M
Henninger, Aug
11, "A bright
orange,
battery-powered
train breaks
the lush green
stillness of
Rockhill
Furnace,
Pennsylvania,
as it
traverses
track
originally
laid in 1876.
At the helm in
a bright
green/yellow
safety vest,
Meg Richards
tweaks the
throttle and
brakes as the
two-car train
passes by
baseball
fields,
crosses
streets and
completes the
day's test
run.
Along for the
ride, Henry
Posner III,
the chairman
of Railroad
Development
Corporation
(RDC) and an
adjunct
instructor at
Carnegie
Mellon
University,
sits eager to
demonstrate
his vision for
a rail-based
mass transit
system in the
United States.
The original
concept for
Pop-Up Metro —
a
battery-powered,
modular train
that can be
inserted onto
existing
infrastructure
— evolved in
parallel with
his Department
of History
class, The
American
Railroad-Decline
and
Renaissance in
the Era of
Deregulation.
"There
are more
possibilities
for railroads
than you might
think," said
Posner, who
together with
his wife,
University
Trustee Anne
Molloy, is
also a
generous
benefactor of
CMU. "A lot of
urban areas in
this country
have
underutilized
freight lines
that could
also support
transit
service.
People might
not have
considered
these
opportunities
because it's
been perceived
as too
expensive, too
lengthy and
too risky.
With Pop-Up
Metro, you can
do that
project
quickly on a
demonstration
basis. You
don't have to
spend $100
million."..."
Read
more Hmmmm...
Watch
video.
Fantastic for
those not
ready for
SmartDrivingCars
and those that
are, inducing
yours truly.
Alain
[log in to unmask]" _mf_state="1" title="null" src="cid:[log in to unmask]" 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 initiative
CPUC, Nov
23, '20, "This
decision
creates two
new autonomous
vehicle
programs that
authorize fare
collection
(deployment
programs), one
for drivered
autonomous
vehicles and
the other for
driverless
autonomous
vehicles.
Among other
requirements,
applicants to
the existing
driverless
pilot program
and the new
driverless
deployment
program must
submit
Passenger
Safety Plans
that outline
their plans to
protect
passenger
safety for
driverless
operations.
In addition,
the decision
establishes
four goals
that apply to
both the
existing pilot
programs and
the new
deployment
programs; 1.)
Protect
passenger
safety; 2.)
Expand the
benefits of AV
technologies
to all of
Californians,
including
people with
disabilities;
3.) Improve
transportation
options for
all,
particularly
for
disadvantaged
communities
and low-income
communities;
and 4.) Reduce
greenhouse gas
emissions,
criteria air
pollutants,
and toxic air
contaminants,
particularly
in
disadvantaged
communities.
The Commission
will collect
data to
monitor permit
holders’
progress
toward each of
the goals...."
Read
more Hmmmm...
I included
this one
because I
messed up the
link to the
paper. ...
Sorry for not reporting this sooner, and thank you Doug
Coventry for
bringing it to
my attention.
It is must
reading
for any
jurisdiction
making
regulations
regarding the
provision of
autonomousTaxi
mobility.
Its four goals are laudable, especially the 3rd, even if
it may end up
violating part
of the 4th.
Moreover, the
clauses of the
3rd should be
re-ordered to
be: ...
Improve
transportation
options for
disadvantaged
communities,
low income
communities
and those with
disabilities,
and, if
possible, for
all... This
also reduces
the goals to 3
important
ones, ...
safety, the
environment
and improved
mobility for
those that
have been left
behind by the
personal
automobile
Of course, one wants to improve mobility for those that
drive their
own personal
car; however,
that is a entrenched
well-served
set of
customers that
are not
readily going
to flip from
driving their
car to
something that
isn't really
better and may
largely be
perceived as
no cigar.
Certainly, the
public sector
should in no
way use public
resources to
give car
drivers yet
another good
but inferior
choice as was
done with many
public transportation investments
that actually
provide
inferior
mobility to
those that
were to be
attract as
customers.
These systems
are rebuffed
by many that
they were
intended to be
taken off the
road for the
trips they
already make,
let alone
deliver
quality-of-life
benefits by
providing
mobility to
new places
that they
couldn't
previously
access.
A properly designed Operational Design Domain focused on from and where low income communities want to go is, to my mind, where the best opportunity exits for these safe, environmentally responsible systems . In such ODDs these driverless aTaxis can actually improve quality-of-life; and thus, deserve accommodation and promotion by public agencies such as CPUC. Alain
S. Carty,
Aug. 11, "You
don't have to
go deep down
an internet
rabbit hole to
find evidence
that humans
will push
boundaries.
The relatively
recent
introduction
of
semi-autonomous
technology in
cars has led
to all sorts
of documented
bad behavior,
from folks
putting water
bottles on
their steering
wheel to
drivers
letting Jesus
take the wheel
as they climb
into another
seat. The
former can
trick a car
into thinking
a driver's
hands are
where they
should be; the
latter is
wildly
dangerous....
But
ultimately,
people will
continue doing
stupid things
for stupid
prizes like
adrenaline
rushes and
internet
infamy. "Any
safety feature
sort of puts
constraints on
the driver or
the vehicle,"
says Mindell.
"People will
try to push
those limits,
even if it's
for no other
reason than
making YouTube
videos." Read
more Hmmmm...
Since drivers
will continue
to try to
mis-behave and
use products
irresponsibly,
it is up to
the products
themselves to
protect
themselves
from such
misbehaviors.
These are
supposedly
such
intelligent
products, they
should also be
sufficiently
intelligent to
sense that
they are being
misused and
either stop
the
misbehavior or
turn off the
functionality
that is being
misused. If
children play
with toys
inappropriately,
some of us
just took away
the toy. And
only gave it
back when the
value of the
proper
enjoyment of
the toy to the
kid was
greater than
that gained by
the mis-use of
the toy.
I'm confident that Tesla can add to AutoPilot sufficient
intelligence
for it to know
when it is
being
mis-used.
What Elon
needs to do is
disable its
use when it is
misused...
Does one
really need to
go faster than
14 mph over
the speed
limit? Does
one really
need to pass
on the
right? Does
one really
need to
completely
space out when
behind the
wheel (or
yoke)? One MUST
stay in the
driver's seat
paying
attention to
what is going
on. Alain
D. Vanderwerp, Aug 11, "Most new cars have very similar driver-assistance capabilities. Not that a consumer would know, given all the names automakers attach to these aids and the distinct indicators each employs. Lane-keeping or centering assistance uses one or more cameras to detect lane markings and applies appropriate nudges to the steering to keep the vehicle between the lines. Adaptive cruise control in most cases uses radar to track vehicles ahead and adjusts your car's speed to the flow of traffic. Together these two features can steer, accelerate, and brake a car. The best examples might even lull drivers into believing the computers are capable of handling the driving for extended periods. That's a mistake. None can be trusted to mind the road and avoid obstacles to the point that a driver is not required. ." Read more Hmmmm... A very good article. As I commented above, these systems must become much more intelligent about prohibiting mis-use. It is fine that Car & Driver did all of this on a "closed course". The systems have good enough GPS receivers to know that they are on closed courses and not public highways and could readily let those that are not on public highways do as they wish; however, on public highways it should be much more difficult to misbehave. Impossible to completely control as there will always be someone who thinks that they are being cute enough, but that needs to be made much more of a rarity. Alain
H. Hitachi,
Aug 12, "It is
seen by many
as the clean
energy of the
future.
Billions of
dollars from
the bipartisan
infrastructure
bill have been
teed up to
fund it.
But a new
peer-reviewed
study on
the climate
effects of
hydrogen, the
most abundant
substance in
the universe,
casts doubt on
its role in
tackling the
greenhouse gas
emissions that
are the driver
of
catastrophic
global
warming.
The main
stumbling
block: Most
hydrogen used
today is
extracted from
natural gas in
a process that
requires a lot
of energy and
emits vast
amounts of
carbon
dioxide.
Producing
natural gas
also releases
methane, a
particularly
potent
greenhouse
gas...." Read
more Hmmmm...
The abstract
of the
paper concludes:
"...Our
analysis
assumes that
captured
carbon dioxide
can be stored
indefinitely,
an optimistic
and unproven
assumption.
Even if true
though, the
use of blue
hydrogen
appears
difficult to
justify on
climate
grounds..."
Whew!!! Alain
B. Lomorg,
Aug 9, "The
Intergovernmental
Panel on
Climate Change
just
released its
latest climate
report,
and reactions
from
politicians
and media
pundits could
not have been
more
predictable.
Fitting the
apocalyptic
narrative many
have spun
lately, the
always-breathless
Guardian
literally
summarized
this
scientific
report as
finding
mankind
“guilty as
hell” of
“climate
crimes of
humanity.”
(Needless to
say, the
report never
says any such
things.)
UN
Secretary-General
António
Guterres
called the
findings a
“code red for
humanity,”
saying we can
only avert
catastrophe by
acting in the
next couple of
months. Of
course, the
United Nations
has a long
history of
claiming
catastrophe is
right around
the corner:
The first UN
environment
director
claimed half a
century ago
that we had
just 10 years
left, and the
then-head of
the IPCC
insisted in
2007 that we
had just five
years left.
In contrast to
the
hyperventilating
media, the
report is
actually
serious and
sensible (and
very, very
long). It
doesn’t
surprise,
since it is a
summary of
already-published
studies, yet
it reconfirms
that global
warming indeed
is real and a
problem.
But it also
highlights how
much one-sided
thinking takes
place in the
climate
conversation.
Since the heat
dome in June,
there has been
a lot of
writing about
more heat
deaths. And
the IPCC
confirms that
climate change
indeed has
increased
heatwaves.
However, the
report equally
firmly, if
virtually
unacknowledged,
tells us that
global warming
means “the
frequency and
intensity of
cold extremes
have
decreased.”
J. Ramey,Aug. 11, "Autonomous tech developer Plus has recently completed a real-world demonstration of its Level 4 autonomous truck technology on a traffic-filled highway. The company tested the truck without a driver behind the wheel, and also without any other remote operator who could take control of the truck if needed. The test took place on the Wufengshan highway in the business hub of the Yangtze Delta region, with Plus being the first company to be granted a special permit to test Level 4 vehicles in the country...." ..." Read more Hmmmm... See video. Whoa!!! Wait a minute... totally irresponsible... "... tested... without driver behind the wheel, and also without any other remote operator who could take control of the truck if needed..." If true...
1. totally irresponsible because this was a test. Its results would have been just as valid had there been no disengagements by the "driver" even if something unexpected happened. Plus does not earn more points by irresponsibly not having an attendant on-board ready to take over and save the day should something bad begin to happen. Hopefully no one else does tests this way in the US or Europe. It's not OK in China, either.
2. Good thing this took place in China; although, not
really... Plus
was totally
irresponsible
for doing this
in China as
well as
everywhere
else.
3. I've been on traffic-filled highways in China. The
video shows a
truck with
some traffic.
"traffic-filled" is unadulterated hype. The video actually looks
staged. Only
a few other
cars around.
No other
trucks. Truck
passing to the
right of
"left-lane
hangers".
Again, my
limited
experience of
riding in
China, is that
in light
traffic
conditions
some Chinese
drivers drive
very fast and,
it is not New
Jersey... very
few "left lane
hangers".
4. Steering wheel is very jerky. Is that the way
professional
truckers
steer? Seems
like some
improvements
are needed in
their lateral
control
algorithm.
5. Hard to believe that the Chinese government would
really let
them test
like this
unless it was
staged. Alain
D. Hall,
July 26,
"Listen to
Alain
Kornhauser,
Ph.D., Faculty
Chair of
Autonomous
Vehicle
Engineering at
Princeton
University and
one of the
authors of Automated
Vehicle
Systems
Outlook, 2021
Update
discuss this
research
report with
host, R. Dale
Hall, FSA,
CERA, MAAA,
CFA, SOA
Managing
Director of
Research." Read
more Hmmmm...
Nice, of
course. 😁
Alain
J. Irwin,
Aug. 11, "...
Almost half of
consumers in
the U.S., U.K.
and Germany
believe it
will be more
than three
years before
fully
functioning
autonomous
vehicles are
available, a
survey shows.
The survey by
Klas, a
provider of
edge
intelligence
solutions,
also shows
nearly 20% of
respondents
would be
willing to pay
an additional
$10,000 to
obtain AV
technology...."
Read
more Hmmmm...
Another
essentially
useless survey
because it is
unlikely that
the survey
properly
described
"fully
functioning
autonomous
vehicle" or
what
"available"
means, else
100% of those
surveyed would
have said
">3 years"!
If available means "the next time you are considering
buying a new
car, the
availability
of a car that
can take your
12 year old to
little league
practice and
bring her home
all by
herself, is a
buyable option
on your
list"... No
one will
say...
anything but
"> 3
years". Most
will probably
say... "not in
my lifetime".
I'll say...
"not in my
kid's
lifetimes"!
Sure.. I can buy a Tesla today.But a Tesla is not any where near a "fully functioning " anything. Again... "not in my kid's lifetimes"! Alain
M. Merano,
Aug. 11,
"Daimler has
stated that
its
partnership
with Bosch to
develop
self-driving
taxis is
coming to an
end. The
German car
manufacturer
and Bosch
confirmed the
news with
Süddeutsche
Zeitung, a
German
publication.
According to
Daimler, the
two companies
are in the
midst of
ending their
joint project,
dubbed
“Athena.”
Bosch also
confirmed that
discussions
for the end of
the joint
venture were
being held.
While the
partnership
appears to be
concluding,
the companies’
individual
ventures into
self-driving
systems don’t
seem to be at
an end.
Daimler
reportedly
told the
German
publication
that both
parties agreed
to “focus on
their
individual
development
paths in the
future in the
highly complex
development
environment of
fully
automated and
driverless
driving in an
urban
environment.”
Inside sources
familiar with
the inner
workings of
Project Athena
have also
reported that
Daimler
employees who
had been
working on the
project have
already been
assigned to
other teams.
..." Read
more Hmmmm...
Not the best
news about the
future of
autonomousTaxis. Given that aTaxis are fundamentally disruptive to
Daimler's and
Bosch's
current
markets and
they each have
much more to
gain by making
Automated
Emergency
Braking and
Intelligent
Driver Assist
systems
(Safe-drivingCar
and
Self-drivingCar
& Truck
technology).
Driverless
aTaxis (and
driverless
Trucks) are
way too hard
of a
distraction to
them. Likely
nothing but
negative RoIs
for them. So,
for them this
makes a lot of
sense. They
really have no
chance of
being among
the few
winners in
this dog
fight. Alain
H. Poser'77, Sept 13, 2020. "Creating Value for Light Density Urban Rail Lines" . See slides, See video Hmmmm... Simply Brilliant. Alain
These
editions re
sponsored by
the SmartETFs
Smart
Transportation
and Technology
ETF, symbol
MOTO. For more
information
head to www.motoetf.com
CPUC, Nov
23, '20, "This
decision
creates two
new autonomous
vehicle
programs that
authorize fare
collection
(deployment
programs), one
for drivered
autonomous
vehicles and
the other for
driverless
autonomous
vehicles.
Among other
requirements,
applicants to
the existing
driverless
pilot program
and the new
driverless
deployment
program must
submit
Passenger
Safety Plans
that outline
their plans to
protect
passenger
safety for
driverless
operations.
In addition,
the decision
establishes
four goals
that apply to
both the
existing pilot
programs and
the new
deployment
programs; 1.)
Protect
passenger
safety; 2.)
Expand the
benefits of AV
technologies
to all of
Californians,
including
people with
disabilities;
3.) Improve
transportation
options for
all,
particularly
for
disadvantaged
communities
and low-income
communities;
and 4.) Reduce
greenhouse gas
emissions,
criteria air
pollutants,
and toxic air
contaminants,
particularly
in
disadvantaged
communities.
The Commission
will collect
data to
monitor permit
holders’
progress
toward each of
the goals...."
Read
more Hmmmm...
Sorry for not
reporting this
sooner, and
thank you Doug
Coventry for
bringing it to
my attention.
It is must
reading
for any
jurisdiction
making
regulations
regarding the
provision of
autonomousTaxi
mobility.
Its four goals are laudable, especially the 3rd, even if
it may end up
violating part
of the 4th.
Moreover, the
clauses of the
3rd should be
re-ordered to
be: ...
Improve
transportation
options for
disadvantaged
communities,
low income
communities
and those with
disabilities,
and, if
possible, for
all... This
also reduces
the goals to 3
important
ones, ...
safety, the
environment
and improved
mobility for
those that
have been left
behind by the
personal
automobile
Of course, one wants to improve mobility for those that
drive their
own personal
car; however,
that is a entrenched
well-served
set of
customers that
are not
readily going
to flip from
driving their
car to
something that
isn't really
better and may
largely be
perceived as
no cigar.
Certainly, the
public sector
should in no
way use public
resources to
give car
drivers yet
another good
but inferior
choice as was
done with many
public transportation investments
that actually
provide
inferior
mobility to
those that
were to be
attract as
customers.
These systems
are rebuffed
by many that
they were
intended to be
taken off the
road for the
trips they
already make,
let alone
deliver
quality-of-life
benefits by
providing
mobility to
new places
that they
couldn't
previously
access.
A properly designed Operational Design Domain focused on from and where low income communities want to go is, to my mind, where the best opportunity exits for these safe, environmentally responsible systems . In such ODDs these driverless aTaxis can actually improve quality-of-life; and thus, deserve accommodation and promotion by public agencies such as CPUC. Alain
July 12
-> 15,
"..." Read
more Hmmmm...I haven't been able to
find a public
source for any
of the content
from the
symposium but
there were at
least three
sessions (of
the few that I
was able to
attend) that
were really
good. One
was B-101-
An inside Look
at
Policy-Making
for Automated
Vehicles,
moderated by
Baruch
Feigenbaum of
the Reason
Foundation.
Pay particular
attention to
the insights
offered by
Kevin Biesty
of Arizona
DoT. So far,
no one in the
world has done
it better.
A second one was