2013-12-07

December 07, 2013

December 6, 2013

Volvo taking 100 self-driving cars to the streets in world first

Dec 02, 2013 Press Release “Volvo Cars will play a leading role in the world’s first large-scale autonomous driving pilot project in which 100 self-driving Volvo cars will use public roads in everyday driving conditions around the Swedish city of Gothenburg.

The ground-breaking project ‘Drive Me – Self-driving cars for sustainable mobility’ is a joint initiative between Volvo Car Group, the Swedish Transport Administration, the Swedish Transport Agency, Lindholmen Science Park and the City of Gothenburg. Autonomous driving will pave the way for more efficient time-management behind the wheel. You will be able to interact safely via phone or tablets or simply choose to relax. “The self-driving technology used in the pilot allows you to hand over the driving to the car when the circumstances are appropriate,” says Håkan Samuelsson.” Read more Related report

Hmmm…I believe the above to be the first statement by a car maker promoting a feature that allows drivers to “text” while the car drives. A non-trivial step given the potential liability. “Volvo said it would drive”. (Although, that liability doesn’t materialize if the technology works as promised.)

The related “Drive Me” video is even more focused on this fundamental consumer appeal. The Mercedes “Imagine” commercial addressed safety, “Clown” addressed random distraction, the Subaru “Dummy” addressed crash avoidance, but this “Drive Me” video addresses head-on the automobile’s biggest current challenge: the “texting” revolution.

By “texting” I mean everything that is enabled by wireless communications: texting, talking, listening, seeing. Overnight, without any change in transportation technology, this revolution has made mass transit more desirable than driving. Transit, a mode that was taken only by those who didn’t have access to a car, has instantly become the mode of choice. Now the car is considered the captive mode; it is used only when one doesn’t have a transit alternative. “Texters” are now willing to walk farther, wait longer and take longer to get there by transit.

Why? Because they can “text” in transit. In a car AT&T tells them “it can wait”, police fine them and they crash and die. In transit, (especially automated transit) they can “text”, enjoy videos, talk, listen, look around (and not die, see next posting). In the “Drive Me” video, the guy takes transit and does stuff. His counterpart, in her car, doesn’t have to wait to do stuff because of the “Drive Me” technology. That is the compelling value.

With this announcement, Volvo seems to have recognized that, yes, safety is important; however, the ability to offer the driver the option “to drive or let Volvo drive” may well be necessary in order to protect the car’s market dominance.

Driving really isn’t that much fun very often. In fact it is a burden that should be left to someone else or automation. Without this technology, conventional Volvos may be doomed. People will move, transit will improve and expand and so are the winds of change. I consider this a major step; even though it isn’t slated to happen 2017, will only be 100 cars in only parts of Gothenburg.

Metro-North Train Sped at 82 M.P.H. Ahead of Curve in Fatal Crash

MATT FLEGENHEIMER Dec. 2, 2013 1102 Comments The Metro-North Railroad train that hurtled off the rails on a sleepy holiday weekend morning was traveling 82 miles per hour as it approached one of the sharpest curves in the region’s rail system, federal investigators said on Monday — nearly three times the speed permitted through the turn…six seconds before the rear locomotive came to a stop, “the throttle was reduced to idle.” The brakes were fully applied one second later. Read more In a subsequent article …“The engineer … told the authorities on Tuesday that he had become dazed before the accident, suffering what his lawyer referred to as “highway hypnosis.”…Rail safety experts have suggested that a system known as “positive train control” might have prevented the derailment.”

Hmm…Not to jump the gun here, but maybe we should seriously consider leap-frogging “positive train control” (PTC) and going directly to driverless train operation (aka UTO (Un-attended Train Operation) or simply SmartDrivingCars). I would suggest that:

what “positive train control” and “UTC” are to safe train service, is
what “copper wires” and “wireless” are to telephony.

Both will do the job (make it safer); however, UTC will make it substantially cheaper, and transform its fundamental economics such that it can substantially enhance its service offerings; allowing it to provide more mobility to more people 24x7x365.

PTC is last century’s design and its cost can’t really be justified economically; else, the rail industry would have implemented it. (sorry to be so insensitive). On the other hand, UTO may well be economically cheaper to implement while providing an opportunity to offer much more frequent services by running many more shorter trains. Offering services more tailored when more people want to travel between more places more times of the day, including weekends. There is every reason to believe that the extra services offered by the passenger (and freight) rail industry would create many more well-paying meaningful jobs such that each and every displaced motorman would be well employed in a job not prone to “highway hypnosis”. Everybody wins!

This should be easy. The challenge for Automated Highways has been the “chicken & egg” problem: Who would build an Automated Highway when there are no Automated Cars and who would buy an Automated Car when there is no where to use it. So we’ve had to wait for the “Google solution”: the assemblage of sensors, data and computer code to convert a conventional car into something that delivers all of the features of an automated car without requiring anyone to build an automated highway nor asking anyone operating a conventional car to change their travel behavior or driving practices. “Google’s” challenge is to make the unit price of the sensors, data and computer code attractive relative to the perceived value of a self-driving car. Given no infrastructure cost, no infringement on conventional drivers of conventional cars and the ability of the SmartDrivingCar to be driven conventionally, should that be the desire of the owner or the need in certain situations, self-driving cars can become the “wireless telephony” of mobility.

For railroads, this is a no-brainer. They already have the “automated highway” part. Railways are dedicated right-of-ways. Their owners/operators also own/operate the trains using those rails. Automaton of those trains requires little modification of the existing railways. As David Nelson reported at ICTUS in Paris there are 48 UTO lines in 32 cities around the world. It is now time to bring this technology to all rail lines.

UTO achieves the safety enhancement while providing the rail industry with a substantial economic incentive that will encourage the industry to offer more service and expand its market reach to newly economically viable markets. This extra business will readily absorb those displaced motormen. Thus, both UTO and PTC have the same labor input. The advantage of UTO is that it allows the rail industry to substantially improve its service offering yielding higher revenues and a more satisfied traveling public. Alain

DMV proposes regulations to test self-driving cars

By Amy Stewart posted on December 4, 2013 “The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has published proposed regulations governing self-driving and autonomous cars on California’s roads, the DMV announced on Tuesday.

“California is leading the way in autonomous vehicles and these testing regulations are the first step in making the technology available,” said Bernard Soriano, DMV’s Deputy Director said in a press release. “The DMV continues to welcome public comment and ideas on the development of these vehicle testing regulations.”

The regulations were published in the Office of Administrative Law’s California Regulatory Notice Register, which can be found at http://oal.ca.gov/res/docs/pdf/notice/48z-2013.pdf, starting at page 1867. Read more

The proposed regulations are a must read. A public hearing has been scheduled to provide interested parties an opportunity to provide statements, both oral and in writing, on this proposed regulatory action. The department will hold the hearing beginning at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 14, 2014, at the department’s headquarters office at 2415 First Avenue, Sacramento, California. Alain

It’s Time to Leave the Driving to the Droids

Tom Kaneshige, Thu, December 05, 2013 “Every day, America’s roads fill up with texting drivers, drivers jabbering on their cell phones, drunk drivers, inconsiderate drivers, drivers with a lead foot, drivers with poor eye sight, road-rage drivers, inexperienced drivers, lousy “what’s a blind spot?” drivers, drivers inspired by games like Grand Theft Auto, drivers putting on makeup, drivers who fall asleep, daydreaming drivers.

There are terrible, tragic consequences to all this human error. A commuter train in New York, whose driver claimed to be in a daze, derails after taking a curve at 82 miles per hour in a 30 miles-per-hour zone, killing four people. A speeding teenager in a quiet San Francisco Bay Area suburb loses control and plows into a family on a street corner near where I used to live, killing a father and his nine-year-old daughter. There seems to be an epidemic of irresponsible bus drivers texting and crashing. …

During the BART strike this year, for instance, people were surprised to learn that train drivers didn’t actually do the driving except during emergencies – everything is automated. Many BART riders were outraged that union workers were demanding more money when they didn’t seem to be doing much work…” Read more

Call for Papers & Abstracts:

2014 TAC conference & Exhibition

September 28 - October 1, 2014 ~ Montreal, QC

TAC celebrates its 100th Anniversary in 2014. The Geometric Design Standing Committee is organizing a full session on Autonomous Vehicles and invites the SmartDrivingCars community to submit abstracts on this topic relevant to Geometric Design. Abstract deadline is Dec. 31, 2013. Call for Papers ; Prospectus

Calendar of Upcoming Events:

2013 ITS New Jersey Annual Meeting

MetLife Stadium

December 16, 2013, East Rutherford, NJ 07073

Bernie Wagenblast interview of Dennis Motiani

Recent Versions of:

December 1, 2013

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos looks to the future

Sunday, December 1, 2013 CBS New, 60 Minutes “… But during our visit to Amazon’s campus in Seattle, Bezos kept telling us that he did have a big surprise, something he wanted to unveil for the first time…

Jeff Bezos: Let me show you something.

Charlie Rose: Oh, man…Oh, my God!

Jeff Bezos: This…

Charlie Rose: This is?

Jeff Bezos:…is…these are octocopters.

Charlie Rose: Yeah?

Jeff Bezos: These are effectively drones but there’s no reason that they can’t be used as delivery vehicles. Take a look up here so I can show you how it works.

Charlie Rose: All right. We’re talking about delivery here?

Jeff Bezos: We’re talking about delivery. There’s an item going into the vehicle. I know this looks like science fiction. It’s not.

Charlie Rose: Wow!

… Read more See video starting @ 11:00. Beyond SmartDriving Cars? Very interesting! Alain

November 22, 2013

Auto Correct: Has the self-driving car at last arrived?

by Burkhard Bilger November 25, 2013: An absolutely great article featuring Anthony Levandowski, Product Manager, Google Self-Driving Car and more. A MUST read. Alain

House hearing on driverless cars

November 19, 2013, House hearing on “How Autonomous Vehicles Will Shape the Future of Surface Transportation” held by the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, chaired by U.S. Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI)

Click: to Watch the webcast of this hearing

Here are a few overriding comments:

Neither Google nor any of the European autonomous vehicle efforts, such as CityMobil2 or VisLab.IT, were part of this hearing. Google’s name may have been uttered only once in the entire 2 hour hearing. Interesting!
The word “Transit” was never mentioned even though this is a hearing of the Subcommittee of Highways and Transit!
All witnesses continued to push for V2V and some witnesses (Strickland and Streudle) seemed to promote V2V ahead of automated collision avoidance systems.
The questioning by the congressman/women was very insightful. Some excellent questions seemed to not be understood by any of the witnesses.

Summary of the Questioning of the witnesses

Summary of the Testimony of the witnesses Alain

Florida Automated Vehicles Summit

November 14 – 15, 2013, Marriott Waterside Hotel, Tampa, FL. This was an excellent conference. I highly recommend that each State do something similar in terms of form, substance and commitment. This Summit had the right balance of in-state and out-of-state presenters. The 1.5 day format was perfect. Most everyone was there for the entire program. The exchange and discussion between the podium and the audience was excellent. All contributed and learned. The focus went beyond personal cars to encompass commercial freight and near term opportunities to test and begin to deploy driverless transit vehicles in Florida’s many retirement communities. Alain

November 08, 2013

Clifford I. Nass‘81,*86 expert on human/computer interactions, dead at 55](http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/november/cliff-nass-obit-110413.html)

Tragic!! What a terrible loss. We have all taken an enormous step backwards. His simulator. Alain

November 05, 2013

On the Road with Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems

Press Release: Brussels 29 October – “Euro NCAP releases the first results of rear-end crash avoidance systems tested against the upcoming 2014 rating protocol. Eight vehicles have been compared with respect to their performance on the test track.

A good summary of the tests appears in FleetDirectory First self-braking cars rated by Euro NCAP by John Simpson 30 October 2013. Eight (8) car models equipped AEB systems were tested and are reported on Euro NCAP’s website. Both “City” tests and “Inter-Urban” tests were conducted of the Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems. While the test results indicate that at least some of these systems work some of the time, only one perfect score was achieved (MB 2013 E-Class w. Given that the test environment is not really challenging (no adverse weather or obstructions; good weather and running surface, straight course) one would hope that each of these systems should be able to accurately measure distance, relative speed and friction coefficients continuously so as to avoid collisions in each of their scenarios. Apparently not! The 2013 MB E-Class with PRE-SAFE BRAKE earned a perfect score 3.0/3.0 in the slow speed “AEB City” test and 2.7/3.0 in the higher speed “Inter-urban” test. The other seven (7) cars tested were significantly worse. See table below. The model names link to a description of their test results and the video links to a video of the tests. Hopefully, their poor performance is due to the fact that the vehicles tested were from 2011-2013 and not the new 2014. Alain

The Ethics of Autonomous Cars

Patrick Lin Oct 8 2013, “If a small tree branch pokes out onto a highway and there’s no incoming traffic, we’d simply drift a little into the opposite lane and drive around it. But an automated car might come to a full stop, as it dutifully observes traffic laws that prohibit crossing a double-yellow line….” Read more Good article as are some of the comments that follow. I’ll add mine: Yes, ethics are really important here, but we also need to not be sophomoric. Laws, even traffic laws, are created and interpreted with human behavior in mind. They haven’t been written as deterministic absolutes. There are nuances. It is necessary that those who are writing the logic and code for these SmartDrivingCars (They are NOT autonomous, nor will they be in my foreseeable future.) understand that these laws are NOT absolutes and that they direct and constrain in a real-world context. Code that applies traffic rules rigidly and without regard for context will fail in the marketplace. If these cars are going to do some of the driving for us, their behaviors are going to have to meet our minimum expectations. Some of us actually rode with our teenagers when they began to drive. We pointed out mistakes, we pointed out that “Yes” you can cross the yellow line when there is a branch in the road and no car is coming. Code writers for the smart driving vehicles will build these kinds of cues into the system. Sometimes rule-breaking is the right choice on the road because our legal rules necessarily oversimplify to cover the generality of cases. The beauty of code is that nuances that cannot be captured in law can be accounted for in algorithms. The Smart Driving Car challenge is not an ethical challenge it is a computer code generating challenge. Alain

Special Issue

September 28, 2013

IIHS issues first crash avoidance ratings

IIHS News

Sept. 27, 2013 ARLINGTON, Va. — “A new test program by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) rates the performance of front crash prevention systems to help consumers decide which features to consider and encourage automakers to speed adoption of the technology. The rating system is based on research by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) indicating that forward collision warning and automatic braking systems are helping drivers avoid front-to-rear crashes.

The Institute rates models with optional or standard front crash prevention systems as superior, advanced or basic depending on whether they offer autonomous braking, or autobrake, and, if so, how effective it is in tests at 12 and 25 mph. Vehicles rated superior have autobrake and can avoid a crash or substantially reduce speeds in both tests. For an advanced rating a vehicle must have autobrake and avoid a crash or reduce speeds by at least 5 mph in 1 of 2 tests… The Institute awards as many as five points in the autobrake tests, based on how much the systems slow the vehicle to avoid hitting the inflatable target or lessen the severity of the impact. In the case of an unavoidable collision, lowering the striking vehicle’s speed reduces the crash energy that vehicle structures and restraint systems have to manage. That reduces the amount of damage to both the striking and struck car and minimizes injuries to people traveling in them.

“We decided on 25 mph because development testing indicated that results at this speed were indicative of results at higher speeds — and because higher-speed tests would risk damaging the test vehicles,” Zuby says. “As such, we expect crash mitigation benefits at higher speeds as well.”

Hats off to Subaru for leading the pack in this first round of tests!

Be sure to look at the scoring table at the bottom of the IIHS news release. It is disheartening to learn that for the most part, these systems didn’t work! Only Subaru, Cadillac and Volvo didn’t crash in the 12 mph test and only Subaru in the 25 mph test. The purpose of these systems is crash avoidance! Each knew the crash was coming.

Why would manufacturers that took the effort to include automatic braking would wait until it is too late to avoid a collision or apply the brakes too lightly, allowing a crash to occur. Even a slight crash causes a high “cost” (least of which requires you to pull over, talk to the person that you just ran into); whereas no crash incurs zero “cost” (except an elevated heart beat). Alain