2013-12-15
December 13, 2013
Millennials Pushing Development of Driverless Vehicles
“Survey shows Gen Y wants features like self-driving car technologies.” by Michael Strong on Dec. 09, 2013 “Millennials wanting technology in cars is pushing the development of the driverless vehicle. The push to develop a driverless car by Google and other manufacturers isn’t a matter of keeping up with the Joneses as much as these vehicles feature much of the technology younger drivers claim they want in their vehicles right now. According to a recent survey of more than 14,000 drivers in 12 countries, Gen Y customers expressed preference for technologies that are all vital to creating a driverless vehicle.
While there is ongoing debate about the future and safety of driverless cars, Accenture’s research shows that, on average, 90% of the survey respondents have an interest in some autonomous driving options, primarily those related to safety.
Some of the features they want include:
• automatic braking systems that stop the car in an emergency (82%)
• automatic braking systems that prevent hitting an object (76%)
• collision-warning systems (72%)
• fully automatic parking (71%)
• lane-keeping systems (48%)
Gen Yers, also known as millennials, are about a third of all U.S. drivers and currently the top target for automakers looking to add new customers… “ Read more If these questions were asked of old people today, like the ones in the NYT article below that were asked questions “ten years ago”, would their responses be similar to millennials? I think so. Alain
Also be certain to read the actual Accenture Survey results. Alain
Google Adds to Its Menagerie of Robots
JOHN MARKOFF “….Google confirmed on Friday that it had completed the acquisition of Boston Dynamics, an engineering company that has designed mobile research robots for the Pentagon. The company, based in Waltham, Mass., has gained an international reputation for machines that walk with an uncanny sense of balance and even — cheetahlike — run faster than the fastest humans.
It is the eighth robotics company that Google has acquired in the last half-year…” Read more …Wow! Why not! When you have the money, Just Do It! Another piece to help ‘em make it happen. Alain
An Alternative to Giving Up the Car Keys
By ALINA TUGEND, Dec. 13, 2013 “Robert Cullon, 80, has a neurological condition that makes his feet numb and forces him to rely on a walker. He thought he was driving just fine, but his six children were worried….The most helpful technology for older drivers, according to experts assembled by The Hartford and the MIT AgeLab, include “smart” headlights that adjust the range and intensity of light to improve night vision and systems that warn the driver if the vehicle is straying from its lane.
In its report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration emphasized advances in collision avoidance. Technology that is already available in some cars alerts the driver with a beep or light to obstacles crossing behind or stopped in front of the car. In some models, the car will slow if it appears that the driver isn’t braking….” Read more (or maybe you should not. Was this written 10 years ago?!)
Hmm… Why do these articles continue to promote technologies that continue to rely on the driver, especially when it comes to the old (and the young). C’mon Man! It is wrong for The Hartford and the MIT AgeLab to be rating “Smart headlights” as the #1 “new technology” for older drivers. Please!! This may well be what 10 years of research at MIT suggests; however, it may be time to throw out that research, start over and look at technologies that weren’t available 10 years ago but are available today in Subaru on the low priced-end, Mercedes on the higher priced-end and others in the middle that avoid collisions even if the driver doesn’t react to warnings. The technologies will not only slow the vehicle, they will actually stop the car and avoid the collision. Please, MIT, update your research! And The Hartford, start promoting technologies that go beyond mitigating accidents but actually avoid them. This may well be the best way that you can serve your shareholders. Pure and simple, you’ll make more money if those you insure buy crash-avoiding, rather than just crash-mitigating, technologies. It may well be that even if you paid for them you’d make more money. Check it out! Alain
La ruée des constructeurs automobile vers la voiture sans chauffeur
Par Benoit Georges Dec 9, 2013 “…Cette frénésie tranche avec le discours très frileux qui a longtemps été de mise dans l’automobile. « J’ai commencé à travailler sur les voitures autonomes en 1991, et pendant des années les constructeurs m’ont expliqué que jamais un conducteur n’accepterait de lâcher le volant, se souvient Michel Parent, conseiller scientifique de l’Inria spécialisé dans la conduite automatique. Aujourd’hui, nous assistons à un revirement total, qui va d’ailleurs trop loin aussi… Read more …Be sure to look at the Valeo video on valet parking: Valet Park4U Alain
Ford Testing Autonomous Driving With Fusion Hybrid Research Vehicle
By Nelson Ireson 12/12/2013 “… Ford figures its Fusion Hybrid automated research vehicle, revealed today, won’t bear fruit for real-world cars before 2025.
Despite the rather distant time frame, in automotive terms, that’s about two full vehicle generations away–which means the technology that will be implemented has to be developed now…” Read more Hmmm…Seems as if Ford may need to speed up its “two vehicle generations” or have a “Kodak moment”. Alain
More MB Collision Avoidance Commercials
Grim Reaper Ice Princess Magic Body Control Collision Prevention Assist
Transforming Personal Mobility
Burnes, L.D., Jordan, W.C., and Scarborough, B.A. “…This new mobility system combines recent developments in driverless vehicle technologies with the emerging “Mobility Internet” that can coordinate the movements of these vehicles through space and time…” Read more.
This paper investigates the opportunity of driverless vehicles to provide shared-vehicles to serve the mobility needs of cities such as Ann Arbor, MI and New York City. The paper is worth reading; however,
• the Ann Arbor analysis seems to have been conducted using demand data that is too aggregated in space and time to properly analyze the opportunities for shared-use of vehicles. (see page 9). Moreover, it assumes that travel demand is uniformly distributed. I doubt very much that Ann Arbor’s travel demand is uniformly distributed on the short time scales over which car-sharing needs to take place. I also find it hard to believe that a fleet serving all trips of a certain class (those that remain within Ann Arbor, which is what they restrict themselves to) can be used 75% of the time (page 15). The “peaks” of the temporal distribution of travel demand are simply too high and narrow and the “valleys” are too deep and wide for the fleet that is needed to serve the highest peak to remain active 75% of the time. Especially when there seems to be no ride-sharing during the peak that would tend to flatten the need for extra vehicles during the peak.
• The NYC analysis is more interesting because it deals with the actual trips that taxis served (I assume). However, it claims that vehicles are utilized 70% during peak hours (page 25) but never defines peak hours. As with Ann Arbor, I doubt it. Also, NYC cabbies are very effective at getting the next trip. It is hard for me to believe that a computerized traveler-cab matching system can reduce the peak-hour-fleet-size by 30% and fleet-miles by 30%. But assuming the authors are correct, how does the cost of a trip go from $7.80 to $1? (page 25). For that to be true the labor cost of a conventional taxi driver has to be 81% of the average fare or $6.37 (today: Depreciation + Fuel + Driver = $7.80; tomorrow: 0.7* (Depreciation + Fuel) + 0*Driver = $1.00 Thus: Depreciation + Fuel = $1/.7 = $1.43/trip and Driver = $6.37/trip.
This suggests that Labor is 81.7% of the cost of the average taxi trip in NYC. Labor is really expensive (as it should be)!
Even though I am not confident that the analysis is completely correct, the paper is worth reading for its supply-side concepts and its approach. Alain
Where Are the Autopilot Lanes for Driverless Cars? (Op-Ed)
By Melba Kurman and Hod Lipson Dec. 12, 2013 It starts out well: “…Unlike the demonstration models of the 1950s, today’s self-driving vehicles don’t need specially outfitted highways since they carry their computers and sensors onboard. What’s changed is that finally society is reaching the tipping point where rapidly converging information technologies can give a moving robotic vehicle sufficient sensory perception and enough artificial intelligence that’s physically small in size to be mobile — and cheap enough to be commercially viable. …” Unfortunately, they abandon their initial observation to champion… “…But bolder action is needed.
What if cities were given federal funding to create a designated “autopilot” lane? The autopilot lane would function something like HOV lanes do today. The autopilot lane would be safely walled off from the rest of the highway. Passengers in vehicles with autopilot functionality would merge into the autopilot lane, hand over the controls to the car’s computer, and then re-take control of the wheel after re-entering regular traffic lanes with human drivers. Designating highway lanes on underused stretches of selected highways would be much cheaper and simpler than building high-speed rail, and would be a catalyst to the burgeoning industry of driverless cars, as well as an invaluable source of on-road test data…” Read more They fail to appreciate the real beauty of their initial observation and revert to the fruitless AHS effort in the ’90s and the current fledgling v2v initiative that were/are predicated on some big Soviet-styled government effort that champions the end-game but can’t get off the ground because it delivers no early benefits and has no early consumer buy-in.
The elegance of the vehicle-centered effort is that it delivers value in the form of enhanced safety to even the first person to drive one out of a showroom. The chance that you are responsible for an accident immediately drops not only for the first mile but also for every mile that you, even as the first buyer, drive. And, you did not need to ask the government to do anything to the infrastructure, nor ask for anything from any other driver. The probability this car will crash, hurt you or kill you has dropped. If you value that sufficiently, you may actually buy a car that offers that to you without the need for a public subsidy.
As the technology improves, safety improves. Again, even if it is the only vehicle so equipped on the road. Moreover, if the safety improves enough, insurance companies may well help you pay for it since, in the end, insurance picks up about 50% of the tab when you crash.
If technology continues to improve, it may let you “text” on certain roads at certain times. Then “in your face value” is delivered every day. Everybody buys it.
If it finally becomes so good and completely takes over, then the societal benefits kick in: universal mobility, energy and environmental savings and congestion relief. These are big-time benefits that accrue without requiring government to front-end a massive investment in infrastructure. Mobility companies will make the investment by buying fleets of vehicles to profitably chauffeur everyone around in the Promised Land.
That is the fundamental elegance of the vehicle-centered approach. Google and others are beginning to show that this may actually be the viable way out of the desert. Alain
Who’s Driving that Car
Now You See It: Driverless car mystery solved Video just for fun. Alain
‘Steeri’ is Apple’s attempt at Google’s driverless car For more fun be sure to play the parody video. Alain
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 6, 2013
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. “
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
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
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
alaink@princeton.edu
SmartDrivingCars_120613v0
This list is maintained by Alain Kornhauser and hosted by the Princeton University LISTSERV.