Washington
DC, Oct 20,
"The U.S.
Department of
Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
is committed
to the safe
deployment of
automated
vehicles.
NHTSA hosted a
public
workshop today
to get
feedback on
the Voluntary
Safety
Self-Assessments
discussed in
the Automated
Driving
Systems 2.0: A
Vision for
Safety
guidance
released last
month.
...The
workshop ,
overall, was a
productive,
open forum,
where
manufacturers,
suppliers,
safety
advocates, and
other entities
shared the
types of
information
that could be
made
available, and
opportunities
for making
that
information
public. There
were over 100
attendees
present, and
many more who
participated
via a LIVE
Webcast. A
full
transcript
will be
available in
the coming
weeks. " Read
more Hmmmm... Congratulations Nat, I agree that it was
productive.
The comments
the by Global
Automakers,
AAMVA, MEMA
Waymo and AAM
were positive
and helpful.
The
...opening
remarks by
NHTSA Acting
Administrator
Heidi King:
"... At DOT
and NHTSA, of
course, our
central focus
is always on
safety.
NHTSA’s
mission
remains to
help Americans
drive, ride
and walk
safely..." Given that Safety is central, It is unfortunate that
Automated
Driving
systems 2.0
skips over 'Safe-driving'
(ADAS
or Level1/2 or
whatever) and
jumps right
into
Self-driving
(Level 3/4/5
or whatever)
to address Safety.
Essentially
all of the
Automated
Vehicle Safety
achievements
(crash
avoidance,
lane departure
avoidance,
etc..) will be
achieved by Safe-driving
vehicles that
always
over-ride our
failures and
do the right
thing even if
they don't let
us take our
hands off the
wheel or feet
off the
pedals. These
systems are
beginning to
be made
available
today and it
is not an
understatement
to say that
they don't
work as well
as they
should/could
and there is
essentially
total
confusion in
the
marketplace/showroom
about the
capabilities/consumer-expectations
about these
systems.
NHTSA's
5-Star Safety
Ratings
program
doesn't even
consider any
of these
systems.
Since 'Safe-driving'
has the
greatest and
nearest term
potential
impact on
Safety, why is
it NOT part of
this AV
program?
These systems
are being
tested;
shouldn't
NHTSA be
calling for a
Self-assessment of these systems. Safe-driving systems
are beginning
to be here now
and I contend
the public is
totally
confused.
"...Public
trust is
essential to
the
advancement of
automated
technology...."
I wholeheartedly agree!! That trust needs to be
earned and its
first exposure
is mixed.
Anti-lock
brakes and
Electronic
Stability
Control are automated systems that
have earned
public trust
event though
they automatically detect erroneous driver behavior and
automatically
over-ride
those actions
in order to do
the best that
they can to
keep the
driver safe.
But what about
these Safe-driving
(Level 1/2,
...) systems.
These are automated systems
focused on
Safety, yet NHTSA hasn't even bothered to include any of these
systems in its
5-Star
Safety Ratings
program.
The
public is
totally
confused about
what is being
offered and
there seems to
be no public
trust
evernthough
these systems
are the very
foundations of
Self-driving
and Driverless
systems. It
is necessary
that Safety
and public
trust be
established
first in Safe-driving
systems. This
forms the
basis on which
to expand that
public trust
to the
downstream
systems that
deliver other
societal
benefits,
comfort &
convenience
for
Self-driving
and affordable
mobility for
all for
Driverless,
while
providing very
little, if any
incremental
Safety
benefits over
Safe-driving
technology.
So... NHTSA's
1st order of
business
should be to
ensure that Safe-driving
technology
actually works
and is valued
by car buyers.
A substantial part of the problem here is that the
terminology
that is being
used is
totally
confusing.
NHTSA's
decision to
give up on its
original
4-Level
nomenclature
was good, they
just chose to
adopt an even
worse one,
SAE's. It
focuses
entirely on
the details of
the
technology,
rather than on
the value that
is to be
derived from
the
technology. The Levels invoke no
fundamental
cognitive
relationships;
nothing that
would
inspire..."tell
me more". Thus,
engineers
might
eventually pay
attention long
enough to
absorb the
more than 7+/-2
chunks of
cognitive
information
needed to
understand the
differences in
the
"Levels". Unfortunately,
corporate
buyers,
journalists,
planning,
policy and/or
legislative
officials and
the general
public/consumers
remain totally
confused.
I've suggested three categories: Safe-driving...,
Self-driving... and Driverless... Not necessarily perfect,
because the
leader of
Driverless
chose long ago
(~8 years) to
call itself
Self-driving.
Unfortunately,
the term Self-driving
with human
supervision,
reinforces the
auto industry's 100-year old business
model
of selling
personal
comfort and
convenience to
consumers.
The auto
industry
doesn't bother
emphasizing
the partial
nature of its
Self-driving.
Waymo has
chosen to add
the prefix
"Fully" in an
effort to
differentiate
itself as
really
Driverless
that is
fundamentally
attractive to
a different
business model
focused on
Fleets
delivering
mobility
services to a
public that
doesn't own
cars. But few
are aware of
the enormous
difference implied
by the the
existence of
the prefix.
In its efforts to engender public trust, NHTSA needs to rethink what it calls these things. An opportunity exists in the re-framing of its Star Ratings, Or maybe, this crash-avoidance technology is so different from the crash-mitigation technology that is NHTSA's sweet-spot, that a new agency or a new division of NHTSA should be created to provide the crash-avoidance safety oversight. Alain
M.Colias,
Oct 17,
"General
Motors Co. GM
-1.62% plans
to become the
first company
to test
self-driving
cars in New
York City, a
move aimed at
asserting
leadership in
the race to
develop
autonomous
cars and a
potentially
important step
toward
commercializing
the
technology.
GM will
deploy a fleet
of
self-driving
Chevrolet Bolt
electric cars
early next
year in a
5-square-mile
section of
lower
Manhattan that
engineers are
mapping, said
Kyle Vogt,
chief
executive of
Cruise
Automation,
the
driverless-car
developer GM
acquired last
year. The move
could be seen
as a threat to
the thousands
of taxi
drivers
piloting
yellow cabs
around New
York, as
autonomous
robot-taxis
operated by GM
and its rivals
are seen
eventually
displacing
human
drivers..." Read
more Hmmmm... Congratulations Kyle! Paraphrasing Sinatra:
If
you can make
it there, you
can ...
". Hopefully,
NY
State's
requirement of
a State Police
escort
won't be a
game breaker.
Of course, be
very careful
of pedestrians
and cyclists.
They always
claim the
right-of-way.
Plus, there
are no
reliable lane
markings, so
wrt other
vehicles,
right-of-way
is all about
whose nose is
ahead. If
yours is
ahead, do what
you need to
do, if not,
always yield!
:-).
Alain
J.
Jorgrnsen, Oct
19, "Mayor de
Blasio says
he’ll try to
stop
self-driving
cars in their
tracks.
Hizzoner
blasted plans
announced by
frequent foe
Gov. Cuomo to
test
autonomous
General Motors
vehicles on
Manhattan
streets and
said the city
would “work
vigorously to
stop it.”
“This
announcement
was done
without any
knowledge of
the City of
New York and
that is
unacceptable,”
de Blasio said
at an
unrelated
Upper West
Side press
conference....
A rep for the
mayor, Eric
Phillips,
said, “We
trust the DMV
when it comes
to renewing
licenses. We
trust the NYPD
when it comes
to keeping our
streets
safe.” Read
more Hmmmm... Woops. Turf battle! May not be so easy to
"make
it there"
:-(
Alain
M.
Wisniewski,
Oct 19,
"...The
Emanuel
administration
maintains that
the
ride-sharing
industry has
drained $40
million from
city and other
local
government
coffers, in
part by
shifting some
commuters away
from the
CTA...." Read
more Hmmmm... I thought Uber/Lyft services would help
solve
Transit's 1st
and last mile
anxieties.
But that's
only the case
if current
auto users
decide to give
up on their
own car.
Apparently,
current
Uber/Lyft
services
aren't
compelling
(affordable
and
convenient)
enough to
convert auto
users. Alain
F. Fishkin,
Oct 12,
Episode 7.
"....
California to
allow
completely
driverless
vehicle
testing,
advances in
Greenville
County, South
Carolina and
Australia. Is
public ready?
Many Tesla
owners are,
while Intel
hires LeBron
and Waymo
partners with
MADD to push
the technology
forward."
http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/Papers/
R. Fingas, Oct 18, "New video rumored to show close-up of Apple car's updated 'Project Titan' testbed..." Read more Hmmmm... Nice to see them out there again, but it doesn't look like Apple's Titan project has spent much money in Product Design of Sensor Integration. Maybe they should stick to software on this one. Alain
C. Said,
Oct 17,
"...Intel and
Mobileye on
Tuesday
proposed a
mathematical
formula that
provides
specific
parameters for
that
assessment —
and seeks to
make sure that
any accident
will never be
the robot
car’s
fault..... “As
machines start
causing
collisions,
there’s a lot
of risk that
consumers
could turn
against them
and all the
benefits and
investments
could really
be damaged,”
said Dan
Galves, senior
vice president
at Mobileye,
an Israeli
company making
sensors for
robot cars.
Intel bought
Mobileye for
$15.3 billion
in March. “It
would help a
lot to know
that there are
predetermined
rules for
clarifying
fault.” Read
more Hmmmm... Wait... If it "seeks to make sure that any
accident will
never be the
robot car’s
fault"
then the algorithm/proof is easy: if crash,
other guy's
fault! QED.
I guess
that MobilEye
hasn't gotten
over being
thrown under
the bus by
Tesla in the
Florida crash,
so the first
thing that
MobilEye and
Intel do is to
publish
a paper to
CYA
themselves.
If only life
was that
simple, we
wouldn't need
lawyers.
Alain
G.
Bresiger, Oct
14, "Hurry up
and buy New
York City taxi
medallions
while they
are still
dirt-cheap,
because a
turnaround is
likely
coming.
That’s the
contention of
some industry
observers and
investors, who
have seen
medallion
prices crater
as
ride-hailing
apps like Uber
and Lyft have
come on the
scene. At a
recent auction
in Queens, 46
medallions
were
reportedly
sold for an
average price
of $186,000
each. The
winning bidder
was a
Connecticut-based
hedge fund,
MGPE, which is
expected to
lease the
medallions to
a fleet
owner...." Read
more Hmmmm...At one time...(Chart
& Chart)
... then... 4
years ago (chart)
they were
going for >
$1M, but $186K
is still
>> $0.
???? Alain
M. Sena,
Vol 4, issue
9,
"UNCERTAINTY
IS TROUBLING
for
businesses,
individuals
and
governments....
In one way or
another, all
businesses,
including and
especially
transport, are
completely
reliant on
four macro
factors:.. I'd add one more: where are children learn and play
.... A United
Nations study
projects world
population to
reach 8.5
billion by
2030, up from
7.5 billion
today, driven
by growth in
developing
countries...India
will have
traded places
with China as
the world’s
most populous
country in
around seven
years...So the
large bulk of
those
additional one
billion
inhabitants of
the planet by
2030 will be
looking for
places to live
in Mumbai, not
in Madrid. The
takeaway from
this is that
the so-called
‘developed’
countries,
with a few
notable
exceptions,
are either
losing
population due
to not
producing
enough
children or
seeing their
populations
staying
basically
stable. In
2030, Tokyo
will still be
the most
populated city
with an
estimated
population of
37.2 million.
Delhi will be
in second
place with
36.1 million,
up from 3.5
million in
1970! (How has
it coped?)
Shanghai will
be in third
place and New
York/Newark
will have
dropped off
the top ten
list. But what
will it be
like to live
in these
cities? The
Economist
Intelligence
Unit ranks
cities as the
most and least
liveable. ...
It ranked
Melbourne,
Australia as
number one,
...
Melbourne’s
density is 460
persons per
km2 compared
to 6,158/km2
for Tokyo and
2,059/km2 for
Shanghai....
None of the
most liveable
cities is
among the top
ten places
where venture
capitalists
have been
placing their
money bets
during the
past
year....These
four city
regions are
ranked below
30th place on
the EIU
Liveability
Index. In
other words,
they may be
successful,
but not that
liveable...
(in US) 50%
live in rural
or less urban
areas
occupying more
than 90% of
the land area.
Is there any
wonder why
over 50% of
the vehicles
sold in the
U.S. are not
passenger cars
but SUVs and
pick-up
trucks?...If
everyone who
lived in the
dense urban
areas stopped
buying cars,
there would
still be over
50% of the
population who
would continue
to be car
purchasers.
Can we conclude from this that the exodus from city regions to the suburbs of both jobs and families has now stopped and central cities once again will be where people live and work? No, not unless people will be willing to give up everything they have come to value in terms of living standards and will accept being packed into sardine can-sized apartments stacked a mile high.... Living in a central city in the most desirable neighborhoods will continue to be the privilege of the wealthy and very wealthy...They also have homes and dachas in the Hamptons, Vinyard and Vermont, else they couldn't stand it. ... When younger people build families and need more space, preferably with a yard, and that space is too expensive in the city, they find it further out...Visions of young professionals dashing around in robotic cars gobbling up mobility as a service are, to put it kindly, a bit fanciful. Read more Hmmmm...I love it!! So many good one-liners. Alain
D. Hall,
Apr 17, "In
the race to
the autonomous
revolution,
developers
have realized
there aren’t
enough hours
in a day to
clock the
real-world
miles needed
to teach cars
how to drive
themselves.
Which is why
Grand Theft
Auto V is in
the mix.
The
blockbuster
video game is
one of the
simulation
platforms
researchers
and engineers
increasingly
rely on to
test and train
the machines
being primed
to take
control of the
family sedan.
Companies from
Ford Motor Co.
to Alphabet
Inc.’s Waymo
may boast
about putting
no-hands
models on the
market in
three years,
but there’s a
lot still to
learn about
drilling
algorithms in
how to respond
when, say, a
mattress falls
off a truck on
the
freeway....The
idea isn’t
that the
highways and
byways of the
fictional city
of Los Santos
would ever be
a substitute
for bona fide
asphalt. But
the game “is
the richest
virtual
environment
that we could
extract data
from,”
said Alain
Kornhauser..."
Read
More Hmmmm... Well...we have a slightly different
view of
history wrt to
GTA5. The
'Alain view'
is that Chenyi
Chen*16
independently
started
investigating
the use of
virtual
environments
as a source of
Image -
Affordances
data sets to
use as the
training sets
in a 'Direct
Perception'
approach to
creating a
self-driving
algorithm.
Images of the
road ahead are
converted into
the
instantaneous
geometry that
is implied by
those image.
An optimal
controller
then
determines the
the steering,
brake and
throttle
values to best
drive the
car. The
critical
element in
that process
are the Image - Affordances data
sets which
need to be
pristine.
Chenyi
demonstrated
in his PhD
dissertation
, summarized
in the ICCV2015
paper,
that by using
the pristine
Image -
Affordances
data sets from
an open-source
game TORCS
one could have
a virtual car
drive a
virtual race
course without
crashing.
More
importantly,
when tested on
images from
real driving
situations,
the computed
affordances
were close to
correct.
This encouraged us to look for more appropriate
virtual
environments.
For many
reasons,
including:
"wouldn't it
be amazing if
'Grand Theft
Auto 5'
actually
generated some
positive
'redeeming
social value'
by
contributing
to the
development of
algorithms
that actually
made cars
safer; saving
grief,
injuries and
lives".
Consequently,
in the Fall of
2015, Artur
Filipowicz'17
began to
investigate
using GTA5 to
train
Convolutional
Neural
Networks to
perform some
of the Direct
Perception
aspects of
automated
driving. With
Jeremiah Liu,
he continued
his efforts in
this direction
last summer
which were presented
at TRB in
January.
Yesterday, he
and Nyan
Bhat'17
turned in
their Senior
Theses focused
on this topic.
A. Kornhauser, Jan 14, "Orf467F16 Final Project Symposium quantifying implications of such a Nation-wide mobility system on Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO), energy, environment and congestion, including estimates of fleet size, needed empty vehicle repositioning, and ridership implications on existing rail transit systems (west, east, NYC) and Amtrak of a system that would efficiently and effectively perform their '1st mile'/'last-mile' mobility needs. Read more Hmmm... Now linked are 1st Drafts of the chapters and the powerPoint summaries of these elements. Final Report should be available by early February. The major finding is, nationwide there exists sufficient casual ridesharing potential that a well--managed Nationwide Fleet of about 30M aTaxis (in conjunction with the existing air, Amtrak and Urban fixed-rail systems) could serve the vehicular mobility needs of the whole nation with VMT 40% less than today's automobiles while providing a Level-of-Service (LoS) largely equivalent and in many ways superior than is delivered by the personal automobile today. Also interesting are the findings as to the substantial increased patronage opportunities available to Amtrak and each of the fixed rail transit systems around the country because the aTaxis solve the '1st and last mile' problem. While all of this is extremely good news, the challenging news is that since all of these fixed rail systems currently lose money on each passenger served, the additional patronage would likely mean that they'll lose even more money in the future. :-( Alain
September
2016,
"Executive
Summary...For
DOT, the
excitement
around highly
automated
vehicles
(HAVs) starts
with safety.
(p5)
...The
development of
advanced
automated
vehicle safety
technologies,
including
fully
self-driving
cars, may
prove to be
the greatest
personal
transportation
revolution
since the
popularization
of the
personal
automobile
nearly a
century ago.
(p5)
...The benefits don’t stop with safety. Innovations have the potential to transform personal mobility and open doors to people and communities. (p5)
...The remarkable speed with which increasingly complex HAVs are evolving challenges DOT to take new approaches that ensure these technologies are safely introduced (i.e., do not introduce significant new safety risks), provide safety benefits today, and achieve their full safety potential in the future. (p6) Hmmm...Fantastic statements and I appreciate that the fundamental basis and motivator is SAFETY. We all have recognized safety as a necessary condition that must be satisfied if this technology is to be successful. (unfortunately it is not a sufficient condition, (in a pure math context)). This policy statement appropriately reaffirms this necessary condition. Alain
"...we
divide the
task of
facilitating
the safe
introduction
and deployment
(...defines
“deployment”
as the
operation of
an HAV by
members of the
public who are
not the
employees or
agents of the
designer,
developer, or
manufacturer
of that HAV.)
of HAVs into
four
sections:(p6)
Hmmm...Perfect!
Alain
"...2.
Model State
Policy (p7)
The Model
State Policy
confirms that
States retain
their
traditional
responsibilities...but... The shared
objective is
to ensure the
establishment
of a
consistent
national
framework
rather than a
patchwork of
incompatible
laws..." Hmmm... Well done. Alain
"...3. NHTSA Current Regulatory Tools (p7) ... This document provides instructions, practical guidance, and assistance to entities seeking to employ those tools. Furthermore, NHTSA has streamlined its review process and is committing to..." Hmmm... Excellent. Alain
"...4. New Tools and Authorities (p7)...The speed with which HAVs are advancing, combined with the complexity and novelty of these innovations, threatens to outpace the Agency’s conventional regulatory processes and capabilities. This challenge requires DOT to examine whether the way DOT has addressed safety for the last 50 years should be expanded to realize the safety potential of automated vehicles over the next 50 years. Therefore, this section identifies potential new tools, authorities and regulatory structures that could aid the safe and appropriately expeditious deployment of new technologies by enabling the Agency to be more nimble and flexible (p8)..." Hmmm... Yes. Alain
"...I.
Vehicle
Performance
Guidance for
Automated
Vehicles
(p11) A.
Guidance: if a
vehicle is
compliant
within the
existing FMVSS
regulatory
framework and
maintains a
conventional
vehicle
design, there
is currently
no specific
federal legal
barrier to an
HAV being
offered for
sale.(footnote
7) However,
manufacturers
and other
entities
designing new
automated
vehicle
systems
are subject to
NHTSA’s
defects,
recall and
enforcement
authority.
(footnote 8)
.
and the "15
Cross-cutting
Areas of
Guidance"
p17)
In sum this is a very good document and displays just
how far DoT
policy has
come from
promoting v2v,
DSRC and
centralized
control,
"connected",
focus to
creating an
environment
focused on
individual
vehicles that
responsibly
take care of
themselves.
Kudos to
Secretary Foxx
for this 180
degree policy
turn focused
on safety.
Once done
correctly, the
HAV will yield
the early
safety
benefits that
will stimulate
continued
improvements
that, in turn,
will yield the
great
mobility,
environmental
and
quality-of-life
benefits
afforded by
driverless
mobility.
What are not addressed are commercial trucking and buses/mass transit. NHTSA is auto focused, so maybe FMCSA is preparing similar guidelines. FTA (Federal Transit Administration) seems nowhere in sight. Alain
Hmmm...What we know now (and don't know):