From Sea to Shining Sea - Everyone Is Interested

At a session I put on yesterday at a national community transportation conference, there were attendees from rural and small city areas across the United States and Canada. Everyone is interested in driverless and many in community transportation are afraid. They are afraid that their passengers who are elderly or disabled will not have a friendly driver on board - whether a car, a van, or a bus - to give assistance. They are afraid of interfaces that do not work for people with cognitive disabilities. Some are excited about the opportunities driverless transportation will bring, while others would prefer to hold on to the present, despite its inefficiencies and inequities. 

This is an exciting time; possibilities are not set in stone. Now is the time and it is the role now for advocates and educators - national associations and others - to make sure that manufacturers, tech companies, and elected officials understand the importance of equity, not only in large cities, but in rural areas, suburbs, and small urban areas. Transit and community transportation in many places is often the only link that enables older adults, people with disabilities, and people with low incomes to remain independent, to work, and to travel. Rural areas present a unique challenge, with long distances and low population densities. If such places and such people are not to be left in the rear view mirror, then solutions must be developed and voices heard by the powers that be.

Congestion is not the problem in many places; less dense cities and regions have significant equity issues that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has just touched the surface of. Driverless has the potential for vast improvements on this score.

That's my rant for the week.

Scant update

I have hardly paid attention to driverless news in the past week, so here is a summary, just so I jot down what I think is important. For anyone out there who concentrates on this stuff, much is this will be old news to you.

Follow the money

Ford putting its money where its mouth is, both working on and investing in the shared-use driverless business model. The venture capital firm founded by Bill Ford, Jr. has put real money into nuTonomy, the company doing the robo-taxis in Singapore. 

Intel buying up start-up companies so that it can go full speed ahead in the driverless race. The latest buzz focuses on Intel's purchase of Itseez, a San Francisco company. One could think that hanging out at SF coffee places is the way to get get intelligence on start-ups to invest in or purchase for driverless and other tech races.

Everybody's making sausages

Nice state legislation update, especially regarding New York and Michigan. New York wants to clear a path for sale of driverless vehicles and shared-use driverless transportation. The legislation will also trash the requirement that a driver have a hand on the steering wheel at all times - because there might not be a steering wheel.

UK government talking legislation that will make manufacturers of driverless vehicles and technology liable in case of crashes and other incidents.

Hints of Tesla going from partially autonomous vehicles to fully autonomous? Reports that updates could be coming before late 2017.

On the roads now and soon in ...

Driverless vehicles soon to be tested on roads in Australia.

Japan unveils robo-taxi for G7 summit.

Have recent tests in Europe of driverless - or almost driverless - connected vehicle (CV) convoys of trucks inspired the hungry state of Michigan? Hungry, that is, for keeping all things vehicular manufacturing and development in the Motor State. Michigan roads will soon see CV convoys. Right now,  these will be convoys operating for testing purposes only. Interesting - it will be the US Army doing the testing.

Missed One - Stray NHTSA Comment

Another comment from Orbit City Lab, which has been somewhat terrorism focused. This time, Orbit City Lab states that "we should do our best to protect ourselves within reason from the possibility of autonomous vehicles being turned into weapons."

Couple More NHTSA Comments

Comment #1 today, which is NHTSA comment #55: This guy has no trust in the automobile companies. He feels the industry is already basically self-interested and self-regulated and wishes to continue down that road.

Comment #2 today, which is NHTSA comment #56: This comment is from the Alliance for Safer Cities (ASC). ASC compares the auto industry to the self-regulating airport security industry prior to 9/11. That's a pretty strong statement and, perhaps, not apt. (Does this guy trust the minimum wage TSA folks? Obviously, he has never taken El Al.) ASC has two points: The industry should not be trusted to regulate itself and we need to prevent terrorists from getting hold of driverless vehicles.

Considering that these comments are so concerned with deaths and injuries, one would think they would be more welcoming of driverless technology. That said, neither offers a framework for balancing innovation, safety, and standards. 

As for evildoers around the world who are willing to blow themselves up: There are rental cars and carshare vehicles available today and every day of the week if they want to perpetrate their dastardly deeds. Driverless vehicles will not offer any new opportunity - except for the possibility of hacking into a fleet (I'm thinking of adventure film crashes all over the place).

When the Queen Speaks, We Should Listen

Basically, Britain wishes to encourage development and adoption of advanced technologies, including, but not limited to, autonomous vehicles. For such a small country, there are a big bunch of driverless pilots going on or planned for the very near future.

Yesterday, the Queen gave a speech as part of her regal role at the start of a new Parliament. The text of the Queen's speech covers far-ranging topics and is a neat insight into the hopes and dreams of the UK legislature. And where they want to be is at the forefront of driverless technology.

On the other side of the pond - nothing in Congress

Although the Obama Administration is ambitious with a long-proposed $4 billion investment, that's never going to happen while Obama remains in office. Congress will not budge. I am hoping for a change in the next Congress.

New Models of Driverless Cars, Some Sticky

When I was a little girl, every Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) we would pass a car dealership, with new cars, on our walk to Sheepshead Bay, that's the real Brooklyn, to throw away our sins. It's true. That's why the bay needed to be cleaned up. But we could not pass that dealership without a big pause. My father loved to look at those new, shiny cars in the window.

Well, we are sufficiently into the driverless age that we are getting second and third generation prototypes.

Honda Acura - Seems fancy. No technology breakthroughs; no design wows. This is NOT completely autonomous, which Honda is saying is at least 15 years away. Translation: Honda is nowhere near ready. Here's a link to some more details and a video.

GM - Chevy Volt EV, with driverless sensors, spotted on the streets of San Francisco. We need Karl Malden and Michael Douglas to investigate. (If you are a millennial, you probably do not get the reference to the long-ago TV show, the Streets of San Francisco.) Here's the theme song.

Google - According to several reports (I'm linking to just one), Google has patented and is, presumably, adding to its driverless vehicles a system to be used when a car crashes for spreading or oozing a sticky substance, akin to flypaper, onto the exterior of the vehicle. Wait, this is brilliant. Meant as a pedestrian safety technique, the flypaper-like substance would stick to the hit pedestrian - gluing the person to the car - so that the pedestrian would not be flung and further injured. Messy, but not harmed as badly. On all normal days, the car would have an "eggshell like" covering so that ordinary leaning against a vehicle would not result in ruined clothes and sticky hands.

Another Bunch of NHTSA Comments

I'm just renumbering here and giving links. So, here's comment number one for today.

Comment #1: From SAE International, which has been doing research for DOT, the comment requests that NHTSA employ standard terms and definitions so that a plethora of confusing terms do not blossom like a garden of weeds after a summer rain. Okay, the comment did not use such language.

Comment #2: This comment is from the Future of Privacy Forum and, as the name suggests, privacy of data is the organization's concern. This is the worry in a nutshell.

... [T]here is a risk that information like pickup and dropoff locations may allow government agencies—or anyone else who obtains this information through FOIA and other mechanisms—to identify individual riders by associating it with publicly available records. 

Comment #3: Ford Motor Company, which sent a representative to both NHTSA hearings, submitted this comment. Safety? Data security? Data recorders in case of accidents? Ford is in favor. I think it votes in favor of motherhood and apple pie as well. It's an educated guess. Oh and the company says that it is looking forward to working with NHTSA for safe autonomous vehicles.

Comment #4: AAA submitted comments that raise a few issues. Here's two: data privacy and driver/operator training to use driverless vehicles. Okay, in my mind, the whole point of driverless is that I don't have to do anything but tell the vehicle where to go. I'm still dreaming of the tiny house that's driverless.

Comment #5: Google's comment discusses succinctly an important concern that 50 states with 50 laws and 50 different sets of definitions and requirements would be a nightmare - my word. In a nutshell, this is Google's point.

We strongly urge that the guidance to the states recommend that those states intending to regulate the deployment and operation of automated vehicle technologies adopt NHTSA's operational guidelines with respect to the safety of the vehicles rather than impose different, conflicting state rules. We have seen 15 states propose such laws over the last 12 months; all of which have different scope and different definitions. 

Comment #6: More from Google. The company comes out in favor of manufacturer self-certification that safety guidelines are met. Wow. Google is asking for a lot of trust and, let's face it, corporations have not always deserved that trust. They have not always looked out for the public good or even the good of their actual consumers.

Google talks about operational limits of vehicles on the way to full automation in all types of places and in all types of conditions. Add to that, Google's point that the vehicle must reliably recognize those limits. Has Google seen the Nvidia video?

One thing very heartening in Google's comment is the commitment to helping people with disabilities who are currently unable to operate our current driver-required cars.

In the interest of my own time, here's a list of issues/thoughts in Google's comment.

1. Data recording so that we learn from crashes and other performance errors. Google goes into the fact that for current vehicles, not all crashes are reported - only ones in which the police are involved. Google would like to see collection of broader sets of data and common standards that allow for comparison of data. (I hope I am reading that correctly.)

2. Fully autonomous vehicles should have good crash avoidance technology.

3. Full scope of testing and data privacy protections.

4. Encouragement that NHTSA allow for advances in sensor technology.

We therefore recommend any guidelines proposed by NHTSA should avoid focusing on being prescriptive about equipment and instead focus on overall performance. The functionality and reliability of components such as sensors should be examined as part of the vehicle manufacturer’s functional safety analysis as it pertains to the system or subsystem in which the component is used.

5. Google urging that NHTSA somehow block a patchwork of state laws.

6. Google - and me - wants permission for operation of vehicles without drivers and without driving equipment.

7. Google warns against closing off of innovation relating to technology to avoid crashes involving pedestrians - and, I presume, bikers, deer, etc.

8. Google foresees easier repairs in cases of recalls. The company wants to continue with existing regulatory standard.

9. Google wants NHTSA action to recognize value of computer simulations and modeling.

10. Google includes an appendix with scenario types used by its self-driving vehicle team.

Comment #7: This comment comes from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, meaning the old car companies, representing 77 percent of car and light truck sales. The crux of AAM's three-page comment is:

Facilitation of the deployment and adoption of Advanced Driver Assist Systems (ADAS), active safety systems and eventually driving automation technology starting with a nationally-applicable legal and regulatory framework that avoids a patchwork of state laws and regulations and maintains current selfcertification practices, will accelerate the availability of such technologies and achievement of the potential benefits. 

Everyone wants to avoid the nightmare of 50 different states with 50 different regulatory regimes, standards, and sets of definitions.

Comment #8: Delphi Automotive shares its "proven expertise" with NHTSA. That's Delphi's words - not that it's wrong, just bold. Delphi envisions a future that has both autonomous and connected vehicle technology. It's comments address both as part and parcel of future vehicles.

I'll number these as well. These companies are verbose. No judgment; I just don't have much time. This long comment goes way into the weeds - important, geeky weeds.

1. Definitions are important.

2. Operational boundaries and detection of those boundaries, which will all change over time as the technology becomes able to operate in more places and situations. The comment also covers the issue of partial automation and driver takeover. I love that Delphi mentions that it can take up to 40 seconds for a driver to takeover, even mentioning that a driver might be asleep when a takeover request is made. Thank you Delphi for raising this important consideration.

3. Delphi diplomatically suggests communication with and involvement with groups representing people with disabilities as we move toward a driverless future.

4. Delphi calls for archiving of data as the learning and development process happens - and thereafter. (Does data ever disappear?)

5. Delphi wants NHTSA timeline for crash avoidance to "not slip." Current deadline of 2016.

6. Yes to electronic and cyber safety.

7. List of some technical standards.

8. Nice discussion related to pedestrian safety and signage/signals for AV.

9. Need for recognition of emergency vehicles.

10. Discussion of recalls and in what circumstances AV should be permitted to continue to operate.

Comment #9: Orbit City Lab posits the "what if a terrorist/evildoer thing happens?"

Comment #10: Also from Orbit City Lab on the terrorism issue.

Comment #11: Comment from the Association of Global Automakers, meaning car companies outside the US. Here's the list of wants.

1. Again, that word "patchwork." No one wants it when it comes to different state laws with different standards and conduct permitted or prohibited.

2. AGA wants standard definitions.

3. Manufacturer flexibility. Not wanting to be hampered by slow regulatory approval processes.

4. Need to incorporate connected vehicle technology issues.

5. International harmony. Standard standards and singing kumbaya.

Comment #12: Oh gee, another Orbit Lab paranoid comment.

Comment #13: Ditto.

Go Britannia! Surging Ahead with Driverless Legislation

In bold legislation to be introduced tomorrow by the Queen of England - official title, Her Majesty the Queen - the United Kingdom will become the first country with a comprehensive national driverless law, if the legislation is passed. That legislation is lovely in its simplicity from what I have seen. I will check back after it is introduced and actually read the text of the introduced bill.

Can't be on the road without insurance

The bill would allow driverless vehicles on roads and consider them insurable under ordinary auto insurance policies - in four years. I do not have any details yet on what is planned for between passage of the bill and the strike of midnight at the four-year mark.

According to an article in the Guardian:

Britain is already well placed in the driverless car industry, partly because it is one of the European countries not to have ratified the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic that stipulates a driver must be in the front seat of a car.

Driverless transportation will be part of a speech the Queen is reportedly planning to give tomorrow when she speaks about cutting-edge technology that the UK wishes to remain a leader on, such as drones and space travel.

Queen's speech not actually written by Her Majesty

The Queen delivers a speech at the opening of parliament. The speech is merely delivered by the queen; she does not write it. BBC will, of course, cover the occasion. It will be at 10:30 UK time, which is 5:30 in the morning East Coast time. That's what video is for.  

Even Slow Car Companies Making Driverless Boasts

Remember when the car companies were talking down the idea of driverless transportation? Remember when, maybe a year and a half ago, or two years ago, they were saying it is a few decades away? Well, Google, Tesla and others have changed the tune of almost every company.

Here's the recent evidence. 

*  GM finalizes contract for purchase of Cruise Automation, which will remain in San Francisco.

*  BMW to have iNext, a fully autonomous car, on the road in 2021. There's also a new car in 2018, but I could not tell how advanced that vehicle will be.

*  Audi is testing a driverless car, its A7, on the autobahn. It plays well with others and does not exhibit any road rage. The article reports that its driving style is very human like, actually like a nice human who does not drive too fast or weirdly.

*  Renault is committed to introducing an affordable driverless car in 2020. The company is sponsoring a design competition at an arts college in London. The college, Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London, will have groups of students working on designs for the interiors of totally driverless cars.

And now, after years of speculation, the first solid evidence of Apple's driverless situation and plans. Seems that Apple's previous efforts in this direction were fruitless or showed that Apple was way too far behind in this race to catch up on its own. Now, taking advantage of the shared use model of transportation - sans drivers - Apple has bought up China's version of Uber, Didi Chuxing, commonly called Didi. Testing and operations in China have the benefit of a supportive government that is presently doing more to pave the way for driverless than the United States. That's the benefit of no democracy, though there are serious and depressing downsides.

Microsoft Counting on Total Connection and Varden Goes Cute

Microsoft is investing on the assumption that driverless vehicles and connected vehicles, and supportive infrastructure, will all happen at the same time. Indeed, even pedestrians will have to be connected - via phone, fitbit, or connected watch - to alert vehicles of their presence. 

What about dogs? Ten year olds playing street hockey or ball? Will they all require a chip before leaving the house?

The vehicle looks retro, not innovative at all, but the technology makes this video worthy of a couple of minutes of one's time.

Cute PR driverless category

I wish I were with one of these sweet people in the Varden driverless golf-cart-like vehicle. Except not with the guy who clearly is looking for action. 

Sunny Small Cities Lining Up to Go Driverless

Maybe it is something about sunshine combined with beaches, but the two states with municipalities actively planning for and eager to embrace driverless vehicles ASAP are in California and Florida. 

Chula Vista, California

Next door to San Diego, Chula Vista unsuccessfully applied for the $50 million DOT Smart Cities grant. But Chula Vista is taking advantage of the effort to envision itself as a smart city, including plans for the preliminary effort to test driverless vehicles in the city in HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) and bus-only lanes. 

This long video explains the efforts ongoing in the San Diego region.

Beverly Hills, California 

Beverly Hills is the first city to proclaim that it is planning for first mile/last mile driverless transit to connect residents to rail transit and to connect older adults and people with disabilities to activities and services in the community. 

Babcock Ranch, Florida

Right now, this "town" is on the drawing board and ground is just being shoveled to begin building what is a small city the size of Manhattan. Part of the plan agreed to with environmental groups is a sustainable, walkable town with energy efficient housing and business infrastructure, including a plan for driverless transportation, and maintaining an actual ranch and wildlife areas. 

NHTSA comment - Adding a Sniff Test

This comment is targeted at preventing the use of driverless vehicles as weapons.  The source of the comment is Orbit City Lab, a start up with pending patent applications involving such things as accessing transit in countries with different languages. 

Orbit City Lab would like to see required sniffing equipment in driverless vehicles that will allow for the vehicle to in some way disengage if explosives are detected.

Maybe we should put that equipment on all streets and buses, as well as at airports and train stations. Seems to me that the Boston Marathon bombers, as just one example, and the Belgian airport bombers as a second, did pretty well without the need for fancy technology. That's not to say that Orbit is wrong, merely to point out that however we manage to limit access to one type of terrorist opportunity, they really require no special equipment or venues to manage to do horrible damage.

Indeed, for all that quite a few of these terrorist folks seem fine with blowing themselves up, I don't see them using cars, buses, or trucks for coming here or elsewhere to inflict damage. Why allow any kind of rental vehicle now without sniffing technology?

This comment is not about driverless vehicles, but about any vehicle - in the present or future - as a means for killing and otherwise inflicting evil upon the world.

Like to Live in a Driverless Town? Integration of Transport

Remember in economics class when you learned about vertical and horizontal integration? Before the first fleet of self-driving vehicles hits our app list or the road, before the first convoy of driverless trucks delivers watermelons, cat food, and clothes you really don't need, integration, both horizontal and vertical, is starting to happen.

We are in the fascinating embryonic stage when all is possible and the realities of life in a self-driving world are not yet fixed.

A Florida developer and a town are planning big, a sustainable, walkable town with driverless transit.

A German railway is planning a multi-modal future that ferries train passengers to its driverless cars. Sounds very 19th century and luxurious. I would like those driverless taxis to allow for roll-on of luggage and instead of lifting heavy bags into trunks of cars. My request.

NHTSA Comment by Professional Engineers Group

There's a bit of a conflict of interest when your comments say both "We need a gatekeeper!" and "We should be that gatekeeper!" The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) is asking NHTSA and the State of California to slow down on the road to self-driving transportation, well slow down at least until NSPE is designated as the developer of standards, perhaps, but definitely the arbiter of what model vehicles pass muster before being permitted on the road.

Maybe I am way too cynical. Maybe I just disagree with a go-slow-approach when a planeload full of people die on our nation's roads each week as human drivers fall asleep, drive while intoxicated, try to get the kids to pipe down, or spend a second too long looking at something pretty outside.

What data is being entered into this equation?

Seems to me that a scientific organization would look at the data and make calculations. On one side of that equation, the human driver side, there are a whole lot of deaths and lives significantly changed due to auto crashes. That side is not even mentioned in the NSPE comments.

I agree with NPSE pushing technology-neutral standards and a watchdog to make sure standards are met and inspections are performed and performed diligently. The agreement ends there.

This is NPSE's bottom line. I guess no one at that association has watched the Nvidia video or the videos of the Ford driverless vehicles.

 [T]he notice asked what aspects of autonomous vehicle technology may not yet be suitable for guidelines. As stated earlier, there are still major thresholds for safety that must be met. We do not believe that the technology has yet advanced enough to deploy fully autonomous vehicles. Deploying such cars when there are still issues with navigating in inclement weather, merging at intersections, responding to nonautonomous vehicles, responding to road hazards or sub-optimal operating conditions—in short, responding to the unexpected and variable conditions that manned vehicles routinely face on the roadway today—a vehicle without an operator poses a major threat to the public safety. Let’s acknowledge the current limitations of the technology, work within those limitations, and take an important first step, not a final one, to develop and deploy technology that offers significant but as-yet-unproven promises for improved transportation efficiency and safety.”

I agree with the following reasoning in favor of a disinterested judge, but I do not believe that a group so doubtful about the technology will consider it in a timely and fair fashion.

Public safety is best served when there is someone in the decision chain who has a duty that overrides competitive pressures to be first to market or surpass other manufacturers’ offerings. Someone who has a clear and enforceable duty that overrides even peer pressure to be a team player and not the department or group within the corporation whose legitimate safety concerns might delay a high-stakes project. 

I hope that the Department of Transportation, or one of its agencies within the department, can be that judge or be the neutral party to select such a judging entity.

Post-California-Hearing Comments to NHTSA

Comment #1 - Remember how some teachers say there are no stupid questions? Some teacher would be going off to the teachers lounge hysterically laughing at the equivalent of this comment to the NHTSA. Has this person no idea of what computers are capable of? This person is wondering about the knowledge we humans store in our heads, knowledge like where the kids play on the block and where deer congregate in the mornings. Hon, hate to tell you, but software can do that better than we can. Plus, a machine is more likely to say it is unable to drive than a human when something is wrong.

Comment #2 - This comment reiterates a theme that everyone seems in agreement about, that driverless vehicles should all have the equivalent of the black box on airplanes. In case of a crash or other mishap, the black box recorder will show what happened. This comment specifies that the operation of the software - its trail of activity - must be somehow recorded.

Comment #3 - Maybe I am cranky today, but why are these comments raising silly questions? Yes, accidents will occur. Yes, the legal system and insurance companies will be involved. Yes, the litigants and the courts will figure out whom should be held responsible. It's not rocket science; it's litigation in a system that has been operating for hundreds of years.

Did we not put ships out on the sea to explore knowing full well that some would capsize in storms? We never would have had the Age of Discovery had the first concern with every technological and other kind of advance had been who is going to be liable when something happens.

Trust me, lawyers, judges, and clients who want to reduce legal fees will figure this out or lobby legislators to write some across-the-board solutions called laws.

University Driverless War: Michigan and Texas Strive to Be Leaders

Michigan and Texas are investing heavily in driverless research facilities and working to lure private companies with big bucks. Driverless advancement is not the only venture contemplated. Robotics and artificial intelligence are also on those lists. 

Toyota is going to Ann Arbor to team up with the University of Michigan. This is another billion dollar venture and represents Toyota's third research center, the first two being in Palo Alto, CA, at Stanford, and Cambridge, MA, at MIT. I know this has been reported before, but I like the article.

Texas A&M, a school I know pretty much nothing about, is taking a big risk and investing in a huge campus expansion,10 miles from its existing campus, to allow for the type of public-private gown/corporate partnership that Toyota is doing in Michigan. But the Texas plan is a "build it and they will come" venture to be built at a World War II-era site. This will be a $150 million investment.

Wise investments as the giant is ahead?

Meanwhile Google is planning on making driverless minivans with Chrysler. The signatures, however, are not yet on any documents. When the documents are signed, that deal will fuel driverless media speculation for a while.