Maybe it's just me, and admittedly I am crazy when it comes to the whole issue of self-driving vehicles as a game changer, but this is really big news - at least as reported by the LA-area Canyon News.
The US Conference of Mayors (USCM), at the prompting resolution of Beverly Hills, has adopted a resolution in favor of moving full speed ahead to get driverless transit shuttles in cities across the nation ASAP. They want people to take transit; they want safe transportation. They want the future - and they don't want to wait.
Why transit should be part of a driverless near future
The question is how can transit, private companies, public works agencies, healthcare organizations, and our citizens can together make the USCM resolution turn into wheels on the ground. Whether shuttles come from Local Motors, Varden Labs, nuTonomy, or EasyMile or from conventional vehicle manufacturers; whether these shuttles are operated by transit or by private operators (FYI: I'm rooting for progressive transit systems here) - the mayors have voiced support for better transit. I am encouraged and happy because we are not only talking taxibots and transportation further divided between the have and have nots.
Good transit is highly equitable AND attractive. If you're going from Midtown to Union Square, to use a New York example, no car or taxi will get you between those points as fast as the N or the R on the subway. It takes about three minutes. Probably not even in the middle of the night could a taxi or Uber compete with the speed of the subway. It shouldn't only be New York City and a few other places in our country that have the advantage of being transit rich.
Let's not forget the drivers
Good that we have devoted transit (and truck) drivers and that many of them are represented by strong unions. I hope those unions get retirement benefits for those ready to retire and that younger drivers have the opportunity for other jobs, for education, or for a transition to other fields. But even if we are concerned about drivers, change is coming. Even effective unions cannot prevent that. Remember the taxi companies - all the litigation and regulation did not stop Uber. It won't stop driverless either.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
PR Message: We're Really Close
I'm reading the same tea leaves as anyone who is glued to the driverless news. What came across my laptop screen today was like a slap in the face or a bucket of cold water thrown over my head. The tea leaves are screaming now "WAKE UP!, Driverless is super close," if not ready. That does not mean that tomorrow we will see these vehicles everywhere, but it does mean that the following companies and agencies would not be spouting what is below unless the technology were already there.
Evidence from China
Chinese Google counterpart Baidu is publicly committing itself to driverless mass production in five years, after testing in 10 cities.
You can't predict with such confidence unless you already have the vehicles. Now it's a question of developing public confidence, a legal framework, and mass production facilities.
Evidence from the down under neighborhood
A New Zealand transit conference audience was told this week that sometime between now and 2035, though the speaker is betting on 2020, that driverless transit buses will be in operation and penetrating the market. Obviously this is a progressive transit conference - and likely not an audience with belligerent union labor. We're not talking Hong Kong, New York, San Francisco, London (they are otherwise engaged with Brexit at the moment), Paris or some other major city. This is New Zealand, with cities like Wellington and Auckland. If driverless will be happening there within 10 years, you are talking Poughkeepsie, Providence, Sacramento, and Omaha. (I predict NYC will be last because those bus drivers will not be getting out of the drivers seat without a fight.)
Evidence of cute, bunny shuttles reproducing
Transdev, a manufacturer of cute - my word - driverless shuttles that operate on private campuses - meaning private, unregulated, roads - is looking for opportunities. Now that cute shuttles have popped up all over, this company is seeking paying customers who are early adopters, like the people who bought the original Apple computers in the early 80s. (I did my first resume on that thing; you had to manually code everything. It was my brother in law's and he bought it for drafting his PhD thesis.)
Transdev will compete with others in a field getting crowded with cute driverless transit - or transit-like - shuttles. There's Olli from Local Motors, the taxibots in Singapore, EasyMile, etc.
Maybe my dream for some driverless demonstrations in the next year will come true. Now there's competition. A dollar a ride? Ride free? I'm hoping.
Evidence from China
Chinese Google counterpart Baidu is publicly committing itself to driverless mass production in five years, after testing in 10 cities.
You can't predict with such confidence unless you already have the vehicles. Now it's a question of developing public confidence, a legal framework, and mass production facilities.
Evidence from the down under neighborhood
A New Zealand transit conference audience was told this week that sometime between now and 2035, though the speaker is betting on 2020, that driverless transit buses will be in operation and penetrating the market. Obviously this is a progressive transit conference - and likely not an audience with belligerent union labor. We're not talking Hong Kong, New York, San Francisco, London (they are otherwise engaged with Brexit at the moment), Paris or some other major city. This is New Zealand, with cities like Wellington and Auckland. If driverless will be happening there within 10 years, you are talking Poughkeepsie, Providence, Sacramento, and Omaha. (I predict NYC will be last because those bus drivers will not be getting out of the drivers seat without a fight.)
Evidence of cute, bunny shuttles reproducing
Transdev, a manufacturer of cute - my word - driverless shuttles that operate on private campuses - meaning private, unregulated, roads - is looking for opportunities. Now that cute shuttles have popped up all over, this company is seeking paying customers who are early adopters, like the people who bought the original Apple computers in the early 80s. (I did my first resume on that thing; you had to manually code everything. It was my brother in law's and he bought it for drafting his PhD thesis.)
Transdev will compete with others in a field getting crowded with cute driverless transit - or transit-like - shuttles. There's Olli from Local Motors, the taxibots in Singapore, EasyMile, etc.
Maybe my dream for some driverless demonstrations in the next year will come true. Now there's competition. A dollar a ride? Ride free? I'm hoping.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Watch Out Michigan: Massachusetts Has Snow Too
There's work being done in Michigan to enable driverless vehicles to safely navigate snowy and icy streets, but there's snow in Massachusetts as well. MIT's Lincoln Laboratory released a video that explains how its system works.
Apparently, the car uses radar to detect what is beneath the vehicle down through the roadbed. Very different, I imagine, from the Nvidia system that uses AI to self-drive in various roadway situations.
Apparently, the car uses radar to detect what is beneath the vehicle down through the roadbed. Very different, I imagine, from the Nvidia system that uses AI to self-drive in various roadway situations.
For NHTSA: Ford Goes Confidential
In a straggler comment to the NHTSA concerning upcoming guidance or regulations regarding driverless vehicles, the Ford Motor Company has spouted text that says absolutely nothing and submitted an attachment of several pages, all of them marked "ENTIRE PAGE BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL."
So much for public comments.
I realize there is confidential proprietary information that companies are entitled to keep under wraps, however, it would be good PR for Ford to release at least a redacted document.
More troubling is the friendly tete a tete at the NHTSA hearings between the Ford representative and others in the industry and on the NHTSA dais. This is a familiarity that concerned citizens, representatives of people with disabilities, and others can never match. It is not impropriety, but there is the appearance, if not the distinct smell, of it.
I say this even though I admire Ford's forward thinking re-interpretation of itself as a mobility company rather than a mere purveyor of vehicles.
So much for public comments.
I realize there is confidential proprietary information that companies are entitled to keep under wraps, however, it would be good PR for Ford to release at least a redacted document.
More troubling is the friendly tete a tete at the NHTSA hearings between the Ford representative and others in the industry and on the NHTSA dais. This is a familiarity that concerned citizens, representatives of people with disabilities, and others can never match. It is not impropriety, but there is the appearance, if not the distinct smell, of it.
I say this even though I admire Ford's forward thinking re-interpretation of itself as a mobility company rather than a mere purveyor of vehicles.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
UK, Japan Serious About Driverless for Seniors and People with Disabilities
I love this article out of England. There's a project that mixes driverless with transit, technology for people with disabilities, and transportation apps. This is definitely a complete trip perspective. The article discusses a technology firm in Coventry in connection with the University of Warwick Science Park's Venture Centre (which sounds more like the name of a children's museum).
The technology to assist people with disabilities is impressive. For instance, there is a whole tactile element for people with visual disabilities.
Growing market of older people
Toyota gets this. The Toyota video below sends a clear message and, although the narration is in Japanese, anyone can understand that message, that there is a huge market in serving older people who do not drive or who are - or should be - cutting back on driving or not driving entirely.
Solar tidbit
Just for fun, read this piece about an entirely autonomous boat that is traveling across the Atlantic Ocean from Boston to Portugal. The boat is operating solely on solar energy. The guys who built the boat did the work in their spare time. Very neat. You can follow the vessel as well. It is currently approximately 20 percent of the way to its destination.
The technology to assist people with disabilities is impressive. For instance, there is a whole tactile element for people with visual disabilities.
Growing market of older people
Toyota gets this. The Toyota video below sends a clear message and, although the narration is in Japanese, anyone can understand that message, that there is a huge market in serving older people who do not drive or who are - or should be - cutting back on driving or not driving entirely.
Solar tidbit
Just for fun, read this piece about an entirely autonomous boat that is traveling across the Atlantic Ocean from Boston to Portugal. The boat is operating solely on solar energy. The guys who built the boat did the work in their spare time. Very neat. You can follow the vessel as well. It is currently approximately 20 percent of the way to its destination.
Musical Chairs and Hiring Sprees
I'm just going to put links here. This is not my area of interest, but the hiring back and forth - hence the musical chairs - and the fevered pairings/takeovers, in my opinion, come out of a sense of desperation that no matter how much money one puts into driverless technology and manufacturing, there will be winners and losers. And no one knows whom that will be.
Nvidia and NYU partner. (Scroll down.)
Partnership of Renault, the Israeli the Alternative Fuels Administration, and Tel Aviv University.
GM invests in Canada and starts hiring engineers. Reportedly this is all about driverless.
Long article about musical chairs among car companies, start ups, and Silicon Valley as they vy for talent and eat up smaller entities with tons of cash.
Nvidia and NYU partner. (Scroll down.)
Partnership of Renault, the Israeli the Alternative Fuels Administration, and Tel Aviv University.
GM invests in Canada and starts hiring engineers. Reportedly this is all about driverless.
Long article about musical chairs among car companies, start ups, and Silicon Valley as they vy for talent and eat up smaller entities with tons of cash.
Friday, June 10, 2016
Catching Up
Just the updates for right now.
George Hotz and Comma.ai still aiming for late 2016 release for their gizmo to make existing cars turn into driverless ones (at least on the highways) and for gathering driver data with an app - Chafr.
First insurer to go all out with a policy for self-driving cars and partially driverless is in the UK.
Toronto council member pushing for plan for driverless buses.
Why stop at a vehicle? There's a passenger drone, kind of a driverless helicopter, approved for testing in Nevada. Drone taxi anyone?
Speaking of flying, Google co-founder Larry Page is deep into inventing (and, presumably, selling, renting, or share-using) flying cars. The report claims this is easier to accomplish than driverless vehicles, but isn't flying way more three dimensional? Just to be clear, these would be self-flying. No pilot's license necessary. Beyond George Jetson.
I have to look at this more closely. The NHTSA Administrator has expressed in public the need for government guidelines that will allow innovation to proceed regarding self-driving vehicles. The word regulation was not used. Mark Rosekind emphasized that we need to improve our safety record and noted that we kill a large airplane's worth of people with human-operated vehicles every week - just in the US.
Comments on NHTSA comments.
And lots and lots of buzz about rumors that Uber will take over Daimler or some other auto manufacturer, partner with an auto manufacturer (maybe Fiat Chrysler, but other names mentioned), or be taken over. I'm not going to give a source because this is super easy to find. The one thing that is significant is the big pile of money from Saudi sources being put into Uber, whose valuation is - not actual value, I think - is higher than that of conventional car companies. I mention this because of Uber's substantial investment in and testing of driverless vehicles.
Is Tesla in denial?
Another Tesla crash and Tesla is again blaming the driver - after reviewing crash data. Fortunately, the crash was not serious; it happened when the car accelerated while parking. Similar Tesla argument as it has previously spouted, that the driver had switched off autopilot. When will Tesla learn that partially autonomous is a recipe for disaster? It is the company's fault, in my opinion, if it puts out a vehicle that was designed to "understand" how a sometimes software/sometimes human-controlled vehicle works without itself understanding and testing how humans would act in those circumstances. I'd like to write a brief for that plaintiff in the inevitable lawsuit - unless Tesla quietly settles soon, which is likely.
I'm also reading in various sources about GM CEO statements that the company is holding onto steering wheels, brakes and other human-operated equipment. I am presuming that GM is not as advanced as it would like to be and is likely jealous of the companies that are further along in this regard. A couple of years ago it was saying that driverless vehicles were decades away. Now it is investing billions and making deals. GM will stay wedded to the idea of steering wheels etc. until it has developed - or purchased a company that has developed - a fully autonomous vehicle without such human-operator equipment.
George Hotz and Comma.ai still aiming for late 2016 release for their gizmo to make existing cars turn into driverless ones (at least on the highways) and for gathering driver data with an app - Chafr.
First insurer to go all out with a policy for self-driving cars and partially driverless is in the UK.
Toronto council member pushing for plan for driverless buses.
Why stop at a vehicle? There's a passenger drone, kind of a driverless helicopter, approved for testing in Nevada. Drone taxi anyone?
Speaking of flying, Google co-founder Larry Page is deep into inventing (and, presumably, selling, renting, or share-using) flying cars. The report claims this is easier to accomplish than driverless vehicles, but isn't flying way more three dimensional? Just to be clear, these would be self-flying. No pilot's license necessary. Beyond George Jetson.
I have to look at this more closely. The NHTSA Administrator has expressed in public the need for government guidelines that will allow innovation to proceed regarding self-driving vehicles. The word regulation was not used. Mark Rosekind emphasized that we need to improve our safety record and noted that we kill a large airplane's worth of people with human-operated vehicles every week - just in the US.
Comments on NHTSA comments.
And lots and lots of buzz about rumors that Uber will take over Daimler or some other auto manufacturer, partner with an auto manufacturer (maybe Fiat Chrysler, but other names mentioned), or be taken over. I'm not going to give a source because this is super easy to find. The one thing that is significant is the big pile of money from Saudi sources being put into Uber, whose valuation is - not actual value, I think - is higher than that of conventional car companies. I mention this because of Uber's substantial investment in and testing of driverless vehicles.
Is Tesla in denial?
Another Tesla crash and Tesla is again blaming the driver - after reviewing crash data. Fortunately, the crash was not serious; it happened when the car accelerated while parking. Similar Tesla argument as it has previously spouted, that the driver had switched off autopilot. When will Tesla learn that partially autonomous is a recipe for disaster? It is the company's fault, in my opinion, if it puts out a vehicle that was designed to "understand" how a sometimes software/sometimes human-controlled vehicle works without itself understanding and testing how humans would act in those circumstances. I'd like to write a brief for that plaintiff in the inevitable lawsuit - unless Tesla quietly settles soon, which is likely.
I'm also reading in various sources about GM CEO statements that the company is holding onto steering wheels, brakes and other human-operated equipment. I am presuming that GM is not as advanced as it would like to be and is likely jealous of the companies that are further along in this regard. A couple of years ago it was saying that driverless vehicles were decades away. Now it is investing billions and making deals. GM will stay wedded to the idea of steering wheels etc. until it has developed - or purchased a company that has developed - a fully autonomous vehicle without such human-operator equipment.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
Yet More Comments to NHTSA - Just Two
Comment #1: The Association of Global Automakers (Global Automakers) wishes to avoid a patchwork of state laws, to encourage innovation and safety, with technology-neutral guidance. In common with other comments, Global Automakers wishes to retain the current recall system.
Comment #2: This comment is actually a list of questions related to software safety. The author has been in the software field for 40 years. Though these are questions, they are leading ones and they advocate in favor of regulation and expert oversight of artificial intelligence and other driverless software. These are good questions to ask, but I on the fence about whether, if taken as a whole, the message would be to stifle innovation.
I have already covered the NHTSA public hearings, but here are the recently released transcripts.
Transcript of public comments made at Apr. 8, 2016 hearing in DC.
Transcript of public comments made at Apr. 27, 2016 hearing in California.
Comment #2: This comment is actually a list of questions related to software safety. The author has been in the software field for 40 years. Though these are questions, they are leading ones and they advocate in favor of regulation and expert oversight of artificial intelligence and other driverless software. These are good questions to ask, but I on the fence about whether, if taken as a whole, the message would be to stifle innovation.
I have already covered the NHTSA public hearings, but here are the recently released transcripts.
Transcript of public comments made at Apr. 8, 2016 hearing in DC.
Transcript of public comments made at Apr. 27, 2016 hearing in California.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Many More NHTSA Comments
I should number these with the NHTSA numbers, but the links are here. These are from the last couple of weeks, when work and vacation interfered with other parts of life.
Comment #1: Safe Driving MN (SDMN) submitted in writing its statement to NHTSA, which was eloquently delivered at the DC hearing in April. SDMN is advocating for self-driving vehicles to be accessible to people with disabilities. They make a very good case for innovation and inclusion.
Comment #2: This comment is a call for sensors that detect explosives be embedded in autonomous vehicles, particularly roaming taxis.
Comment #3: I don't think the American people are fixated on this, but there's a large number of people paying attention to driverless vehicles who equate them with the next big thing in terrorism. This is another comment calling for sensors for explosives.
Comment #4: The Disability Right Education and Defense Fund (DREDR), a national organization, asks NHTSA to take advantage of this revolutionary time in vehicle development to require equal access for people with a broad spectrum of disabilities. Except for the weird analogy to the liberation women experienced with automatic washing machines, the comments represent an effective piece of advocacy for moving past the ADA to true equity in travel. They did not mention the ADA's inadequacies, I am. It's the elephant in the room.
This is DREDR's case in a nutshell.
Comment #6: This is from the American Trucking Associations (ATA). Yes, that's the plural of association. So relieved this is not another terrorism-paranoid comment. ATA wants:
1. Complete flexibility with the use of partial or complete autonomous driving technology,
2. Government investment in research and testing,
3. Cybersecurity and self-diagnosing technology,
4. A dedicated bandwidth for connected-vehicle technology, and
5. Display screens and electronic logging devices that do not distract the driver - if there is one (the last part is me).
Comment #7: Can't go long without a terrorism-related comment. Here's another one.
Do these people think that (a) terrorism will be everywhere with driverless vehicles, and (b) there will be no terrorism opportunity if we have some magic device in driverless vehicles? History shows, I believe, that terrorism is generally low tech and done in places without security devices, though sometimes under the noses of police (i.e., the Boston Marathon bombing). Unfortunately, this is our world. I wish driverless vehicles were magic, but they will not be. Even I will be worried this summer when one of my children will be all over Europe, at airports, in train stations, and in public places. I work near the White House. This is something that crosses my mind frequently. Make that magic device and share it with me. But driverless vehicles are no different than rental or other vehicles we have today. You can put any kind of box you want in them. I hope we choose good and not evil.
One more batch of comments that arrived this morning in my inbox
Comment #8: Oh yes, another terrorism-related comment. Don't these people have some work to do?
Comment #9: This comment is from the American Motorcyclist Association. They are also paranoid about hackers, but in terms of privacy and weird vehicle maneuvers on the roads. I admit that when I saw AMA, I thought the comment would be from a medical association. This AMA, the motorcyclist one, supports research for driverless vehicles and the safety and privacy of motorcyclists.
Comment #10: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - Highway Loss Data Institute (IIHS) offered a bland comment, mainly about requiring the collection of specific data in structured formats, basically so that apples can be compared to apples instead of oranges. Data is valuable to number crunching operations at insurance companies, which are busy assessing the risks of driverless technology. In the quest for more data, IIHS is asking that companies operating driverless vehicles - i.e., the Google cars and others on real roads - supply detailed information in every instance of a crash or incident in which a human takes over the wheel (if there is one). They also want something akin to flight data recorders in every vehicle. Oh, and they would like cybersecurity and electronic systems safety.
Comment #11: I know this guy. Sort of. We converse on Twitter. He is English, I think. James Welling, of Speedy Sticks Consulting, is concerned about the accessibility of driverless vehicles for people with disabilities. Welling advocates for unmanned testing of these vehicles in different weather and traffic conditions. He offers a miles per casualty (MPC) performance standard to be established before driverless vehicles are permitted to be operated with unlicensed passengers aboard. Welling goes into much more detail about this. He also wants something akin to an emergency chord or elevator button that could immediately shut down a vehicle.
Comment #12: A big, potential loser in the driverless revolution will possibly be the association that submitted this comment, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA). I would not not want to hear their thoughts on Tesla or Uber. The comment is pretty much in favor of motherhood and apple pie. NADA's one meaningful statement is the suggestion that autonomous vehicles be subject to the same recall system as conventional vehicles.
Comment #13: This comment is from a true automobile safety expert, Kenneth Saczalski, who has done work for decades for IIHS, NHTSA, and Transport Canada, among others. He advocates for vehicle safety regulations that go further than ones for current vehicles, specifically mentioning rear impact and rollovers. He believes structural protections should be in place because roof equipment, sensors, increase the risk of roof crush when rollovers occur. He goes into detail about a few other safety issues as well. Saczalski shows concern for the "drivers" of Google vehicles and others because they are being subject to risks. Very interesting.
Comment #14: Volvo offers a 14-page response to each of NHTSA's queries. Not all responses are created equal, so I am just going to list the Volvo highlights.
1. Recommendation of a holistic safety and impact evaluation method. Others have the requisite knowledge to judge this detailed comment, but not me. It is detailed and thoughtful.
2. Volvo only conceives of a vehicle in which there is a driver who can take over and equipment for he or she to do so.
3. Methods for detecting the operational limits of sensors.
4. Explanation of types of sensors. No AI mentioned.
5. In terms of data recorders, Volvo will comply with the law. It is collecting lots of data during the testing and pilot phases.
6. Thank you Volvo. Cyber and other security issues are not unique to autonomous vehicles (AV).
7. Volvo recommends: EU CAE simulation voluntary working group P.E.A.R.S.
8. Currently, Volvo's AVs do not interact with, but rather respond to pedestrians.
9. In the case of an AV recall, the AV system will be incapable of activating.
10. "Volvo is open for discussions on platforms for data sharing."
Comment #15: An actual Congressperson submitted a public comment. The comment is from Daniel Lipinski from the Third District of Illinois, which includes a bit of Chicago and the southwest suburbs, not to be confused with the tony, wealthier suburbs north of the city or the hipster neighborhoods north of the Loop. Lipinski is in favor of AV and authored a tech-friendly transportation bill that was mostly incorporated into the FAST Act, the current US transportation law. He believes that now is the time for innovation and communication among stakeholders (my word), which means states as well (his expressed wish), and not for regulation. He is encouraged by how NHTSA is proceeding.
Here's a quote.
Comment #1: Safe Driving MN (SDMN) submitted in writing its statement to NHTSA, which was eloquently delivered at the DC hearing in April. SDMN is advocating for self-driving vehicles to be accessible to people with disabilities. They make a very good case for innovation and inclusion.
Comment #2: This comment is a call for sensors that detect explosives be embedded in autonomous vehicles, particularly roaming taxis.
Comment #3: I don't think the American people are fixated on this, but there's a large number of people paying attention to driverless vehicles who equate them with the next big thing in terrorism. This is another comment calling for sensors for explosives.
Comment #4: The Disability Right Education and Defense Fund (DREDR), a national organization, asks NHTSA to take advantage of this revolutionary time in vehicle development to require equal access for people with a broad spectrum of disabilities. Except for the weird analogy to the liberation women experienced with automatic washing machines, the comments represent an effective piece of advocacy for moving past the ADA to true equity in travel. They did not mention the ADA's inadequacies, I am. It's the elephant in the room.
This is DREDR's case in a nutshell.
We urge NHTSA, software developers, designers and manufacturers to keep in mind that a car that can operate in autonomous mode without driver intervention can make an incredible difference in the life of a person with a disability, but not if they can’t open the door to use it, can’t enter with their wheelchair, hear instructions from the vehicle, or access a screen to give operating directions.Comment #5: I think this one is also terrorism related, but I'm not certain.
Comment #6: This is from the American Trucking Associations (ATA). Yes, that's the plural of association. So relieved this is not another terrorism-paranoid comment. ATA wants:
1. Complete flexibility with the use of partial or complete autonomous driving technology,
2. Government investment in research and testing,
3. Cybersecurity and self-diagnosing technology,
4. A dedicated bandwidth for connected-vehicle technology, and
5. Display screens and electronic logging devices that do not distract the driver - if there is one (the last part is me).
Comment #7: Can't go long without a terrorism-related comment. Here's another one.
Do these people think that (a) terrorism will be everywhere with driverless vehicles, and (b) there will be no terrorism opportunity if we have some magic device in driverless vehicles? History shows, I believe, that terrorism is generally low tech and done in places without security devices, though sometimes under the noses of police (i.e., the Boston Marathon bombing). Unfortunately, this is our world. I wish driverless vehicles were magic, but they will not be. Even I will be worried this summer when one of my children will be all over Europe, at airports, in train stations, and in public places. I work near the White House. This is something that crosses my mind frequently. Make that magic device and share it with me. But driverless vehicles are no different than rental or other vehicles we have today. You can put any kind of box you want in them. I hope we choose good and not evil.
One more batch of comments that arrived this morning in my inbox
Comment #8: Oh yes, another terrorism-related comment. Don't these people have some work to do?
Comment #9: This comment is from the American Motorcyclist Association. They are also paranoid about hackers, but in terms of privacy and weird vehicle maneuvers on the roads. I admit that when I saw AMA, I thought the comment would be from a medical association. This AMA, the motorcyclist one, supports research for driverless vehicles and the safety and privacy of motorcyclists.
Comment #10: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - Highway Loss Data Institute (IIHS) offered a bland comment, mainly about requiring the collection of specific data in structured formats, basically so that apples can be compared to apples instead of oranges. Data is valuable to number crunching operations at insurance companies, which are busy assessing the risks of driverless technology. In the quest for more data, IIHS is asking that companies operating driverless vehicles - i.e., the Google cars and others on real roads - supply detailed information in every instance of a crash or incident in which a human takes over the wheel (if there is one). They also want something akin to flight data recorders in every vehicle. Oh, and they would like cybersecurity and electronic systems safety.
Comment #11: I know this guy. Sort of. We converse on Twitter. He is English, I think. James Welling, of Speedy Sticks Consulting, is concerned about the accessibility of driverless vehicles for people with disabilities. Welling advocates for unmanned testing of these vehicles in different weather and traffic conditions. He offers a miles per casualty (MPC) performance standard to be established before driverless vehicles are permitted to be operated with unlicensed passengers aboard. Welling goes into much more detail about this. He also wants something akin to an emergency chord or elevator button that could immediately shut down a vehicle.
Comment #12: A big, potential loser in the driverless revolution will possibly be the association that submitted this comment, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA). I would not not want to hear their thoughts on Tesla or Uber. The comment is pretty much in favor of motherhood and apple pie. NADA's one meaningful statement is the suggestion that autonomous vehicles be subject to the same recall system as conventional vehicles.
Comment #13: This comment is from a true automobile safety expert, Kenneth Saczalski, who has done work for decades for IIHS, NHTSA, and Transport Canada, among others. He advocates for vehicle safety regulations that go further than ones for current vehicles, specifically mentioning rear impact and rollovers. He believes structural protections should be in place because roof equipment, sensors, increase the risk of roof crush when rollovers occur. He goes into detail about a few other safety issues as well. Saczalski shows concern for the "drivers" of Google vehicles and others because they are being subject to risks. Very interesting.
Comment #14: Volvo offers a 14-page response to each of NHTSA's queries. Not all responses are created equal, so I am just going to list the Volvo highlights.
1. Recommendation of a holistic safety and impact evaluation method. Others have the requisite knowledge to judge this detailed comment, but not me. It is detailed and thoughtful.
2. Volvo only conceives of a vehicle in which there is a driver who can take over and equipment for he or she to do so.
3. Methods for detecting the operational limits of sensors.
4. Explanation of types of sensors. No AI mentioned.
5. In terms of data recorders, Volvo will comply with the law. It is collecting lots of data during the testing and pilot phases.
6. Thank you Volvo. Cyber and other security issues are not unique to autonomous vehicles (AV).
7. Volvo recommends: EU CAE simulation voluntary working group P.E.A.R.S.
8. Currently, Volvo's AVs do not interact with, but rather respond to pedestrians.
9. In the case of an AV recall, the AV system will be incapable of activating.
10. "Volvo is open for discussions on platforms for data sharing."
Comment #15: An actual Congressperson submitted a public comment. The comment is from Daniel Lipinski from the Third District of Illinois, which includes a bit of Chicago and the southwest suburbs, not to be confused with the tony, wealthier suburbs north of the city or the hipster neighborhoods north of the Loop. Lipinski is in favor of AV and authored a tech-friendly transportation bill that was mostly incorporated into the FAST Act, the current US transportation law. He believes that now is the time for innovation and communication among stakeholders (my word), which means states as well (his expressed wish), and not for regulation. He is encouraged by how NHTSA is proceeding.
Here's a quote.
I was a co-author of the Future TRIP Act, of which key provisions became law in the FAST Act. Specifically, the language directed the Department of Transportation (DOT) to create update its strategic research plan and to focus resources on top priorities. In a time when the technology that enables automated vehicles is rapidly advancing, I firmly believe that we must continue to promote research and development with the goal of full deployment of automated vehicles on our roads and highways.Oh crap! More comments in my inbox this morning. I need a break.
Monday, June 6, 2016
Accessible, Driverless Pods - Now, and Zoox Mobile Coming
Tomorrow - as in this week, a company out of Coventry, England, RDM Group, will be unveiling its accessible, self-driving pods, called Pod Zero, that go 15 mph with a 60-mile range before needing to be recharged. The pods are designed for campus-like settings of airports, corporate facilities, shopping centers, and theme parks. I can definitely see these in retirement communities and even as feeder/shuttle services for transit and local outings.
Not sure this is what Beverly Hills is considering.
The company is ramping up in anticipation of millions of dollars (well, English pounds) worth of new orders.
I saw this guy
If I'm right, I saw this guy, Tim Kentley-Klay, from Zoox, speak at the California NHTSA hearing. Turns out Zoox is working on a really cool idea, which is to have a completely redesigned vehicle - not a reconfigured car - that is completely self-driving. A prototype is planned for 2020. His eventual business model is something a la Uber.
Zoox is investing and integrating AI into its vehicle, a la Hotz at Comma.AI, and Nvidia - but with a vehicle that rethinks what we want in one when we won't need steering wheels, conventional dashboards, and the kinds of windshields we have now. Zoox has a permit to test its vehicles in California.
I've mentioned Zoox a few times before, when Zoox: (1) Received its permit to test in California, (2) Representative spoke at the NHTSA hearing, and (3) Was injected with an infusion of money, which was only last week or the week before.
Not sure this is what Beverly Hills is considering.
The company is ramping up in anticipation of millions of dollars (well, English pounds) worth of new orders.
I saw this guy
If I'm right, I saw this guy, Tim Kentley-Klay, from Zoox, speak at the California NHTSA hearing. Turns out Zoox is working on a really cool idea, which is to have a completely redesigned vehicle - not a reconfigured car - that is completely self-driving. A prototype is planned for 2020. His eventual business model is something a la Uber.
Zoox is investing and integrating AI into its vehicle, a la Hotz at Comma.AI, and Nvidia - but with a vehicle that rethinks what we want in one when we won't need steering wheels, conventional dashboards, and the kinds of windshields we have now. Zoox has a permit to test its vehicles in California.
I've mentioned Zoox a few times before, when Zoox: (1) Received its permit to test in California, (2) Representative spoke at the NHTSA hearing, and (3) Was injected with an infusion of money, which was only last week or the week before.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Parking Lot
I'm away from work, but peeking at driverless news before I delete a mountain of useless emails. Uch! I hope I don't miss any needle-in-a-haystack important ones. I'm pretty good, though I've done that before.
This parking lot is for my own brain. Peruse if you please.
Legislation
Legislation introduced in Pennsylvania.
GM pushing Michigan legislation and positioning itself for future mobility business-model possibilities.
GoMentum recycles old military into driverless neighborhood - Honda grabs opportunity
Honda going slowly on the partially autonomous route and testing at GoMentum north of San Francisco.
Simplistic video, but shows the GoMentum facility, an old Army site.
Honda working on an affordable self-driving car that is environmentally friendly. Not the shared-use model GM and Ford are pursuing? (That's my question). Likely that neither business model will take over the entire market when it emerges. Just a guess.
$$$ flow
Quicker, more nimble driverless mapping data - in real time - from Mapbox, an open-source-based map provider.
Lots of money flowing to Zoox, which is betting and planning on fleets of driverless taxipods (my word).
Kind of sweet that a business can be valued at so much more than it has as yet delivered, considering the risks and stiff competition.
This parking lot is for my own brain. Peruse if you please.
Legislation
Legislation introduced in Pennsylvania.
GM pushing Michigan legislation and positioning itself for future mobility business-model possibilities.
GoMentum recycles old military into driverless neighborhood - Honda grabs opportunity
Honda going slowly on the partially autonomous route and testing at GoMentum north of San Francisco.
Simplistic video, but shows the GoMentum facility, an old Army site.
Honda working on an affordable self-driving car that is environmentally friendly. Not the shared-use model GM and Ford are pursuing? (That's my question). Likely that neither business model will take over the entire market when it emerges. Just a guess.
$$$ flow
Quicker, more nimble driverless mapping data - in real time - from Mapbox, an open-source-based map provider.
Lots of money flowing to Zoox, which is betting and planning on fleets of driverless taxipods (my word).
Kind of sweet that a business can be valued at so much more than it has as yet delivered, considering the risks and stiff competition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)