Friday, April 29, 2016

Legislatures Consider Hacking Prevention Before the Revolution

Michigan's proposed life sentencing provision of its hacking bill, SB 927, reads like it is written for a legislative body freaked out by the prospect of hacking into a driverless vehicle to steal data or send it off for evil purposes. The bill proposes a life sentence - same as if you hack a family to death - for hacking into a motor vehicle. The life sentence is also included in SB 928. Considering that hacking into vehicles brings to mind fears of kidnapping and terrorism, this is not a surprise. 

Capital Hill Gets Friendlier

The US Congress is being more contemplative in its approach, though hacking is on its list of concerns. The Hill reports that a four-member bipartisan group of House members has formed the House Smart Transportation Caucus. Members with an interest in auto manufacturing and technology are on board. 
Together, the group will look at a wide range of new-age transportation tools, such as upcoming transit and parking technologies, alternative traffic and freight management systems, and “smart infrastructure,” or structures such as buildings and roads that are embedded with sensors to collect and analyze data. 
The members said they want to educate members on these cost-reducing and life-saving technologies and bring together those involved from the private sector and federal government.
Consumer groups, likely the ones trying to put the brakes on driverless altogether, are warning against quick Congressional action. 

On the other side of Capital Hill

On the Senate side, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a state with a big stake in technology, has been active putting manufacturers' feet to the fire concerning protection of private data and against hacking. He authored a well-thought out report last year that made a good case that car companies and states have done little to protect consumers.

OMG-Kind of Tech and Business Developments

Google is reportedly finalizing talks with Fiat Chrysler to manufacture Google driverless cars. This would make available everyday kind of cars as well as luxury models for driverless transport, although none of these are accessible for many people with mobility disabilities. This puts Fiat Chrysler in the driverless game, where they have not yet staked a claim.

Update: The Google/Fiat Chrysler deal has been signed. My fantasy in the paragraph above is a bit beyond the first step that the two companies have planned. The agreement signed paves the way for Google to: 
develop about 100 self-driving prototypes based on the Chrysler Pacifica hybrid-powered minivan ... The partners’ engineering teams will work together on the project at a facility in southeastern Michigan.
Nvidia doesn't need lines to draw inside of 

What is being called a technological breakthrough may place Nvidia ahead of everyone in the driverless transportation quest. Nvidia's system essentially teaches itself, in a way that sounds similar to Hotz's Comma.ai system, but is able to navigate beyond highways on unpaved and unmarked roads. It learns by figuring out humans drive. (I can't help a snarky remark: I hope that means someone responsible and not a 16 year old who is taking a first spin after getting his or her license.)

This article, by Steven Max Patterson, is well worth reading because it cogently explains the Nvidia technology.

Here's a video. The driving seems so ordinary that the video is boring, except that this driverless car is filmed on a range of different types of roads and in all kinds of weather, even snow.

With developments like this, the driverless revolution might hit the roads sooner than many expect.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Yesterday's NHTSA Hearing

Warning: This is a long post.

The most interesting aspect of this type of public hearing is not generally what people say, but who shows up in the first place. The NHTSA hearing in California, held yesterday at Stanford University, attracted many of the same players as the Apr. 8 hearing held in DC., with quite a few additional speakers. Representatives of people with disabilities were out in force and remain amongst the most enthusiastic supporters of driverless vehicles, with the proviso that those vehicles be designed for full accessibility. Other participants included Google's Chris Urmson, David Strickland of the new Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, and a representative of MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

General themes

A general theme for the day and the one point on which there is complete consensus is that the US should adopt a national framework - whether through a uniform set of state laws or via federal laws and regulations - for the operation of driverless vehicles so that manufacturers, safety advocates, and others do not have to operate with a maze of different, and sometimes conflicting, legal provisions. State-by-state air quality standards were raised as one example where that is the case.

An aspect of this call for national standards was something heard as well at the Apr. 8 NHTSA hearing, a plea for technology-neutral standards to allow for flexibility in the development of new technology. One speaker, who was from VQuest and does work for the Department of Defense, used the term "platform agnostic." No one seemed to want driverless vehicles to be tied to any particular technology without ease to advance or change.

The VQuest speaker made a related point that we do not want to punish failure; we want to create incentives to experiment and thereby learn from failures. Only if we do so will we promote a willingness to share data and innovate. 

One more point of consensus is the idea of required black boxes, similar to what is on airplanes, to provide data when crashes occur. Some guy also mentioned white boxes, but I did not catch exactly what that was. I admit that I am willing to spend only so much time on this; not willing to go back to the video of the hearing.

A last theme, or, perhaps, more of a common refrain, was the recitation of how everyone, including existing manufacturers of currently non-accessible vehicles, is looking forward to a rosy and accessible future for people with disabilities. A less common refrain, though pretty common, was the mention of benefits to the environment. (FYI: If anyone is looking for a brilliant materials science engineer to work on batteries, I have a daughter who fits the bill. She'll be starting a PhD program in the fall. So proud.)

Some safety advocates have selective goggles on - for good and bad

Some from the so-called consumer safety community continue to drone on about the need for a human driver as though they never received the mountains of news reports over the last one hundred years that drivers have caused over 90 percent of all motor vehicle crashes, the ones that have killed hundreds of thousands and injured millions more - in the US alone, with many millions affected the world over. One of those casualties last year was someone I knew, a fact that scares me each time one of my daughters drives.

What the safety advocates make good points about are needs for (1) real federal standards and not just voluntary compacts among the car companies; 2) required transparency of data about operations of vehicles, interfaces, and crashes and near-crashes; and (3) mandatory alerts for car owners and used car owners, in particular, about vehicle recalls and defects. These advocates paint a picture of traditional car companies manipulating a cushy regulatory environment with lax oversight.

Neat speaker shows West Coast vibe

One biker dude showed up. I admit that I did not catch his name. He was the only speaker who mentioned something important beyond the actual vehicles, which is the people on streets who will not be inside vehicles, autonomous or otherwise. The biker dude expressed concern that self-driving vehicles be designed to decrease worries on the part of, and actual collisions with, bikers and pedestrians.

The MADD representative reminded the panel about human drivers who operate vehicles when they are in no condition to drive. MADD, of course, is most concerned about driving under the influence of alcohol and other inebriating substances, and the representative spouted the scary number 80, which is the average number of times a driver drives drunk before an arrest. The advocacy group looks forward to the day when it no longer has to spout such numbers and be concerned about innocent people harmed because a human in a drunken stupor, or just tired after a drink or two (those are my words), gets behind the wheel.

NHTSA panel gets star speakers

Two rather prominent individuals in the driverless world appeared at the podium to speak at the NHTSA hearing, Chris Urmson of Google and David Strickland, a former NHTSA Administrator, and now counsel and spokesperson for the newly founded Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets. (That name, of course, not suggesting that the coalition has no one behind its metaphoric wheel.) A third speaker with some glamour was the representative of Beverly Hills, California (yes, 90210), Dr. Julian Gold, a member of the city council and former mayor. 

Urmson is about as relaxed a public speaker as I have ever seen. Unlike the other corporate
types at the hearing, Urmson seemed frank and conversational. I also like what he said. It's as if he's been listening to me rant on about driverless vehicles. I'd accuse him of eavesdropping at my office and at my kitchen table, but he has no need. He already knows way more about the technology than I do. 

Urmson pointed out that we already have unsafe roadways with many, many deaths and injuries. There's no reason, he said, to go slowly and incrementally. He succinctly stated that while everyone agrees that the US needs national standards, there is significant disagreement about the speed of implementing the technology and how to develop it. 

Testing, Urmson reminded the panel, cannot only be performed on testing courses (and fake roads), but must be done on real roads. He talked about the successful experiences of Google's test vehicles and he rightly stated that accidents involving those vehicles have been minor. He also warned the panel that if the US does not act to provide a national regulatory framework that allows for innovation, testing, and deployment, other countries will pass us by. 

Coalition talks - Reminding me of the old EF Hutton commercial

Strickland announced his new role on behalf of the new Self-Driving Coalition, made similar remarks to others about safety for all and access for people with disabilities, and then progressed to appropriately calling driverless a "safety game changer" and asking for a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Definitely a DC guy. Anyone outside of DC gets the kooties just hearing that word. But Strickland is correct because that is the way Washington, DC, operates best, with coalitions that represent the full range of - ooh, yes I'm using the word - stakeholders.

Strickland, as you can tell, spoke in big tent language, and matter of factly told the panel that driverless operations are "years, not decades, away." Even though anyone with a bit of knowledge knows this, the panel needs to hear it from people like Strickland, who have clout and gravitas. He is about as far from a hipster dude as one can be. Suited, serious, and with credentials that precede him, there is no question that the NHTSA panel took his presence there and his words seriously.

Confession: I have been in DC long enough that I hardly wince when I hear the "s" word. That's what you get for spending lots of time in an office two blocks from the White House.

Town of palm trees and movie star houses wants driverless transit

Beverly Hills is actually the City of Beverly Hills, though it is small and feels more like a neighborhood in the LA area. It is very pretty and wealthy. But it recently pushed itself to the forefront of progressive urbanism by passing a resolution in favor of a plan for driverless transit. Dr. Julian Gold, a former mayor and current council member, talked to the NHTSA panel about first and last-mile challenges once transit rail lines are built and in operation nearby. There will be no new parking garages, so the city is realistically considering options and a driverless transit system seems like a good one. The city plans to host a forum soon as it explores how to go about making this dream a reality. (I can see a logo on the vehicle with nice green and pink hues from the Beverly Hills hotel and a white overlay of a tall palm tree. I'm willing to design it.)

Gold also envisions driverless for seniors and people with disabilities who live in his city. He reminded the panel that parking spaces cost about $40,000 a pop. They are not free. Gold was practical in raising issues such as whether children will be allowed to ride with adults (they do on subways and there's no driver or other official in every car), and what roadway and vehicle specifications, if any, will need to be in place. Gold brought the local government perspective, which is an important one in transportation. Local and state governments are responsible for transit and for road maintenance. He informed the panel that these questions need to be answered ASAP.

And his city wants the full monty of level five, fully autonomous vehicles. 

The federal-state division of responsibilities may need to be revisited wholesale instead of globbing on a new layer of regulation onto the old. The Nvidia spokesperson suggested as much in his comments. Truth be told, however, globbing is a traditional DC strategy in a town where consensus is the name of the game. 

Award for most effective speaker

The representative of Self-Driving MN (Minnesota) at yesterday's NHTSA hearing spoke from the heart as he described the hi-jinks of family members and a mix of family and public transportation that provide transportation to work for his brother who is disabled. He spoke eloquently when he wondered aloud how someone with a disability who does not have family close by is able to get to work and to otherwise take care of oneself. The intimate scene that this gentleman allowed everyone watching the hearing to share painted a before and after picture that demonstrated the freedom and equality that autonomous vehicles will represent for many people with disabilities.

Another representative of the disability community reminded panel members that blindness and visual impairments are not the only class of disability that will require accessibility to driverless vehicles, a point emphasized in more ways at the Apr. 8 hearing in DC. However, that same speaker, whose name I did not jot down, aptly uttered the mantra of the disability community - nothing about us without us - when calling for universal design to be incorporated in and interfacing with these new vehicles at the outset.

Award for speaker who probably knows a thing or two about microbreweries

The Zoox speaker was by far the coolest dude in the room, with a sense of humor and a let's-figure-this-out-over-a-beer vibe. He also had on a nice hat and told the story of how his company got started just a stone's throw away from where the NHTSA hearing was taking place. It made me smile. He got to the heart of the matter at hand for NHTSA, which is how to have technology experts and government regulators, who approach their lines of work very differently, to come together for the common good. And he used the word traumatized to describe the experiences of families around the globe who have lost loved ones.

A big thank you to the tweeter, Mark Harris (@meharris, published in the Economist, among others), who pointed out that I was wrong with my spelling of Zoox. I was thinking in terms of rhymes with cukes. 

Usual suspects

Traditional car companies showed up as well, including Ford, Honda, Toyota, and GM. No surprises there. No news - with one exception. Toyota is pushing for a transitional period, which, when translated, means, in my opinion, that the company is not ready for prime time on driverless and it does not want anyone else getting out of the gate on this any time soon. Likewise for the speaker from Subaru. (Okay, can we really trust a car company with a dweeb advertising campaign that it's cars are made with love? I thought they were made with robots and non-union labor.)

Best corporate speaker award

This prize definitely goes to the Volvo speaker, who right off the bat mentioned that she has three children and who managed to humanize the Volvo corporate goals of zero deaths by 2020 and its acceptance of full responsibility - meaning liability - for any crashes involving its driverless vehicles, which, by the way, will be on London roads soon, and, of course, Swedish ones. (Trust me, London can compete with New York for crazy driving, though I believe that New Yorkers are less about following rules and definitely more about shouting out the window in an endless loud back and forth with pedestrians, except above Mitdtown, where there is less and less traffic.)

If you would like to watch the Apr. 8 hearing, here is the video. I suspect the video of the Apr. 27 hearing will be available soon.


In case anyone wants more of a say, NHTSA will be accepting public comments until May 9, the day after Mother's Day.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Coalition Forms to Drive Regulation of Driverless

For now, it's Google, Uber, Lyft, Ford, and Volvo as the founding and only members of the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets (SDCST), but I'm wondering if Lyft partner-GM is soon to follow, along with the rest of the car companies. The coalition wants the same set of standards and regulations across the US and it is emphasizing the death and injury visited upon this country in the thousands and thousands of human-caused crashes each year. 

The coalition does not yet have a website, but it does have a leader. David Strickland, a former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration administrator and a current Google advisor, will act as the coalition's counsel and spokesman. No doubt, Mr. Strickland will be in attendance and speaking at the NHTSA hearing this morning at Stanford University.

No cabbies needed

Volvo will begin its Drive Me London program in 2017 with real families on real streets. I did that in Brooklyn and read to my kids en route. It was called the NYC subway. Okay, a bit different. Wait, Brooklyn was better. The Volvo program will only feature semi-autonomous vehicles, basically a Tesla equivalent.

And for your entertainment, this video from Honda, which will prompt thoughts of a tiny house on wheels and being a modern nomad in your own traveling home.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

So Green Outside, So Many More Comments to NHTSA

Comment #10 - This comment is very corporate. It's from Bosch, which is concerned about its competitive position in the autonomous vehicle software market. Bosch has an incremental approach to driverless operations - highway and parking first, city streets, later. But its recommendations are reasonable. Bosch is arguing for the development of objective, technology neutral, safety and performance standards. The company wisely recommends the requirement of a vehicle-equivalent of a flight data recorder in case of accidents. In terms of cybersecurity, Bosch favors a layered system.

Such glorious DC-speak right here.
Bosch recommends that NHTSA initiate and facilitate in-depth discussions with key stakeholders to specifically address the development of AV validation approaches.
DC loves the word stakeholders. 

Comment #11 - You would think that the litigation system had never encountered a new technology before without detailed laws to govern it. This comment says otherwise and opines that we need new liability laws in place before we allow autonomous vehicles to be on the roads. Too late because there's a Tesla on your highway. In my opinion, this person has not considered this issue in depth, nor has he or she faced up to the fact that this is how the entire tort system evolved.

Comment #12 - This comment comes from a mechanic/technician who is a driverless enthusiast. He or she states that driverless - via Tesla - is already happening and recommends transparency, federal/state cooperation, and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) standards. This person also wants driver override capability, similar to shutting off cruise control.

Boring Dubai Driverless Video and Take Me to the Cubs Sans Drivers

This has to be in the top 10 of boring videos. I would watch a bunch of cat videos to avoid this one. However the video proves that driverless, by way of a small pilot project, has come to an Arab-speaking country for the first time.

The article I link to has the video embedded.

Wrigley Field, the Art Institute, Northwestern - Get there in style (at least without a driver) - maybe soon

Move over EL (chicago's slow subway). Forget Metra (faster commuter train option). You might be roaming around the wonderful (though cold in the winter) city of big shoulders (remember the Robert Frost poem?) in a different kind of vehicle. HERE, a mapping technology company, is reportedly staying in Chicago - adding lots of jobs there and committing itself to bringing driverless, at least a self-driving pilot program, to the city.

Can you make that pilot go out to Buffalo Grove, where I have relatives?

Or just move to Florida, like your relatives did in the 70s

Right now, you too can get on a driverless vehicle, one that has already ferried 70,000 people in Tampa, Florida. Okay, it's a fancy golf-cart-like pretend shuttle at a museum, but it is driverless. This video displays the enthusiasm of the state of Florida, though not some of its inhabitants, for driverless. 


Monday, April 25, 2016

Driverless Auto Shows - Duckies and Detroit

I read Make Way for Ducklings to my kids about a million times, maybe two million times. I told them where their aunt and uncle lived in college and graduate school, and where I lived. I told them about the pretty duck pond and the duck boats. I told them about walking around the Public Garden and all around Boston, and about my many walks in Cambridge by the river. There's no sweeter book about Boston than Make Way for Ducklings, by Robert McCloskey.


Beantown duck theme - for driverless

Some students at MIT, located steps away from Boston, in Cambridge, have created Duckietown and filmed this mythical place. It is full of rubber duckies in driverless vehicles - tiny driverless vehicles - that navigate oh so cutely and effectively. But these students, who live in pedestrian-and-transit-rich Cambridge, Somerville, and Boston (I am guessing), have not blessed Duckietown with any duckie pedestrians or bikers. Where are the ducks crossing the road? Ducks on buses? Friendly police like in Make Way for Ducklings? 

Oh wait, on that last one I forgot it's not an all-white 1950s world (actually written in 1941) of that wonderful, but not diverse, children's book. Police are not always nice and likely not concerned about a family with many ducklings.


But if you want to turn a child into a multi-modal, pedestrian-aware person, read the book. It is a classic of children's literature. And read another Robert McCloskey book, Blueberries for Sal, also a classic.

Fun, Detroit in January

No criticism here, but if you want to lure people to Detroit, June might be a better month. However, January 2017 will feature a new conference in the Motor City, a spin off of the Detroit Auto Show (which is officially named the North American International Auto Show). The new conference is called the AutoMobili-D and will be all about autonomous vehicles. 

I am betting someone actually paid someone else to come up with that rolls-off-the-tongue name. Seriously? Okay, it would be fun to go.
AutoMobili-D will be held for the first time on Jan. 8 in a dedicated 120,000 square-foot space complete with a dedicated indoor test track for demonstrating and letting visitors gain first-hand experience of the latest self-driving technology systems.   
This is being touted as a be-there-or-be-square event, though no word yet on whether any driverless players from outside the Detroit area - such as Silicon Valley, Europe, and Asia - will be showing off vehicles.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Louisiana Bill

Louisiana seems poised to vote on a bill allowing driverless vehicle testing. HB 233 would amend the motor vehicle and driver licensing laws. A "driver" is still required, but the definition is amended, for purposes of automated vehicles, to mean a person who is able to take over control of the vehicle. 

Where is the driver?

No summoning the car from elsewhere? Maybe. The definition of "operator" of a motor vehicles contemplates that a person on board is not required.
For purposes of an autonomous vehicle, "operator" shall also mean the person who is seated in the driver's seat, or if there is no person in the driver's seat, the person who causes the autonomous technology to engage.
"Driver" is similarly, though somewhat ambiguously, defined.
"Driver" means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle, including an autonomous vehicle.
Presumably, that person could be in control in some form of an air-traffic control-like office.

Testing only - for now

Driverless travel will only be permitted on Louisiana's roads for testing purposes. For fun, but probably way less safety, let a 16 year old drive you around the Bayou state.

More Comments for NHTSA - American Driverless Safety

Comment # 6: Written copy of a two-page statement made at the Apr. 8 hearing by John Collins, president of a transportation consulting firm. Mr. Collins wants NHTSA to develop an Automated Vehicle Leadership Council.

Comment #7: This two-pager concentrates on protecting the cyber-security of automated vehicles.

Comment #8: This is a moving statement by a self-described older disabled woman. She is unable to use regular public transit. She writes about the life-altering inconvenience and isolation of lacking transportation, about the humiliation of using government-provided demand-response transportation, and about sometimes falling through the cracks of strict eligibility requirements for transportation services. 

This commenter also provides useful recommendations for redundant interfaces in automated vehicles for people with different disabilities. She also suggests that the vehicles be designed for easy entry, exit, and use for people with disabilities.

Comment #9: This comment is anti-driverless under any and all circumstances. Apparently, this person has no idea how many people are currently killed and injured on our roads each year.

Friday, April 15, 2016

Dutch Embrace a New Era of Innovation and Commerce

You should read Tulipmania for an insight into Dutch entrepreneurship and commerce. You should remember the history of global exploration. Remember that it was the Dutch who bought Manhattan. That's why we have Amsterdam Ave. It's why Dutch words permeate the city. If you live in Brooklyn, your front steps are a stoop. Your supervisor is a boss.

Now the Dutch are forging ahead again, this time with driverless vehicles. 
Cooperation in the field of connected and automated driving. FIA Region I and its European Mobility Clubs welcome the Dutch Presidency’s ambition to facilitate the introduction of highly automated and connected vehicles throughout Europe by 2019. The document’s objective is to intensify cooperation, leading to the expected benefits of vehicle automation in terms of safety, efficiency and sustainability while also supporting value-added services using vehicle data.
Wow, in one week, the leaders in driverless race are the Netherlands and Beverly Hills. Who would have thought?

Terrorists usually go low-tech

I work less than a couple of blocks from the White House. I always used to walk down the street where the Boston Marathon bombing happened. I'm as scared as the next person about terrorism, BUT these maniacs do not need driverless vehicles to pull off their evil stunts. 

So why do people - including a high US government security official - think driverless vehicles are the next great opportunity for terrorists? I don't know.

After a gazillion trips on the NY subway, the DC Metro, and the Boston T, I can tell you that the "see something, say something" campaign does not work. Just the other day, I saw luggage unguarded, seemingly unconnected to anyone, sitting right outside Metro Center in DC (the closest station to the White House) and we were all passing by without saying or doing anything. 

There is almost no security at these crowded subway stations. The maniacs do not need driverless to pull off their terrible deeds. We have open sidewalks, train stations, airports, malls, etc., etc., etc. We don't seem to be closing any of them due to the possibility of terrorism. Let's not be disproportionately paranoid about driverless.

I'm also a mother and I can tell you I am much more nervous at the prospect of my kids driving down the open road than I am about driverless vehicles. Just last spring, a dear friend lost her son in a car accident. That same awful experience visited more than 30,000 US families just last year. I don't downgrade the terrible losses of the families of terrorism victims. But we make a choice to live in the world and take risks. Otherwise, we'll all be stuck at home watching videos.

That said, anything can be hacked and I hope the technology developers - whose goal is to make money - are always steps ahead of the evil maniacs.

Tea leaves department

GM has hired a lobbying firm to push its driverless agenda. With Cruise Automation on board and its partnership with Lyft, GM is no longer talking up how Americans love having their hands on the steering wheel.

Thursday, April 14, 2016

NHTSA Public Meeting - Written Comments

It's like Congress, in that comments can be submitted on the record in writing, but do not need to actually be uttered from someone's mouth.

These comments were submitted as part of the record of the NHTSA Apr. 8 public meeting to address autonomous vehicles.

Comment #1: One sentence. Basically - driverless vehicles are good for economic development.

Comment #2: First, I have no idea how credible this comment is because I know nothing about safe or unsafe exposure to radiation and lasers. The comment claims that we should be very concerned about the amount of radiation beaming to and from autonomous vehicles; and that the public will not and should not accept AV until the laser and radiation issues are addressed. The commenter includes aviation safety in the realm of issues that arise in relation to lasers being everywhere.

Comment #3: The needs of wheelchair users, specifically locking mechanisms, should be considered. Also an extremely brief comment.

Comment #4: A two-page, thoughtful comment from a coalition representing people with disabilities. The signers are:
American Association of People with Disabilities 
American Foundation for the Blind 
Association on University Centers on Disability 
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund 
Easter Seals 
National Council on Independent Living
National Federation of the Blind 
Paralyzed Veterans of America 
The Arc of the United States United Spinal
The disability community is asking for the realization of the intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), meaning full inclusion, which requires getting from place to place like everyone else. Driverless vehicles, which do not require eyesight or ability to turn a steering wheel, or put a foot on a brake, can help realize this dream for millions. Okay, I added stuff, but that's the gist of the letter. They also want a meeting and to work with DOT on making sure we have universally-designed driverless vehicles.

Comment #5: A software engineer's list of questions to address about artificial intelligence (AI) in driverless vehicles. These questions are really comments and they concentrate on the thought that DOT should regulate, rather than provide guidelines, for AI software for driverless vehicles.

I'm not a software engineer, but it is plain as the nose on your face to any thinking individual that someone at DOT should be considering the issues raised about AI use in partially and completely autonomous vehicles.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

There's a Driverless Bandwagon - and States Are Jumping On It

Totally swamped at work, but just wanted to jot down notes about the tons of activity among state legislators and others who want to test, manufacture, or otherwise welcome driverless transportation.

Ohio - Route 33 proposed as a test road for driverless. Ohio State University (OSU) would be involved. 

Tennessee - SB 1561 legislation made it out of committee. An enthusiastic legislator is talking up the possibilities for driverless in the state. Here is the link straight to SB 1561.

Florida - Go out and buy that vehicle without the steering wheel and the brakes. HB 7061 is a blast! 

California - AB 2866 goes in the same direction as the Florida bill. Must be something about warm weather states. Text is more clear than Florida's. Read here. A legislative hearing will be held on Apr. 18.

Europe - reported divisions over regulation of driverless transportation.

I have yet to read the written comments submitted to NHTSA - the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration - following the Apr. 8 hearing in DC. Hope to get to that this weekend. Not sure. I want to bake bread and do some artwork. 














Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Tea Leaves and Intrigue at the NHTSA Public Hearing in DC

I was there on April 8. Not glamorous, just a federal agency building with tighter security than any airport - with the exception of getting into Israel. A decent number of attendees showed up, about 75. The panelists, on their dais, listening all day, mostly appeared bored, but they perked up at times. I suspect that NHTSA already knows what it wants to do; now it is figuring out who will be on what side and what possible public ranting will go on.

Who was there?

A big surprise was the outsize presence of the disability community and the call for equitable - and universally designed - transportation choices and interfaces for people with all kinds of disabilities. The representatives of the disability community were the most enthusiastic supporters of driverless vehicles and government support, or at least avoiding government from getting in the way of technology development and deployment.

In fact, the only speakers who contemplated the possibilities of driverless and the complete remake of how vehicles are designed were speakers from the disability community.

This was a different crowd than I usually see at DOT events because I don't do anything professional related to cars. There were lots of car people, specifically representatives of auto makers, both domestic and Honda, as well as auto-related association folks and safety people. A very early Mad Men crowd - overwhelmingly white, older, in suits. Mostly male. Not the look of a Bernie gathering.

We all agree that ...

Technology neutral was a given, much mentioned, and without any argument or debate. No wants guidance or regulation that is only good for today's gizmos and software. 

However US regulation is accomplished, let it be consistent across the country. No one wants a patchwork of state laws, regulations, and policies. BUT - the question of whether guidance, voluntary standards, or regulations should be used is a different story. There were a couple of people who spoke who did not exactly trust that guidance or voluntary standards are sufficient to achieve safety. One speaker was a NHTSA administrator during the Carter Administration. She did not seem to trust DOT coziness with auto or tech companies at all.

Lots of people saying ...

Words like "incremental," "AV may be decades away," and "for the foreseeable future ... we want driver controls," passed many lips. It's as if none of these people have driven with either a teenager or a person in his or her 80s who can't believe it's time to give up the car keys. They all seem to think that a human is the safety valve. 

Some of the calls for incrementalism came from companies that are not ready to go driverless themselves, but even Consumer Watchdog is all in a dither about how Google cars are not 100 percent perfect. Seems like its driverless accidents have been pretty minor compared to humans behind the wheel.

Some suggested, but did not go so far as to state outright, that driverless vehicles should be completely safe before we allow people to ride in them, purchase them, or otherwise routinely use them. 

What news do these people read?

I'm not getting this attachment to the human driver. HELLO! Humans are the ones causing 95 percent of all crashes, remember the ones killing 30,000-plus people a year and injuring hundreds of thousands a year just in the US? Millions of people across the world are harmed each year simply because they are walking across a street, biking on a country road, or rushing down a highway to get somewhere on time. If driverless technology can do better, and I suspect it already can, then throw those lethal keys to the ignition away. Get a life. Watch a movie. Read a book. Irritate your fellow passengers by having a long phone conversation. Listen to a podcast. Stare out the window. Nap. Why drive?

Lots of paranoia

There was a lot said about fear of privacy violations and hacking. One person went on and on about terrorists taking over driverless vehicles. Excuse me, but don't they do that now? Terrorists have the capability and currently inflict lots of damage without any need for advanced technology. Those Boston marathon murderers did well, so to speak, without any fancy hardware or software.

What I said 

I spoke on behalf of the Community Transportation Association of America, my employer, about universal design and access, specifically about vehicle design and interfaces with software. I also called for attention to access to shared-use driverless modes where people will arrive by foot or bike to meeting points, thus requiring safe pedestrian and bike infrastructure.

I spoke on behalf of myself when I asked that partially autonomous vehicles be studied in terms of this assumption that drivers will be immediately capable of taking over a vehicle during a nap, while reading, or while on the 100th trip on the same boring road. 

Let unsaid

What I left unsaid was a dedication of my remarks and my work to the memory of 24-year-old Alex Federman, who perished late last spring in yet another car crash. The grief that Alex's family has and continues to experience is a needless tragedy in itself.

Next NHTSA hearing on Apr. 27 at Stanford University.

Cities Feet First? And Buy Driverless from Comma.ai in December, January?

Beverly Hills is jumping on the bandwagon - before there is one - to bring driverless transit shuttles to the pretty, enormously wealthy, city, really an enclave of Los Angeles. 

With its tall trees and pretty, oh-so-expensive houses, can't you see zipping around in a driverless shuttle while sipping a latte? (I take mine with actual dairy cream, but in Beverly Hills, you are probably talking a soy or almond latte crowd.)

Canada was first - but quietly

Toronto is already a year and a half into a two-year planning exercise to get ready for the driverless future and envision what it will look like. But where Beverly Hills differs is its proclamation to bring on the future now.

The Beverly Hills city council voted unanimously in favor of the transit shuttle. 

Maybe the city should contact George Hotz at Comma.ai, which just received more than $3 million in venture capital. Hotz, an arrogant and brilliant former hacker, whom Tesla tried to hire, is vowing that by the end of the year - that's 2016 - he will be selling a self-driving kit or $1000 or less. 

So for $999 (and the jitsu knife for free?), Hotz will sell the camera, sensors, and software. Unlike the piece-by-piece, rule-by-rule approach to driverless technology improvement, Hotz is "teaching" the vehicle. The software learns and accumulates knowledge. 

Here's yesterday's Bloomberg news interview with Hotz

Nocturnal, too?

I don't know whether Hotz's car is ready for night-time driving, but Ford is letting it be known that it's driverless cars can "see" at night. In fact, they don't need lights because of the LIDAR technology. Here's the best video news coverage I have seen. Velodyne is the manufacturer of the in-the-dark technology.

And in a land far away, ...

A 2000 mile driverless journey has already started with its first mile in China. The car will drive on highways and, I think, in city traffic in several cities, including Beijing. The wording of the article is somewhat unclear when it comes to urban streets. The company is not Baidu, but Chang'an Automobile. This is a state-owned, no-frills, company.

Since I'm reporting on ambitious plans today, I'll add that Chang'an plans to begin selling driverless cars in 2018. Okay that's my interpretation of the words "put into commercial use." Maybe they are thinking more in terms of taxi pods. Not sure.

Monday, April 11, 2016

US Technology on British Roads Due to British Policies

Oh yes, British enthusiasm and policies are inviting for driverless trials. Google is in talks; pods are scooting around Milton Keynes, a highway driverless pilot is scheduled for 2017, and those not-quite-driverless, but connected truck convoys are going to start showing up on British highways. They're ahead of Munich, Japan, and even China - though China doesn't always advertise its plans and testing.

Anyway, this article from the Telegraph is part journalism/part promotion, but it is crammed with information about various self-driving pilots and the policies in the UK. I have to check out the text of UK laws and regulations. Too busy at the moment.

Lots of trucks all together - no need for bathroom breaks

The European connected-vehicle convoy last week went off so swimmingly that more are in the works. Now it is time, evidently, for the EU bureaucrats to coordinate and make this type of freight transportation possible on an expected-in-the-near-future routine basis.

American ingenuity and technology

We might not be ahead in terms of regulation and laws, but there's still exciting technology advances in the US. Ford is promoting its testing of driverless-in-the-dark LIDAR tests. Looking good. Oh, it's too dark to see.

Don't get me started about how US regulators and lawmakers, with some exceptions, seem more freaked out than welcoming. California legislators are waking up and are not happy with the super conservative (with a small "c") CalTrans draft driverless regulations. The state lawmakers don't want to kiss Google goodbye; nor do they want to relinquish their lead in this field.

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Singapore vs. North Dakota vs. Google vs. ...

Singapore + nuTonomy = Pod-mania

OMG, the twittersphere and conventional journalism - here, via Forbes - are full of Singapore's plan to introduce taxi-pods (taxibots?). These will be accessible by apps. How else, right? (Not quicker, by the way, than catching a cab on CPW in Manhattan.) This could beat Uber at its own game and get a leg up on shared-use plans by Google, GM, Ford, and others. 

Google stays out West

Google is bringing its cute driverless vehicles to Phoenix, Arizona. Who wants to be there? No offense, but it' not a pedestrian-friendly place. Maybe it's just my East Coast sensibilities. Google says there's good air-born dust, as in dust storms. I was there for one once and it was creepy. Thank goodness someone else was driving. 

North Dakota to have driverless highway? Every hardly-any-people state has two senators

One weird aspect of the US Constitution is that every state, no matter how small and no matter how few people, gets two senators. Hence a state like Wyoming, which has a population the size of a Brooklyn neighborhood, gets somewhat outsize representation. In a way, this is a good thing. Some of those senators are able to push through interesting ideas and not get swamped by the more populous states.

North Dakota (pop. a bit under 750,000) Sen. John Thune is backing an idea to allow a particular highway that runs north-to-south and goes through seven states to be the first to allow driverless hauling of freight. Lots of driverless trucks. There's an association formed to push the idea toward fruition, the Central North Trade Corridor Association

This would mean seven states permitting driverless travel, whether through laws, regulations, or pure neglect. It could just mean interpreting existing provisions to not require a human driver. They're all laissez-faire/no-government-intervention out West, (super broad generalization there) so maybe that could happen.

Truck trip success in Europe

Speaking of a trucking company fantasy, a convoy of connected trucks - lorries, to those of you in the UK - has completed a trip across Europe. I think the first truck needs a driver, but the followers do not, though, of course, there were drivers present during this test. I'm not sure what happens to the CV trucks when obnoxious, speeding drivers of cars weave into the middle of the convoy. That will be the New Jersey Turnpike test.

Volvo going to China

First, Volvo is now owned by a Chinese company. Second, Chinese companies are pushing for their government to establish driverless-friendly rules. Third, China presents good challenges for driverless vehicles, as in crazy congestion and drivers. Volvo plans to essentially give 100 ordinary people 100 driverless vehicles to test on urban Chinese roads. I think the drivers must be present and they will be able to take over the wheel. This pilot will not happen until 2017.

NHTSA and technical details that make driverless possible

Tomorrow, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will be hosting a public meeting at the USDOT (Department of Transportation) building. One of those details is the technology that allows driverless vehicles to "see" its surroundings and "communicate" - as in connected vehicles or CV - with others. It will be interesting because DOT announced it will come out with regulations within the next few months. Okay, I remember that, but I don't have a link right now. That is warp speed for a government agency.

Monday, April 4, 2016

Not News: Singapore Becoming Smart and More Mobile

Singapore is quickly becoming a smart city/new urbanist's dream. Officials are talking smart lamp posts that provide light, cameras, and maybe data collection.

Some restaurants already feature robot wait staff. I'm guessing they refuse tips.

Driverless pods are being designed to solve the first mile/last mile challenges of transit. These should be on the roads within two years. 

There's a nice ethos here of coordination, transit, and a government embracing change. 

I actually would like to have human waiters and waitresses, even if the service is inconsistent.

Friday, April 1, 2016

No Driver in Vehicle Next to You - On the DC Beltway and in Scotland

Two pretty quiet but big developments as the world edges ever closer to the Age of Driverless. 

1. The first privately-owned Google driverless vehicle has been purchased by the Scottish "ideas agency" company Equator. This is not a test. The driverless car will be ferrying actual people, staff and clients (not Google-paid "drivers") that is, from Equator offices in Finnieston (not sure if that's a different town or a neighborhood) to the Glasgow offices of its sister design agency 999.

2. The Capital Beltway, the road that practically defines the inner and outer people and areas of the Washington, DC, region, hosted a driverless test of a large vehicle, in regular trafficNo video of this driverless trip has been released. The company doing the test was AiNET, based in Beltsville, MD, right by the Beltway. The now self-driving vehicle was a reclaimed 1991 Amertek Aircrash Rescue and Fire Fighting vehicle. Yes, a fire truck that drives itself. Now all of the firefighters can wave to passersby. Cute vehice, no?


We're talking real traffic

And there is traffic at every time of a weekday on this notorious road. This is a road with lots of road splits and interchanges with other roads, and it is a road that is pretty round, sometimes with a strange shape, sometimes near a building that looks mysteriously similar to the castle in the Wizard of Oz. For trivia's sake, I must mention that for many years, right by that castle (which is actually a Mormon temple, I believe), these words appeared on a Beltway overpass: Surrender Dorothy.

This test was a 50-mile trip in Maryland on the Beltway and then through neighborhoods and into Washington, DC, into such tony, fashionable areas as Georgetown, Capital Hill, and Shaw, which is gentrifying from hipster to fashionable.