant
safety data to
inform
rulemaking and
foster
collaboration
amongst state
and local
government and
private
partners.
“The
Department is
awarding $60
million in
grant funding
to test the
safe
integration of
automated
vehicles into
America’s
transportation
system while
ensuring that
legitimate
concerns about
safety,
security, and
privacy are
addressed,”
said Secretary
Elaine L.
Chao.... " Read
more Hmmmm....
Congratulations to Texas A&M ($7.1M), U of Iowa ($7.0M),
Virginia Tech
(2 @ $7.5M),
Ohio DoT ($7.5M),
Penn DoT ($8.4M),
City of
Detroit ($7.5M),
and Contra
Costa
Transportation
Authority ($7.5M).
For a list and
description of
awarded
proposals and
those that
weren't (a
total of 73),
see: Automated Driving
System
Demonstration
Grants
Proposals can
be found at US_DoT_AV_$60M_Proposals.Alain
Alain
W. Langewiesche, Sept 20, "...The 737 Max remains grounded under impossibly close scrutiny, and any suggestion that this might be an overreaction, or that ulterior motives might be at play, or that the Indonesian and Ethiopian investigations might be inadequate, is dismissed summarily. To top it off, while the technical fixes to the MCAS have been accomplished, other barely related imperfections have been discovered and added to the airplane’s woes. All signs are that the reintroduction of the 737 Max will be exceedingly difficult because of political and bureaucratic obstacles that are formidable and widespread. Who in a position of authority will say to the public that the airplane is safe?...
These
broader
implications,
however, have
been lost in
the noise.
After
President
Trump weighed
in on the
basis of no
perceptible
knowledge, and
the F.A.A. was
forced to
retreat from
its initial
defense of the
airplane,
Boeing had to
accept a
public
onslaught. The
onslaught has
included
congressional
hearings,
federal
investigations,
calls for the
criminal
prosecution of
Boeing
executives,
revelations by
whistle-blowers, attacks in the news media, the exploitation of personal
tragedy and
the
construction
of a whole new
economic
sector built
around
perceptions of
the company’s
liability.
Boeing has
grown largely
silent,
perhaps as
much at the
request of its
sales force as
of its
lawyers. To
point fingers
at important
clients would
risk
alienating not
only those
airlines but
others who
have been
conditioned to
buy its
airplanes, no
matter how
incompetent
their pilots
may be." Read
more Hmmmm.... A must read and many
lessons to be
learned about
organizations,
public
oversight,
safety,
perceived
safety and the
fact that
nothing is
perfect.
Alain
C. Krauss, Sept 15, "The drone attack on one of Saudi Arabia’s most important oil facilities could cripple a portion of Saudi petroleum exports for days or even weeks, and oil futures prices briefly spiked 20 percent when markets opened on Monday in Asia. But experts say that a severe shock to energy markets and the world economy is unlikely.
...
The country
produces about
10 percent of
the world’s
oil supplies.
The disruption
could slash
Saudi Arabia’s
daily oil
exports of 7.4
million
barrels by as
much as
three-quarters,
taking roughly
5 percent of
global
supplies off
the market,
unless the
facility is
quickly
repaired. ... how does 3/4 of 10% = 5%, but
whatever???
... The 3/4 is
more likely
1/2, which is
also likely
high, but
whatever???
...
Only a decade
ago, the
attack would
probably have
sent oil
prices
soaring. But
that was
before
American oil
production
climbed with
the shale
drilling
frenzy. The
United States
now produces
roughly 12.1
million
barrels a day,
double what it
produced in
2012 and 1.4
million
barrels more
than only a
year ago.
The United
States imports
about 630,000
barrels of
Saudi oil a
day, down
about half
from 2017....
" Read
more Hmmmm.... Why do we import any??
I can't help
but think...
"Is this
another "Gulf
of Tonkin"!??
Alain
IIHS/HDLI,
September,
"...
Front
crash
prevention
System details
standard
Automatic
Emergency
Braking
Applies to
2017-19 models
Overall
evaluation
This system
meets the
requirements
for forward
collision
warning.
In the 12 mph
IIHS test,
this vehicle
avoided a
collision.
In the 25 mph
IIHS test,
this vehicle
avoided a
collision...."
Read
more Hmmmm... See imapes, video.
Pretty
impressive.
Alain
A. Davis, Sept 17, "When United Automobile Workers members walked off the job at 33 General Motors sites around the US on Sunday morning, perhaps the most … striking detail was that they only numbered 46,000. The last time the UAW’s GM workers went on strike, in 2007, they were 73,000 strong. And that was a fraction of the 259,000 US hourly production workers GM employed in 1991...
The
electric car
may be great
for the planet
and glorious
for drivers,
but it’s no
good for
jobs.... Last
year, a study
by Germany’s
Fraunhofer
Institute for
Industrial
Engineering
IAO found that
by 2030, a
moderate shift
to electric
propulsion
could leave
75,000 Germans
out of
work—even
accounting for
the creation
of 25,000 new
jobs. That’s
because
batteries and
motors are far
simpler
machines than
internal
combustion
engines, and
require a few
hundred parts
instead of a
few thousand.
That’s the
same reason
maintenance
costs for EVs
are so low—a
problem for
dealerships
that rely on
servicing cars
for profits.
Fewer parts
mean fewer
people.... " Read
more Hmmmm.... Simpler motor, no
transmission,
no drive
shaft, no fuel
pump, no.... :-) Pain in the butt battery :-(. Alain
t.
Tracy, Sept
17, "They
wanted to
drive their
point home,
but they ended
up driving New
Yorkers crazy.
Hundreds of
Uber and Lyft
drivers
created
massive
traffic snarls
in downtown
Brooklyn and
along
Manhattan’s
East Side
Tuesday
morning as
they formed a
slow-moving
caravan over
the Brooklyn
Bridge to
protest new
measures by
the two
app-based
companies that
could affect
drivers’
income...." Read
more Hmmmm.... The fat
lady is
signing.
Alain
M.
Sivak, Sept
16, "In this
analysis I
examined
gender
differences in
travel
patterns. The
data came from
ATUS—the
American Time
Use Survey.
ATUS provides
nationally
representative
estimates of
the amount of
time people
spend doing
various
activities. It
is an annual
time-diary
study by the
U.S. Bureau of
Labor
Statistics.
The analysis
used the
following two
variables from
ATUS:
Weekday and weekend activities are combined in each of these two variables. Therefore, the information is an average applicable to every day. The data are for persons 15 years of age and older, and they are applicable for 2018. The results are shown in the following table...." Read more Hmmmm.... Michael, very interesting! Alain
K.
Korosec, Sept
17,
"Self-driving
truck startup
TuSimple has
added another
$120 million
to a Series D
funding round
led by Sina,
operator of
China’s
biggest
microblogging
site Weibo,
bringing the
total haul to
$215 million
as it seeks to
expand.
The company,
which launched
in 2015 and
has operations
in China, San
Diego and
Tucson, Ariz.,
hit unicorn
status in
February when
it raised $95
million in the
Series D round
with a
post-money
valuation of
$1.095
billion. This
additional
funding
includes
investment
from UPS,
which
announced in
August that it
had taken a
minority stake
in TuSimple
just months
after the two
companies
began testing
the use of
autonomous
trucks in
Arizona...."
Read more Hmmmm....
Congratulations. A V trucking is hot. Alain
G.
Liao, Sept 15,
"The
Automotive
Research &
Testing Center
(ARTC), a
government-sponsored
vehicle
testing and
R&D
institute in
Taiwan,
recently
unveiled
Taiwan’s first
indigenous
self-driving,
purely
electric
minibus -- the
WinBus -- said
a Ministry of
Economic
Affairs (MOEA)
news release.
The WinBus
meets the
Society of
Automotive
Engineering's
(SAE) level 4
autonomous-driving (high-automation) standard, according to the ARTC.
“In fixed or
closed fields,
the
self-driving
electric
vehicle can
fully
accomplish all
environment-monitoring and self-driving tasks without human
intervention,”
the center
said..." Read more Hmmmm....Maybe one of a growing
list of
shuttles with
attendants.
Alain
Woodside
Capital
Partnes,
September
2019, " ....In
this industry
report, we
look at where
Automotive
Artificial
Intelligence
(AI) is at
present, what
countries are
becoming key
players, the
state of
technologies
available, and
a look into a
new paradigm
shift from
hardware to
software. The
report also
discusses
opportunities
and threats
that are
available at
present,
market
participants
and M&A
market
placements,
and the
different
companies and
their
profiles.... "
Read
more Hmmmm.... Some very interesting
charts in this
slide deck.
Alain
AP,
Sept 18,
"Paris is
testing out a
new form of
travel: an
eco-friendly
bubble-shaped
taxi that zips
along the
water up and
down the Seine
River.
Organizers are
holding test
runs this week
on one white,
oval-shaped
electric
hydrofoil boat
that resemble
tiny space
shuttles
gliding past
Paris
monuments.
The boats can
fit four
passengers,
and if they
get approved,
can be ordered
on an app like
land taxis,
shared bikes
or other forms
of transport.
Its designers
hope to run
the so-called
Seabubbles
commercially
in Paris and
other cities
starting next
year. Read
more Hmmmm.... On-demand Ferry
service;
On-demand
Driverless
Ferry
Service???
Why not???
Alain
E. Blackstock, Sept 20, "I didn’t know that an electric Smart car racing series existed until last night, ... I didn't either. ... and I’m absolutely heartbroken that I didn’t get to see the series’ Vallelunga race live... I can't go that far. .... If you haven’t seen the clip yet, then strap in and get ready to see the most absurd racing accident you’ve ever seen...." Read more Hmmmm... Enjoy the videos.:-) Alain
Motorhead,
Sept 20,
"Disclosure: I
am/we are
short TSLA,
VIA PUTS. I
wrote this
article
myself, and it
expresses my
own opinions.
... I
buy high and
sell low so
you should be
careful of my
Hmmmm...s
... Tesla
(TSLA) is
preparing to
start Model 3
production at
its Shanghai
Gigafactory 3
(GF3) by
year-end and
Tesla fans are
excited about
China becoming
the EV maker's
next pillar of
growth. China
is the world's
largest EV
market and, by
producing its
cars locally,
Tesla can
avoid high
import tariffs
and enjoy the
benefits of
cheaper labor
and component
costs.
Tesla has also
received
yet-unseen,
powerful
support from
China's
government,
which has
allowed Tesla
not only to be
the first
foreign
carmaker to
own 100% of
its Chinese
operations but
also lined up
domestic banks
to lend Tesla
over a half a
billion
dollars to
help finance
the GF3's
build-out...."
Read
more Hmmmm... There is information here, but as with
everything,
read
carefully.
Alain
J. Loughran, Sept 11, "Ride-pooling mobility systems could offer “substantial benefits” if they are able to attain sufficient market share, the researchers said. Moreover, these systems do not require self-driving vehicles but simply centralized fleet coordination, which is achievable with today’s technologies.... " Read more Hmmmm... True, they don't require Driverless; however, getting drivers, especially gig workers, to actually implement the instructions generated by the "centralized fleet coordination " system is non-trivial task. The failures in human implementation of those instructions may likely null much of their potential advantages. Uber/Lyft drivers tend to abhor ride-sharing (less tipping, more argueing). That may be why ride-hailing hasn't achieved much ride-sharing. Alain
M.
Malmstedt,
Sept 20,
"...But lack
of ... trust
can put this
development at
a halt..." Read
more Hmmmm... I strongly agree, the rest... ?? What
really struck
me was the image.
Is that really
aspirational??? Everyone living in towers, SegHoles, phones-in-face, no
adults... I
give up!!
Alain
F. Fishkin, May 18,, "From the 3rd Annual Princeton Smart Driving Car Summit, join Professor Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin. In this special edition, the summit's focus on mobility for all with guests Anil Lewis, Executive Director of Blindness Initiatives at the National Federation of the Blind and ITN America Founder Katherine Freund."
April 5, F. Fishkin, "The success of on demand transit company Via is proving that ride sharing systems can work. Public Policy head Andrei Greenawalt joins Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin for a wide ranging discussion. Also: Uber, Tesla, Audi, Apple and Nuro are making headlines"
April 5, F. Fishkin, "Here comes congestion pricing in New York City...but what will it mean? Former city Taxi and Limousine Commission head and transportation expert Matthew Daus joins Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin. Also...Tesla, VW and even Brexit! All on Episode 98 of Smart Driving Cars."
March 28, F. Fishkin, "The Future Networked Car? From Sweden, The Dispatcher publisher, Michael Sena, joins Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin for the latest edition of Smart Driving Cars. Plus ...the Boeing story has much to do with autonomous vehicles and more. Tune in and subscribe."
F. Fishkin, Sept 6, "The coming new world of driverless cars! In Episode 55 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast former GM VP and adviser to Waymo Larry Burns chats with Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and Fred Fishkin about his new book "Autonomy: The Quest to Build the Driverless Car and How it Will Reshape Our World"
1. Figure 4, The speed of the Tesla in the last 221 seconds before the crash showing that the Tesla was traveling rather slowly in the 100 seconds before the crash (under 20 mph), but then accelerated (as discussed above) in the 3 seconds just prior to the crash, beginning as soon as the lead SUV changed lanes,
2. Figure 5, the distance between the Tesla and its lead vehicle, showing that the TACC worked really well until the lead vehicle "disappeared" (changed lanes), and"... Data show that at about 490 msec before the crash, the system detected a stationary object in path of the Tesla. At that time, the forward collision warning was activated; the system presented a visual and auditory warning. Data also shows that the AEB did not engage and that there was no driver-applied braking of steering prior to the crash. According to Tesla, the AEB was active at the time of the crash, and considering that the stopped fire truck was detected about half a second before impact, there likely was not sufficient time to activate the AEB." ...This implies that the AEB and its functioning in collaboration with the TACC needs to be substantially re-evaluated/re-designed. Alain
3. Figure 6 which clearly depicts the movement of the Tesla relative to the lead vehicle and the Firetruck in the 15 seconds before the crash. The Tesla's radar and front facing camera mush have "seen' the firetruck 4 seconds before the crash and every sensing loop (1/10th of a second) during the last 4 seconds yet...
M. Isaac,
Aug 27,
"Anthony
Levandowski
was once one
of Silicon
Valley’s most
sought after
technologists.
As a pioneer
of
self-driving
car
technology, he
became a
confidant of
Larry Page, a
co-founder of
Google, and
helped develop
the search
giant’s
autonomous
vehicles. Uber
wooed him to
gain an edge
in
self-driving
techniques.
Venture
capitalists
threw their
money at him.
But on
Tuesday, Mr.
Levandowski,
39, fell far
from that
favored
stature.
Federal
prosecutors
charged him
with 33 counts
of theft and
attempted
theft of trade
secrets from
Google. ...
The criminal
indictment
against Mr.
Levandowski
from the
United States
Attorney’s
Office for the
Northern
District of
California
opens a new
chapter in a
legal battle
that has
embroiled
Google, its
self-driving
car spinoff
Waymo and its
rival Uber in
the
high-stakes
contest over
autonomous
vehicles. The
case also
highlights
Silicon
Valley’s
no-holds-barred
culture, where
gaining an
edge in new
technologies
versus
competitors
can be
paramount....
According to the indictment, Mr. Levandowski downloaded more than 14,000 files containing critical information about Google’s autonomous-vehicle research before leaving the company in 2016. He then made an unauthorized transfer of the files to his personal laptop, the indictment said. Mr. Levandowski joined Uber later that year when the ride-hailing firm bought his new self-driving trucking start-up, which was called Otto....
“The Bay
Area has the
best and
brightest
engineers, and
they take big
risks,” John
Bennett, the
F.B.I. special
agent in
charge of the
San Francisco
Division, said
at a news
conference on
Tuesday. “But
Silicon Valley
is not the
Wild West. The
fast-paced and
competitive
environment
does not mean
federal laws
do not
apply.”Mr.
Levandowski’s
next court
date is Sept.
4. If he is
convicted, he
could face a
maximum of 10
years in
prison, a
$250,000 fine
for every
count and
additional
restitution.
“All of us are
free to move
from job to
job,” said
David L.
Anderson,
United States
attorney in
the Northern
District of
California.
“What we
cannot do is
stuff our
pockets on the
way out the
door.”..." Read
more Hmmm... Central to this
technology is
the perception
of
personal
safety and
trust. Lying,
cheating &
stealing can't
be part of
this industry,
else it will
never emerge
from the
venture
stage. If DeiselGate
and the Uber
crash weren't
enough, let
this be the
next wake-up
call to this
industry to
clean up its
ethical
behavior.
Hopefully the
FBI will also
aggressively
pursue all
cyber
attackers. It
isn't cute,
nor a virtual
reality game.
It is hard
serious work
and creativity
focused on
improving the
quality of
everyday life.
Alain
J.
Browne, Aug
16,
"Autonomous
vehicles are
the future.
Self-driving
cars could
change our
lives,
heralding an
era of greater
convenience,
improved
productivity
and safer
roads...." Read
more Hmmmm.... Actually much of this opening sentence
is a myth...
It doesn't
take
Self-driving
or Driverless
to have
automation
technology
yield safer
roads. It
takes
safe-driving
technology
that works,
like Automated
Emergency
Braking (front
and rear)...
And ... are we
really going
to do our
"manufacturing
or service job
" (increase
"productivity")
if we don't
have to do the
work of
driving
anymore??? Of
the few
"riding
shotgun to
work" what
percentage are
doing work
while riding
shotgun?
Certainly less
than 10%.
Less than 1%?
So much for
productivity
improvements
If we get to Driverless, then the myths aren't
myths. There
will be fewer
private cars,
downtown
congestion
will be
reduced, the
environment
will be saved,
the insurance
industry's
gross revenues
will go down substantially (but
their profits
will go up)
and AVs are
already safer
than humans
that text
and/or are
"under the
influence"
while
driving.
If we don't get to Driverless, then we'll remain with "Do-it-yourself private mobility" that will include Self-driving assistance. Armed with that form of personal mobility, then all the myths are myths: More private cars ... and the policy implications are clear. See: J. M. Greenwald, A. L. Kornhauser "It’s up to us: Policies to improve climate outcomes from automated vehicles". Also, to have a proper perspective of the role of transportation and car/"FordF150s" in greenhouse gas emissions see... M. Sivak, Aug 22, "Increased relative contribution of medium and heavy trucks to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions" Alain
K.
conger, Aug
7, "Uber set
two dubious
quarterly
records on
Thursday as it
reported its
results: its
largest-ever
loss,
exceeding $5
billion, and
its
slowest-ever
revenue
growth. The
double whammy
immediately
renewed
questions
about the
prospects for
the company,
the world’s
biggest
ride-hailing
business. Uber
has been
dogged by
concerns about
sluggish sales
and whether it
can make
money, worries
that were
compounded by
a
disappointing
initial public
offering in
May.
For the second
quarter, Uber
said it lost
$5.2 billion,
the largest
loss since it
began
disclosing
limited
financial data
in 2017. A
majority of
that — about
$3.9 billion —
was caused by
stock-based
compensation
that Uber paid
its employees
after its
I.P.O.
Excluding that
one-time
expense, Uber
lost $1.3
billion, or
nearly twice
the $878
million that
it lost a year
earlier. On
that sariesme
basis and
excluding
other costs,
the company
said it
expected to
lose $3
billion to
$3.2 billion
this
year...Lyft
has also
reported a
series of deep
losses. This
week, it said
it lost $644.2
million in the
second
quarter,
though it
added that it
expected that
amount to
abate. Several
months
earlier, Lyft
had also
posted a
particularly
steep loss
related to
stock-based
compensation
payouts to its
employees..."
Read
more Hmmmm.... No wonder Uber looked so good prior to
its IPO, it
hadn't "paid"
its
employees. So
is this really
a "one time"
expense??
Anyway,
Driverless is
their only
potential
savior as a
$40 stock.
They can't
afford to pay
their
employee,
their gig
workers can't
feed families,
new customers
can't afford
their prices
and food
delivery
generates only
chump change.
Uber
Stock price,
See also...Uber and Lyft keep losing money while driving up the
number of cars
on our
overcrowded
streets.
Alain
A. Hawkins,
July 24,
"Cruise will
miss its goal
of launching a
large-scale
self-driving
taxi service
in 2019, the
GM
subsidiary’s
CEO Dan Ammann
said in an
interview
Tuesday. The
company plans
to
dramatically
increase the
number of its
autonomous
test vehicles
on the road in
San Francisco,
but will not
be offering
rides to
regular people
this year.
Previously, GM
executives
told investors
that its
autonomous
ride-hailing
service would
be open to the
public by the
end of this
year. Now it
seems as if
Cruise is
moving away
from deadlines
and launch
dates
altogether.
Ammann, GM’s
former
president who
now leads its
autonomous
vehicle unit
in San
Francisco,
wouldn’t even
commit to
launching the
service next
year, in
2020....
Cruise is still waiting for the federal government to accept or reject its request to deploy a fleet of fully driverless Chevy Bolt vehicles without steering wheels or pedals. The request was in limbo until this past March, when the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said it would solicit public comments and conduct a review. That process concluded in May, and now Cruise is waiting for a final verdict. “We’re in dialogue with them,” Ammann said of NHTSA. “And nothing further to comment on at this point.”...
It will
also host
community
events to
answer
questions from
residents of
San Francisco
who, in some
respects, are
the company’s
unwitting test
subjects in
its public
self-driving
experiments...."
Read
more Hmmmm.... Starting in the Blue Chip cities trying
to serve those
that already
have lots of
mobility
options is
turning out to
be a
fundamentally
flawed
approach.
Wouldn't it be better to start providing mobility to those in areas that aren't currently well served by existing mobility options... cars and transit. Find such places like Central Jersey, Chandler AZ, South Carolina, The Villages and Peoria be precursors to the MountainViews, Washington DCs, Miamis, SFs and LAs. Start there where the need exists and real benefits can be delivered. See also Timothy Lee's take on this. Alain
Tesla,
July 16, "At
Tesla, we
believe that
technology can
help improve
safety. That’s
why Tesla
vehicles are
engineered to
be the safest
cars in the
world. We
believe the
unique
combination of
passive
safety, active
safety, and
automated
driver
assistance is
crucial for
keeping not
just Tesla
drivers and
passengers
safe, but all
drivers on the
road. It’s
this notion
that grounds
every decision
we make – from
the design of
our cars, to
the software
we introduce,
to the
features we
offer every
Tesla owner.
Model S, X and
3 have
achieved the
lowest
probability of
injury of any
vehicle ever
tested by the
U.S.
government’s
New Car
Assessment
Program.
... In the 2nd quarter, we registered one accident for every 3.27 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.19 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 1.41 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 498,000 miles.... " Read more Hmmmm.... This summary uses "accident" for Teslas and "crash" for NHTSA. This may suggest that the Tesla and NHTSA are not comp[arable... Tesla is reporting about apples and NHTSA is referring to "oranges". That notes; however, it does seem that for Teslas with and without AutoPilot and the other active safety features, there is consistency in the measure. A more detailed question arises about the equivalence of the driving domain for each category as well as who is at fault in each of these situations. Even in light of these issues and details, the large variation in the rates: 3.27 v 2.18 v 1.41 is very significant among Teslas. Seems as if AutoPilot and Tesla's other active collision avoidance safety features are improving safety of Teslas. The spread from the 0.5 value for NHTSA is really astonishing making Teslas much safer than the average of all other cars. Unfortunately these numbers only scratch the surface and beg for more details. In the past I have called for an independent evaluation of the Tesla crash statistics and I do that again there today. I'll offer to do it. Tesla should encourage someone to do it. As it stands today, not enough people believe or trust Tesla (see below) Tesla. That's unfortunate because improved safety is THE major objective of SmartDrivingCar technology. Alain
A. Hawkins,
July 12, "In a
widely
anticipated
move, Ford and
Volkswagen
announced
Friday their
plan to expand
their
seven-month-old
alliance to
include
autonomous and
electric
vehicles.
As part of the
deal, VW will
invest a
whopping $2.6
billion in
Argo AI, the
autonomous
vehicle
startup based
in Pittsburgh
that
practically no
one had heard
of until
Ford’s own
eye-popping $1
billion
investment in
2017. VW
will invest $1
billion in
cash, as well
as $1.6
billion in
assets that
include the
auto giant’s Munich-based
Autonomous
Intelligent
Driving team,
which will be
absorbed by
Argo. After
the deal goes
through,
Argo’s
post-money
valuation will
be over $7
billion....
The deal also gives Argo a global reach. The company, which was founded by former Uber engineers with ties to Carnegie Melon University’s famed robotics lab, has been testing its cars with Ford’s backing in Pittsburgh, Detroit, Miami, and Washington, DC. Now it can also deploy its vehicles on European roads under VW’s guidance....
A month ago VW severed a partnership with Aurora Innovation, the autonomy startup founded by former Google self-driving head Chris Urmson. Argo was co-founded by Bryan Salesky, another former member of the Google self-driving team. He was also on the same team as Urmson in the 2007 DARPA autonomous vehicle challenge, which is seen as a watershed moment in the pursuit for self-driving cars. Ford dumped $1 billion into Argo in 2017 and has worked closely with the startup ever since....
Companies have been pairing up to work on self-driving cars for years now, but only recently has that relentless coupling taken on more serious overtones. Over the last few months:Press
Release, June
19,
"...Collisions
that result in
injury can
often be
caused by a
delay in a
driver’s
recognition of
the situation
and his or her
ability to
react
accordingly.
In a move to
help prevent
such accidents
before they
happen, the
Lexus Safety
System+ will
be a standard
feature in all
US Lexus
vehicles
starting with
the 2020 model
year. “We are
working toward
preventing
crashes before
they happen,”
said David
Christ, group
vice president
and general
manager, Lexus
Division.“
That's why we
have developed
some of the
most advanced
safety
features on
the road
today, and now
those systems
will be
standard
equipment on
every model we
sell. ..Nice!...
Designed to
help protect
drivers,
passengers and
pedestrians,
the Lexus
Safety System+
is an
integrated
suite of four
advanced
active safety
packages
anchored by
automated
pre-collision
warning and
braking. They
include:
This system is engineered to help detect a preceding vehicle or a pedestrian ... why not also a stationary fire truck, or a car stopped at a controlled intersection, or a brick wall, or...??? NotGoodEnough!... Below see Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: The ADAS Road to AV Reality - #SmartDrivingCar... in front of the Lexus under certain conditions . Should the system detect a pedestrian or a potential frontal collision, it’s designed to activate an audible and visual alert while automatically preparing Brake Assist for increased braking response... why not also begin immediately to brake and slow down ? (Hint..."not sure" is not the right answer.) If the situation is sufficient for you to alert the driver why isn't it good enough to immediately start to reduce the speed of the car. Worse case is that you added a couple of seconds to the trip. The driver can always override the brakes by pushing harder on the gas pedal if the driver insists on tailgating or is committing suicide or ???. NotGoodEnough!.... If the driver does not brake in time,... are you kidding?? You knew a crash was impending, and you waited until it was too late??? NotGoodEnough!... the system is designed to automatically begin braking before impact... and then you'll slam on the brakes??? NotGoodEnough!... and, in some cases... Not most/many cases; just some cases??? NotGoodEnough!..., can even bring the vehicle to a stop
This system
uses radar and
camera
technology to
help maintain
a preset speed
and following
distance from
the vehicle
ahead. If
driving at
highway speeds
and the road
ahead clears,
the vehicle
returns to its
preset speed.
.... Great, but a couple of questions... 1. If the
system is on
and I tap the
brakes, does
the system
turn off just
the
acceleration
function
because it
understands
that I tapped
the brakes
because I felt
that I was
going too fast
so the system
should not
override my
explicit
signal.
Nice!!
However, does
it also assume
that I really
know what I'm
doing?
Consequently,
it also turns
off the brake
function even
in situations
in which I am
not applying
enough brake
forces and a
crash is
imminent?
Does it again
wait until it
is too late
and and refuse
to help me in
those critical
moments? Then
you'll slam on
the
NotGoodEnough!
(Note... my S
Anti-lock
Braking ystem
explicitly
overrides the
way that I'm
applying the
brakes and
keeps me from
doing the
wrong thing.
Thank you
ABS! What
makes the AEB
situation
different when
the system
knows better
and could
really help me
in an as
critical
situation?
2. What happens if the system is on and I'm following a car at my preset distance going 10 mph under my desired speed. The car ahead changes lanes because she sees that a parked fire truck is in our lane ahead. Once her car clears my lane ahead, does the Dynamic Radar Cruise Control system take into account the existence of the parked firetruck ahead and brings me to a smooth stop before hitting the Firetruck? Or, does the system begin to accelerate to my desired speed and simply leave it to the Pre-Collison System with Pedestrian Detection system to try to "save the day" after it is too late?........"
Read more Hmmmm... Again, very nice that these features will be standard. It is really unfortunate that they are not better. Hopefully, since the limitations that I expressed above are all software related, Lexus will be able to do over-the-air (or otherwise) updates of the software as soon as Lexus has put more effort into the "intelligence" that uses the data streams generated by their cameras and radars AlainT. Lee,
June 13, "It
has been a
busy week for
Aurora, the
self-driving
startup
founded by
veterans of
the Google,
Tesla, and
Uber
self-driving
programs. On
Monday, Aurora
announced it
had forged a
partnership
with Fiat
Chrysler. On
Tuesday,
Aurora said it
was ending its
partnership
with
Volkswagen.
Now Hyundai is
deepening its
partnership
with Aurora
with an equity
investment.
It's the
latest example
of an
industry-wide
pattern: one
after another,
car companies
have made big
investments in
self-driving
startups. And
these deals
mean that
carmakers are
effectively
entering into
self-driving
alliances with
one
another....
All of the
recent deals
between car
companies and
self-driving
companies
could put
Waymo in a
difficult
position.
Waymo has been
working on
self-driving
technology
much longer
than any of
its rivals,
and the
company aimed
to introduce a
driverless
taxi service
long before
others came to
market. In
that scenario,
Waymo would
have its
choice of
automotive
partners, so
Waymo has been
keeping its
options open.
But the
reality is
that Waymo
will need help
from
automakers to
scale up
rapidly. As
more and more
automakers
commit to
Waymo's
rivals, Waymo
risks becoming
stranded—with
industry-leading sensors and software but limited capacity to integrate
the technology
into a large
number of
vehicles...."
Read
more Hmmmm... Good summary of "self-driving car"
partnerships
but, by
including
Waymo in the
mix, it is
conflating
what I
continue to
contend are
two VERY
different
markets...
Self-driving
and
Driverless.
What makes
them like oil
& vinegar
is that
self-driving
vehicles are
for the
Consumer
market and are
little
different from
conventional
cars.
Driverless
cars are for
the
Fleet/Business
market.
Self-driving
cars require a
driver in
order to
deliver any
meaningful
mobility or
value. Their
automation
stack delivers
additional
comfort,
convenience
and safety to
the auto
industry's
existing
customer
base. As such
it is a
"consumer
play" and
requires no
regulations or
public
oversight
other than
what exists
today. Any
safety issues
can be handled
through
standard
"product
liability" and
standard "NHTSA
recall"
procedures.
Its market
penetration
evolution is
like going
from manual
transmission
to automatic
transmission,
as Tesla is
demonstrating
with
AutoPilot.
From outside
the car, one
can't tell if
it has it or
doesn't. It
is a consumer
choice at time
of purchase.
Tesla
is creating
its own
"automatic
transmission"/"AutoPilot
stack". Other
OEMs are
hedging their
bets by
partnering
with
technology
provider for
their
self-driving
technology
stack. They'll
continue to
produce the
rest of the
car, as they
have done for
years, and
possibly
outsource
their "automatic transmission"
when the time
comes.
Driverless
cars are
"mobility
machines" when
managed as a
fleet
delivering
mobility to
individuals.
They are a
"business
play". It is
all about the
economic
efficiency/profitability
in delivering
mobility to
individuals.
The
fundamental
value is in
the
opportunity to
provide
consistent
reliable
affordable
mobility at
scale. The
technology
stack has
taken the
inconsistency,
unreliability
and monetary
cost of a
human driver
out of the
loop. Since
algorithms,
rather than
people, tailor
the service to
meet
individual
needs, such
systems scale
attractively.
All of this
MUST be done
safely without
a
driver/attendant,
else the
economics/affordability/scalability
completely
collapses.
From
outside the
car one can
tell that
there isn't a
driver in the
driver's
seat.
Consequently,
public
oversight at
all levels
from top to
grass roots
will need to
be comfortable
with this
thing with no
driver in it
going down
their street
and invading
their
neighborhood
and
transporting
their kids,
grandmas,
mobility
disadvantaged,
... .
Everyone is
going to
weigh-in with
perceptions
and
regulations.
Consequently,
the deployment
of the
technology is
going to need
to be
"welcomed" .
"Uber-like
swashbuckling
bravado isn't
going to cut
is.
Driverless
Mobility-as-a-Service is the market that Waymo (and GM/Cruise and
Ford/Argo)
have been
going after.
Because of its
need to be
"welcomed" (or
at least not
disdained) by
the residents
and businesses
that abut the
streets over
which these
vehicles
deliver their
mobility, the
deployment
dynamics for
Driverless is
very different
from
Self-driving.
All
Self-driving
needs is for
Madison Avenue
/ "Elon Musk"
to convince
individuals of
the comfort
and
convenience of
being able to
have the car
drive itself
some of the
time and they
are sold.
Driverless
requires
substantial
public
relations/education
of communities
to achieve
"welcoming".
A real "ground
war".
That is what
Waymo (and
GM/Cruise and
Ford/Argo)
needs to
conduct to
just get
started. Once
started Waymo
need to
continue it to
scale (Value
is achieved
only with
scale).
Finding
OEMs that will
sell Waymo
cars on which
to affix its
technology
stack will not
be the
problem. The
car is the
commodity. The
welcoming of
the technology
stack by
communities is
the
fundamental
differentiator.
Waymo is
sitting on an
order for at
least 82,000
cars from FCA
and Jaguar.
The order has
been
announced, but
not executed
because
insufficient
"ground
warfare" has
even been
waged, let
alone been
successful
(except in
Arizona).
With welcoming
environment
these 82,000
mobility
machines could
be serving 4
million person
trips per day
in communities
throughout the
country.
(Note... our
nation's
transit
systems today
(only) serve
an equivalent
number of
person trips;
although they
are longer
trips taken in
much more
densely
populated
areas. The
Waymo-served
trips would
likely be
trips that our
conventional
transit
systems can't
effectively
serve and thus
complement
conventional
transit. Some
of the trips
would replace
auto trips.
The others
would be new
trips by
persons who
can't or don't
want to drive
their own car
for whatever
reason and
whose lives
have been
substantially
disadvantaged
because their
mobility needs
aren't
effectively
served by
either the
personal car
or
conventional
mass transit.
A. Krok,
May 2, "You
can't please
all the people
all the time,
but Volkswagen
wants to make
sure that when
it moves into
the next era
of mobility,
it won't leave
any groups
behind.
Volkswagen
this week
unveiled its Inclusive Mobility Initiative,
which sees the
automaker
working
directly with
outside groups
to ensure that
its future
vehicles are
capable of
catering to
people with
disabilities..."
Read
more Hmmmm...This is fantastic and may well be in line
with the focus
we've taken
with the
upcoming 3rd Annual
Princeton SmartDrivingCar
Summit
10 days from
now. Our
focus is on all
people who
have been
marginalized
by the
unnecessary/non-inclusive/exclusive designs of our current forms of
mobility, .
These designs
are especially
irresponsible
when one no
longer needs a
person to
drive... to
keep the car
from crashing
while on its
way from where
people are to
where the want
to go. What
an enormous
opportunity to
be of service
to so many
that for what
ever reason
don't want or
can't perform
that task.
Yes, there are
situations in
which a
professional
is required.
At times, we
all need we
all need that
the help of a
professional.
But for all of
those
situations in
which a
professional
is not needed,
we have an
enormous
opportunity to
be so much
more inclusive
by removing
the other
unnecessary
exclusivities
that have
consciously or
unconsciously
crept into our
cars and
transit
systems. Our
mobility
systems no
longer need to
be big and
hold many
people to make
them
affordable, no
driver needs
to be paid.
They no longer
need to be
constrained to
only go
between the
few places
than many want
to go between
at only
certain
times. They
can readily
serve where
only a few,
even one, want
to go between
at whatever
time. The
skill set
needed to use
and be served
diminishes to
the skill set
needed by the
easiest to use
elevator. And
so on...
A. Kornhauser, March 13, "The following testimony was provided to the New Jersey State Assembly’s Transportation and Independent Authorities Committee on Monday, March 11....
What we need, what my ask is, that we create in New Jersey a “welcoming environment” for the research, testing and demonstration of this technology and work to focusing it on improving the mobility of the mobility disadvantaged...
While such
a
demonstration
is not
prohibited in
New Jersey, it
is not
permitted.
Consequently,
this provides
excuses and
hurdles to
bringing such
mobility to
our
communities
and tarnishes
any other
welcoming
efforts aimed
at enabling
New Jersey to
lead instead
of follow in
what may well
address the
fundamental
objective of
this
hearing." Read
more
Hmmmm....Seems
so simple. I
have found it
so incredibly
hard. Alain
Oct 16, Establishes
fully
autonomous
vehicle pilot
program A4573
Sponsors:
Zwicker (D16);
Benson (D14)
Oct 16, Establishes New
Jersey
Advanced
Autonomous
Vehicle Task
Force AJR164
Sponsors:
Benson (D14);
Zwicker (D16);
Lampitt (D6)
May
24, "About
9:58 p.m., on
Sunday, March
18, 2018, an
Uber
Technologies,
Inc. test
vehicle, based
on a modified
2017 Volvo
XC90 and
operating with
a self-driving
system in
computer
control mode,
struck a
pedestrian on
northbound
Mill Avenue,
in Tempe,
Maricopa
County,
Arizona.
...The
vehicle was
factory
equipped with
several
advanced
driver
assistance
functions by
Volvo Cars,
the original
manufacturer.
The systems
included a
collision
avoidance
function with
automatic
emergency
braking, known
as City
Safety, as
well as
functions for
detecting
driver
alertness and
road sign
information.
All these
Volvo
functions are
disabled when
the test
vehicle is
operated in
computer
control..."
Read more
Hmmmm....
Uber must
believe that
its systems
are better at
avoiding
Collisions and
Automated
Emergency
Braking than
Volvo's.
At least this
gets Volvo
"off the
hook".
"...According to data obtained from the
self-driving
system, the
system first
registered
radar and
LIDAR
observations
of the
pedestrian
about 6
seconds before
impact, when
the vehicle
was traveling
at 43 mph..."
(=
63
feet/second)
So the system
started
"seeing an
obstacle when
it was 63 x 6
= 378 feet
away... more
than a
football
field,
including end
zones!
"...As
the vehicle
and pedestrian
paths
converged, the
self-driving
system
software
classified the
pedestrian as
an unknown
object, as a
vehicle, and
then as a
bicycle with
varying
expectations
of future
travel
path..." (NTSB:
Please tell us
precisely when
it classified
this "object'
as a vehicle
and be
explicit about
the expected "future
travel
paths." Forget the path, please just tell us the precise
velocity
vector that
Uber's system
attached to
the "object",
then the
"vehicle".
Why didn't the
the Uber
system
instruct the
Volvo to begin
to slow down
(or speed up)
to avoid a
collision? If
these paths
(or velocity
vectors) were
not accurate,
then why
weren't they
accurate? Why
was the object
classified as
a
"Vehicle" ?? When did it finally classify the object as a "bicycle"?
Why did it
change
classifications?
How often was
the
classification
of this object
done. Please
divulge the
time and the
outcome of
each
classification
of this
object. In the tests that
Uber has done,
how often has
the system
mis-classified
an object as a
"pedestrian"when the object was
actually an
overpass, or
an overhead
sign or
overhead
branches/leaves
that the car
could safely
pass under, or
was nothing at
all??
(Basically,
what are the
false alarm
characteristics
of Uber's
Self-driving
sensor/software
system as a
function of
vehicle speed
and
time-of-day?)
"...At 1.3 seconds before impact, (impact speed was 39mph = 57.2 ft/sec) the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision" (1.3 x 57.2 = 74.4 ft. which is about equal to the braking distance. So it still could have stopped short.
"...According to Uber,
emergency
braking
maneuvers are
not enabled
while the
vehicle is
under computer
control, to
reduce (eradicate??) the potential
for erratic
vehicle
behavior.
..." NTSB: Please describe/define potential and erratic vehicle
behavior Also
please uncover
and divulge
the design
& decision
process that
Uber went
through to
decide that
this risk
(disabling the
AEB) was worth
the reward of
eradicating "
"erratic vehicle behavior". This
is
fundamentally
BAD design.
If the Uber
system's false
alarm rate is
so large that
the best way
to deal with
false alarms
is to turn off
the AEB, then
the system
should never
have been
permitted on
public
roadways.
"...The vehicle operator
is relied on
to intervene
and take
action. " Wow! If Uber's
system
fundamentally
relies on a
human to
intervene,
then Uber is
nowhere near
creating a
Driverless
vehicle.
Without its
own Driverless
vehicle Uber
is past "Peak
valuation".
Video similar to part of Adam's Luncheon talk @ 2015 Florida Automated Vehicle Symposium on Dec 1. Hmmm ... Watch Video especially at the 13:12 mark. Compelling; especially after the 60 Minutes segment above! Also see his TipRanks. Alain
This list is
maintained by
Alain
Kornhauser
and hosted by
the Princeton
University
Leave
|Re-enter
[log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.39&filename=dhbhaandkmfbffia.png" class="" width="106" height="88" border="0"> [log in to unmask]" alt="imap:[log in to unmask]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E3022058?part=1.40&filename=lglcejopfgfnajaj.png" class="" width="238" height="92" border="0">[log in to unmask]">Mailto:[log in to unmask]