2018-09-29
New
New
41st edition of the 6th year of SmartDrivingCars
2018
FORGET UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME. WE NEED UNIVERSAL BASIC MOBILITY
A. Roy, Sept
5, "...THE
ORIGIN OF
UNIVERSAL
BASIC MOBILITY
(UBM). UBM
is inspired by
Universal
Basic Income
(UBI), which
has long been
debated as a
solution for a
variety of
societal
ills...
Freedom of
movement has
never been
accompanied
with a right
to mobility.
Governments
built
infrastructure,
but you still
had to buy
your own horse
or car. As
population
density rose
and traffic
worsened,
modern states
invested in
more roads,
more trolleys,
more buses and
more trains,
creating an
informal
mobility
compact
between
governments
and their
citizens — we
will provide
means of
transporting
you more
efficiently
than you can
transport
yourselves.
Unfortunately,
people move
and cities
grow faster
than
governments
can build, and
people will
solve
transportation
needs as they
see fit.
Hence, the
oldest cities
in the United
States are
dominated by
struggling
public transit
systems, and
the newest
ones are
choking on the
cars around
which they
grew....
Freedom of
movement is
limited
wherever the
government/citizen
mobility
compact is
stressed or
broken. We see
this "mobility
underclass" in
the public
transportation
deserts in and
around
numerous
cities. The
mobility
underclass has
few options;
if they can
afford a car,
they
contribute to
broader
traffic and
infrastructure
problems. If
they can't,
they are often
forced into
unregulated
private/shared
options below
the radar of
even the
largest and
most ambitious
transportation
network
start-ups.
A parent who
spends four
hours a day
commuting
means a child
deprived of
critical
family time, a
worker too
tired to be
effective, a
human being
without
downtime....
A growing
number of the
mobility
underclass are
falling into
"structural
immobility" —
the state in
which lack of
mobility
limits their
ability to
obtain and
keep jobs,
access basic
services,
contribute to
society or
maintain a
reasonable
quality of
life. The gap
between
freedom of
movement and
affordable
mobility
options
creates a
self-perpetuating
system of
economic,
social and
emotional
loss,
depriving
society of
countless
productive
citizens..." [Read more](https://www.2025ad.com/latest/alex-roy-driverless-cars-universal-basic-mobility/) Hmmmm....
As you know I
love the
"elevator
analogy". One
can argue that
Elevators
provide a high
level of UBM
in tall
buildings.
(The stairs
offer a very
low
(unacceptable
level) of UBM
(fine for a
couple of
floors, but
anything
higher is a
non-starter). Walking/(bicycles, electric skate boards) in cities are like the stairs.
Great for
short
distances
but... Up to
now the car
has been the
elevator.
Unfortunately
we've had to
own our own,
drive it
ourselves
because we
couldn't
afford a
chauffeur,
and only use
it for
ourselves
(never share
rides that
would leave a
car or a
couple of cars
at home
because we
didn't know
anyone else
had a similar
mobility need
for this trip
at this time).
Luckily in
buildings,
elevators are
not owned by
individuals
(except the
Donald). They
are made
available by
the land
owners (owners
of the floors)
and made
available to
anyone 24/7 so
that the floor
owners can
collect rent
on the floors
that they
own. The
elevators
provide high
quality UBM in
tall
buildings.
Horizontally,
aTaxis could
be offered and
operated just
like
elevators.
Often used by
single
individuals
simply because
no one else is
going up. But,
if the demand
warrants, the
elevator is
readily shared
by those going
in the same
direction
(same narrow
wedge) at
about the same
time. Anyone
can use them
any time. How
they are
priced/subsidized
is a public
policy
decision. No
reason why
property
owners
wouldn't make
them be very
affordable
especially if
it gets people
to visit/use
their
facilities/land.
Thoughts???
Alain
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 59
F. Fishkin, Sept 28 “Basic Universal Mobility? Writer, editor, champion endurance driver and thought leader Alex Roy…joins Princeton University’s Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin for Episode 59 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast. Plus…Alain’s take on Tesla and Elon Musk….Toyota…and more.. Tune in and subscribe!” Hmmmm…. Now you can just say “Alexa, play the Smart Driving Cars podcast!” . Ditto with Siri, and GooglePlay. Alain
Real information every week. Lively discussions with the people who are shaping the future of SmartDrivingCars. Want to become a sustaining sponsor and help us grow the SmartDrivingCars newsletter and podcast? Contact Alain Kornhauser at alaink@princeton.edu! Alain
Seeing the world in autopilot, part deux
u/greentheonly, Sept 24, “… So we proceeded to gather a bunch of footage from volunteer cars around the world and certain metadata and then u/DamianXVI found ways to correlate some of the metadata with real world meanings and came up with code to paint internal autopilot state (the parts we understand) on top of camera footage (development firmware the unit came with did not include its own visualizer binary). So keep in mind our visualizations are not what Tesla devs see out of their car footage and we do not fully understand all the values either (though we have decent visibility into the system now as you can see). Since we don’t know anybody inside Tesla development, we don’t even know what sort of visual output their tools have.
Footage we
present has
been recorded
on firmware
18.34 from the
main camera.
The green fill
at the bottom
represents
"possible
driving
space", lines
denote various
detected lane
and road
boundaries
(colors
represent
different
types, actual
meaning is
unknown for
now). Various
objects
detected are
enumerated by
type and have
coordinates in
3D space and
depth
information
(also 2D
bounding box,
but we have
not identified
enough data
for a 3D one),
correlated
radar data (if
present) and
various other
properties..."
[Read more](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/9irh2a/seeing_the_world_in_autopilot_part_deux/) Hmmmm....
Look at the videos: They are spectacular (in tech content) Crazy Paris streets; Paris highways Alain
SEC lawsuit seeks to force Musk out as Tesla CEO and board member
T. Lee, Sept 27, “The Securities and Exchange Commission has sued Tesla CEO Elon Musk over an August tweet he made claiming he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420 per share. The SEC says that this and subsequent tweets were false and misleading—and therefore a violation of market-manipulation laws.
The stakes are
high. In
addition to
seeking
financial
penalties and
an injunction
against
similar tweets
in the future,
the SEC is
also seeking
that Musk "be
prohibited
from acting as
an officer or
director" of
companies that
issue shares
under Section
12 or Section
15(d) of
federal
securities
laws. Stephen
Diamond, a
securities law
expert at
Santa Clara
Law School,
tells Ars that
means Musk
would have to
step down as
Tesla's CEO
and give up
his board
seat..." [Read more](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/09/sec-sues-elon-musk-over-funding-secured-tweets/) Hmmmm....
But
it is well
known that
much of what
Elon says is
"false &
misleading" so
what's the
harm. He
certainly is
inspiring.
See also [Tesla stock dives as SEC tries to force Elon Musk out of company leadership](http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-elon-musk-sec-20180928-story.html#nt=outfit)
Should
"shorters" be
banned for
encouraging
the SEC to
take this
action because
they know/knew
this would
allow them to
cover their
shorts???
Alain
JRC Science for Policy Report: CCAM in Europe
M. Sena, Oct 1, “THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION decided it was time to perform an in-depth investigation of the potential impacts of changes that have already occurred or are being proposed to road transport vehicles and the road infrastructure. Ve-hicles have been using mobile communications to deliver data and receive services for over two decades, but vehi-cle-to-vehicle communication and cooperative driving will greatly increase the number and types of applications that can be implemented. Increasing automation of the driving task has been promoted as a way to reduce the numbers of accidents and deaths on the roads, but there will be other impacts as well that need to be address. The JRC was tasked with “analyzing the value at stake for both the economy and society as a result of a transition towards CCAM in Europe. Twelve staff members of the JRC collab-orated in preparing the report: An analysis of possible so-cio-economic effects of a Cooperative, Connected and Automated Mobility (CCAM) in Europe: Effects of auto-mated driving on the economy, employment and skills…“ Read more Hmmmm… I point you to Michael’s evaluation of this report in his latest Dispatcher which also includes the following excellent readings…
Where Are We Going with Our Road Infrastructure
Radical Chic: The Automotive Experience House
Agero, Inc.: An Automotive Call Center Case Study
Dispatch Central
Tesla will not, after all, delist itself from Nasdaq
Do we need continuous education for drivers
If I only had a chauffeur
Time to close your social media accounts?
Not yet ready to ring the stock market bell for Volvo Cars
Next Issue of The Dispatcher
5G: It’s Show Time
Tesla: “You don’t understand me.”
Musings of a Dispatcher: Car Collecting Fervor
Alain
This major European city wants to embrace autonomous cars
A. Frangoul, Sept 27, “…Wincentson was positive about what autonomous cars could bring to Gothenburg. “We think the benefits for the city will be safer and more secure transportation – the flow of traffic will be more even, smooth and efficient.” …“ Read more Hmmmm… I t continues to amaze me that European “Planners” continue to view Autonomous (aka Driverless) cars from a “conventional consumer owned, operated and privately used” perspective rather than as an on-demand shared affordable public mobility machine that would greatly enhance mobility in their “transit deserts” and to the Mobility Disadvantaged. Maybe they think that their conventional public transit systems are so good that “Transit Deserts” and Mobility Disadvantaged Household only exist in America and not in Europe. Yet why do so many Europeans buy and use cars when Transit is supposedly so great??? Gothenburg should look seriously at the opportunities for on-demand, 24/7, shared-ride autonomousTaxis to substantially enhance mobility to its Mobility Disadvantaged citizenry. (I suspect Michael Sena will have a rebuttal in the November Dispatcher.) Alain
Two Tesla bulls say the company is wrong about one key part of its self-driving car strategy
Sept 26, “The most divisive element of its strаtegy, аrguаbly, is its refusаl to use lidаr sensors, whiсh emit pulses of light thаt bounсe off objeсts to determine where they’re loсаted, in its plаnned self-driving system. Lidаr sensors аre seen by Teslа’s high-profile сompetitors, like Wаymo, Generаl Motors, аnd Uber, аs а neсessity, but Tesla СEO Elon Musk hаs sаid they’re а “сrutсh,” аnd thаt Tesla саn build self-driving саrs using just саmerаs аnd rаdаrs….
Αdаm Jonаs, аn аuto аnаlyst аt Morgаn Stаnley who hаs а $299.02 priсe tаrget for the stoсk, sаid Tesla will most likely use lidаr within the next eight yeаrs. “I would be surprised if, by the middle of the next deсаde, they did not hаve some form of lidаr on the саr,” he sаid…“ Read more Hmmmm…. I don’t like to disagree with Adam, but “by the middle of the next decade”… Moore’s Law will have delivered such an improvement in compute power that improvements in image processing will substantially outpace the price reductions in LiDARs. Even if Tesla goes with LiDAR now, they will have abandoned it by 2025. We drive VERY well without LiDAR as long as we pay attention. The highway environment has been designed and built implicitly, if not explicitly, so as to enable us to drive safely using vision. Moreover, since our ability to drive would not be enhanced with “HD Maps” or “centimeter accuracy “, neither would Tesla’s AutoPilot. (Now I’m really going to get hate mail :-(). Alain
Viodi View – 09/29/18
K. Pyle, Sept 29, “The recent announcement from Babcock Ranch – the Florida planned community, which aspires to be an environmentally friendly and technologically advanced city of 50,000 people – regarding its pilot of an autonomous school bus hints at how automation will have an impact on almost all facets of life. It is difficult to see how the Babcock Ranch school bus example could be justified by cost-savings, as an on-board adult will still be needed to ensure the safety of the kids.
In rural
America,
however, the
on-board
adult's role
could
potentially
shift from
driver/safety-monitor
to tutor,
while the
student
experience
could change
from bus ride
to a kind of
mobile study
hall (e.g. see
this [ViodiTV interview](http://www.viodi.tv/2010/07/21/broadband-to-the-unserved/))...."
[Read more](https://viodi.com/2018/09/29/viodi-view-09-29-18/)
Hmmmm.... Great
idea, Ken.
Alain
Better Roadmarkings = Safer Roads
K. Pyle, “Sept 25, “We are looking at how we can take the technologies we have developed over many years for road signs and pavement markings and those kinds of humanly visible aspects of the roadway and how we can now address those towards the new drivers of the road; the automated vehicles, the autonomous vehicles,” states Andy Dubner, Business Leader of 3M’s Connected Roads Program. In the above interview filmed at ProspectSV’s 2018 Innovation and Impact Summit, Dubner explains how the goal of the program is to improve safety through better signage.
He indicates
that 3M is
looking at how
they can help
sensors, such
as cameras,
Radar and
Lidar, provide
supplemental
information
for the text
and graphics
seen by a
human
driver...." [Read more](https://viodi.com/2018/09/25/better-roadmarkings-safer-roads/) Hmmmm....
[See video](https://youtu.be/3n9I2C1LBWk). Maybe... However,
the focus
needs to be
squarely on
making
markings and
signage for
humans first
and foremost
and then maybe
add a little
something
extra that is
inexpensive
that might
help sensors.
For example,
my friend [Howard Bell at Intelligent Materials](https://intelligentmaterial.com/)
has very interesting
ways to add
rare earth
crystals that
embed
information in
"paint".
Alain
Toyota’s Vision of Autonomous Cars Is Not Exactly Driverless
J. Lippert, Sept 19, “Toyota Motor Corp., the world’s most valuable automaker, with a market capitalization of $200 billion, is behind in the race to create the vehicles of a maybe-not-so-distant future. Just four years ago, Akio Toyoda, the company’s president, was saying his company would pursue self-driving vehicles only after one beat a human driver—for instance, him—in a marathon road race. He’s not saying that anymore, because Toyota has too much to lose.
If the company
fails to pick
up the pace,
Toyota could,
in one version
of the future,
face the
humiliation of
becoming a
mere steel-box
supplier to
upstarts such
as Waymo and
Baidu. Toyoda
himself has
singled out
tech companies
as "our new
rivals, with
speed many
times greater
than our own."
He added: "A
life-or-death
battle has
begun in a
world of
unknowns."...
Toyota Motor Corp., the world’s most valuable automaker, with a market capitalization of $200 billion, is behind in the race to create the vehicles of a maybe-not-so-distant future. Just four years ago, Akio Toyoda, the company’s president, was saying his company would pursue self-driving vehicles only after one beat a human driver—for instance, him—in a marathon road race. He’s not saying that anymore, because Toyota has too much to lose.
If the company
fails to pick
up the pace,
Toyota could,
in one version
of the future,
face the
humiliation of
becoming a
mere steel-box
supplier to
upstarts such
as Waymo and
Baidu. Toyoda
himself has
singled out
tech companies
as "our new
rivals, with
speed many
times greater
than our own."
He added: "A
life-or-death
battle has
begun in a
world of
unknowns."...
Toyota is seeking a middle ground with a system it calls Guardian, which would harness the machine-intelligence and sensor capabilities that make full self-driving theoretically possible and bundle them in vehicles designed for human drivers….” Read more Hmmmm…. “not exactly ____ (fill in the blank), is NOT ____ !!! If the blank is filled with “Driverless”, that means Toyota sees itself continuing to sell cars for consumers to drive and NOT to fleet owners/managers to deliver mobility to the general public. That is fine, but why invest in Uber? Sure, you’ll sell some cars to gig workers, but that’s not what Uber really needs to compete with Waymo, GM/Cruise, Aptiv, … Oh well, Uber got $500M on excellent terms. Alain
Tesla achieves Model 3 production goal for record quarter with 2 days still to go
F. Lambert, Sept 28, “Tesla had quite the ambitious Model 3 production goal for this quarter and it was hard to believe it was achievable after months of delays. Now Electrek has learned that Tesla already achieved the goal for a new record production with two days still to go before the end of the quarter….
We have been tracking Tesla’s production in the past few weeks of this critical period as the company is attempting to become profitable….
According to a
reliable
source
familiar with
Tesla's
production,
the automaker
had a strong
week of
production and
managed to
bring the
total number
Model 3
produced to
over 51,000
vehicles...."
[Read more](https://electrek.co/2018/09/28/tesla-model-3-production-goal-achieved-record-quarter/) Hmmmm....
This is a
substantial
achievement on
the road to
electrification
of cars.
Looking at [monthly year-over-year EV sales](https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/)
in the US, one
sees the
"Model 3
effect" on
total sales
over the
spring and
summer
months. This
level of
production is
equivalent to
the sum of the
sale of all
makes and
models
including
Prius Prime,
Model S, Model
X, Volt, Bolt,
Clarity, LEAF,
.... While
late, very
impressive
that it was
achieved while
Tesla is still
alive and Elon
is still in
charge. If
half of these
have
AutoPilot,
this may well
mean that the
same market
share
phenomenon
exists with
"Self-driving
Cars"
{Production/Sale
of
Model3/wAutoPilot
>
Sum{S/wAutoPilot,
X/wAutoPilot, CT6/wSuperCruise, Volvo/wIntellisafe, MB/w...} ?! It would be nice if someone compiled and
released
actual sale
figures for
cars with
these
features.
Alain
Elon Musk reportedly asks Tesla employees to test full self-driving version of Autopilot
S. O'Kane,
Sept 28, "The
version of
Autopilot that
Elon Musk has
long promised
would make
Tesla cars
capable of
driving
themselves is
reportedly
being handed
over to a
small group of
employees for
testing,
according to
an [internal email obtained by Bloomberg](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-28/tesla-enlists-employees-to-be-full-self-driving-beta-testers).
In the email,
Musk promised
there were
about 100
spots
available in
the testing
program, and
that he would
take
volunteers on
a "first come,
first served
basis."
Willing
employees have
to agree to
sharing "300
to 400 hours
of driving
feedback with
the company's
Autopilot team
by the end of
next year,"
according to
Bloomberg.
Musk is
apparently
offering a
sizable
kickback,
though —
workers who
sign up won't
have to pay
for the
supposedly
fully
self-driving
version of
Autopilot, or
for a premium
interior, if
they buy a new
car. In total,
these features
would normally
cost $13,000
combined...."
[Read more](https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/28/17915888/elon-musk-tesla-full-self-driving-autopilot-test-employees-email) Hmmmm....
Even @ +$8k
& "[Corintian leather](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsg97bxuJnc) @
$5k, this is
still
Self-driving
and requires
adult
supervision!!
It is NOT
Driverless!!!
But it will be
the best
Self-driving
available for
consumers to
purchase.
Alain
Ride-hailing increases vehicle miles traveled
M. Moore, Sept 27, “Ride-hailing accounts for an 83 percent increase in the miles cars travel for ride-hailing passengers in Denver’s metro area, according to a study published this week in the journal Transportation by researchers at the University of Colorado Denver. …” Read more Hmmmm…. I don’t contest the findings in Alejandro’s paper, A. Henao, W. Marshall, “The impact of ride-hailing on vehicle miles traveled”. In fact I find it an excellent paper and recommend it highly. My take, though, is that the VMT implications of Ride-hailing are at least in part due to the operating practices of ride-hailing companies (They are not really dedicated to providing/properly-pricing/incentivizing shared-ride services and the potential conflicting objectives of providing good mobility and having happy drivers). My point is that a both conventional-ride-hailing and fleet -managed-autonomousTaxis could provide high-quality on-demand mobility to many, if not all, without increasing VMT. To date, “not increasing VMT” has not really been part of Ride-hailing’s objectives or real interests. It certainly could and should be part of aTaxis’ “Common Carriage Obligation”. Alain
Softbank’s ARM unveils dedicated chip design for autonomous cars
E. Auchard, Sept 26, “Driverless car features are moving closer to mass-market production, with British chip designer ARM introducing the first in a new line of safety-hardened processors for building features such as automated collision avoidance into vehicles….” Read more Hmmmm…. Hopefully this processor will enable Automated Emergency Braking (AEB) systems to substantially reduce their false alarm rates so that these systems are not disabled by the car makers or the car owners. Alain
Axios Autonomous Vehicles
A, Snyder, Sept 21,” Welcome to Axios Autonomous Vehicles. As the global AV industry emerges and evolves, we’ll deliver news and expert analysis of the technology — including the hype around it — and its intersection with our daily lives.
Situational
awareness: I'm
steering this
newsletter
until our AV
correspondent
Joann Muller
arrives next
month. Think
of me as Level
1...." [Read more](https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-autonomous-vehicles-71be17cf-56a3-4b03-a01a-d316c634bad4.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosautonomousvehicles&stream=top) Hmmmm....
It isn't funny
using "Levels"
and "...including
the hype
around it..."
is only a bad
joke, I
hope!!; else,
C'mon Man!
This is
serious
business with
serious
challenges and
opportunities
where hype is
simply not
helpful.
Whew! Alain
### What Investors Need to Know About NIO, China’s Answer to Tesla
J. Rosevear,
Sept 24,
"Investors
have been
kicking the
tires of
Chinese
electric-vehicle
maker NIO,
Inc.
(NYSE:NIO)
since it went
public in the
U.S. on Sept.
12. The price
was near the
bottom of
NIO's
hoped-for
range, but it
was enough to
give the
Shanghai-based
company a
valuation of
about $6.4
billion...
Does NIO have
self-driving
technology?
It's working
on it. NIO's
vehicles
currently come
with a
proprietary
Level 2
advanced
driver-assist
system, called
NIO Pilot. The
system is
powered by
processors
supplied by
Intel
subsidiary
Mobileye. NIO
plans to add
new
functionality
to the system
over time, via
over-the-air
software
updates...
NIO's vehicles
also include
what the
company claims
is "China's
most advanced
in-car AI
connected
assistant,"
called NOMI."
[Read more](https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/09/24/what-investors-need-to-know-about-nio-chinas-answe.aspx) Hmmmm....
It is a brave
new world when
"Self-driving
technology" is
a worthy
differentiator
and only
foolish hype
is around its
"AI connected
assistant"
whatever that
might be.
Alain
### The Case Against Driverless Cars
C. Neiger, Sept 28, “Autonomous vehicles aren’t widespread right now, but in the coming decades, they’ll be everywhere. By 2040, it’s estimated that more than 33 million driverless cars will be sold annually. That figure will represent 26% of all new vehicles sold globally that year, and it will be a massive increase from the 51,000 self-driving cars that are expected to be sold in 2021….” Read more Hmmmm…. Just a bad article because it doesn’t even realize the massive difference between Self-driving (which requires adult supervision) and Driverless (which doesn’t even have a steering wheel). But assume that Neiger, as his title states, is writing about Driverless. 1st, Waymo has options to buy 20,000 Jaguars and 62,000 Pacificas that they can convert to Driverless. So the “2021” expectation is ??? Also, 33 million driverless cars are sufficient to provide the mobility for essentially every non-walking, non- rail-transit person trip made today in the USA (my estimate). 33M might be sold one year , say 2040, but far fewer will be sold in in the following couple of years, before or until many of those 33M will need to be replaced. Very few driverless cars will be sold to consumers in the 2040s. Essentially all will be built by/sold to fleet operators delivering on-demand mobility to almost everyone. The purpose of this article is to get the reader to click through the adds and especially the “learn more” at the bottom. Please don’t. Alain
To Find China’s Best Driverless Technology, Look in Silicon Valley
D. Welch, Sept
24, "China's
homegrown
search giant,
much like its
U.S.
counterpart,
has a division
focused
entirely on
driverless
vehicles. And
just like its
rival,
Google-born
Waymo, both
efforts are
based in
Silicon
Valley.
It's not only
Baidu with a
toehold in
Northern
California.
China's
self-driving
startups are
sprouting
major R&D
outposts 6,000
miles from
Beijing.
China's
congested
megacities may
have a need
for
self-driving
cars, but the
expertise is
elsewhere.
Just ask
Pony.ai
founders James
Peng and
Tiancheng Lou.
When they
decided over a
drink in
Beijing three
years ago that
it was time to
leave Baidu's
self-driving
car unit, the
plan was
always to
start in
California.
"Silicon
Valley is
definitely the
place to be,"
Peng said in
an interview.
"That's where
all the talent
is. China has
a lot of raw
talent, but
with hardcore
artificial
intelligence,
it takes years
to build up.
China has work
to do."... "
[Read more](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-24/to-find-china-s-best-driverless-technology-look-in-silicon-valley) Hmmmm....
No surprise.
Alain
###
Jobs
Half-baked
stuff that
probably
doesn't
deserve your
time
###
###
###
C’mon Man!(These folks didn’t get/read the memo)
The end of the red light? Dashboard ‘virtual traffic light’ that lets cars talk to each other could slash commute times by 60%
M. Prigg, Sept. 25, “…Computer scientists at Carnegie Mellon University are working on a system that would replace conventional traffic lights with virtual ones – with stop and go signals appearing directly on the windshield or dashboard….’But what if cars could talk to each other, and manage traffic without infrastructure based traffic lights?’ … “ Read more Hmmmm…. Wow, CMU is bent on finding any excuse for V2V. Did this get better grade than a C? C’mon CMU!! Alain
###
##
Calendar
of Upcoming
Events:
###
5th Symposium on
Autonomous & Connected vehiclesOctober 23-24, 2018
Brooklyn, NY
###
Annual Princeton SmartDrivingCar Summit
evening May 14 through May 16, 2019
Catalog of Videos of Presentations @ 2nd Annual Princeton SmartDrivingCar SummitPhotos from 2nd Annual Princeton SmartDrivingCar SummitProgram & Links to slides from 2nd Annual Princeton SmartDrivingCar Summit
On the More Technical Side
http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/Papers/
###
##
Recent
PodCasts
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 58
F. Fishkin, Sept 22 “In this edition of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast, Alain Kornhauser of Princeton University and co-host Fred Fishkin are joined by the founder of the Superbike School, Keith Code. Keith is an instructor, coach, author and researcher into motorcycle safety…and a champion racer. Beyond that….he’s an old high school friend of Alain’s! And there’s more on BMW, Apple, VW and more! . Tune in and subscribe!”
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 57
F. Fishkin, Sept 14, “Uber is investing bigger in self driving research in Toronto, while Apple grows its self driving test fleet in California. Join Princeton University’s Alain Kornhauser along with Fred Fishkin for Episode 57 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast. Also…the latest on Mercedes, Volvo, BMW and Nuro. Tune in and subscribe!” Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 56
F. Fishkin, Sept 7, “Waymo and Tesla way out in front in autonomous technology.
Princeton
University's
Alain
Kornhauser
weighs in
along with
Fred Fishkin
Episode 56 of
the Smart
Driving Cars
Podcast. Plus
the latest
from Amazon,
Aurora
Innovation,
Ouster, Jaguar
Landrover and
Fiat Chrysler.
Tune in and
subscribe!" [Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 55](https://soundcloud.com/smartdrivingcar/smart-driving-cars-episode-55)
F. Fishkin, Sept 6, “The coming new world of driverless cars! In Episode 55 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast former GM VP and adviser to Waymo Larry Burns chats with Princeton’s Alain Kornhauser and Fred Fishkin about his new book “Autonomy: The Quest to Build the Driverless Car and How it Will Reshape Our World”
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 54
F. Fishkin, Aug 26, “The impact of the Hitch service murders in China on ride sharing, Toyota’s investment in Uber and the issue of who controls data…are the focus of Episode 54 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast. Co-hosts Alain Kornhauser of Princeton University and Fred Fishkin are joined by The Dispatcher publisher Michael Sena.”
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 53
F. Fishkin, Aug 26, “Ralph Nader weighs in when it comes to safety regulations for self driving vehicles…. but is his focus in the right place? Princeton University’s Alain Kornhauser offers up his thoughts on that and more …from Zoox, to Waymo, Lyft and Drive.AI in Episode 53 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast with co-host Fred Fishkin. Tune in and subscribe!”
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 52
F. Fishkin, Aug 18, “Uber’s future is linked to it’s ability to deploy self driving vehicles. That’s what Princeton University’s Alain Kornhauser says in Episode 52 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast with co-host Fred Fishkin. Also…the latest from Ford, Tesla, Elon Musk, Kroger and more. Tune in and subscribe!”
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 51
F. Fishkin, Aug 11, “Waymo worth 175 billion dollars before it starts charging for rides? Join Princeton University’s Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin for Episode 51 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast. And the latest on Uber and the battle with New York City, Olli shuttles off to Buffalo, Tesla and BMW.”
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 50
Aug 3, F. Fishkin, , “Drive.ai gets ready for self driving tests in Texas, Waymo partners with public transit, Tesla’s self driving chips and the latest on Uber and Lyft. All that and more in Episode 50 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast with Princeton University’s Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin. Tune in and subscribe!”
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 49
F. Fishkin, July 27, “When will we shift from buying cars to buying rides? In Episode 49 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast, entrepreneur, speaker and co-author of “The End of Driving: Transportation Systems and Public Policy Planning for Autonomous Vehicles” …Bern Grush joins co-hosts Alain Kornhauser of Princeton and Fred Fishkin. That along with the latest on Ford, Waymo, Uber and more.”
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 48 F. Fishkin, July 23, “What to make of Waymo as it passes 8 million miles of automated driving on public roads? Princeton University’s Alain Kornhauser joins Fred Fishkin for Episode 48 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast. This week… Waymo, Zoox, Embark, Nvidia and new reports from Brookings.” Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 47 F. Fishkin, July 14, “Self driving taxis from Mercedes? Princeton University’s Alain Kornhauser says, “No thank you”. Why? Tune in as the faculty chair of autonomous vehicle engineering joins Fred Fishkin for that and much more in episode 47 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast.”
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 45 F. Fishkin, June 15, “Waymo marks the first year of its early rider program. The news is good but Princeton’s Alain Kornhauser says it could be better. How? Tune in to Episode 45 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast for that and the latest on GM, Voyage, Ford and more “ Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 44 F. Fishkin, June 12, “What is the big mistake California is making in driverless vehicle testing? Princeton University’s Alain Kornhauser says the key is to promote ride sharing. Join the professor and co-host Fred Fishkin for Episode 44 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast for more on that, Waymo, Tesla and more.
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 38 F. Fishkin, May 10, “The continuing Uber crash investigation, Waymo and Ohio rolls out the welcome mat for the testing of self driving cars. All that and more in Episode 38 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast. This week Princeton’s Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin are joined by Bryant Walker Smith of the University of South Carolina and Stanford. Tune in and subscribe!”
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 34 F. Fishkin, Apr 13, “Should a brand new regulatory agency be formed to oversee self driving and driverless vehicles? Princeton University’s Alain Kornhauser says yes in Episode 34 of the Smart Driving Cars podcast with co-host Fred Fishkin. Also…Uber’s CEO calls self driving vehicles are in the student driver phase….and Tesla feuds with the NTSB.”
Smart Driving Cars Podcast Episode 33 F. Fishkin, Apr 4, “ Waymo is making it real! In Episode 33 of the Smart Driving Cars Podcast, hosts Fred Fishkin and Princeton’s Alain Kornhauser are joined by Michael Sena, publisher of The Dispatcher newsletter. Take a deep dive into Waymo’s deals with Jaguar and talks with Honda.. Tesla, Volvo, Uber and Ambarella. And the Princeton Smart Driving Car Summit is coming up! “
BMW Develops New Insurance Concept, Aims at Future of Car Insurance G. Nica, Sept 17, “With the BMW Group’s technical know-how and Swiss Re’s expertise as a reinsurer, an algorithm has been developed that is capable of representing the complex effects of driver assistance systems on the safety of BMW vehicles as a score. This score facilitates calculation of an individual vehicle-specific insurance premium….” Read more Hmmmm…. Wow, can this really be true. I’ve been calling for this for at least 4 years. Have they really “developed” the algorithm?? Hope they publish it. I’d love to see it. To what extent does expected liability become independent of expected driver behavior? How does improvement in “BMW vehicle score” correlate with both reduced insurance premiums and the incremental cost of the incremental Driver Assistance System. What “Driver Assistance System” yields the Minimum { insuranceCost + incrementalCapitalizedSafetySystemCost} for each model??? Can’t wait to learn the details. Hope it is not all smoke & mirrors. Alain
Self-driving delivery startup Nuro releases its voluntary safety report Link2Report
A. Hawkins, Sept 13, “Nuro, the self-driving delivery startup founded by a pair of Google veterans, released its voluntary safety reporton Thursday. Titled “Delivering Safety,” the 33-page document outlines the technology and procedures Nuro is using to safely deploy its fleet of autonomous delivery robots.
Formed in
2016, [Nuro](https://nuro.ai/)
has set itself
apart from
other
companies that
are working on
self-driving
technology by
focusing on
delivery
rather than
ride-hailing.
The startup
recently
announced a [pilot delivery service in Arizona](https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/16/17693760/nuro-kroger-self-driving-delivery-scottsdale-arizona) in
partnership
with grocery
giant Kroger.
In its report,
Nuro touts
what it
believes are
its
competitive
advantages....
With no driver or passengers to worry about, our vehicle can be built to keep what’s outside even safer than what’s inside. It’s lighter, nimbler, and slower than a passenger car, and is equipped with state-of-the-art software and sensing capabilities that never get distracted. With its smaller size and manufacturing costs, we can make vehicles more rapidly. And because it’s electric and fully self-driving, our vehicle can deliver life’s needs at an affordable price….” Read more Hmmmm…. And if Jeff Bezos is watching, watch out. Link to the report. Alain
Self-Driving Cars Will Keep Getting Better Forever D. Silver, Sept. 4, “ Evans raises a particularly interesting question about autonomy: “what winner takes all effects apply?”
Waymo, which
recently
surpassed 9
million miles
driven
autonomously,
started
working on
autonomous
vehicles in
2009, years
before many
current
competitors.
That head
start has
allowed them
to rack up far
more
autonomous
miles than
other
companies (the
next closest
program
appears to be
Uber's
now-paused
Advanced
Technology
Group, with 2
million
autonomous
miles)....
Similarly,
Tesla has sold
hundreds of
thousands of
Autopilot-enabled semi-autonomous cars. Collectively, Autopilot-enabled vehicles have
driven
approximately
1.5 billion
miles,
providing
Tesla with a
dataset no
other company
has.
With those
kinds of
leads, a
question
arises of
whether Waymo
and Tesla have
already won
the market?
...." [Read more](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidsilver/2018/09/04/self-driving-cars-will-keep-getting-better-forever/#6a6a4801217d) Hmmmm....
Very good
question!!
What do you
think? Alain
Customers Died. Will That Be a Wake-Up Call for China’s Tech Scene? L. Yuan, Aug. 29. “Huang Jieli, who ran a Chinese ride-sharing business called Hitch, was invited to a wedding in March. One of her drivers was getting married to a woman who had once been his passenger. Thanks, the invitation said, for getting them hitched. Didi Chuxing, Hitch’s corporate parent and one of the world’s most successful and valuable start-ups, once cheered these stories of young love. Like so many other Chinese internet companies, Didi explored all kinds of ways to bring in new users, including social networking.
So through
suggestive ads
hinting at
hookups
through
driving, Didi
pushed Hitch's
romantic
possibilities.
In a 2015
interview with
the Chinese
online portal
NetEase, Ms.
Huang compared
Hitch cars to
cafes and
bars. ...
In the
aftermath of
the two
assaults,
Chinese media
has uncovered
dozens of
others over
the years.
It also found
past
advertisements
for Hitch that
featured lewd
double
entendres and
other language
that could
suggest a
female
passenger
might welcome
an advance
from her male
driver.
..." [Read more](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/technology/china-didi-chuxing-women-killed.html) Hmmmm....
This is truly
UGLY! Given
all of the
inter-personal
sensitivities
associated this
with business,
both now
with gig
drivers
and later with
efforts to
encourage
ride-sharing
in driverless
aTaxis, how
could such an
advertising
approach ever
see the light
of day at any
on-demand
ride-hailing
company.
Aren't there
any adults at
DiDI? It is
bad enough
that Uber
deliberately
tested its
Self-driving
cars in
domains
where/when
those cars had
their AEB
turned off.
It is way
worse to the
whole
ride-hailing
mobility-as-a-service
business, when
one of its
shining stars
spends money
advertising in
such a way.
Ride-hailing
and
ride-sharing
are serious
businesses
that
absolutely
require
simultaneous
and complete
trust and
confidence
between what
are otherwise
complete
strangers.
Inspiring any
desire to
engender
"ChatRouletteness"
should and
will lead
directly to [Blockbuster](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/business/last-blockbuster-video-oregon.html).
This is really
UGLY! Alain
Waymo’s Big Ambitions Slowed by Tech Trouble A. Efrati, Aug 28, “HANDLER, Ariz.—Alphabet’s Waymo unit is a worldwide leader in autonomous vehicle development for suburban environments. It has said it would launch a driverless robo-taxi service to suburban Phoenix residents this year. Yet its self-driving minivan prototypes have trouble crossing the T-intersection closest to the company’s Phoenix-area headquarters here.
Two weeks ago,
Lisa Hargis,
an
administrative
assistant who
works at an
office a
stone's throw
from Waymo's
vehicle depot,
said she
nearly hit a
Waymo Chrysler
Pacifica
minivan
because it
stopped
abruptly while
making a right
turn at the
intersection.
"Go!" she
shouted
angrily, she
said, after
getting stuck
in the
intersection
midway through
her left turn.
Cars that had
been driving
behind the
Waymo van also
stopped. "I
was going to
murder
someone," she
said.
The hesitation
at the
intersection
is one of many
flaws evident
in Waymo's
technology,
say five
people with
direct
knowledge of
the issues in
Phoenix. More
than a dozen
local
residents who
frequently
encounter one
of the
hundreds of
Waymo test
vehicles
circulating in
the area
complained
about sudden
moves or
stops. The
company's
safety drivers—individuals who sit in the driver's seat—regularly have to take
control of the
wheel to avoid
a collision or
potentially
unsafe
situation, the
people
said....
In reality,
the vast
majority of
Waymo's test
cars continue
to use safety
drivers.
Typically, the
cars that
drive without
a person at
the wheel have
been in
relatively
small
residential
areas of
Chandler,
Ariz., where
there is
little
traffic,
according to
people
familiar with
the program.
And these
vehicles are
monitored
closely by
remote
operators that
can help the
cars when they
run into
issues. (Waymo
last week told
the Verge that
its first
driverless
taxis would
include a
"chaperone"
from Waymo who
would sit in
the
cars.)..." [Read more](https://www.theinformation.com/articles/waymos-big-ambitions-slowed-by-tech-trouble?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJhbGFpbmtAcHJpbmNldG9uLmVkdSIsImV4cCI6MTU2NzA0MjA2NiwibiI6IkFsYWluIEtvcm5oYXVzZXIiLCJzY29wZSI6WyJzaGFyZSJdfQ.ejgpq5onTwAK-r-lt4znaE6J-t9mg7V6RGPv0BY7nIE&unlock=dbcf3fa59ce34aa1) Hmmmm....
As I've been
saying, we are
still at the
very
beginning....
0.001 degrees
Kelvin. Plus "others/non-users" will never like them. Just this morning I honked at
the driver in
front of me
who passed up
a gap to make
an unprotected
left turn. I
had to wait
for a whole
cycle!! I
hate every car
that drives on
Cleveland Lane
in front of my
house. I want
that street
all for
myself. I
hate buses. I
hate trucks.
I hate
everything and
everyone but
me. This is
just human
nature.
Little respect
for others.
Heck, I'm the
only good
driver out
there. The
innuendos are
not
surprising. We'll
just have to
grin and bear
them as we do
with all of
the
conventional
cars running
around out
there.
On a more
serious note,
this reality
demonstrates
that we may
need
regulation/legislation
that
explicitly
protects the
rights of
driverless
cars to share
the public
road
infrastructure.
We do this for
bicycles,
motorcycles
and in a way
even for
trucks and
buses. Also,
buses, and
other vehicles
today have
signs on their
backs that
state "This
vehicle stops
at all RR
crossings"
because it
differs from
normal car
behavior.
I suggest that
Waymo and all
that are
testing
driverless
vehicles on
city streets
place a sign
on the back of
each
vehicles:"This
Car Obeys All
Traffic Laws
and Rules.
You should too!
Alain
Augus26, 2018
The founder of $3.2 billion startup Zoox says that he was ousted as CEO ‘without a warning’ because ‘the board chose a path of fear’
T. Wolverton, Aug 22, “The CEO of Zoox has left in a management shake-up at the the high-profile, well-funded, and idiosyncratic self-driving car startup.
Zoox has
already
started
searching for
a replacement
for Tim
Kentley-Klay,
who cofounded
the Silicon
Valley-based
company, a
source close
to Zoox told
Business
Insider. In
the meantime,
it has named
board member
Carl Bass as
its executive
chairman and
cofounder
Jesse Levinson
as its
president, the
source said.
Bass is the
former CEO of
Autodesk.
Kentley-Klay
confirmed his
ouster in a
statement
posted on his
Twitter
account.
Zoox's board
fired him
"without a
warning, cause
or right of
reply," he
said in the
statement.
"Today was
Silicon Valley
up to its
worst tricks,"
he said.
"Rather than
working
through the
issues in an
epic startup
for the win,"
he continued,
"the board
chose a path
of fear,
optimizing for
a little money
in hand at the
expense of
profound
progress for
the universe."
Along with his
statement,
Kentley-Klay
posted a pair
of charts
comparing Zoox
to its chief
rivals —
Google spinoff
Waymo, Uber,
and GM-owned
Cruise. The
charts
essentially
assert that
Zoox has made
more progress
with its
technology for
less money
than its
rivals... A
native of
Australia,
Kentley-Klay
had no
background
automobile
engineering or
artificial
intelligence
before
starting Zoox,
according to a
recent
Bloomberg
profile.
Instead, he
had worked in
online
advertising.."
[Read more](https://www.businessinsider.com/zoox-ousts-ceo-tim-kentley-klay-2018-8?nr_email_referer=1&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_content=10ThingsSAI&pt=385758&ct=Sailthru_BI_Newsletters&mt=8&utm_campaign=Post%20Blast%20%28sai%29:%2010%20things%20in%20tech%20you%20need%20to%20know%20today&utm_term=10%20Things%20In%20Tech%20You%20Need%20To%20Know%20-%20Engaged%2C%20Active%2C%20Passive%2C%20Disengaged)Hmmmm....
Must be trying
to protect its
$3.2B
valuation and
avert an
"Uberism" (a
single
valuation-changing
irresponsible
incident) .
Alain
August 18,
2018
Uber’s Losses Mount at Self-Driving Car Unit A. Efrati, Aug 15, “Uber has been spending between $125 million and $200 million a quarter on its self-driving car unit over the past 18 months, The Information has learned, equivalent to between 15% and 30% of the company’s quarterly losses. The previously undisclosed spending highlights the financial burden that self-driving car development has imposed on Uber and why CEO Dara Khosrowshahi is under pressure to decide what to do about it.
Some investors
have told Uber
officials that
it may be wise
to divest the
self-driving
car unit, said
a person
familiar with
the issue.
Uber has
invested least
$2 billion in
the unit over
the past three
years. Yet the
company hasn't
yet come up
with a clear
path to
commercializing
the technology
it has
developed.
The group's
quarterly cash
burn of $1
million to $2
million per
day has been
particularly
high during
quarters when
Uber paid for
expensive
hardware like
cars and
sensors that
are attached
to the cars,
said a person
with knowledge
of the data.
The company
has tried to
reduce some
expenses by
withdrawing
operations
from Arizona
and cutting a
development
effort for
self-driving
trucks.
Broadly,
though,
there's no
sign that the
unit's cash
needs will
meaningfully
come down. An
Uber
spokeswoman
did not have a
comment....
The argument
against
selling the
autonomous
unit would be
that Uber
needs to have
a way to
develop
self-driving
cars if other
companies
won't partner
with it. Long
term,
self-driving
cars could
help Uber's
ride-hailing
network reduce
costs from not
having to
employ
drivers. If
Uber doesn't
develop the
cars itself,
it will need
to figure out
how to get
other car
developers to
agree to use
their vehicles
to pick up
Uber's
passengers...."
[Read more](https://www.theinformation.com/articles/ubers-losses-mount-at-self-driving-car-unit?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJhbGFpbmtAcHJpbmNldG9uLmVkdSIsImV4cCI6MTU2NjA4NzU3MiwibiI6IkFsYWluIEtvcm5oYXVzZXIiLCJzY29wZSI6WyJzaGFyZSJdfQ.NGVWMEG_dL6ZBSWjvi378q9kH295P-j2xXbxGhdZWq0&unlock=b752f66dae5c2414)Hmmmm....
They are
really between
a rock and a
hard place.
They can't
really grow
without. If
someone else
is successful
at making it
work, they'll
operate it
themselves
rather than
license it
(Netflix
didn't license
its service to
Blockbuster).
With that
competition,
Uber's
valuation goes
to 10x
earnings which
is an ugly IPO
. The only
upside rests
in Driverless,
so they can't
get out.
Alain
2018
Why Waymo Is Worth A Staggering $175 Billion Even Before Launching Its Self-Driving Cars
A. Ohnsman,
Aug 7,
"Waymo,
Alphabet
Inc.'s multibillion-dollar self-driving vehicle bet hasn't yet launched
commercial
operations but
that's not
stopping
Morgan Stanley
from
predicting
massive
potential for
the company
that's emerged
as the leader
in the
autonomous
tech race.
A year after
his initial
estimate that
Waymo was
likely a $75
billion
startup,
Morgan Stanley
analyst Adam
Jonas raised
it to a
staggering
$175 billion,
citing greater
revenue
potential from
passenger ride
services and
licensing of
its tech. The
biggest source
of future
revenue,
however, is
likely to come
from
autonomous
trucking and
delivery
services,
which Jonas
thinks could
generate as
much as $90
billion....."
[Read more](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2018/08/07/why-waymo-is-worth-a-staggering-175-billion-even-before-launching-its-self-driving-cars/#a07c18bdd3a9)Hmmmm....
Wow, a year
ago some
thought Waymo
and Uber were
neck2neck in
the Driverless
horse race.
Waymo executed
its business
plan, had no
crashes and
went from $75B
to $175B.
Uber executed
its business
plan, had one
crash and went
from $73B to
? (<$50B)
. Just in
case you
thought safety
wasn't
important.
Just think, if
Waymo
continues on
its business
plan without
causing a
crash, it
means that
their
"driverless
suite" really
does work in
its expanding
geo-fenced
areas. That
dynamic
evolution
suggests that
in September,
2020, there
will be
~100,000 Waymo
aTaxis serving
~5M trips a
day throughout
many medium
density areas
across a
substantial
part of the
USA. And in
September 2022
there will
be... (you
can do the
math...
Kornhauser's
Waymo Law..
10x every 2
years).
There is a
very big
"IF... &
WITHOUT", but
when the
"driverless
suite" works
(and it may
well be
working now,
since it
hasn't caused
a crash, but
Waymo hasn't
divulged "near
misses"..),
then the
probability
that the
"driverless
suite" causes
a crash is
really small
and there is
essentially
zero pushback
to delivering
what is an
almost
insatiable
demand for the
affordable
mobility
services
afforded by
the"driverless
suite".
That's why it
is worth $175B
today ....
and
potentially
$500B in 2020.
(Boy this is
fun!!). Alain
August 3, 2018
On the eve of a 6-month pilot, Drive.ai details its self-driving car plans
K. Wiggers,
July 30, "It's
been almost a
year since
Waymo, the
autonomous
vehicle
division of
Google parent
Alphabet,
became the
first company
to operate
autonomous
cars on public
roads without
drivers behind
the wheel. Now
Drive.ai
intends to
follow suit.
This month,
the Silicon
Valley startup
will set loose
a fleet of
self-driving
Nissan NV200
vans in
Frisco, Texas.
They won't be
completely
autonomous —
a small army
of safety
drivers and
remote
operators will
ensure rides
go off without
a hitch. And
the vehicles
will be
contained in a
geofenced
area.
But Drive.ai's
six-month test
will be one of
the largest of
its kind so
far. When all
is said and
done, the
company hopes
to transport
over 10,000
people in its
driverless
cars.
Here's how
it'll do
it...." [Read more](https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/30/on-the-eve-of-a-6-month-pilot-drive-ai-details-its-self-driving-car-plans/https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/30/on-the-eve-of-a-6-month-pilot-drive-ai-details-its-self-driving-car-plans/)Hmmmm....
This shows the
amount of work
that needs to
be done just
to prepare for
Driverless
operation,
and this is
even before
one finally
operates
without an
"attendant".
This also
demonstrates
how far ahead
Waymo is from
anyone else.
Alain
Friday, July 27, 2018
Ford is taking on Waymo and GM’s Cruise by creating its own standalone self-driving division M. deBord, July 24, “… The division will be called Ford Autonomous Vehicles LLC and will be overseen by Sherif Marakby as CEO; Marakby had been a vice-president of Ford’s self-driving and electrified initiatives…. Ford CEO Jim Hackett said in a statement. “Now is the right time to consolidate our autonomous driving platform into one team to best position the business for the opportunities ahead.”
According to
Ford, the new
company will
be "structured
to take on
third-party
investment,"
an indication
that the
115-year-old
company is
paying close
attention to
the
competition....
General
Motor's Cruise
division
recently
announced a
$2.25-billion
investment
from Japan's
SoftBank,
which paired
with an
additional
$1.1-billion
investment
from GM gave
Cruise an
$11.5-billion
valuation. (GM
acquired
Cruise for a
total of
around $1
billion in
2016.)
Alphabet's
Waymo unit
(formerly the
Google Car
project) is
also heading
toward a
commercial
rollout in the
next 12
months,
launching a
fully
autonomous
fleet of
vehicles in a
ride-hailing
framework.
Standalone
valuations for
Waymo have
been estimated
at more than
$50 billion.
...
not bad given
that they've
likely spent
less than
$1.5B to
create that
"valuation"
which is
likely to be
low. Which
would you
prefer to own
for $50B, Uber
or Waymo?
Talk about a
no-brainer!..
The carmaker
said that Ford
Autonomous
Vehicles LLC
will include
an "ownership
stake in Argo
AI, the
company's
Pittsburgh-based
partner for
self-driving
system
development,"
in which the
company
"expects to
invest $4
billion in its
AV efforts
through 2023,
including its
$1 billion
investment in
Argo AI."j..."
[Read more](https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-creates-self-driving-division-to-rival-gms-cruise-and-waymo-2018-7)Hmmmm....
Ford need this
since the
legacy piece
is focusing on
people who
want to "[haul stuff](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/ford-ceo-jim-hacketts-decision-to-dump-cars-may-prove-fatal.html)". Alain
New
Roman"">Monday,
July 23, 2018 [Transition To Autonomous Cars Will Take Longer Than You Think, Waymo CEO Tells Governors](https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2018/07/20/waymo-ceo-tells-governors-av-time-will-be-longer-than-you-think/#34a8a9ced7da)
S. Abuelsamid,
July 20,
"Speaking in a
fireside chat
at the
National
Governors
Association
meeting
Friday, Waymo
CEO John
Krafcik told
the gathering
that the "time
period will be
longer than
you think" for
automated
vehicles to be
everywhere..."everywhere"
makes the
statement
meaningless.
... ""There
are no
autonomous
systems
available,
zero on the
road today,"
said Krafcik.
"Anything you
can buy on the
road today is
a driver
assist system,
that means the
driver is
completely
responsible
for the car
and I think
there is so
much confusion
on that."...
Agree
100%! "...What
Krafcik was
referring to
was some of
the issues
caused by
consumers
believing that
the assist
systems
currently on
the market are
more capable
than they
actually are,
..." ...In
particular the
Automated
Emergency
Braking (AEB)
Systems on
those vehicles
and the
perception
that these
vehicles have
AEBs that are
actually
functioning
(which in many
cases they are
not
functioning)
while the lane
centering and
intelligent
cruise control
systems are
doing the
nominal
lateral and
longitudinal
control of the
car. "...the
problem is not
unique to
Tesla. Systems
from Volvo,
Mercedes-Benz,
BMW and other
manufacturers
have similar
limitations.
..."We humans
are becoming
used to some
of the
semi-autonomous
technology,
and I don't
like that term
that's on the
road, that's
driver assist
technology,"
added Krafcik.
We still have
to be
completely
alert and in
control of the
cars that were
driving every
minute, every
second that
we're on the
road
driving."...
Waymo's goal
is to replace
that sort of
technology
with systems
that don't
require any
human
supervision,
something that
the
company
decided
several years
ago was not a
viable
solution.
Instead, Waymo
plans to
launch its
automated ride
hailing
service
commercially
in the Phoenix
area later
this year and
gradually
expand to
other cities
as the
technology
continues to
mature and is
proven safe in
those
locations....Despite
the rapid
accumulation
of testing
miles, Krafcik
warned the
governors not
to end all of
their
infrastructure
investments
just yet....Widespread adoption in the millions of vehicles globally is
unlikely
before the
latter half of
the 2020s" ...Given
that we are
just in the
hundreds of
vehicles
today, getting
to millions in
less than 10
years is
fairly
optimistic and
not "longer
than you
think". A few
million in the
US would serve
about 100
million person
trips a day,
or more than
10% of total
personTrips,...more
than twice
that served by
all public
transit
today. While
that's not
"everywhere",
everyone will
not be more
than one
person removed
from someone
who is using
aTaxis
everyday...
".... Krafcik
was equally
non-committal
to Sandoval's
query about
when he might
be able to
purchase his
own car with
Waymo
technology.
While Waymo
and Fiat
Chrysler are
in talks about
utilizing this
virtual driver
system on cars
for retail
sale, Krafcik
said it's
going to be
some time yet.
The emphasis
for now is the
ride-hailing
service,
trucking and
logistics and
working with
transit
authorities.
Supplying
systems for
personal use
cars is last
on the
timeline...." [Read more](https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2018/07/20/waymo-ceo-tells-governors-av-time-will-be-longer-than-you-think/#34a8a9ced7da) Hmmmm....
Amen!!!
Driverless
cars are
mobility
providing
machines.
"Mothballing"
them by
selling them
to individuals
who will use
them "4% of
the day" has
to be last on
everybody's
time-line.
Plus those
individuals
are likely to
be
uninterested
and incapable
of properly
maintaining
them so they
will become a
public
nuisance and
public
liability.
Alain
New
Roman"">Saturday,
July 14, 2018 [MERCEDES WILL LAUNCH SELF-DRIVING TAXIS IN CALIFORNIA NEXT YEAR](https://www.wired.com/story/mercedes-will-launch-self-driving-taxis-in-california-next-year)
J. Stewart,
July 10,
"...Mercedes-Benz
parent company
Daimler took a
cautious step
into the swamp
stomp,
announcing
plans to
launch a
self-driving
car pilot
somewhere in
Silicon
Valley, next
year.
Daimler is
calling its
service an
"automated
shuttle," but
it's not
referring to
some blobby,
slow-moving
van. It's
going to start
out using a
fleet of
S-Class luxury
sedans and
B-Class
hatchbacks,
with long-term
plans for
vehicles
designed for
autonomous
driving, like
the F 015
"Luxury in
Motion"
concept it
showed off a
few years
back..." [Read more](https://www.wired.com/story/mercedes-will-launch-self-driving-taxis-in-california-next-year) Hmmmm....
Daimler,
please
DON'T!!!! This
is such the
wrong concept
by the wrong
company.
Daimler is
singularly
focused on
1%ers and the
last thing
that 1%ers
need are
Driverless
aTaxis! 1%ers
already have
more personal
mobility than
they can throw
a stick at.
1%ers can
easily afford
a
driver/attendant,
so they have
no need for
Driverless.
And one
suspects that
those who seek
elite modes of
transportation
will not be
the first to
share rides
with others. Daimler,
this isn't
your market.
Please stick
to the Safe-driving
and Self-Driving (with
adult
supervision)
worlds. You
are doing a
great job with
those, but,
please, don't
ruin the the
Driverless,
mobility-for-all
world with
your "F
015 "Luxury in
Motion"concept,
which reeks of
exclusivity.
Daimler's
proposed
design seems
fundamentally
focused on the
very few.
Driverless is
a
technological
opportunity to
provide
life-enhancing
mobility to
the many,
which is NOT
in Daimler's
DNA and
unfortunately
NOT is the
EU's DNA,
because
Daimler has
played such a
strong role in
the evolution
of the EU's
perspective on
AV
technology.
Driverless
must focus on
shared-riding
whenever
practical,
else it will
fail. So
please,
Daimler, stay
away for
now. Alain
New
Roman"">Saturday,
June 30, 2018
###
Uber car’s ‘safety’ driver streamed TV show before fatal crash: police H. Somerville, June 22, “The safety driver behind the wheel of a self-driving Uber car in Tempe, Arizona, was streaming a television show on her phone until about the time of a fatal crash, according to a police report that deemed the March 18 incident “entirely avoidable.” …The report said police concluded the crash, which has dealt Uber Technologies Inc a major setback in its efforts to develop self-driving cars, would have been “entirely avoidable” if Vasquez had been paying attention.
Vasquez could
face charges
of vehicular
manslaughter,
according to
the report,
which was
released late
on Thursday in
response to a
public records
request....
Police
obtained
records from
Hulu, an
online service
for streaming
TV shows and
movies, which
showed
Vasquez's
account was
playing the TV
talent show
"The Voice"
for about 42
minutes on the
night of the
crash, ending
at 9:59 p.m.,
which
"coincides
with the
approximate
time of the
collision,"
the report
said." [Read more](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-selfdriving-crash/uber-driver-was-streaming-hulu-show-just-before-self-driving-car-crash-police-report-idUSKBN1JI0LB) Hmmmm....
This doesn't
absolve Uber.
Uber's
interest in
Automated
Vehicles is
confined to
the
"Driverless"
variety.
Those that can
deliver
mobility
services
without a
driver.
Technology
that requires
human
supervision,
such as a
"Self-driving"
car, is of no
value to
Uber. What
limits Uber is
the number of
competent
drivers that
it can engage.
Driverless
technology
enables Uber
to grow beyond
being a niche
business
serving 1% of
person trips
to being a
dominant
service
providing
mobility to
greater than
10% of person
trips. Only
Driverless
will enable
then to
reliably and
effectively
provide that
amount of
mobility. So
why was Uber
testing a
technology
that, by
design in that
domain
(traveling
greater than
30 mph)
requires a
human
attendant/driver
because the
Automated
Emergency
Braking (AEB)
system is, by
design, turned
off
(disregarded)
at speeds
greater than
30mph. With
the AEB turned
off, the last
line of
defense
against a
crash is a
driver. Thus
a driver is
required and
that domain
has no value
to Uber. Uber
had no reason
to be testing
on public
street,
outside of its
"Drivereless"
design domain
and thus was
reckless and
they probably
failed to
adequately
inform its
drivers to
remain
especially
alert when
testing in
domains where
its technology
is, by design,
incapable of
providing
Driverless
operation.
Alain
New
Roman"">Friday,
June 15, 2018
Waymo’s early rider program, one year in Waymo team, June 13, “Ariel rides after school. Neha hops to the grocery store. Barbara and Jim zip around town while kicking back.
They're all
part of the
Waymo early
rider program
we launched
last April.
Today, over
400 riders
with diverse
backgrounds
use Waymo
every day, at
any time, to
ride all
around the
Phoenix area.
Their feedback
helps us
understand how
fully self
driving cars
fit into their
daily lives.
One year in,
our early
rider program
and our
extensive
on-road
testing is
helping us
build the
world's most
experienced
driver. In
fact, our
fleet of cars
across the
U.S. is now
driving more
than 24,000
miles daily;
that's the
equivalent of
an around the
world road
trip! Here's a
quick report
on how our
riders use
Waymo, what
we've learned,
and what's
next....As
some of the
first people
in the world
to use
self-driving
vehicles for
their everyday
transportation
needs, our
early riders
are helping
shape this
technology.
Thanks to
their
feedback,
we're refining
the rider
experience to
make sure
that: ...
nobody wants
to carry
grocery bags a
block down the
street... " [Read more](https://medium.com/waymo/waymos-early-rider-program-one-year-in-3a788f995a9c) Hmmmm....
Yipes!! The
personal car
isn't bad
enough in its
focus on
private
single-occupant parkingSpot2parkingSpot mobility? Are we now going to have Waymo
providing it
Door2Door with
zero
opportunity to
share rides
and while
delivering
negative
public
benefits of
increased
energy,
pollution and
congestion
with all of
its empty
vehicle
repositioning.
No wonder the
CPUC voted to
forbid
ride-sharing.
Did Waymo made
them do it
since Waymo
hasn't done
ride-sharing
in Phoenix?
Having 2 or
more people in
the car isn't
ride sharing
if they would
have all gone
together in
their own car
had Waymo not
been there. So
Bad!!! Without
ride-sharing,
this is just
expensive,
energy
inefficient
and
environmentally
challenged
private
chauffeuring
for the
entitled
privileged
class:
[See video](https://youtu.be/3HrN12WG-2Q) Just
like watching
[Oszzie & Harriet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OulA-4zii8)
or [Leave it to Beaver](https://archive.org/details/leave.it.to.beaver.complete.series).
For Waymo to
"Win it",
they'll need
to embrace
ride-sharing
because no
"Blue-state"
PUC is going
to be as
impressionable
as as
California's.
Alain
New
Roman"">Tuesday,
June 12, 2018 [CPUC AUTHORIZES PASSENGER CARRIERS TO PROVIDE FREE TEST RIDES IN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES WITH VALID CPUC AND DMV PERMITS](http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M215/K467/215467801.PDF)
Press Release,
May 31,
"...Today's
decision also
allows TCP
permit-holders
that hold a
"DMV
Manufacturer's
Testing Permit
– Driverless
Vehicles" to
operate
autonomous
vehicles without
a driver
in the
vehicle,
subject to
certain
restrictions.
Authorization
to provide
this service
is available
only to TCP
permit-holders
with driverless
autonomous
vehicles that
have been in
DMV-permitted
driverless
operation
on California
roads for a
minimum of 30
days. Entities
seeking to
participate in
the pilot
program are
not allowed to
operate from
or within
airports; must
limit the use
of the vehicle
to one
chartering
party at any
given time (i.e.,
fare-splitting
is not
permitted);
must ensure
that the
service can
only be
chartered by
adults 18
years and
older; and may
not accept
monetary
compensation
for the ride.
Participants
are also
required to
continuously
comply with
all DMV
regulations,
and to report
certain data
to the CPUC on
a quarterly
basis that
will be
publicly
available...."
[Read more](http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M215/K467/215467801.PDF) Hmmmm.....Good
News:
Able to serve
customers with autonomousTaxis. Bad news: Not able to Share Rides.
(This is
really bad
news because
having the
public
oversight body
focus
Driverless
serving single
occupants
thereby making
even worse the
fundamental
problem of the
personal auto
is simply REALLY
BAD!.
Their
opportunity is
to encourage
ride-sharing
whenever
possible so as
to alleviate
congestion and
reduce energy
and
pollution.
C'mon CPUC!!
The fact that
the rides are
free is
largely
irrelevant at
this time,
except as,
once again, a
subsidy to the
1%ers who are
a
disproportionate
element of the
early adopters
that are
likely to hail
this service.
Alain
New
Roman"">Friday,
June 8, 2018
Tesla Model X on Autopilot sped up seconds before deadly crash in Silicon Valley, report says R. Mitchell, June 7, “Three seconds before a Tesla Model X on Autopilot slammed into a concrete barrier in March in Silicon Valley, killing the driver, the car sped up, the brakes were not applied, and there was no evasive action.
Those findings
were disclosed
Thursday in a[preliminary report from the NTSB](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HWY18FH011-preliminary.aspx)
on the Highway
101 crash that
took the life
of Walter
Huang, a
38-year-old
software
engineer at
Apple. ...
Alain
Kornhauser,
head of the
autonomous car
engineering
program at
Princeton
University,
said the NTSB
and Tesla have
plenty of
questions left
to answer....[Read more](http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-autopilot-death-report-20180607-story.html) Hmmmm.....Just
a couple of
things:
1. “ …for the last 6 seconds prior to the crash, the vehicle did not detect the driver’s hands on the steering
wheel." Was
the driver's
hands on the
wheel during
the 7th second
prior to the
crash and did
his hands
over-ride the
Tesla's
steering
command in any
way? Did they
initiate the
"left steering
movement". If
not, what
initiated that
steering
movement"?
What was the
exact
longitudinal
and lateral
positions of
the car 8
seconds before
the crash, 7
seconds before
the crash, 6
seconds before
the crash,
...?
2. During the
7th, 6th, 5th
and 4th second
before the
crash how did
the Tesla's
lateral
positioning
vary relative
the the
lateral
position of
the lead car?
3. During the
last 3 seconds
prior to the
crash, did any
of the sensors
detect an
object ahead?
If yes, what
closing speed
(or
"stationary
world
coordinate"
speed) was
assigned to
that object?
4. Does Tesla
employ
different
lateral
control logic
if the Tesla
is following a
car ahead
rather than
simply
"staying
between two
road lane
markings? To
what extent
does it
continue to
follow the car
ahead if the
car ahead
begins to
cross a lane
marking?
5 . Which
lane did the
lead car take
at the fork(
left or
right)? (NHTS
should provide
a Plan View of
the crash
location).
6. Why did
the CA Highway
Department not
replace/repair
the attenuator
in less than
11 days (or in
the time
between March
12 and March
23).
7. Why isn't
the area
stripped
(cross
hatched)
leading up to
the barrier
and inside the
point lines.
No car should
ever stop
there,
correct???
Alain
New
Roman"">Sunday,
June 3, 2018
[SOFTBANK FLIPS THE VENTURE-CAPITAL SCRIPT AGAIN WITH GM DEAL](https://www.wired.com/story/softbank-flips-venture-capital-script-gm-deal/)
E. Griffith,
May 31,
"GENERAL
MOTORS, THE
10th-largest
company by
revenue in the
US, is eager
to lay the
groundwork for
future growth
by developing
self-driving
technology.
But its
shareholders
are dubious of
too much
spending as
revenue
declines—it
fell 5.5
percent last
year.
Japanese
conglomerate
SoftBank has
the opposite
problem: a
giant pile of
cash but not
enough
opportunities
to spend it.
The company's
Vision Fund
does not make
investments
smaller than
$100 million,
and there are
only so many
startups
worthy of such
a large check.
That's why the
firm has taken
a loose
interpretation
of its artificial-intelligence-focused investment thesis, including aspects of
human needs
that won't be
replaced by
technology.
It also helps
explain
SoftBank's
$2.25 billion
investment in
GM's
self-driving
car unit,
Cruise,
announced
Thursday. The
move further
complicates
the tangled
web of
connections
among
startups,
automakers,
big tech
companies, and
venture
investors
angling for a
piece of the
market for
autonomous
vehicles—a
market that
doesn't yet
exist but is
expected one
day to
generate
trillions of
dollars in
revenue.
The
overlapping
investments
and alliances
have become so
prevalent that
they border on
conflicts. And
SoftBank sits
at the center.
To wit:
SoftBank
invested in
Uber after it
had already
backed Uber
competitors in
India (Ola),
Singapore
(Grab), Brazil
(99), and
China (Didi).
Didi, which
also invested
in Ola, Grab,
99, and Lyft,
eventually
merged with
Uber's China
business. Uber
continues to
compete with
Ola in India
and 99 (which
Didi acquired)
in Brazil.
Meanwhile
SoftBank's
Vision Fund
has taken
investment
from Apple,
which has its
own autonomous
vehicle
program, and
Uber has taken
investment
from the
venture arm of
Alphabet,
owner of
autonomous
competitor
Waymo, which
recently
settled a
nasty lawsuit
against Uber
and received a
small slice of
equity in its
rival. Oh, and
SoftBank
portfolio
company
Alibaba has
invested in
Uber rival
Lyft, along
with Ford, GM,
and CapitalG,
the late-stage
investment arm
of
Alphabet...."
[Read more](https://www.wired.com/story/softbank-flips-venture-capital-script-gm-deal/) Hmmmm....
Most
interesting.
Must be a
realization
that Uber's
"Driverless
Initiative" is
so hopelessly
3rd rate, that
SoftBank
invested up to
the 2nd pick
in order to
salvage the
Uber IPO
valuation.
SoftBank has a
tangled web of
investments
but it is
strategically
biases in a
desperate
attempt to
catch the
breakout
leader Waymo.
All the while
Waymo seems to
be putting the
pedal to the
metal. ([next article](https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/31/17412908/waymo-chrysler-pacifica-minvan-self-driving-fleet)).
Alain
Waymo’s fleet of self-driving minivans is about to get 100 times bigger
A. Hawkins,
May 31, "The
size of
Waymo's fleet
of
self-driving
Chrysler
Pacifica
minivans just
got radically
bigger. The
Alphabet unit
announced
today that it
struck a deal
with Fiat
Chrysler
Automobiles
(FCA), one of
Detroit's Big
Three
automakers,
for an
additional
62,000
minivans to be
deployed as
robot taxis."
Hmmmm....
Wow!! What is
Waymo going to
do with 60,000
more aTaxis on
top of the
20,000 Jaguars
they ordered a
few months
back??? I
guess that
they will send
a couple
thousand to
NJ. .
Those 80,000
aTaxis will
serve about 4
million person
trips/day (~50 personTrips/aTaxi-day). That's about 0.5% of all personTrips greater
than 0.5 miles
in the USA on
a typical day,
roughly equal
to the number
of personTrips
that Uber
serves today
in the US on a
typical day
today in the
USA and is
~10% of the
personTrips
riding today's
conventional
transit
systems.
Wow!!!
Moreover, the
two companies
have also
begun
discussions
about how to
eventually
sell
self-driving
cars to
customers as
personally
owned
vehicles..." R[ead more](https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/31/17412908/waymo-chrysler-pacifica-minvan-self-driving-fleet) Hmmmm....
What????
Waymo can't be
serious. No
way Waymo or
anyone else is
going to allow
these vehicles
to be in the
hands of
consumers.
The
professional
maintenance
and adult
supervision
required by
these vehicles
today makes
such a
suggestion
preposterous.
Moreover, this
would be
Uber's biggest
windfall, to
be able to buy
the best
driverless car
rather than
having to make
it
themselves.
No way Waymo
allows Uber
this
windfall. The
floor price
for a goose
that lays
golden eggs is
the investment
required to
purchase an
annuity of
golden eggs.
Not only is
that a big
number, Uber
doesn't have
any secret
sauce that can
extract more
value out of
those eggs
than Waymo
can. So, if
Uber bids high
enough to buy
them, they'll
lose money.
This "rumor"
deserves a
super [C'mon Man](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoXv6JHI0OE)!!!
Alain
New
Roman"">Thursday,
May 31, 2018
###
AI Winter Is Well On Its Way F. Piekniewski, “Deep learning has been at the forefront of the so called AI revolution for quite a few years now, and many people had believed that it is the silver bullet that will take us to the world of wonders of technological singularity (general AI). …We have now mid 2018 and things have changed. ..By far the biggest blow into deep learning fame is the domain of self driving vehicles ..
But by far the biggest prick punching through the AI bubble was the accident in which Uber self driving car killed a pedestrian in Arizona. From the preliminary report by the NTSB we can read some astonishing statements:…” Read more Hmmmm…. Very interesting. We still have an awful lot to do. See also,G. Marcus, below. Alain
May 25, 2018 [PRELIMINARY REPORT: HIGHWAY: HWY18MH010 (Uber/Herzberg Crash)](http://orfe.princeton.edu/%7Ealaink/SmartDrivingCars/PDFs/NTSBuberPreliminaryMay2018.pdf)
KMay 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](http://orfe.princeton.edu/%7Ealaink/SmartDrivingCars/PDFs/NTSBuberPreliminaryMay2018.pdf)
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”.
“…The system is not designed to alert the operator. “ That may be the only good part of Uber’s design. In a Driverless vehicle, there is no one to warn, so don’t waste your time. If it is important enough to warn, then it is important enough for the automated system to start initiating things to do something about it. Plus, the Driver may not know what to do anyway. This is pretty much as I stated in PodCast 30 and the 24 edition of SmartDrivingCar, See below. Alain May 18, 2018
The Open Source Solution to Autonomous Safety #smartdrivingcar
K. Pyle, May 9, “Safety and, as importantly, the perception of safety could be the pin that pricks the expectations surrounding the autonomous vehicle future. Recognizing the importance of safety to the success of this still nascent industry, autonomous taxi start-up, Voyage, recently placed their testing and reporting procedures in an open source framework. …Oliver Cameron, Voyage Co-Founder and CEO, is excited to see participation and says, “We can’t wait to have all of these contributions from companies from around the world; contribute to build the actual standard in autonomous safety.” Read more, Hmmmm…. See the video that was played at the Princeton SDC Summit which generated substantial positive discussion at the Summit. See also full length video. Alain
May 10, 2018
Uber Finds Deadly Accident Likely Caused By Software Set to Ignore Objects On Road
A. Efrati, May 7, “Uber has determined that the likely cause of a fatal collision involving one of its prototype self-driving cars in Arizona in March was a problem with the software that decides how the car should react to objects it detects, according to two people briefed about the matter.” Read more Hmmmm….Uber is “leaking” this??? Is this Spin? Fake News?? I guess Uber doesn’t believe in transparency here. Where is the official public statement of reassurance???
"The car's
sensors
detected the
pedestrian,
who was
crossing the
street with a
bicycle, Hmmmm....Pretty much what I wrote on March 24, the sensors "Saw
something" ...
but Uber's
software
decided it
didn't need to
react right
away. ..."right
away" is Fake
News. It never
reacted. Uber
has not
released any
data
indicating
that the
software ever
reacted. "That's
a result of
how the
software was
tuned." ...That
was a major
"tuning" faux
pas. What is
being divulged
here is that
Uber's
software never
became
confident
enough that
what it was
seeing was
something that
it should not
hit and, at
least, begin
to apply the
brakes (or
swerve, or
???). Even
the driver in
the video
recognized
that the
object should
not be hit a
split second
before the
crash. So the
Problem
is not
"tuning" it is
outright "[fuhgeddaboudit](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fuhgeddaboudit)"
Like other
autonomous
vehicle
systems,
Uber's
software has
the ability to
ignore "false
positives," or
objects in its
path that
wouldn't
actually be a
problem for
the vehicle,
such as a
plastic bag
floating over
a road.... Is
Uber
suggesting
that its
software can't
tell the
difference
between a
plastic bag
floating over
the road and a
pedestrian
with a
bicycle, even
after seeing
the object 30
to 60 or more
times over the
3 or more
seconds that
the object was
in view? If
this isn't
Fake News then
Uber is
hopelessly far
behind... In
this case,
Uber
executives
believe the
company's
system was
tuned so that
it reacted
less to such
objects." It didn't react at all!...
But the tuning
went too far,
and the car
didn't react
fast enough,
one of these
people
said....
... It didn't
react at all!
If this wasn't
so important
I'd put it in
C'mon man.
“False positives” are the symptom, not the problem. The problem is Uber’s system design and operational policy. Uber system designers knew that the sensors under certain conditions reported “false positives” (were “spooked”). One of those conditions was possibly the combination of “is the closing speed = car’s current speed” AND “is the car’s current speed greater than 30mph.” In situations in which both are true, then Uber’s “tuning” is outright “fuhgeddaboudit”. This “tuning” effectively turns-off Uber’s sensors to detecting anything that is stationary or moving across its lane ahead. If Uber has understood this, then Uber would/should have …
1. limited the operation of its cars to speeds under 30 mph,
2. limited the operation of its cars at speeds greater than 30 mph only to roadways where pedestrians are extremely unlikely to cross, and
3. focus on substantially improving its ability to interpret its sensor data so that the false alarm rate becomes so small that false alarms are tolerated throughout Uber’s operational domain.
…“Meanwhile, the human driver behind the wheel, who is meant to take over and prevent an accident, wasn’t paying attention in the seconds before the car hit…“ …I think that this is a cheap shot against the driver. I suspect that this car had a screen that displayed the real-time status of the automated driving system. I would not be surprised if that screen was mounted below the radio and that the driver was actually monitoring the operation of the automated driving system prior to the crash. Why this display wasn’t on the dash so that the driver’s peripheral vision could remain on the road ahead when the driver was monitoring the performance of the system is a question Uber should answer,… if it had any interest in being transparent.
Another question that Uber could be asked: Why didn’t the monitoring system warn the driver that it was “seeing something” and ask the driver to look to see if it should be “saying/doing something”.
Since it doesn’t look like Uber is going to really divulge anything, it is incumbent on the NTSB to dig deeply into this “false alarm” issue. Disregarding “false positives” in order to circumvent a little passenger/customer discomfort enables “false negatives” which kill people. Not pretty!
“…Uber has reached its own preliminary conclusion…” .The problem was what the broader system chose to do with that information”. …. Is Uber going to tell us???? This is way more than a “tuning problem”. This is a design and culture problem…
"...In the
collision
investigation,
Uber found
that a vital
piece of the
self-driving
car was likely
working
properly: the
"perception"
software,
which combines
data from the
car's cameras,
lidar and
radars to
recognize and
"label"
objects around
it. In this
case, the
software is
believed to
have seen the
objects. The
problem was
what the
broader system
chose to do
with that
information..."
.......NO!!!!
The problem is
in the
"recognize
& label".
If it didn't
miss-recognize
and miss-label
then the ride
wouldn't be
jerky. The
"perception"
software is so
intent on
"seeing
something" in
certain
domains that
it ends up
"imagining
that it saw
something that
wasn't there"
(false
positive) so
the broader
system turns
off the
perception
system in
those
domains. It
is the "vital"
"perception"
system that is
at fault and
needs the
work.
I suspect that
this mess will
be discussed
Annual
Princeton SmartDrivingCar
Summit
Uber
isn't the only
company with a
"false alarm"
issue. Alain Thursday,
May 3, 2018
As the Number of Driverless Cars Increase, So Does the Need for Car Maker Transparency
R. Mitchell,
Apr 30, "...A
schism is
developing in
the
driverless-car
world — but
not between
fans and foes
of robot cars.
Instead, on
one side are
driverless-car
advocates who
believe data
transparency
will lead to
safer
deployment of
driverless
vehicles and
help alleviate
public fears
about the
strange and
disruptive new
technology. On
the other are
some
automobile and
technology
companies
that, for good
commercial
reasons
perhaps,
prefer to keep
their workings
cloaked in
mystery.
The lack of
transparency
about the
workings of
sensors, logic
processors,
mapping
systems and
other
driverless
technology,
like the
debate over
robot-car
regulation,
could shape
public
perception of
the nascent
industry, said
Bryant Walker
Smith, a law
professor at
the University
of South
Carolina.
"Essentially,
[the public will be]
looking to see
whether these
companies are
trustworthy,"
he said...
In the Uber
death, a video
recorded by a
dashboard
camera —
turned over to
and released
by Tempe,
Ariz., police
— showed the
driverless-car
system failed
to brake for
the
pedestrian. It
left open the
question of
whether the
system sensors
might have
failed to
notice the
pedestrian at
all.
Uber's
reaction was
to apologize,
then dip into
some of its
$15 billion in
investment
capital to pay
the victim's
family in a
legal
settlement,
thus avoiding
a public
trial.
Uber declined
to make a
company
executive
available to
discuss data
and
transparency
on the record,
as did Waymo,
Tesla and
Lyft. Other
companies —
including
Zoox, Nutonomy
and General
Motors, parent
of Cruise
Automation —
agreed to
talk.
Even
driverless-car
advocates are
growing
concerned
about the
silence from
the industry's
major players.
Grayson
Brulte, a
well-known
consultant in
the driverless
industry,
worries that
recent polls
have
consistently
shown the
public is wary
about
driverless
technology,
while
companies
appear
reluctant to
engage with
the public.
"They're like
Rapunzel up in
the tower," he
said. "They
have to let
down their
hair and climb
down."
Alain
Kornhauser,
who heads the driverless-vehicle program at Princeton University, said he believes
that robot
cars will
improve
safety, reduce
driver stress,
add productive
time to the
day and offer
the elderly
and disabled
more
independence.
But the
technology is
far from
perfect, he
said, and some
robot-induced
deaths are
inevitable.
Rather than
wall off the
lessons
learned in
fatalities
such as the
recent Uber
and Tesla
incidents,
Kornhauser
said, the
companies
should be
sharing crash
data with one
another, with
outside
researchers
and with the
general
public. And
not just
black-box
data, but
driverless-system
data as well.
That would
make
driverless
cars safer and
faster, he
said.
"Uber should
not gain a
safety
advantage over
everyone else
because they
were involved
in this
crash,"
Kornhauser
said. "All of
the video,
radar, lidar
and logic
trails in the
seconds
leading up to
the crash
should be
released to
the public.
"If this
reveals some
of Uber's
intellectual
property, so
be it. If they
want to
protect their
intellectual
property, they
shouldn't
crash on
public roads."
..." [Read more](http://www.govtech.com/fs/automation/As-the-Number-of-Driverless-Cars-Increase-So-Does-the-Need-for-Car-Maker-Transparency.html)
Hmmmm...
Amen! This
article
addresses what
may well be
the most
important
issue facing
this
industry.
Crashes will
happen. The
industry has
been holding
its breath
knowing that
one, two,
three, ...
deaths are
coming.
Deaths are
associated
with every
substantial
technological
advance in
transportation.
Deaths
occurred with
cable cars,
with electric
traction, with
steam trains,
with
airplanes,
with
conventional
cars, with
elevators,
..., even with
airbags... why
do you have
yellow
stickers
affixed to the
passenger-side
sun visor of
your car.
That's
right...
airbags kill
children. No
one expected
that. But
when it was
"tripped
over", then
that event was
made
transparent to
everyone.
Similarly,
total
transparency
needs to be
created. Uber
needs to
release the
data that
shows that
their system
did, in fact
"see" Elaine
for four (4),
or however
many, seconds
before the
crash, but
didn't see her
reliably
enough to
convince
itself to
apply the
brakes. The
details of
that decision
logic and the uncertainty/stochastic characteristics of that decision process needs to
be divulged.
Why wasn't it
sure enough
that a
collision with
Elaine was
imminent for
it to apply
the brakes?
It is totally
disingenuous
for Uber to
claim that its
system never
saw Elaine
(Uber hasn't
said that.
They've said
nothing.
(They'd better
not even try
to say that.
Their system
is at least
pretty good.
it was
developed by
competent
individuals
from CMU and
other very
good places.
It saw Elaine,
it just didn't
see her well
enough or it
chose to
disregard what
it saw for
whatever
reason. The
nitty gritty
details of
those
uncertainties
MUST be
divulged in
all of their
minute, gory
and
transparent
details. Once
made then
everyone else
in the
industry can
look at their
comparable
processes/algorithms
and fix them
so that the
next time an
"Elaine" is
"seen" she
will not be
disregarded.
It is these
situations
that deserve
the most
serious
attention.
These are
infinitely
more important
and more
challenging
than the
"Trolley
(navel
contemplation)
Problem".
We will be
addressing,
with some of
the best
people in the
world, this
and other
fundamentally
important
issues at the
Annual
Princeton SmartDrivingCar
Summit
May 16 &
17. Come join
in and
contribute to
the
conversations
on these
issues. Russ
Mitchell will
be there.
Bryant
Walker-Smith
will be
there.
Grayson Brulte
will be there.
Raymond
Martinez (Head
of FMCSA) will
be there.
Bernard
Soriano (#2 @
CA DMV) will
be there. Nat
Beuse (#2 @
NHTSA) will be
there. Oliver
Cameron (CEO,
Voyage) will
weigh in,
Adam Jonas (#1
Auto Analyst,
Morgan
Stanley) will
be there.
Fengmin Gong
(Head, DiDi
Research) will
be there.
Justin Erlich
(Head AV
Policy, Uber)
will be
there, Sami
Naim,
(Manager,
Public Policy,
Lyft) will be
there, Mike
Jellen
(President,
Velodyne) will
be there, Paul
Brubaker (CEO
ATI21) will be
there, Matt
Moore (SVP,
Highway Loss
Data
Institute)
will be there,
Mike Scrudato
(#1 AV
Insurance guy,
SVP, Munich
Re) will be
there, Ro
Gupta (CEO
Carmera) will
be there.
Insurance/risk
assessment
related: Ann
Gergen (Exec.
Dir. AGRIP),
Jerry Spears (
Montana
Association of
Governments),
Laura
Kornhauser
(President,
Stratyfy),
David Harmer,
Head, Virginia
transit
Reliability
Pool) plus
many others
will be
there. From
the investment
community:
Sheldon,
Sandler (CEO,
Bel Air
Partners) will
be there. And
the list goes
on...
Please come
join in the
discourse. [Click to register.](https://www.regonline.com/registration/Checkin.aspx?EventID=2246346)
Alain Thursday,
April 26,
2018
###
###
###
###
###
###
This startup’s CEO wants to open-source self-driving car safety testing M. Harris, Apr 24, “… “I had to spend time after [the Uber crash] calming people down, telling folks at our deployments that it was an isolated incident,” says Voyage CEO Oliver Cameron in an exclusive interview with Ars Technica. “But the truth is that everyone in the industry is reinventing the technology and safety processes themselves, which is incredibly dangerous. Open source means more eyes, more diversity, and more feedback.”.
Starting
today, Voyage
will begin to
share safety
requirements,
test
scenarios,
metrics,
tools, and
code that it
has developed
for its own
Level 4
self-driving
taxis. Five
Voyage cars
are currently
deployed
carrying
passengers
within two
retirement
communities in
California and
Florida..." [Read more](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/this-startups-ceo-wants-to-open-source-self-driving-car-safety-testing/?ref=streamer.ai) Hmmmm...
This is a very
positive
step taken by
Voyage's
Oliver Cameron
to address the
enormous
safety aspects
of this
technology.
It isn't
obvious how
everyone
involved in
this industry
needs to work
together to
assemble the
best "...safety
requirements,
test
scenarios,
metrics,
tools, and
code....".
There are
serious
concerns about
collusion and
protecting
fundamentally
valuable IP.
None the less,
what is
important is
that it is in
everyone's
best interest
to have
everyone be
safe. The
Uber crash
negatively
affected
everyone, even
Waymo.
Everyone would
be better off
today, had
Uber not
crashed. Similarly
with the Tesla
crashes. They've
also had a
negative
impact on
everyone.
This is a
market where
the faster the
better
products are
available in
the
marketplace,
the larger the
sum of
benefits to
society, and,
arguably, the
large the
accumulated
benefits to
each
individual
contributor/producer.
That argues
for everyone
working
together, aka
sharing: "...safety
requirements,
test
scenarios,
metrics,
tools, and
code....".
Whether "open-source"
his
the exact
right
mechanism for
"optimal
sharing" , or
it is
Standards
Committees, or
Regulations
(heaven
forbid), working
together
for Safety
rather
competing on
Safety is
absolutely
necessary in
this
r/evolution.
Kudos to
Oliver for
this
initiative.
Alain
April 12,
2018 [The way we regulate self-driving cars is broken—here's how to fix it](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/the-way-we-regulate-self-driving-cars-is-broken-heres-how-to-fix-it/)
T. Lee, Apr
10,"...Federal
car safety
regulation has
traditionally
been based on
a thick book
of rules
called the
Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety
Standards
(FMVSS). These
regulations,
developed over
decades,
establish
detailed
performance
requirements
for every
safety-related
part of a car:
brakes, tires,
headlights,
mirrors,
airbags, and a
lot more....
Federal
regulations
don't say much
about how
companies
develop and
test cars
before
bringing them
to market. ...
But that
approach
doesn't work
for driverless
cars.
Companies can
do some
testing of
driverless
cars on a
closed course,
but it's
impossible to
reproduce a
full range of
real-world
situations in
a private
facility. So
at some point,
carmakers need
to put
self-driving
cars on public
roads for
testing
purposes—before
a manufacturer
is able to
clearly
demonstrate
that they're
safe. In
effect, this
makes the
public
involuntary
participants
in a dangerous
research
project.
But updating
the FMVSS is
neither
necessary nor
sufficient for
effective
regulation of
driverless
cars.... [Read more](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/the-way-we-regulate-self-driving-cars-is-broken-heres-how-to-fix-it/) Hmmmm...What
needs to be
recognized is
that
Driverless
cars (much
more so than
Safe- and
Self-driving
cars) are
really a
NEW MODE.
They are in
many ways
closer to an
elevator than
a conventional
car. Sure
they run on
conventional
roads and not
vertical
shafts and
they can run
into each
other and have
to deal with
conventional
drivers and
"pedestrians".
but they will
not be owned
nor operated
by consumers,
but fleet operators
(think
buildings) .
They will
serve demand
upon request
to everyone
and anyone, be
shared when
appropriate
and convenient
and don't even
have a
driver's seat,
let alone the
controls of a
conventional
car.
Driverless
cars are
enormously
different than
conventional
cars.
Just as
railroads and
airplanes have
their own
safety
legislation
and regulatory
administration
tailored to
their needs,
so should
Driverless
cars. The
best way to
approach
regulation of
Driverless is
to start fresh
by declaring
them as a new
mode. Alain
April 5, 2018 [Waymo Isn't Going to Slow Down Now](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-04-02/waymo-isn-t-slowing-down-pact-with-honda-could-include-delivery) M.
Bergen, "Apr
2, " Waymo,
the
self-driving
car company
started by
Google, did
nothing after
an autonomous
vehicle run by
Uber killed a
pedestrian in
Tempe,
Arizona. It
didn't pull
back on tests
in the nearby
suburb of
Chandler,
where
passengers are
already taking
rides with no
one behind the
wheel. Its
fleets
elsewhere
didn't abandon
public
streets, a
precautionary
move made by
Toyota. For
Krafcik,
the crash
video
validated the
philosophy
Waymo
had been
following long
before he
joined, back
when it was
still part of
Google: Never
trust humans
in cars....
Some onlookers
question if Krafcik
will be around
to see Waymo's
alliances
through. "You
can't meet
John," said
Noble, the
consultant,
"and not think
he's someone
that would
have fun
running a
carmaker."
For now,
though, Krafcik
looks to be
having fun
running a
company that's
resolutely not
making cars.
On the
convention
floor in Las
Vegas, he
spotted a Ford
Transit Wagon.
It's a hulking
eight-seat
model he
worked on
years ago that
looks best
suited for
shuttling
around a troop
of Girl Scouts
or a military
platoon.
Krafcik leaped into the second row and turned to the nearest Ford employee: “Do you have a self-driving version?” The answer was no. “Coming soon,” Krafcik said with a laugh.” Read more Hmmmm… Wow, this is more info than has been put out by Google/Waymo in the previous 9 years combined. Looks like Waymo has entered the market/sales phase of its metamorphosis. By the way, who gets to benefit from the deployment of the 1st 20k of the Jaguars. Phoenix and Mountain View don’t have enough demand. Is there going to be a competition a la the frenzy created by the “who wants the 2nd Amazon HQ”? Alain March 31, 2018 The Most Important Self-Driving Car Announcement Yet A. Madrigal, Mar 28, “On Tuesday, Waymo announced they’d purchase 20,000 sporty, electric self-driving vehicles from Jaguar for the company’s forthcoming ride-hailing service…. But the company embedded a much more significant milestone inside this supposed announcement about a fancy car. With orders now in for more than 20,000 of these vehicles and thousands of minivans that Chrysler announced earlier this year, Waymo will be capable of doing vast numbers of trips per day. They estimate that the Jaguar fleet alone will be capable of doing a million trips each day in 2020. …“ Read more Hmmmm…Yup!! This is HUGE! It will change the city and the key to making it so it doesn’t make thing worse is Ride-sharing. If we ride-share we’ll reduce energy, pollution & GHG by more than 50% and provide high-quality, affordable mobility indiscriminately for all. It becomes the new high-quality, low-cost mass transit. If it’s kept/operated as another alternative for the 1%ers to be chauffeured alone, then the outcome is UGLY. Ride-sharing is KEY! Alain
March 24,
2018 [Experts say video of Uber's self-driving car killing a pedestrian suggests its technology may have failed](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-uber-death-video-20180321-story.html) R. Mitchell,
Mar 22,
"Police late
Wednesday
released a
video that
shows an Uber
robot car
running
straight into
a woman who
was walking
her bicycle
across a
highway in
Tempe, Ariz.
The woman was
taken to a
hospital,
where she died
Sunday night.
The video,
shot from the
car, is sure
to raise
debate over
who's to blame
for the
accident. In
the video, the
victim, Elaine
Herzberg, 49,
appears to be
illegally
jaywalking
from a median
strip across
two lanes of
traffic on a
dark road. But
she was more
than halfway
across the
street when
the car —
traveling
about 40 mph,
according to
police — hit
her. The car
did not appear
to brake or
take any other
evasive
action....
Bryant Walker
Smith, a law
professor and
driverless
specialist at
the University
of South
Carolina,
said:
"Although this
appalling
video isn't
the full
picture, it
strongly
suggests a
failure by
Uber's
automated
driving system
and a lack of
due care by
Uber's driver
as well as by
the
victim."..."
[Read more](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-uber-death-video-20180321-story.html)
Hmmmm... "..."What we
now need is
for the
release of the
radar and lidar
data,"
Princeton's
Kornhauser
said in an
email. (Lidar
is a sensing
technology
that uses
light from a
laser.)
"Obviously,
the video of
the driver is
extremely bad
for Uber and
probably
implies that
Uber should
suspend all of
its
'self-driving'
efforts for a
while if not
for a very
long while.
"The
'self-driving'
systems are
supposed to
have
'professional'
overseers who
are really
supposed to be
paying
attention
during these
'tests'.
Apparently
Uber didn't
make it clear
in this case."
Kornhauser
questioned the
police
description of
a situation
that would
have been
difficult to
avoid. He said
Uber should
reveal what
its collision-avoidance software was doing during the couple of seconds
before impact.
"The
front-facing
video suggests
that this
person was
crossing the
lane at a slow
speed and
should have
been noticed
by the system
in time to at
least apply
the brakes, if
not stop the
vehicle
completely,"
he said.
"While a human
may not have
been able to
avoid this
crash, a
well-designed,
well-working
collision
avoidance
system should
have at least
begun to apply
the
brakes."..."
"
...
Again, my
sincerest
condolences to
Elaine
Herzberg's
family and
friends.
The simple arithmetic is: She crossed more than a lane and a half before being struck or more than 15 feet. Average walking speed is about 4.6 ft/sec which means that she was “visible” on this stretch of road for more than 3 seconds. Uber’s speed of 38 mph = 55.7 ft/sec means: Uber was 150 ft away when she began crossing the left-hand lane and could have been visible by an alert driver. The car’s lidar and radar surely must have “seen” her beginning at about that time. Car stopping distance including “thinking time used in The Highway Code” @ 38mph is 110 feet. The driver should have been able to stop 40 feet short. Any Automated Emergency Braking (AEB) system should have been able to stop the car in little more than the stopping distance of 72 feet, half way to Elaine. This simple arithmetic suggests that there may be a very fundamental fatal flaw in Uber’s AEB.
And the driver was not paying attention. At 3 seconds prior to impact, Elaine was within a 12 degree field of view when she began to cross the left lane. While outside the fovea, this is well within a normal gaze had the operator been looking out the window.
The released video is from a “dash cam” and is unlikely to be the video captured by Uber’s “Self-driving” system (or whatever Uber calls it). That video may well be at a much higher resolution and frame rate. Uber MUST release that video (not just the dash-cam video) as well as the radar and lidar data that was being used by their “Self-driving” system. Uber was testing its system at the time of the crash and therefore MUST have been logging those data in case something went wrong. Uber needs those recorded data in order to have a chance to learn what went wrong and fix it. Something did go wrong, very wrong. Uber and everyone else MUST also have the opportunity to learn from this tragedy. So Uber MUST release all of the data. Alain
March 20,
2018
Robot drivers may be safer than humans, but tech companies are way behind in proving it R. Mitchell, Mar 21, “As long as robot cars roam public streets and highways, they will occasionally kill people. That’s an ugly truth that no one in the driverless vehicle industry can deny.
Will those
robot cars
kill people at
significantly
lower rates
than drunk,
stoned, tired
or distracted
human drivers
do now?
Automakers,
technology
companies,
politicians
and regulators
are betting
they will, as
driverless
vehicles are
rolling out
faster than
almost anyone
expected as
recently as a
year ago. But
the Sunday
night incident
in Tempe,
Ariz., in
which an Uber
robot car hit
and killed a
woman walking
her bicycle
across the
street, makes
clear the
industry is
much further
behind in
making its
case to the
public.
"It's likely
there will be
far fewer
deaths with
driverless
cars," said
Marlene Towns,
a professor at
Georgetown
University's
McDonough
School of
Business. "But
getting to the
point where
people will be
convinced of
that will be
tough."
Speculation by
Tempe's police
chief that the
robot may not
be at fault in
the crash may
temper any
public or
political
backlash.
Uber was
testing the
robot car in
autonomous
mode with a
human
engineer, who
was behind the
wheel but not
driving.
Elaine
Herzberg, 49,
walking a
bicycle,
stepped in
front of the
car from a
center median,
according to
video
evidence,
police
said...." [Read more](http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-robot-car-safety-pr-20180321-story.html)
Hmmmm...
"...Carmakers
and technology
companies need
to be far more
transparent as
they push
forward,
experts said.
"It's
important that
we all learn
from this
accident and
we make these
technologies
even better,
said Alain
Kornhauser, a
professor at
Princeton
University and
a leading
authority on
driverless
cars. "To that
end Uber must
release all of
the data
leading up to
this crash.
All of the
video, radar,
lidar
and logic
trails for the
three or so
seconds
leading up to
the crash. If
this releases
some of Uber's
intellectual
property, so
be it."..."
" ...
My sincerest
condolences to
Elaine
Herzberg's
family and
friends. I
hope that Uber
with its
"$60"B
valuation will
make a very
generous
contribution
to homeless
charities and
think even
more seriously
about "buying"
(by
partnering)
rather than
"making" this
technology.
Alain
March 13,
2018 [Waymo shows off what it is like to ride in a truly driverless self-driving car](https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/02/mit-study-shows-how-much-driving-for-uber-or-lyft-sucks/) G.
Kumparak,
Mar 13,
"...." [Read more](https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/02/mit-study-shows-how-much-driving-for-uber-or-lyft-sucks/)
Hmmmm...
This is REALLY
big news.This
marks the real
beginning of
on-demand
mobility
provided by
vehicles
without a
driver or an
attendant
on-board, only
the passengers
and the
vehicles used
normal public
roadways that
operated in
normal
everyday
manner and
used by
conventional
cars and
trucks. Ng
Waymo
to their o
police
escorts, no
warning signs,
just normal
everyday
operating
conditions.
Except for the
one trip given
to Steve Mahan
in November
2015 in Austin
Texas, this is
the First time
that it kind
of mobility
service has
been delivered
anywhere in
the world. Waymo
has achieved 5
million
vehicle miles
of
Self-driving
(automated
driving on
normally
operating
public
roadway;
however, with
a
driver/attendant
in the car
ready to take
over should
the automated
system begin
to fail. Many
others
including
Uber, Lyft/Aptiv,
GM/Cruise, nVIDIA,
Apple, Tesla,
Nissan and
many others
have also done
many miles of
Self-driving
on normal
roads but each
an everyone
had a
driver/attendant
in the vehicle
ready to "save
the day"
should
something go
bad. Nobody
else anywhere
in the world
is doing what
Waymo
is now doing
in Chandler
AZ. Now that
the first one
has been done,
any community
that is
similar to
Chandler AZ
can now think
seriously
about inviting
Waymo
to provide
affordable
on-demand
mobility to
everyone in
their city.
Be sure to see the video. Congratulations
Waymo!!!!!
Alain
California to allow testing of self-driving cars without a driver present D. Etherington, Feb 27, “California’s Department of Motor Vehicles established new rules announced Monday that will allow tech companies and others working on driverless vehicle systems to begin trialling their cars without a safety driver at the wheel. The new rules go into effect starting April 2 …” Read more Hmmmm… Even though we have been expecting this, it is a major hurdle for it to actually have occurred. How long after April 2 will Waymo take to begin this type of testing. Again this is only testing and deployment, but NOT commercial service, which may happen first in Arizona, but it is a major step in this r-evolution. Commercial services are regulated by other agencies in California, not CA DMV. It is those other agencies that will need to grant/award the licenses for the various commercial operations where these driverless vehicles would be used. This regulation allows properly licensed commercial operations using CA DMV certified driverless vehicles to have those vehicles use California public roadways in delivering the otherwise licensed commercial activity. Note: CA DMV does not license the commercial transport of people or goods. That is the purview of other CA regulatory agencies. Alain
Friday, February 16, 2018 Billionaire Bets On a World Without Car Crashes
Thursday, February 1, 2018 Waymo strikes a deal to buy ‘thousands’ more self-driving minivans from Fiat Chrysler Andrew Hawkins, Jan 30, “Waymo, the self-driving unit of Google parent Alphabet, has reached a deal with one of Detroit’s Big Three automakers to dramatically expand its fleet of autonomous vehicles. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles announced today that it would supply “thousands” of additional Chrysler Pacifica minivans to Waymo, with the first deliveries starting at the end of 2018.
Waymo currently has 600 of FCA’s minivans in its fleet, some of which are used to shuttle real people around for its Early Rider program in Arizona. The first 100 were delivered when the partnership was announced in May 2016, and an additional 500 were delivered in 2017. The minivans are plug-in hybrid variants with Waymo’s self-driving hardware and software built in. The companies co-staff a facility in Michigan, near FCA’s US headquarters, to engineer the vehicles. The company also owns a fleet of self-driving Lexus RX SUVs that is has been phasing out in favor of the new minivans. (The cute “Firefly” prototypes were also phased out last year.)…” Read more Hmmmm… We’ve all been wondering” Who’s going to make the cars? How will that evolve?Will they magically appear???
Well….Looks like it is FCA for now. We’ve gone from a handful 5 years ago, 2 years ago added 100, added 500 last year, “thousands” this/next year, … Beginning to look like exponential growth! (A Bit Coin Bubble??) What is also most interesting: no parallel announcement that Waymo was hiring “thousands of attendants” to ride around as “drivers” in these “thousands of minivans”. Guess what that means… The Kornhauser Scale is going to start really going up!!! J
While ultimately they’ll need about 35 million of these to provide affordable mobility to all in the US, this is a real start at making this into a business as opposed to an NSF-style study that collects dust on a shelf or, worse yet, a digital manuscript that is never downloaded by anyone outside a “group of three”. This is a major announcement!
From Stan Young: It will be interesting to watch. It probably has the OEMs, Uber and Lyft scared out of their wits. Based on any objective comparison of accomplishment with automated vehicles, there is not a close second to Waymo, despite all the claims to the contrary by trade rags – and the competition knows it. Still a huge unknown concerning the ‘social side’ of riding in an un-attended vehicle, but we will likely get over it like we did with elevators. ‘Thousands’ of vehicles if deployed in one city will put it on scale of Uber and Lyft – an interesting study when/if it comes to that.
…An issue is: where will Waymo choose to deploy (and for Waymo, the word “deploy” is the right word… they make the decision where to place these, in some sense take it or leave it… as opposed to waiting for people to show up at a dealership to buy or have it stay on the lot or have some governmental agency thinking that it actually has a role/power/where-with-all to “deploy”) where, when and how many. They could “flood/concentrate” on Chandler/Phoenix/Tuscon area with scale to be really relevant and substantively demonstrate the evolution of mobility, or they could sprinkle them out nationwide and remain irrelevant everywhere. I like the “flood/concentrate” approach in a state (Arizona) where they seem to be truly welcomed and whose climate, topography and road network are “easy”. More importantly it would demonstrate the viability/challenges of the at-scale approach. From our simulations we uncovered that at-scale, one might need to be managing as many as 20,000 aTaxis in a 2.5x2.5 mile area (the extreme in Manhattan, which may be the last place that you want to try this) but it can be large. We’ll drill down in our data and take a look at Chandler/Phoenix and report back as to what we think it would take to provide mobility for all. Alain
Monday, January 29, 2018 Didi Chuxing looks beyond ride-hailing to help Chinese cities tackle transport challenge Sunday, January 14, 2018
Say hello to Waymo
Jan. 9, T. Papandreou & E. Casson. “… Waymo driverless service…“ Read more Hmmmm… Tim and Ellie made presentation at the Transportation Research Board’s Vehicle-Highway Automation (AHB30) Committee meeting on Tuesday in which they gave an update on Waymo’s progress to launch “Waymo’s driverless service” (slide 11), an app-based ride hailing service to the general public in a geo-fenced area of Arizona. To date Waymo has been testing such a service using volunteer riders in their driverless vehicles in various areas around the country (slide 7): however, to date, except for one ride given to Steve Mahan in Austin, TX, rides on normally operating public streets have always had trained Waymo-authorized personnel (an attendant) in the vehicle capable to intervene in the driving of the vehicle should the need arise. Since October, in Arizona, those personnel no longer sit behind the wheel, but are in the back seat so that Waymo can observe the response of the volunteer riders to riding in a vehicle on normal public streets under normal conditions without anyone in the front seats of the vehicle.
Tim said, without providing a specific date, that Waymo will soon launch “Waymo’s driverless service” providing mobility to the general public on public roads in a geo-fenced area of Arizona. I asked Tim “Will that service be offered with vehicles that have an attendant in the vehicle?”. Tim’s answer was “No!”. I asked a follow-up question: “Will these vehicle’s have telemetry capabilities that enable these vehicles to be closely monitored from a “situation room” or “control center” that would enable remote operation of the vehicle, should the need arise?”. Tim’s answer was “No!”. Another questioner asked if the geo-fenced area included special “connected vehicle” road infrastructure improvement that Waymo’s system will be relying on?” Tim’s answer was “No!”.
While the definition of “soon” was not given, I’ve taken this as a really big pronouncement that Waymo is actually going to go to launch commercially-viable on-demand mobility to the general public on conventional public roads. This is really big news because this is finally going to enable us to begin to evolve on the “Kornhauser Scale” ( log of (world-wide VMT of Driverless (VMT-D) vehicles without a human attendant/driver on board accumulated while providing mobility to the general public on conventional roadways). So far we are beyond the “undefined value” associated with VMT-D = 0 and are at KS = 1 only by virtue of the one Steve Mahan ride in Austin). :-) Alain
December 2,
2017
Personal Sedan Sales in Jeopardy as U.S. Auto Market Transitions to “Islands” of Autonomous Mobility: KPMG Research
November 26,
2017
Volvo to supply Uber with up to 24,000 self-driving SUVs for taxi fleet
November 17,
2017 [THE TECH & DESIGN ISSUE: LIFE AFTER DRIVING](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/07/magazine/tech-design-future-autonomous-cars-american-interstate-highway-roads-suburbs.html)
November 10,
2017
Waymo will now put self-driving vans on public roads with nobody at the wheel AP, Nov. 7, 2017 “Waymo, the self-driving car company created by Google, is pulling the human backup driver from behind the steering wheel and will test vehicles on public roads with only an employee in the back seat.
The company's
move — which
started Oct.
19 with an
automated
Chrysler
Pacifica
minivan in the
Phoenix suburb
of Chandler,
Ariz. — is a major step toward vehicles driving
themselves on
public roads
without human
backup
drivers. ..."
[Read more](http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-waymo-self-driving-20171107-story.html) Hmmmm... Not to be
too critical,
but Waymo
is still just
'Self-driving'
. While they
moved the
'engineer'
with the
ability to
'take over and
drive the
vehicle' from
behind the
wheel to the
back seat,
this is just a
step along the
broad
'Self-driving'
continuum
which is a
vehicle that,
under certain
circumstance,
can drive
itself, but
does that only
if there is a
person ready
and able to
take over if
the unexpected
appears.
The big-leap/major-step will come when Waymo removes the ‘engineer’ entirely from the vehicle and it is human-less when it arrives to pick up a passenger and drives away human-less after the last passenger(s) disembark. That enormous leap-of-faith in the technology will mark Waymo’s inception of the Driverless Era. (or what Waymo prefers to call ‘Fully Self-driving’ era.)
Just to be clear, when that time comes, I’m sure that Waymo will have telemetry throughout that Driverless vehicle and there will be a room full of engineers in Waymo’s ‘Situation Room’ ready to take over the driving should the need arise. However, until that time, Waymo is just like all the other
wanabes,
they are just
'Self-driving'
without the
'Fully'.
The reason why ‘remote emergency driving’ is ‘Driverless’ is because it scales. By that I mean that it takes the provision of horizontal mobility on our public streets from needing at least one human per vehicle to needing less than one human per vehicle. Initially the remote driver will monitor one car. Before you know it that person will be monitoring two, four, eight, … vehicles and truly Driverless with zero remote human oversee-ers will be approached asymptotically. But just like the old saw between the engineer and the mathematician: engineer and mathematician were sitting on a bench recalling their youth… Engineer said “Long ago, I was sitting on this very bench with my girl. We wanted to kiss but we were too far apart. So we agreed to move towards each other by halving the distance between us on each move. The mathematician blared “ You’re so stupid! If you did that, you never came together!” The engineer just smiled: “we got close enough!”. Alain
November 4,
2017 [APNewsBreak: Gov't won't pursue talking car mandate](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/ap-newsbreak-govt-pursue-talking-car-mandate-50855129)
October 27 ,
2017
Strategic Plan for FY 2018 -2022
October 15 ,
2017
Proposed Driverless Testing and Deployment Regulations – Released October 11, 2017
Rulemaking Actions, Oct 1The following 3 PDFs are important:
1. Autonomous Vehicles Notice of Modification (PDF) Act
2. Autonomous Vehicles Statement of Reasons (PDF) Act
3. Autonomous Vehicles 15 Day Express Terms (PDF) Act Hmmmm..This is all about Driverless! Thank you California, and especially Dr. Bernard Soriano, for leading this noble effort and for continuing to distinguish this technology from Self-driving and all of the various other names seemingly meant to confuse. Alain
October 6 ,
2017
FHWA Awards $4 Million Grant to South Carolina’s Greenville County for Automated Taxi Shuttles
September 1,
2017
Automated Vehicles: Are We Moving Too Fast or Too Slow?
August 25,
2017
Inside Waymo’s Secret World for Training Self-Driving Cars
August 21,
2017
Driverless-Car Outlook Shifts as Intel Takes Over Mobileye
August 7, 2017
Cadillac’s Super Cruise ‘autopilot’ is ready for the expressway
June 25, 2017 [NTSB Opens Docket on Tesla Crash](https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20170619.aspx) The docket
material is
available at:
[https://go.usa.gov/xNvaE](https://go.usa.gov/xNvaE)"
[Read more](https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20170619.aspx) Hmmmm... A few comments...
1. Since lateral control (swerving) couldn’t have avoided this crash (the truck is almost 70 ft long (6 lanes wide) stretching broadside across the highway) , it doesn’t matter if Josh Brown ever had his hands on the steering wheel. That’s totally irrelevant.
2. Why didn’t autobrake kick in when the tractor part of the tractor-trailer passed in front of the Tesla?
3. How fast was the truck going when it cut off the Tesla. I couldn’t find the answer in 500 pages.
4. With sight distances of greater than 1,000 feet, why didn’t the truck driver see the Tesla? Was it the drugs?
5. This intersection invites “left-turn run-throughs” (no stop or yield and a 53 foot median and turn lane need to be crossed before one slips through a gap in two traffic lanes. So you certainly roll into it, (plenty of room to stop if you see something coming) and if you don’t see anything, you hit it. If you’re in the Tesla, you think you’ve been clearly seem, you expect the truck to stop, it doesn’t, you can’t believe it, BAM! All in probably a second or so.
6. The head injury description (Table 1 p2 of 3) certainly suggests that Joshua Brown was seated upright facing forward at impact. The bilateral lacerations on the lower arm from the elbow to the wrist may indicate that he saw it coming in the last second and raised his arms in an attempt to protect his head. The evidence reported doesn’t seem to suggest he saw this early enough to bend toward the passenger seat and try to pass underneath.
7. About 40 feet of tractor and trailer passed directly in front of the Tesla prior to impact. Depending on how fast the truck was traveling, that takes some time. Has NTSB run Virtual Reality simulations of various truck turn trajectories and analyzed what the truck driver and the Tesla driver could/should have seen? Seems like a relatively simple thing to do. We know what the Tesla was doing prior to the crash (going 74 mph straight down the road.) and we know where it hit the truck. How fast the truck was traveling doesn’t seem to be known.
8. Why wasn’t there any video captured from the Tesla. Didn’t that version of the MobilEye system store the video; I guess not, :-(
Anyway, lots to read in the 500 pages, but there is also a lot missing. I’m not linking the many articles reporting on this because I disagree with many of their interpretations of the facts reported by NTSB. Please reach your own conclusions. Alain
June 19, 2017
Amazon Deal for Whole Foods Starts a Supermarket War
May 28, 2017
[Rethinking Mobility: The
‘pay-as-you-go’ ca: Ride hailing, just the start](http://orfe.princeton.edu/%7Ealaink/SmartDrivingCars/PDFs/Rethinking%20Mobility_GoldmanSachsMay2017.pdf)
May 23, 2017
[Princeton
SmartDrivingCar Summit](http://orfe.princeton.edu/%7Ealaink/SmartDrivingCars/SDC_Summit_2017/CommercializationSummit2017_WithLink_052117.pdf)
May 18, Enormously successful inaugural Summit starting with the Adam Jonas video and finishing with Fred Fishkin’s live interview with Wm. C Ford III. In between, serious engagementamong over 150 leaders from Communities at the bleeding edge of deployment, Insurance struggling with how to properly promote the adoption of technology that may well force them to re-invent themselves and AI (Artificial Intelligence) and the various technologies that are rapidly advancing so that we can actually deliver the safety, environmental, mobility and quality of life opportunities envisioned by these “Ultimate Shared-Riding Machines”.
Save the Date
for the 2nd
Annual... May
16 & 17,
2018,
Princeton NJ
[Read Inaugural Program with links to Slides](http://orfe.princeton.edu/%7Ealaink/SmartDrivingCars/SDC_Summit_2017/CommercializationSummit2017_WithLink_052117.pdf). [Fishkin Interview of Summit Summary](https://youtu.be/KvLsgRyLyZw)
and [Interview of Yann LeCun](http://www.techstination.com/interview.jsp?interviewId=3001).
[Read Inaugural Program with links to Slides](http://orfe.princeton.edu/%7Ealaink/SmartDrivingCars/SDC_Summit_2017/CommercializationSummit2017_WithLink_052117.pdf). Hmmmm... Enormous thank you to all who
participated.
Well done!
Alain
April 17, 2017
Don’t Worry, Driverless Cars Are Learning From Grand Theft Auto
Extracting Cognition out of Images for the Purpose of Autonomous Driving
Adam Jonas’ View on Autonomous Cars
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](mailto:alaink@princeton.edu)
and hosted by
the [Princeton University](http://lists.princeton.edu)
This list is maintained by Alain Kornhauser and hosted by the Princeton University LISTSERV.