[log in to unmask]" _mf_state="1" title="null" src="cid:[log in to unmask]" width="44" height="44" border="0"> The SmartDrivingCars eLetter, Pod-Casts, Zoom-Casts and Zoom-inars are made possible in part by support from the Smart Transportation and Technology ETF, symbol MOTO. For more information: www.motoetf.com. Most funding is supplied by Princeton University's Department of Operations Research & Financial Engineering and Princeton Autonomous Vehicle Engineering (PAVE) research laboratory as part of its research dissemination initiatives.
Waymo,
April 29, "Hey
Reddit, we’re
Lety
Cavalcante and
Sam Kansara,
excited to
hear your
questions
about our
rider-only
service, Waymo
One!.." Read more Hmmmm... Read for yourself the
questions and
responses.
Nothing
surprising and
nothing really
new. About
all that can
be said when
one is
struggling to
be as safe as
possible while
getting
something to
work.
They
are in the
right place to
get the
technology to
work
someplace.
They're in the
wrong market
to demonstrate
its ability to
make a
difference.
Alain
K. Pyle,May 8, "Overall Impressions from Ken Pyle...
Waymo
reinforced
their reasons
for
1. Improve
safety
2. Open up
access to
transportation
for more
people,
particularly
those with low
income.
3. A greener
future is what
autonomous
mobility
promises
(fewer
vehicles, less
downtime)..."
Read more Hmmmm... Thank you Ken.
Interesting
that "improved
safety" is
Waymo's #1
objective and
not what they
list as an
"after
thought" on
their #2 (Open
up access to
transportation
for more
people,
particularly
those with low
income.).
Seems as if
they are
catering to US
DoT (improving
safety) rather
than to those
that could
really benefit
from the
mobility
service that
they are
trying to
deliver
(getting
people to
places they
can't get to
when the
people want to
get there
(because a bus
doesn't go
there then
(which is most
places at most
times)). I
suggest they
rehearse
saying:
1.
Provide safe,
high-quality,
affordable,
on-demand
mobility to
those that
don't have
access to
their own car.
If
they really
want to be
honest about
how they would
prioritize the
service,
should a
capacity
constraint be
encountered,
they could
also think,
but not say
out loud:
2.
Those that do
have access to
their own car
are "welcomed
to use this
mobility
service on an
as available
basis."
Alain
M.
Scribner, May
7, "Recently,
a number of
politicians
and activists
have raised
the subject of
highway
construction’s
historically
disparate
impact on
African
Americans and
other
minorities.
The problem
then and today
is less about
any particular
type of
project and
more about the
government’s
expansive
power to seize
private
property. But
the
misapprehension
of the core
problem by
some
politicians
and activists
has led them
to propose
ineffective
transportation
policy
responses. One
of the most
popular
proposals
involves
portraying
mass transit
as an
important tool
to enhance
social equity,
but a large
body of
research
suggests
something
quite
different:
access to
private
automobiles—not
transit—is a
powerful
social
equalizer....
" Read more Hmmmm... That may well be true;
however, a
better social
equalizer may
be the
support/leadership
to create a
mobility
system that
provides
mobility that
is comparable
to the
mobility
provided by
the private
automobile.
It is not the
private
automobile
that is the
desirable
commodity that
creates a
level
quality-of-life
playing
field. It is
the mobility
that the
private
automobile has
delivered that
has completely
tilted the
quality-of-life
playing
field.
By
delivering
comparable
mobility, one
goes a long
way to
delivering
comparable
quality-of-life
and leveling
that playing
field.
Moreover,
the private
aspect is
really a net
minus for the
conventional
automobile.
The Mad Men
needed to push
that aspect
because the
conventional
car's business
model can't
afford to pay
for the labor
needed to
drive them to
deliver their
fantastic
mobility.
Since the
business case
couldn't
afford a paid
driver, they
had to create
an aura and
fantasies that
driving them
was fun,
desirable and
you'd better
want to d it
for yourself
without being
paid for it.
That's what
has motivated
the private
aspects. But
as we've
learned from
the pandemic,
we
fundamentally
don't like
being
quarantined at
home and, if
not
manipulated by
those on
Madison
Avenue, we
likely don't
fundamentally
like being
quarantined in
a car and
forced to
drive it.
(Note how the
comfort and
convenience
features of
driver
assistance has
become to
Tesla and now
all the other
OEM). Also,
having them
private just
reeks havoc on
efficient
capitalization,
utilization
and efforts to
save the
planet.
My
point is, The
problem with
Transit is
that because
it has to pay
for a driver,
it can only
offer services
where there
are masses
over which to
distribute its
labor cost.
Consequently,
it can only
operate
between few
points, at few
times, when
there is
enough
aggregation of
captive demand
that is can
pay to have
the "cars,
aka:trains,
buses,
shuttles, ..."
driven by
professionals.
Conventional
Mass Transit
is hopeless at
providing
non-mass
mobility.
Unfortunately,
many folks
don't wish to
live being
"packed into a
sardine can"
yielding
insufficient
"Mass" for
Mass Transit.
What is needed
is Mass-less
Transit
that can
deliver
affordable
mobility from
near where
people want to
travel from/to
at about the
time they want
to travel.
Something
close to what
the private
automobile
delivers to
those so
fortunate to
have one and
be willing and
able to drive
it for free.
Of
course the
answer is Shareable
autonomousTaxi
Networks
(SANs) as
we've proposed
for Trenton,
NJ as well as
several other
communities.
That is
Affordable
Mass-less
Transit Alain
K. Korosec,
May 5, "GM CEO
Mary Barra
sees the
automaker
selling
personal
autonomous
vehicles by
the end of the
decade by
leveraging
technology
from its
self-driving
subsidiary
Cruise,
according to
comments made
during the
company’s
Wednesday
earnings call.
Barra wasn’t
providing any
specifics just
yet, but
instead laid
out a vision
for the
automaker’s
future and how
its stake in
Cruise and its
own internal
effort to
further
develop its
advanced
driver
assistance
system Super
Cruise might
evolve over
the next nine
years.
“I’ve always
said we have
kind of a
revolutionary
and an
evolutionary
strategy
around driver
assistance all
the way to
full Level 4,
Level 5
autonomy,” she
said,
referring to
automation
levels
designated by
the SAE
International...."
Read more Hmmmm... I hope that Mary realizes
that if she
sells a "Level
5" she has
implicitly
accepted
responsibility
that this
"Level 5 car"
will drive
itself everywhere
without
crashing. If
it crashes,
she picks up
the tab!
No
lawyer,
accountant,
stock holder
or spouse is
going to let
her do that.
One of the
fundamental
beauties of
the "car
business" is
that once the
dealer sells
it, it becomes
the buyer's
headache if
something bad
happens
(except for
very few
instances).
Alain
Staff, May
2021, "...The
aim of this
report is to
provide a
high-level
overview of
the
cybersecurity
challenges in
the CAM sector
and to
highlight both
the concerned
CAM actors and
associated
recommendations.
Cybersecurity
in the CAM
ecosystem is
partially
standardised
and the role
of standards
is widely
recognised.
All
stakeholders’
contributions
to the CAM
ecosystem are
intertwined.
Standards and
regulations
are often not
adopted
uniformly
worldwide, and
therefore some
countries may
advance faster
than others in
building a
safe and
secure
cybersecurity
system around
CAM
infrastructure.
In the context
of growing
cybersecurity
threats and
concerns about
cybersecurity
and data
protection,
this report
aims to
identify the
main
challenges in
the current
situation and
to propose
actionable
recommendations
for the
different
stakeholders
involved in
the CAM
ecosystem to
enhance the
level of
security and
resilience of
CAM
infrastructures
and systems in
Europe..." Read more Hmmmm...Mandatory reading. Alain
A. Hawkins,
May 7, "After
years of
positive vibes
about the
future of
autonomous
vehicles and
nearly
unrestricted
access to cash
from
Kool-Aid-drunk
venture
capitalists,
the AV
industry is
confronting
some hard
truths. The
first is that
autonomous
vehicles are
going to take
a lot longer
to reach mass
scale than
previously
thought. The
second is that
it’s going to
be a lot more
expensive,
too. And the
third hard
truth: going
it alone is no
longer a
viable option.
Last week, Lyft sold its self-driving car division to a
subsidiary of
Toyota for
$550 million.
Cruise bought Voyage. Aurora merged with Uber’s autonomous vehicle unit.
Delivery robot startup Nuro acquired self-driving
truck outfit
Ike. There
have been so
many mergers,
joint
ventures, and
various
tie-ups lately
it can be
difficult to
keep them all
straight.
Where that
leaves things
is a little
unclear. There
is still money
flowing to
these
companies, and
nearly all of
the
executives,
engineers, and
software
developers
working on the
technology
remain bullish
about the
future. But
there is a
growing sense
among experts
and investors
that the heady
days when
anyone with a
couple of test
vehicles, some
LIDAR, and a
vision for the
future could
launch a
startup are at
an end. And
there will
definitely be
more shrinkage
to come.
“The
consolidation
is long
overdue,” said
Raj Rajkumar,
robotics
professor at
Carnegie
Mellon
University.
“The AV
industry has
promised too
much for too
long, and has
delivered too
little.” Read more Hmmmm... Yup!. So far most of the
revenue is
from
Safe-driving
and
Self-Driving.
Driverless
revenue is
still
essentially at
zero.
However,
Driverless
deserves some
halo -effect
revenue
because had
Elon not
created the
halo that
autoPilot was
Driverless, he
may not have
sold nearly as
many Teslas
and maybe
almost no
autoPilot. He
certainly
would not have
sold any
FSDs...
(which are
Self-driving
and NOT
Driverless.).
Alain
B. Canis, Updated April 23, "Autonomous vehicles have the potential to bring major improvements in highway safety. Motor vehicle crashes caused an estimated 36,096 fatalities in 2019; a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has shown that 94% of crashes involve human error.... " Read more Hmmmm...Sorry.. human misbehavior! Right from the first sentence, this report is in dire need of another update. While facts about the state of the recent Federal legislative initiatives are accurate, the continued perspective that this technology address first (and foremost (implied)) human error, rather than human misbehavior and barely address opportunities for substantially enhanced mobility for those not having access to a personal automobile is truly unfortunate. Alain
D.Furchtgott-Roth,
May 5,
"President
Biden, in his
address to
Congress,
described
climate change
as one of the
“crises of our
time,” along
with
pandemics,
terrorism, and
mass
migration. To
resolve that
crisis, it is
vital to
safeguard the
Global
Positioning
System (GPS),
which is used
to measure how
the climate is
changing.
Shoring up GPS
is a
shovel-ready
project. The
Transportation
Department is
ready to roll
out a plan.
Earlier this
year the
Department of
Transportation
published a
report on 11
different
technologies
to back up and
complement GPS
if satellites
went down.
Today –
Wednesday, May
5, at 2 pm –
leaders of the
Transportation
Department’s
Office of
Research and
Technology in
three
different
Administrations—Biden,
Trump, and
Obama—will
join together
in a webinar
hosted by
George
Washington
University’s
Space Policy
Institute to
discuss the
report and the need to strengthen GPS.... " Read more Hmmmm...Absolutely necessary to
protect and
improve.
Alain
K. Korosec,
May 7, "What
Tesla CEO Elon
Musk says
publicly about
the company’s
progress on a
fully
autonomous
driving system
doesn’t match
up with
“engineering
reality,”
according to a
memo that
summarizes a
meeting
between
California
regulators and
employees at
the automaker.
The memo,
which
transparency
site Plainsite
obtained via a
Freedom of
Information
Act request
and
subsequently
released,
shows that
Musk has
inflated the
capabilities
of the
Autopilot
advanced
driver
assistance
system in
Tesla
vehicles, as
well the
company’s
ability to
deliver fully
autonomous
features by
the end of the
year. ..." Read more Hmmmm...Wonder what he'll say
during SNL tonight. I'm certain it will be
entertaining.
Andrew Hawkin's take on this. Alain
H. Posner'77, Sept 13, 2020. "Creating Value for Light Density Urban Rail Lines" . See slides, See video Hmmmm... Simply Brilliant. Alain
Virtual on July 12-15, 2021
These
editions are
sponsored by
the SmartETFs
Smart
Transportation
and Technology
ETF, symbol
MOTO. For more
information
head to www.motoetf.com
F. Fishkin,
Nov 25, "What
you should
know about
electric cars,
climate change
and more. The
Dispatcher
publisher
Michael Sena
joins
Princeton's
Alain
Kornhauser and
co-host Fred
Fishkin in an
eye opening
edition of
Smart Driving
Cars.."
F. Fishkin, Nov 24, "When it comes to active driver assistance systems, what works and what needs improvement? Some answers from Kelly Funkhouser… program manager for vehicle interface, head of connected and automated vehicles at Consumer Reports. She joins Princeton's Alain Kornhauser and co-host Fred Fishkin for episode 186 of Smart Driving Cars."
F. Fishkin, July 20, "Is Driverless home delivery the fastest route to Affordable Mobility for the Mobility Disadvantaged? ... "
F. Fishkin,
July 2,
"Transportation,
racial
injustices and
changing the
thinking
around the
future of
mobility. NYU
McSilver
Institute for
Poverty Policy
& Research
fellow Henry
Greenidge
joins
Princeton's
Alain
Kornhauser and
co-host Fred
Fishkin in an
eye and mind
opening
episode of
Smart Driving
Cars. Plus
Amazon, Zoox,
Waymo, Tesla
& more.
."
F. Fishkin,
June 2, "But
the debate is
not really
about
technology nor
is it about
who delivers
the best value
for the money
or the most
privacy. It is
about ..."
T.
Krisher, Feb
19, "The fiery
crash of a
Tesla near
Houston with
no one behind
the wheel is
drawing
scrutiny from
two federal
agencies that
could bring
new regulation
of electronic
systems that
take on some
driving tasks.
The National
Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration
and the
National
Transportation
Safety board
said Monday
they would
send teams to
investigate
the Saturday
night crash on
a residential
road that
killed two men
in a Tesla
Model S.
Local
authorities
said one man
was found in
the passenger
seat, while
another was in
the back.
They’re
issuing search
warrants in
the probe,
which will
determine
whether the
Tesla’s
Autopilot
partially
automated
system was in
use. Autopilot
can keep a car
centered in
its lane, keep
a distance
from cars in
front of it,
and can even
change lanes
automatically
in some
circumstances.
On Twitter
Monday, Tesla
CEO Elon Musk
wrote that
data logs
“recovered so
far” show
Autopilot
wasn’t turned
on, and “Full
Self-Driving”
was not
purchased for
the vehicle.
He didn’t
answer
reporters’
questions
posed on
Twitter...."
Read more Hmmmm... I'll stand by my
quote... "...“Elon’s
been totally
irresponsible,”
said Alain
Kornhauser,
faculty chair
of autonomous
vehicle
engineering at
Princeton
University.
Musk, he said,
has sold the
dream that the
cars can drive
themselves
even though in
the fine print
Tesla says
they’re not
ready. “It’s
not a game.
This is
serious
stuff.”..."
... even
though it
isn't the most
critical
comment.
What is more concerning.... "Why didn't Tesla's Automated Emergency Braking System prevent the Tesla from hitting the tree?" The common theme in the Joshua Brown, Elaine Herzberg, Walter Huang, Firetruck/Derrick Monet, 2nd_Firetruck_Tesla crash ..., Teslas seem to disregard stationary objects directly ahead, or certainly doesn't avoid hitting them enough of the time. The Tesla code must assume that it can pass underneath them. Can such an egregious oversight in Tesla's AEB computer code really exist? Is the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) involved in this oversight because it has made Tesla and maybe others so adverse to false positives that they simply assume that Teslas can pass under any and all stationary objects in the road ahead? Not a pretty situation. Alain
A.
Ohnsman, April
2, "John
Krafcik, the
auto industry
veteran who’s
run Waymo for
over five
years, is
stepping down
as CEO of the
Alphabet Inc.
self-driving
tech giant and
is being
replaced by
two
high-ranking
company
executives.
J.
Gallagher,
March 24, "Two
prominent
labor unions
want the U.S.
Department of
Transportation
(DOT) to
reject the
Trump
administration’s
automated
vehicle (AV)
strategy for
relying too
much on the
viewpoint from
industry
without enough
attention paid
to potential
damage to
worker safety
and jobs.
The 38-page Automated Vehicles Comprehensive Plan (AVCP),
one of the
last documents
released for
public comment
by DOT under
Secretary
Elaine Chao
before she
left the
administration
in January,
laid out the
previous
administration’s
vision for
integrating
AVs – both
cars and heavy
trucks – into
the U.S.
transportation
system.
The plan received 23 comments before the comment period closed on Tuesday, with trucking technology companies generally supporting the strategy and labor rejecting it.
“This document doubles down on the previous administration’s irresponsible, hands-off approach to AV deployment and regulation and mostly boosts the agency’s role as cheerleader and enabler rather than safety regulator,” wrote John Samuelsen, international president of the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), which represents transit workers...." Read more Hmmmm... One might suggest that TWU's position is enormously short sighted. Transit pre_Covid served 1% of the person-miles in the US. That is a niche of a niche. During Covid, almost anyone who could affords a car and didn't have one, bought one. Transit ridership took an enormous hit. Even with enormous subsidy, Transit, especially bus transit, is hardly ever the "mode of choice" for anyone because its level-of-service is fundamentally poor. It serves relatively few locations, loosely connected by a route which delivers service only at infrequent fixed times. Essentially no other consumer commodity today operates with so little regard to its customer's real-time needs and desires. Even network television has adapted to become demand-responsive as opposed to take-it-or-leave-it.
Conventional transit is labor
intensive
because it
needs a
chauffeur for
each vehicle
and that
chauffeur
deserves nice
working
conditions and
a living
wage.
Unfortunately,
the service
that a
chauffeur can
deliver can't
attract enough
customers to
make that
service a
going
concern.
However, an
automated
driver can
arguably
deliver
demand-responsive
service while
having the
total cost of
its working
conditions and
level-of-effort be substantially less than a TWU driver. This might let
a Transit
entity to
actually
develop a
going concern
that would
serve 10x or
more
person-miles
and create
better paying
and better
working
conditions for
all TWU
members.
M.
Hogan, March
19, "A beta
version of
Tesla's "Full
Self Driving"
Autopilot
update has
begun rolling
out to certain
users. And
man, if you
thought "Full
Self Driving"
was even close
to a reality,
this video of the system in action will certainly
relieve you of
that notion.
It is perhaps
the best
comprehensive
video at
illustrating
just how
morally
dubious,
technologically
limited, and
potentially
dangerous
Autopilot's
"Full Self
Driving" beta
program
is...." Read more
Hmmmm...
The Video is MUST watch. This is what I
would call a "Semi-SelfDriving
Alpha"
product in
this
Operational
Design Domain
(non-dense
city/commercial
suburban
streets,
during
daylight, in
clear weather
with moderate
temperature
conditions).
Drivers have four (4)
"responsibilities".
1. Feet/foot
on/near the
pedals, 2.
Hand(s) on the
wheel, 3. Eyes
on the road,
and 4. Butt in
the driver's
seat (and
possibly 5....
Have
reasonable
cognitive
brain
functions).
If the
Operational
Design Domain
is a straight
lane with a
slight
downgrade and
nothing else
around, my "55
Chevy" can
"Self-drive"
and even be
"Driverless".
I don't even
have to be in
it. However,
we must all
agree, that we
can't call my
"55 Chevy" a
"Driverless"
car. We can't
even call it a
Self-driving
because I'm
going to need
to have my
butt is the
driver's seat
to do
something when
the ODD
changes (the
road turns ,
...) and it
is, at best,
Semi-Self
driving
because my
eyes will need
to be on the
road for me to
realize that
the "55 Chevy"
is about to
exit its ODD.
It is going to
need help from
me to not
crash.
So Elon's FSD is definitely Semi-SelfDriving because its ODD doesn't come close to including many of the situations that it found in its video journey above. It is Alpha because any potential user can be expected to have little if any idea what is required to use this product without getting hurt. So, please be very careful out there and don't stop paying attention to the road ahead!!! Alain