K. Pyle,
Nov 12, "A key
recommendation
from the 2017
pilot was to
explore
whether paying
at the pump
could work for
a road charge
just like it
does for the
gas tax. How
could the user
experience be
as easy as
possible? With
support from a
federal
Surface
Transportation
Funding
Alternative
grant,
California
will test how
road charge
can work with
four
technologies:
usage-based
insurance,
ridesharing,
electric
vehicle
charging
stations/pay-at-the-pump
systems, and
autonomous
vehicles.
Interested in
participating?
The
demonstration
will begin in
January 2021
and run for
six months.
Complete the Contact Us data
form to
express your
interest in
volunteering
for one or
more
demonstration
phases.... "
Read
more Hmmmm... New Jersey is seeking
volunteers for
its version of
this. Participation is easy. You will
enroll via a
quick, online
enrollment
process, plug
a mileage
reporting
device into
your vehicle
and drive.
During the
pilot, you
will receive
monthly
simulated
statements
that compare
what you pay
in current
state fuel
taxes to what
you could pay
in an MBUF
system. It is
okay if you
are not
driving as
much as you
typically
would because
of the
COVID-19
Pandemic.
Your driving
data and
feedback
provided
through
anonymous
online surveys
will help us
understand key
issues such as
privacy,
equity and
administrative
costs with an
MBUF system.
Please
contact [log in to unmask]
to participate
and help n the
New Jersey
version. Use
Subject: Please
send, Body:
Mileage-Base
User Fee
(MBUF)
Demonstration
registration
information .
We
need
volunteers.
Thank you for
helping.
Alain
Video version of SmartDrivingCars PodCast 183... Alain
[log in to unmask]" alt="" class="" width="44" height="44" border="0"> The SmartDrivingCars eLetter, Pod-Casts, Zoom-Casts and Zoom-inars are made possible in part by support from the Smart Transportation and Technology ETF, symbol MOTO. For more information: www.motoetf.com. Most funding is supplied by Princeton University's Department of Operations Research & Financial Engineering and Princeton Autonomous Vehicle Engineering (PAVE) research laboratory as part of its research dissemination initiatives.
Marjory
Blumenthal,
November,
2020,
"Automated
vehicles (AVs)
are coming to
America’s
roadways. They
are not coming
as quickly as
was forecast
five years
ago—partly
because the
people
developing
them now have
a clearer
understanding
of how
difficult it
is to make
them safe—but
incremental
progress
continues to
be made in
improving AV
safety. This
progress adds
urgency to the
need to
understand
when AVs can
be considered
acceptably
safe—that is,
safe enough to
operate on
public roads
without the
oversight of a
human,
professional
safety driver.
In this
report, we
examine
different
approaches for
appraising
whether AVs
are acceptably
safe. Our
analysis draws
from three
data sources:
interviews
with a diverse
group of AV
stakeholders,
a survey of
the general
public, and a
review of
relevant
literature. We
also consider
areas of
agreement and
disagreement
among
different
groups of
stakeholders
about the
value of
different
approaches.
Finally, we
examine the
importance of
communicating
to public
audiences
about AV
safety.
Approaches
to Assessing
AV Safety
We
developed the
following
categorization
of approaches
for assessing
AV safety:
• safety as a
measurement
• safety as a
process
• safety as a
threshold. ...
Read more
Hmmmm.... This
is a most
laudable
report
prepared by
one of the
most respect
institutions.
The
"Approaches"
are totally
solid;
however, what
doesn't seem
to be
addressed,
(and my most
sincere
apologies if I
missed it,) is
the decision
process that
the entity,
that will be
held
responsible
should
something bad
happen (which
will almost
assuredly
happen, since
nothing is
perfectly
safe), will
need to go
through to
trade off the
the expected
benefits
against the
expected
fallout in
order to
finally decide
to pull the
driver.
To me, "the
buck" stops
with the
individual(s)
that will reap
the net
benefits of
driverless
operation.
Without those
benefits,
there is no
incentive to
forgo the
driver. That
action reaps
the rewards
and unleashes
the risks of
driverless.
Those risks
need to be
fully embraced
by those
capturing the
benefits. The
key question
centers on how
small do the
risks need to
become in
order for the
benefits to be
viewed as
worth removing
the driver.
This is
fundamental
decision
science. It
clearly points
out that any
approach to
safety MUST
also include a
serious
discussion of
the benefits
side. This
report seems
to only look
at one side of
the process;
the risks,
Moreover, it
doesn't seem
to fully
address the
human entities
that will
eventually
bear the
responsibility
of
implementation
of these
safety
approaches.
Alain
K. Korosec,
Nov 11,
"Electric
automaker
Rivian will
makes its
hands-free
driver
assistance
system
standard in
every vehicle
it builds,
including its
first two
vehicles — the
RT1 pickup
truck and R1S
SUV — that are
coming to
market in
2021.
Details about
the system,
which is
branded as
Driver+, was
just one of
numerous new
bits of
information
released
Wednesday on
its website,
including
prices and
specs on its
R1T pickup
truck and R1S
SUV.
Rivian said
the driver
assistance
system will
automatically
steer, adjust
speed and
change lanes
on
command..." Read more
Hmmmm... A really valuable addition to help
professional
drivers have a
better and
safer
workplace. I
love that they
are joining
Tesla in
pushing the
driver
assistance
technology and
making it
standard!
Alain
Staff, Nov.
11, "apan’s
Honda Motor Co
said on
Wednesday it
will be the
world’s first
automaker to
mass produce
sensor-packed
level 3
autonomous
cars that will
allow drivers
to let their
vehicles
navigate
congested
expressway
traffic.
“Honda is
planning to
launch sales
of a Honda
Legend (luxury
sedan)
equipped with
the newly
approved
automated
driving
equipment”
before the end
of March 2021,
Honda said in
a press
release....
Japan’s
government
earlier in the
day awarded a
safety
certification
to Honda’s
autonomous
“Traffic Jam
Pilot” driving
technology,
which legally
allow drivers
to take their
eyes off the
road...." Read
more Hmmmm... This is Sooo bad!! This
is NOT "Level
3". "Level 3"
isn't achieved
until the
maker of
"Level 3"
(Honda in this
case) agrees
to accept all
liability
(actual
damages,
deductibles,
etc. ) if
anything bad
happens during
and around the
the use of
this
technology.
Honda has NOT
accepted such
a
responsibility.
Until that is
done, and
liability is
removed from
the driver,
all of this
technology
remains a
"Level 2" or
lower Driver
Assistance
system where
the driver is
held
responsible
for any
incurred
liabilities.
I realize that
"liability
responsibility"
is not part of
the (Editor's
note:
atrocious) SAE
definitions,
but liability
responsibility
is at the crux
of any of
these
technologies.
If the
liability
remains on the
driver, then
it is just
Driver
Assistance
Technology.
If the
liability is
accepted by
the maker of
the automated
technology,
then it is
Automated
Driving. Pure
and simple!
Alain
Oct 30,
"Norway has
reached a new
milestone in
autonomous
mobility with
it’s first
driving
operation
completely
removing any
human
supervisor
from the
vehicle.
EasyMile’s
technology,
with clients
Applied
Autonomy, Vy,
Yara, City
& Lab and
Herøya
Industripark
AS, is behind
the inaugural
Society of
Automotive
Engineers
(SAE) level 4
mobility
operation.
Launched at
industrial
premise Herøya
the deployment
is an
important step
toward better
mobility,
zero-emission
and increased
safety on
private
sites. An
EZ10 shuttle
is carrying
employees to
and from the
canteen area
and main gate.
Beside it are
lanes with
cars, lorries,
buses,
pedestrians
and cyclists.
It will cross
two
intersections.
The pilot
project will
initially run
for five days
before an
evaluation is
carried out
“This project
gives us
valuable
experience in
the work of
making Herøya
an autonomous
industrial
park,” says
Sverre Gotaas,
CEO of Herøya
Industripark
AS..." Read
more Hmmmm... Sounds like it is at
least somewhat
of a major
step...
because of
"...
completely
removing any
human
supervisor
from the
vehicle..";
however, there
may also be
some important
caveats...the
Operational
Design Domain
is a private
site, not public roadways and "... pilot
project is (only) for
five days
before an
evaluation is
carried out ??? (Does this mean it hasn't been
operating for
a "long time"
with human
supervision
that has been
deemed to be
totally
unneeded???)
Note...
driverless
operation on
private
Operational
Design Domains
have been
taking place
in a few
places for
many
years.
Alain
R. Mudge
& J.
Lutin, Oct.
2020 "Elected
officials and
transit
executives
today face
operating
crises due to
the
unprecedented
COVID-19
pandemic,
uncertain
future demand,
funding
shortfalls,
and
competition
from new
services and
technology.
This paper
describes a
new technology
that may help
transit
leaders
address some
of these
problems as
they look
toward the
future.
This paper
describes a
new approach
to
high-capacity
transit,
Automated Bus
Rapid Transit
(ABRT). ABRT
uses
state-of-the-art
technology to
enhance
conventional
Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT).
This document
provides
information
for elected
officials,
transit
executives,
transit
planners, and
engineers who
seek options
to improve
transit
service while
taking
advantage of
new
technology...."
Read
more Hmmmm.. .Yup! Where the demand
is large
enough BRT
makes the most
sense and, and
today, one
might as well
automate it.
This report
nails it.
Alain
J. Muller,
Nov. 13,
"...The
challenge is
enormous: Just
providing a
single dose to
the world's
7.8 billion
people would
fill 8,000 747
freighter
planes, says
the
International
Air Transport
Association
(IATA).
If half the
needed
vaccines are
transported by
land, it would
still be the
biggest single
challenge the
air cargo
industry has
ever faced,
says IATA.
The problem:
Most cargo
flies in the
belly-holds of
passenger
aircraft — not
on cargo
planes — and
one in four
airplanes have
been grounded
during the
pandemic
because people
aren't flying.
The majority
of those
parked planes
are wide-body
jets typically
flown on
international
routes —
precisely the
ones needed to
distribute
vaccines.
An added
complication:
..." Read
more Hmmmm... Non trivial. Alain
R.
Mitchell, Nov.
12, "Ford
unveiled its
new
all-electric
E-Transit van
Thursday
morning, and
while not as
flashy as the
Mustang Mach E
it unveiled
late last
year, the
launch in some
ways could
prove more
important to
Ford’s
zero-emissions
strategy and
perhaps to the
public’s
acceptance of
vehicles that
don’t run on
gasoline or
diesel fuel.
“If Ford does
this right,
the E-Transit
van will be a
very important
vehicle for
them, and for
[vehicle]
electrification
in general,”
said Mike
Ramsey, an
analyst at
Gartner....
The cost savings for electric vans — mainly in the form of lower fuel and maintenance costs — could well swing fleet buyers to electric vans, Brinley said. But right now those savings are “in theory.” Fleet buyers will need a few years of experience to adequately judge the potential of electric vans, she said...." Read more Hmmmm... What may well be even better is that this form factor, having a little larger capacity and the opportunity to more easily get in and out of the vehicle than a "Pacifica", may make it more ideal for driverless mobility for 'everyone" (as well as, driverless home delivery of packages). Alain
E. Taylor, Nov. 12, "Daimler DAIGn.DE will be a smaller company five years from now, focused on capturing recurring revenues with software-based services as Mercedes-Benz seeks to redefine luxury in an era of electric self-driving cars, Chief Executive Ola Kaellenius said. The Stuttgart-based company founded by Carl Benz, who patented the first gasoline-powered car in 1886, is accelerating plans to shift the carmaker beyond combustion-engine vehicles, a step which will result in job losses....
Jobs will
disappear
because it
takes less
time to build
an electric
car than a
conventional
gasoline or
diesel
version.
That’s because
an electric
car’s battery
and motor have
only 200
components,
compared with
at least 1,400
parts found in
a combustion
engine and
transmission,
according to
analysts at
ING...." Read
more Hmmmm...Yup! Alain
K. Korosec,
Nov 9, "Nuro,
the autonomous
delivery
startup
founded by two
former Google
engineers, has
raised $500
million,
suggesting
that investors
still have an
appetite for
long-term
pursuits such
as robotics
and automated
vehicle
technology.
Nuro now has a
post-money
valuation of
$5 billion.
The Series C
round was led
by funds and
accounts
advised by T.
Rowe Price
Associates,
Inc., with
participation
from new
investors
including
Fidelity
Management
& Research
Company and
Baillie
Gifford. The
round also
includes
existing
investors such
as SoftBank
Vision Fund 1
and Greylock.
Nuro was
founded in
June 2016 by
former Google
engineers Dave
Ferguson and
Jiajun Zhu.
While the
startup was
initially
bootstrapped
by Ferguson
and Zhu, it
has never
struggled to
attract
investors..."
Read
more Hmmmm... Today the climate is
very good for
driverless
home delivery.
Alain
T. Lee,
Nov. 10. "On
Tuesday,
President-elect
Joe Biden
announced a roster
of policy
experts who
will help
ensure "a
smooth
transfer of
power" and
enable the new
Biden
administration
to "hit the
ground
running."
The list has
more than 500
members, and
technology
companies are
well-represented on the list. It includes current employees of Airbnb,
Amazon, Dell,
Dropbox,
LinkedIn,
Lyft,
Salesforce,
Stripe, and
Uber. It also
includes
employees from
the
philanthropic
organizations
of three tech
moguls: the
Chan
Zuckerberg
Initiative
(Facebook CEO
Mark
Zuckerberg),
the Bill and
Melinda Gates
Foundation
(former
Microsoft CEO
Bill Gates),
and Schmidt
Ventures
(former Google
CEO Eric
Schmidt).
The list also
includes one
representative
from a
technology-focused
non-profit
group: Gene
Kimmelman of
Public
Knowledge will
be part of the
transition
team for the
Department of
Justice....." Read
more Hmmmm... Nice! Alain
T. Lee,
Nov. 9.
"Electric
truck-maker
Nikola was
widely
ridiculed in
September when
a
short-selling
firm revealed
that its first
truck, the
Nikola One,
never worked.
A promotional
video of the
truck "in
motion"
actually
showed the
vehicle
rolling down a
hill.
But the
company's
latest
quarterly
financial
results,
released
Monday, show
that Nikola
has something
it didn't have
in 2016:
truckloads of
cash.
Specifically,
Nikola has
$900 million
in the
bank—most of
it raised when
the company
went public
back in June.
Nikola says it
spent $117
million in the
third quarter
of 2020 while
bringing in no
revenue. The
losses were
smaller than
some analysts
had expected,
and investors
reacted
positively to
the results,
sending
Nikola's stock
price up by 2
percent in
after-hours
trading.
Nikola's war
chest means
that, despite
the company's
shambolic
origins,
Nikola might
still have a
shot to become
a viable
truckmaker.
The company's
cash should
last about two
years at the
current burn
rate. So
Nikola has
until 2022 to
either begin
generating
revenues or
raise more
money from
investors...."
Read
more
Hmmmm...
OK, 2 years to
start breaking
even (assuming
that those
that
bankrolled you
don't want to
be paid
back). All
this while
competing with
the Ford
EV 150 And
the Tesla
Cyber Truck,
Good luck!
Aso, the
Hydrogen
economy was
hot in the
70s, along
with the
thermonuclear
fusion
economy. Both
have always
been 30
years in the
future and
remain
so today.
Alain
K. Korosec,
Nov 11,
"Shares of
Lyft are
riding high,
popping more
than 7% in
after-hours
trading today
after the
American
ride-hailing
giant reported
its Q3
earnings.
Lyft, which
competes with
Uber for
rideshare,
reported
revenues of
$499.7 million
in the
third-quarter,
a 48% drop
from the
$955.6 million
in the same
year-ago
period. That
lackluster
result is
still a 47%
improvement
over last
quarter when
Lyft reported
$339.3 million
in revenue.
That’s good?
Investors were
heartened by
the
improvement
and Lyft’s
ability to
beat analysts
revenue
expectations
of $486.45
million. The
company’s net
loss of $1.46
per share was
worse than
expected, but
investors
appeared more
bullish than
bearish,
buying up Lyft
equity and
boosting its
value after
the company’s
earnings
report..." Read more Hmmmm... I still don't see it, but maybe
they can find
a way to keep
more and more
drivers happy
and actually
scale a
labor-intesive
service. Alain
These editions are sponsored by the SmartETFs Smart
Transportation
and Technology
ETF, symbol
MOTO. For more
information…head to www.motoetf.com
F. Fishkin,
Aug 20, "Tesla
grows while
other
automakers
flounder. And
creating
standards in
an era of
mistrust. The
Dispatcher
publisher
joins
Princeton's
Alain
Kornhauser and
co-host Fred
Fishkin in a
thought
provoking
episode.
Plus...transportation
planning
during and
after the
pandemic...NVIDIA...and
more."
F. Fishkin Aug 13, "Ghost Road.. Beyond the Driverless Car author Anthony Townsend brings a unique viewpoint to the debate on the future of mobility...and the impact of the pandemic on ride sharing. Townsend joins Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin for that and the latest developments from Uber, Lyft, Tesla and more."
F. Fishkin
Aug 8, "Is
Tesla a tech
stock? Or a
fashion
product? Maniv
Mobility's
Olaf Sakkers
authored a
piece on
Medium with
that title and
he joins
Princeton's
Alain
Kornhauser
& co-host
Fred Fishkin
for that
plus... GM's
would be Tesla
challenger
Cadillac
Lyriq,
TuSimple,
Uber, Ford and
more."
F.
Fishkin July
29, "In the
midst of a
pandemic, what
is the future
of ride
sharing and
mobility?
Princeton's
Alain
Kornhauser and
co-host Fred
Fishkin are
joined by
Robin Chase
and Carlos
Pardo of the
New Urban
Mobility
Alliance and
the director
of the
Institute for
Transportation
Studies at U C
Davis, Daniel
Sperling to
dig into the
challenges
ahead."
F. Fishkin, July 20, "Is Driverless home delivery the fastest route to Affordable Mobility for the Mobility Disadvantaged? ... "
F. Fishkin, July 2, "Transportation, racial injustices and changing the thinking around the future of mobility. NYU McSilver Institute for Poverty Policy & Research fellow Henry Greenidge joins Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin in an eye and mind opening episode of Smart Driving Cars. Plus Amazon, Zoox, Waymo, Tesla & more. ." ... Alain
F. Fishkin,
June 2, "But
the debate is
not really
about
technology nor
is it about
who delivers
the best value
for the money
or the most
privacy. It is
about ..."
W.
Kaufman, Nov.
4, "Tesla
recently made
headlines with
the beta
launch of its
Full
Self-Driving
system. That
system comes
with a
disclaimer
saying, “It
may do the
wrong thing at
the worst
time, so you
must always
keep your
hands on the
wheel and pay
extra
attention to
the road.â€
Tesla’s
system has
impressive
capabilities,
but it’s
definitely not
hands-free
driving. A few
years ago,
news stories
seemed to say
that
autonomous
vehicles were
just a few
years away.
Well, it’s
been a few
years and
autonomous
vehicles are,
alas, still in
the future.
Right now,
there is no
car on sale
that can drive
itself without
requiring the
driver to pay
attention to
the road and
be prepared to
take control
of the
vehicle. In
fact, some
automakers
have slowed
down their
timelines.
Here are three
reasons why
you can’t
buy a
self-driving
car today and
one place
you’re
likely to find
them first....
Waymo Team, Oct. 30, "On October 8th, Waymo opened its fully autonomous ride-hailing service to the general public in Phoenix. Right now members of the public are hailing vehicles with no human driver controlling the car – either in the vehicle or remotely – to help them get to where they’re going as part of their everyday lives...." Read more Hmmmm...
N, Webb,
Oct. 30, "As
the world’s
most
experienced
developer of
automated
driving
systems
(“ADSsâ€),
Waymo has
extensive
experience in
developing and
applying
state-of-the-art
safety
methodologies.
Waymo’s
methodologies
help implement
Waymo’s
forward-looking
safety
philosophy:
Waymo will
reduce traffic
injuries and
fatalities by
driving safely
and
responsibly,
and will
carefully
manage risk as
we scale our
operations.
Waymo’s
safety
methodologies,
which draw on
well
established
engineering
processes and
address new
safety
challenges
specific to
Automated
Vehicle
(“AVâ€)
technology,
provide a firm
foundation for
safe
deployment of
our Level 4
ADS, which we
also refer to
as the Waymo
Driverâ„¢.
Waymo’s
determination
of its
readiness to
deploy its AVs
safely in
different
settings rests
on that firm
foundation and
on a thorough
analysis of
risks specific
to a
particular
Operational
Design Domain
(“ODDâ€)...."
Read more Hmmmm... The process. Must
read! Alain
M. Schwall, Oct. 30, "Waymo’s mission to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities and improve mobility for all has led us to expand deployment of automated vehicles (AVs) on public roads without a human driver behind the wheel. As part of this process, Waymo is committed to providing the public with informative and relevant data regarding the demonstrated safety of Waymo’s automated driving system (ADS), which we call the Waymo Driver...." Read more Hmmmm... The substance. Must read! ...
I had the priveledge of reviewing Waymo’s most recent
Safety Reports
1
, 2
(above)
In the past, safety reports by the AV community have
largely been a
response to
NHTSA’s Voluntary
Safety
Self-Assessments
and have, in
my opinion,
been largely
public
relations
documents.
While
generally
descriptive
about the
testing
processes they
contain very
little, if
any,
substantive
information
about their safety
related experience
to-date
focused
exclusively on
driverless
operation.
Safe driverless operation is absolutely necessary for
AVs to evolve
from extremely
expensive
chauffeured
rides to
affordable
mobility
available to
essentially
anyone
throughout an
Operational
Design Domain
(ODD).
Affordability
requires that
the mobility
be delivered
without a
driver or
attendant
on-board the
vehicle. Only
passengers.
The decision to remove the driver/attendant rests in
part on the
shoulders of
public safety
regulators who
need to allow
such
operation, but
more
importantly,
on the
shoulders of
the real
decision
makers at the
AV company.
In the end, it
is those AV
company
decision
makers who
will be held
fully
responsible
for any lapse
in the safety
of the
driverless
operation.
These decision
makers are
inside the AV
companies and
are, of
course, privy
to all the
details and
substance
about their
own safety
related
driverless
operation,
which, in the
past, has not
been shared in
their
Voluntary
Safety
Self-assessments.
My impression is that these just released Waymo Safety
Reports
contain the
substantive
information
that clearly
depicts
Waymo’s
safety-related
driverless
operational
experience.
To me, they
read like
internal
documents
meant to guide
and inform
internal
decision
makers to
objectively
decide if a
sufficiently
safe
operational
experience has
been achieved
in order to
vote to fully
accept the
safety
responsibility
of driverless
operation in
their
Operational
Design
Domain.
Given the information that is contained in these
documents, it
does not
surprise me
that Waymo
decision
makers have
decided to
proceed with
driverless
operation in
the Phoenix
Operational
Design Domain.
Had I had the
responsibility
of being one
of the
decision
makers
reviewing
these
documents, I
would have
also voted
yes.
Alain
J. Davis,
Oct 20,
"Launching a
self-driving
service is
complex. Many
different
pieces need to
come together
to create a
trusted and
scalable
self-driving
service that
provides value
to customers
and the cities
they operate
in. At Ford,
we are taking
a thoughtful
approach to
how we bring
together all
these pieces
to help shape
the future of
self-driving
vehicles. One
important part
of this
service is the
vehicle, which
will allow us
to stand up
our
self-driving
business.
Meet the
Fourth
Generation
Self-Driving
Test Vehicle:
Beginning to
roll out this
month, Ford
and Argo
AI‘s
fourth-generation self-driving test vehicles are built on the Escape
Hybrid
platform and
feature the
latest
advancements
in sensing and
computing
technology.
The Escape
Hybrid is also
the
architecture
and platform
we have chosen
to use to
bring our
autonomous
vehicle
service
online....." Read more Hmmmm.... See
video.
Imprssive.
Listen/watch
SmartDrivingCars PodCast
/ ZoomCast
with John
Rich. CNBC's
take as
well as THe
Detroit News.
Alain
J.
Szczesny, Oct
7, "Ford Motor
Co.’s push
to broaden its
self-driving
vehicle
technology
portfolio, led
to it taking a
stake in a
Silicon Valley
company
developing
lidar systems
needed to help
guide
autonomous
vehicles.
The automaker
revealed it
owns a 7.6%
stake, or
13.06 million
shares, in
Velodyne
Lidar,
according to a
report filed
with the
Securities
Exchange
Commission.
With the
shares trading
at $17.40 per
share, the
stake is worth
approximately
$227.2
million. Ford
filed the
report to
remain
compliant with
the SEC...." Read more Hmmmm.... Interesting, but even
more
interesting is
the
SmartDrivingCars
PodCast
/ ZoomCast
with John
Rich. Alain
Staff,
Oct. 2020 "On
this page you
will find the
gradings of
cars tested by
Euro NCAP on
automated
driving
technologies.
For its 2020
assessment of
Highway Assist
systems, Euro
NCAP has
developed
dedicated test
and assessment
protocols,
divided into
two main
areas:
Assistance
Competence,
based on the
balance
between Driver
Engagement and
Vehicle
Assistance,
and Safety
Backup...." Read
more Hmmmm....Look carefully at each
component of
the rating
system. NCAP
has chosen one
algorithmic
way of "adding
apples and
oranges" to
get their
rating.
Unfortunately
they don't
divulge the
secret
formula. To
me, it doesn't
seem to be
sufficiently
iweighted on
what I
consider to be
the most
important
element...
"Collision
Avoidance".
If the system
doesn't do
that well,
then why
bother being
good at
Consumer
Information
(unless that
information
says clearly
that the
system doesn't
work well".
If NCAP itself did a good job of
Consumer
Information
then it would
divulge its
algorithm and
allow the
consumer to
edit its
weights to
trade-off what
the consumer
believes is
more or less
important.
A.
Efrati, July
22, "In just
five years,
TuSimple has
become the
biggest and
most visible
developer of
self-driving
trucks,
raising more
cash and
putting more
robotic big
rigs on the
road than any
rival.
High-profile
customers
including UPS
have
contracted to
let TuSimple
haul their
cargo on the
highway.
Executives
have forecast
heady revenue
and predicted
that fully
automated,
driverless
trucks are in
sight.
Instead,
TuSimple has
fallen short
of
expectations,
hampered by
the same
technological
challenges
that have
afflicted
other
developers of
self-driving
vehicles. It
had predicted
several
hundred
million
dollars of
revenue by
this year, but
instead
acknowledges
revenue is
minimal,
according to
the
company’s
financial
projections
reviewed by
The
Information.
And it has
fallen short
of its
timeline for
removing human
backup
drivers,
repeatedly..,"
Read
more
Hmmm....
I simply don't
understand why
they have to
be focusing on
Driverless
right from the
beginning.
There is
substantial
RoI for
Safe-driving
Trucks...
reduced
expected
liability
(~$10/truck/year);
improved
comfort,
quality of
work place,
reduced
anxiety, ...
of drivers
yielding
improved
driver
recruiting and
retention;
improved
on-time
deliveries;
... continue
to yield very
attractive
RoIs for just
for
Safe-driving
truck
technology,
aka "Level
1/2". Why
isn't tuSimple
starting with
this
technology to
build its
advanced
distribution
network????
Alain
R. Bishop,
Mar 24, "I met
Stefan
Seltz-Axmacher
for the first
time in
November 2015
at the Florida
Automated
Vehicles
Summit. Not
long after, we
met at the
Blue Danube
coffee shop in
Alameda, CA so
he could tell
me about his
vision for
Starsky
Robotics. When
he
energetically
described his
remote-driving-for-trucks approach, I was skeptical. “Remote driving
is hard,†I
said. “The
military has
struggled with
this for
years. Its
harder than it
looks.†On
the technical
side, latency
for secure
communications
is
challenging.
On the
operational
side,
re-creating
enough on-road
reality
(situational
awareness) for
a remote
driver is
difficult when
going for the
high levels of
safety needed.
Seltz-Axmacher
remained
bullish on the
approach and
at that time
went on to
found Starsky
Robotics as
one of the
earliest truck
AV startups,
later closing
a $16.5M
Series A
funding round
in March 2018,
and then
hauling
freight while
developing
both remote
and automated
driving
ability.
Initially,
Starsky’s
concept was
all about
remote driving
for first/last
mile. They
later expanded
their offering
to include
fully
automated
highway
driving on
limited
freight
corridors.
Now, Starsky
has become the
first casualty
within a
crowded truck
automation
space, and
Seltz-Axmacher
has provided
us with an
intriguing
post-mortem in
a recent
Medium post.
Most of the
media coverage
I’ve seen
has acted as
echo chambers
for
Seltz-Axmacher’s
perspective.
Here I offer a
counterpoint
based on my
longtime
involvement in
truck
automation
plus
discussions
with many
others in the
truck
Automated
Driving
Systems (ADS)
startup space,
many of them
irate at what
they see as
unfounded
assertions
made in the
original post.
My sources
tell me that
because
Seltz-Axmacher
hasn't
experienced
their
technology nor
been briefed
on their
technical/safety
approach, he
has no basis
to make
sweeping
claims about
the entire
industry...."
Read
more Hmmmm... Listen
to PodCast 148.
or/and Watch
us on YouTube.
Alain
A. Kornhauser, Jan 12, Hmmmm... Self-driving cars are hot and the OEMs are responding. I'm about to buy a new Subaru Outback and EyeSight is standard. It is no longer just AutoPilot or expensive options that car salesmen don't sell. Car companies, as reflected in what is in showrooms and what was promoted at CES, have realized the comfort and convenience of Self-driving technology (cars that have a lot of the Safe-driving car features but also enable you to take your feet off the pedals and hands off the wheel at least for short periods of time. These technologies are really becoming the 'chrome and fins' that sell cars to individuals in the 2020s. The momentum is all behind that happening and there is little Washington or Trenton or Princeton Council can do about it. Hopefully part of that momentum will be to make these systems actually work well, especially the Automated Emergency Braking Systems (MUST quit assuming that all stationary objects in the lane ahead can be passed under and consequently each is disregarded. As Tesla is finding out, sometimes those objects are parked firetrucks.) and begin to put hard limits on over-speeding, tailgating and use while driver is impaired. Self-driving cars are unfortunately going to lead to substantial urban sprawl, increased VMT, increased congestion and do nothing to help the energy and pollution challenges of our addiction to the personal automobile. Only 'Waymo-style Driverless' (autonomousTaxis, (aTaxis)) tuned to entice ride-sharing can potentially stem the tide of ever more personal car ownership and ever expanding urban sprawl. Alain
A. Kornhauser, Jan. 6, Hmmmm... I'm in rehab and hope to go home on Wednesday morning. Thank you to so many of you for all the good wishes and prayers. They each helped. I'm looking to making a full recovery. Remember, if you don't feel well, get evaluated by a doctor. I was totally clueless about what hit me from out of nowhere. Alain
[log in to unmask]" class="" width="79" height="131">
autonomousTaxi (aTaxi) stop facilitating true ride-sharing to any destination within the autonomous transit system's Operational Design Domain. The first of what may well become a half million or so others. Each strategically located to be less that a 5 minute walk from essentially any of the billion or so person trip ends that are made on any typical day in the USA (outside of Manhattan (whose subway stations provide the comparable accessibility). Twenty million or so aTaxi vehicles could readily provide on-demand, share-ride mobility from these ~0.5M aTaxi stops. Provided would be essentially the same 24/7 on-demand level-of-service as we do for ourselves with our own conventional automobiles; however, this mobility would be affordably achieved using half the energy, creating half the pollution, eliminating essentially all the congestion, doubling conventional transit ridership and making such improved mobility available to those who today can't or wish not to drive a conventional automobile. This is a MAJOR 1st. 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