Forget schlepping packages home
Norway now has driverless grocery deliver. Actually no human travel required because it is an online supermarket that is offering this service. This is a pilot project; regulatory changes will be needed to go beyond a pilot phase. The Norwegians are not setting their hopes only on the convenience of driverless grocery delivery, but on similar services for delivering restaurant food and picking up reycling. A guy is actually quoted as saying this will halve his family's food bill; does no one cook anymore?
In Brooklyn, there is driverless delivery, but that is with bikes and carts.
Driverless 2.0
South Korea will be testing what it calls second-generation driverless starting in early 2017. The vehicle is designed to operate on city streets as well as on other public roads. The pilot comes out of testing at a university in Seoul.
Another piece of news that can be grouped under the heading of second-generation driverless is the advance of cheap LIDAR that has been developed in Germany. This new LIDAR package has no moving parts and costs less than $50. Test kits will be available in 2017 and production is supposed to start in 2018. The range of the LIDAR sensors is over 600 feet, so that approximately nine to 11 seconds of highway driving will be within the range of its "eyesight."
While in the US ...
While technology in the US is advancing thanks to innovation in Silicon Valley, Boston, Michigan, and elsewhere, the state of regulation and a legal framework for driverless is another matter. At this point, the situation is state versus state, and state versus federal government. The Washington Post reports that the NHTSA Administrator (for the Obama Administration), Mark Rosekind, has been criticizing California because its proposed driverless regulations would create the kind of fractured map of different state regulations that could severely hamper a national approach to regulation of driverless operations.
The proposed framework in California includes mandatory reporting of driverless vehicle information requested in the proposed national guidelines. It seems to be the mandatory part that most bothers the NHTSA Administrator because the proposed NHTSA automated driving guidelines would be, if left unchanged, voluntary. Plus, being national in scope, one would not have to wonder if license for driverless operation will cease at a state border.
Our free press is also reporting everywhere on Intel's quest for companies to release data, which Intel products can store - for a price, of course - all in the interest of promoting faster driverless technology.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Queens versus Brooklyn - Or What Does a Trump Administration Means for Driverless?
Warning: This post is pure speculation and contains rigid opinions about the proper way to eat pizza in the city.
What the heck do I mean by Queens versus Brooklyn and what possible relevance does this have to Trump's outlook and what his administration will do or not do about driverless vehicles? I'll tell you.
Trump and Scalia grew up in Queens. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Chuck Schumer, and Bernie Sanders grew up in Brooklyn. (In fact, the trio all went to the same high school.) Does the historic difference between the two boroughs become apparent? Admittedly, it's not a totally clear line; Paul Simon grew up in Queens as well.
However, Trump grew up in the swanky enclave of gorgeous houses and wealth in Jamaica Estates, so he is no street smart city kid. Jamaica Estates looks more like Great Neck or Scarsdale than Flushing. This is a suburb within a city that protects itself and wishes it were on the Island - as in Long Island - or in Westchester. And as he showed when he showed Sarah Palin around the city (meaning Manhattan), the man does not even know how to eat one of, if not the, signature dish of his hometown - pizza. If you go to the link, know that my family screamed out on every point even before Jon Stewart did, a sign of real New Yorkers. How can he not know how to eat pizza?
Translation for driverless?
Who the heck knows? Will Trump put roadblocks in front of driverless development and deployment, thus sending an entire industry that the US is still leading overseas? Or will he like the idea of the US leading the transformation of transportation?
Will Trump favor the safety benefits and equity arguments in favor of driverless? I'm thinking not, given his mocking of people with disabilities during the campaign. More likely is that Trump is aware of where his bread is buttered and those votes came from communities where truck drivers live and drive through, the very drivers who might lose their jobs in a few years.
But really, no one knows because ideological consistency and being well informed before making statements or decisions are not hallmarks of the man about to assume the presidency - the second president in a generation to lose the popular vote.
I'd go have a slice, but I have no appetite and I'm inside the Beltway right now, where the pizza at best is mediocre for NYC. I've been here for so long, though, that I will eat that best. I'm hoping I can manage a slice in the city by Thanksgiving. And not with a fortk! OMG, fold the slice and pick it up. Eat the grease, let it run off the slice, doesn't matter, but you eat it with your hands!!!
What the heck do I mean by Queens versus Brooklyn and what possible relevance does this have to Trump's outlook and what his administration will do or not do about driverless vehicles? I'll tell you.
Trump and Scalia grew up in Queens. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Chuck Schumer, and Bernie Sanders grew up in Brooklyn. (In fact, the trio all went to the same high school.) Does the historic difference between the two boroughs become apparent? Admittedly, it's not a totally clear line; Paul Simon grew up in Queens as well.
However, Trump grew up in the swanky enclave of gorgeous houses and wealth in Jamaica Estates, so he is no street smart city kid. Jamaica Estates looks more like Great Neck or Scarsdale than Flushing. This is a suburb within a city that protects itself and wishes it were on the Island - as in Long Island - or in Westchester. And as he showed when he showed Sarah Palin around the city (meaning Manhattan), the man does not even know how to eat one of, if not the, signature dish of his hometown - pizza. If you go to the link, know that my family screamed out on every point even before Jon Stewart did, a sign of real New Yorkers. How can he not know how to eat pizza?
Translation for driverless?
Who the heck knows? Will Trump put roadblocks in front of driverless development and deployment, thus sending an entire industry that the US is still leading overseas? Or will he like the idea of the US leading the transformation of transportation?
Will Trump favor the safety benefits and equity arguments in favor of driverless? I'm thinking not, given his mocking of people with disabilities during the campaign. More likely is that Trump is aware of where his bread is buttered and those votes came from communities where truck drivers live and drive through, the very drivers who might lose their jobs in a few years.
But really, no one knows because ideological consistency and being well informed before making statements or decisions are not hallmarks of the man about to assume the presidency - the second president in a generation to lose the popular vote.
I'd go have a slice, but I have no appetite and I'm inside the Beltway right now, where the pizza at best is mediocre for NYC. I've been here for so long, though, that I will eat that best. I'm hoping I can manage a slice in the city by Thanksgiving. And not with a fortk! OMG, fold the slice and pick it up. Eat the grease, let it run off the slice, doesn't matter, but you eat it with your hands!!!
Japanese Insurance, Israeli Optics, and Michigan Laws
Israeli company Oryx Visionis scaling up on a cheap optical radar system for driverless. It sees better.
Or - spelled in Hebrew - אור - means light. Just check the beginning of Genesis; that is one old word. I'm guessing that's where Oryx comes from. There is no information about that on the website.
In the tea leaves of tech development, NXP Semiconductor, a company that concentrates on driverless technology for trucks, has been acquired by Qualcomm and is bringing advances in driverless computing power.
Deals on driverless insurance
Another insurance company will be providing coverage for self-driving vehicles - in Japan. The company is Tokio Marine. The first company to do so was in Britain and that was quite recent.
Michigan passes bill - forget the steering wheel
Michigan's governor is going all out to ensure that vehicles continue being developed, tested, and manufactured in his state. He signed a package of four bills (good summary article). Here's a previous post with more details and a statement from Gov. Snyder's office.
Or - spelled in Hebrew - אור - means light. Just check the beginning of Genesis; that is one old word. I'm guessing that's where Oryx comes from. There is no information about that on the website.
In the tea leaves of tech development, NXP Semiconductor, a company that concentrates on driverless technology for trucks, has been acquired by Qualcomm and is bringing advances in driverless computing power.
Deals on driverless insurance
Another insurance company will be providing coverage for self-driving vehicles - in Japan. The company is Tokio Marine. The first company to do so was in Britain and that was quite recent.
Michigan passes bill - forget the steering wheel
Michigan's governor is going all out to ensure that vehicles continue being developed, tested, and manufactured in his state. He signed a package of four bills (good summary article). Here's a previous post with more details and a statement from Gov. Snyder's office.
Today Is Sponsored by the Acronym CBI
Today's post is brought to you by the acronym of the day, CBI. Since DC is a town of acronyms, here is one that does not stand for the name of an agency, but instead means confidential business information. This is a post about yesterday's public meeting held by NHTSA. I do not believe a video of the event will be made available because there was not a live feed. So much for transparency.
Good outreach does not equal posting one announcement on one government webpage, okay?
Here's my take on yesterday's NHTSA public meeting and it begins before the meeting took place. First, before getting to the meeting, let me say that the outreach was terrible and limited. I'm sorry, but an official announcement with just a few days open for registering to attend the meeting - which was not even held at the US Department of Transportation building - displays an impression that you only want people in the know, an inner circle, to attend. In the age of Twitter, Facebook, and tons of social media outlets, that is poor and inadequate outreach and public engagement. Second, my bad, I am ditzy and inattentive (which is why I really want driverless transportation), but I failed to read the fine print that the event was being held at the GSA (General Services Administration) building, which is in an entirely different part of town than DOT. Fortunately, both agencies are only a couple of Metro stops away from each other on the same Metro line.
I attended even though mid-level NHTSA employees hosted the meeting at an obscure location. The DOT building is quite large, so I am not sure why the meeting was not held there.
What was the meeting about? NHTSA's proposed guidelines on automated vehicles.
Who found their way to the GSA building?
It is so weird for me to be in a room with the likes of Google, Ford, Toyota, GM, and Zoox. The one interesting misfit, besides me, was the guy (did not catch his name) from the Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA), a group doing its best to keep drivers at the wheel and attending their member driving schools. Unlike the American Trucking Associations (that is a singular entity, by the way), which has a big interest in cheap, efficient trucking operations sans drivers, CVTA is a voice for delay and roadblocks to thwart a driverless trucking industry.
Points of agreement from those actually in the no-decor government auditorium
Except for the CVTA guy, who has diametrically opposed fish to fry than anyone else who was in the room (a truly boring, small auditorium with no windows or interesting decor), everyone - tech and car companies and public advocates alike - wants clarity and safety. Most want flexibility to support innovation. I say most because I do not get that feeling from one public safety organization, Consumer Watchdog, which has one particular representative at every NHTSA driverless event.
In terms of public advocacy groups speaking out there was Consumers Union, which is the policy and action division of Consumer Reports; the Future of Privacy Forum, which advances "principled data practices" and self-regulation (more on that oxymoron later) because the pace of technology development is inconsistent with the speed and constraints on the process of regulatory change; and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, which has worked for decades on auto safety issues.
Car companies with representatives who spoke were Ford, General Motors, Toyota, and Hyundai. Tech companies with representatives who made statements were Google, Zoox, Lyft, and Bosch. Industry associations and representatives were the Center for Automotive Research (the one housed at Stanford) and the Association of Global Automakers. An interesting missing person was David Strickland of the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, but I came late due to other obligations, so it is possible that I missed him as well as representatives for people with disabilities, who have been active and enthusiastic driverless proponents.
The public comment period is open until Nov. 22 and every single representative who spoke yesterday stated that his or her company or organization will be submitting written comments. To submit comments in response to the proposed NHTSA guidelines, officially known as the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, visit the Federal Rulemaking Portal (sounds very Harry Potter) and type in NHTSA-2016-0090. Or go straight to this comment page for the docket number. Much easier.
Where's that acronym already? (Say that with a Bernie Sanders voice.)
I will refrain from sharing my notes and instead concentrate on writing a quick summary about agreement and disagreement in the room, while pointing out what I find ridiculous. Being an outsider gives me a possibly less informed, but, perhaps, less biased and bureaucratic perspective.
A major concern of both the tech and the car industries is the protection of - here is today's acronym - CBI, or confidential business information. No one wants their trade secrets, more touchingly known as intellectual property, to become common knowledge. But an acronym is great because you have to be in the know to get it, though this one was easy to figure out. I was not the only one in the room who had not heard that particular acronym before, according to public remarks made.
Agreement List
I'm barely mentioning and not even listing this: Everyone except the CVTA guy loves driverless. What produces agreement and disagreement are the many details. It was a driverless, bureaucratic, mostly dark-suited love fest.
1. Preventing CBI from being disclosed. Every player producing, developing, or hoping to make tons of money on driverless vehicles wants to protect the CBI of themselves and their partners. Knowledge is power and no one wants to share a potentially superior and cheaper algorithm, sensor, AI software (okay, my tech expertise is non-existent). I did just watch the Imitation Game last night and I'm thinking of AI as a kind of Turing machine.
The balance of public disclosure versus CBI: Though there was, at the very least, lip service paid to transparency and the idea of information available to the public, there was broad agreement for the idea that as much information as possible be made public. That said, once details were touched upon, corporate interests expressed discomfort with any intellectual property - CBI- being open to scrutiny.
2. Trigger for new assessment letter or update - Should be a significant change, such as a change in the level of automation. There's not complete unanimity, but broad agreement. Otherwise the regulatory burden will become unbearable.
3. A little less agreement, though there was some consensus that for purposes of regulation and paperwork there should be a point person or company. Where several companies contribute equipment, software, and hardware to a driverless vehicle, who answers to and must file documents with a regulatory agency? You see where this gets into the weeds very quickly. The consensus was to have one entity per vehicle type (that's my language) be responsible so that every vehicle does not require massive paperwork from many companies. OMG, there will not be sufficient agency staff to do an adequate job in that reality.
4. The Safety Assessment Letter - get ready for it, because a new acronym is about to hit your brain, SAL - should have a cover or summary page up front. Basic contact and other information, probably a summary, should be on page one. Now while the details are not clear, the concept attracted a broad consensus.
5. Government should be supportive of corporate innovation, flexibility, and driverless in general.
6. Clarity, clarity, clarity on everything, but specifically the scope of the guidelines, and timing of required documentation to be submitted.
7. Quick response to SAL that it is complete or incomplete - and, if incomplete, how so. GM suggested that a response come from NHTSA's general counsel. Suggestions of 30 days were made, but there were others.
8. Template or templates for SALs were requested by several speakers. This will help both the parties preparing these documents and those analyzing them, whether inside or outside of government.
Disagreement and open questions list
1. Self-regulation or actual enforceable, mandatory regulations? This breaks down along predictable lines of tech and auto industry players versus safety advocates. With a new and completely different kind administration coming to Washington so soon, NHTSA under the Obama Administration will lose its chance to answer this question. The hearing provided an opportunity for public comment, but this game has just begun.
2. Triggers: Trigger level for regulation as an autonomous vehicle and for safety assessment letter: Is SAE level 2 the trigger? Level 3? Are the levels in practice actually clearly distinct? There are lots of opinions on this issue.
In fact, the whole issue of what constitutes a significant update triggering an update of an SAL is far from clear. Very in the weeds and I await a spectrum of comments from those far more conversant with automotive policy and government regulation. And may I say that this is where the average person needs experienced and knowledgeable players in government because the gobbledegook of regulatory details is a foreign language that one must be learned about to participate effectively.
3. Testing versus vehicles sold or in operation: There was disagreement or at least divergent opinions expressed about how testing should be regulated, particularly testing on public roads - like next to your car - versus how to regulate an industry that will be selling, leasing, and likely providing the contemporary equivalents of taxi, jitney, and transit service.
I thought it was interesting the mentions of consumer information because they harken to the 20th century model of individually-owned cars and light trucks versus the distinct possibility for driverless of substantial shared-use services, particularly in dense urban areas and suburbs. Does anyone look at vehicle or airplane safety information when they get into an Uber or onto a plane? That's not happening.
4. Timing of required filing of SAL - using that acronym already. Should the filing deadline be three or four months before an update or new equipment is put on the road? More? One suggestion was made of a mandated annual update for each letter. That was Lyft, but the word "mandate" is mine and perhaps I am misreading the statement made.
Singular points raised
Since industries sometimes cover up health and safety risks - not only the tobacco and football powerhouses - it is relevant whether there will be whistleblower protection and a safe space for companies to reveal unsafe conditions and things that need to be fixed. This raised the issue of tort liability in case of accidents, which is a deterrent to releasing information that admits of or suggests imperfect hardware, software, and equipment. A fear raised at the hearing was that safety data mandated for disclosure to NHTSA (or, presumably, to state regulators) would set companies up for liability in case of accidents.
Me to industry - Just take the lead of Volvo and the few others that are taking my advice, or, more likely, coming to the conclusion on their own to take the airline industry model of effective strict liability and promoting a safety culture. Pay out some money and forget about the who is actually liable. There will be accidents and the public appreciates assumption of responsibility rather than obfuscation. We all hope that driverless will be way safer than human-operated vehicles, but nothing is completely safe.
The Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) speaker was interesting for advocacy for protections of privacy, but not for a government mandate to protect personal data, or, in privacy-speak, requirements for deidentification of data. FPF dreams of a world where companies voluntarily adhere to standards, which effectively are agreed-upon, crowdsourced regulation or industry-wide standard practices, all embraced by the public. I'm on the fence.
One more time
The public comment period is open until Nov. 22. To submit comments in response to the proposed NHTSA guidelines, officially known as the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, visit the Federal Rulemaking Portal (sounds very Harry Potter) and for comments use docket NHTSA-2016-0090. Here is a direct link to a comment page.
Good outreach does not equal posting one announcement on one government webpage, okay?
Here's my take on yesterday's NHTSA public meeting and it begins before the meeting took place. First, before getting to the meeting, let me say that the outreach was terrible and limited. I'm sorry, but an official announcement with just a few days open for registering to attend the meeting - which was not even held at the US Department of Transportation building - displays an impression that you only want people in the know, an inner circle, to attend. In the age of Twitter, Facebook, and tons of social media outlets, that is poor and inadequate outreach and public engagement. Second, my bad, I am ditzy and inattentive (which is why I really want driverless transportation), but I failed to read the fine print that the event was being held at the GSA (General Services Administration) building, which is in an entirely different part of town than DOT. Fortunately, both agencies are only a couple of Metro stops away from each other on the same Metro line.
I attended even though mid-level NHTSA employees hosted the meeting at an obscure location. The DOT building is quite large, so I am not sure why the meeting was not held there.
What was the meeting about? NHTSA's proposed guidelines on automated vehicles.
Who found their way to the GSA building?
It is so weird for me to be in a room with the likes of Google, Ford, Toyota, GM, and Zoox. The one interesting misfit, besides me, was the guy (did not catch his name) from the Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA), a group doing its best to keep drivers at the wheel and attending their member driving schools. Unlike the American Trucking Associations (that is a singular entity, by the way), which has a big interest in cheap, efficient trucking operations sans drivers, CVTA is a voice for delay and roadblocks to thwart a driverless trucking industry.
Points of agreement from those actually in the no-decor government auditorium
Except for the CVTA guy, who has diametrically opposed fish to fry than anyone else who was in the room (a truly boring, small auditorium with no windows or interesting decor), everyone - tech and car companies and public advocates alike - wants clarity and safety. Most want flexibility to support innovation. I say most because I do not get that feeling from one public safety organization, Consumer Watchdog, which has one particular representative at every NHTSA driverless event.
In terms of public advocacy groups speaking out there was Consumers Union, which is the policy and action division of Consumer Reports; the Future of Privacy Forum, which advances "principled data practices" and self-regulation (more on that oxymoron later) because the pace of technology development is inconsistent with the speed and constraints on the process of regulatory change; and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, which has worked for decades on auto safety issues.
Car companies with representatives who spoke were Ford, General Motors, Toyota, and Hyundai. Tech companies with representatives who made statements were Google, Zoox, Lyft, and Bosch. Industry associations and representatives were the Center for Automotive Research (the one housed at Stanford) and the Association of Global Automakers. An interesting missing person was David Strickland of the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, but I came late due to other obligations, so it is possible that I missed him as well as representatives for people with disabilities, who have been active and enthusiastic driverless proponents.
The public comment period is open until Nov. 22 and every single representative who spoke yesterday stated that his or her company or organization will be submitting written comments. To submit comments in response to the proposed NHTSA guidelines, officially known as the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, visit the Federal Rulemaking Portal (sounds very Harry Potter) and type in NHTSA-2016-0090. Or go straight to this comment page for the docket number. Much easier.
Where's that acronym already? (Say that with a Bernie Sanders voice.)
I will refrain from sharing my notes and instead concentrate on writing a quick summary about agreement and disagreement in the room, while pointing out what I find ridiculous. Being an outsider gives me a possibly less informed, but, perhaps, less biased and bureaucratic perspective.
A major concern of both the tech and the car industries is the protection of - here is today's acronym - CBI, or confidential business information. No one wants their trade secrets, more touchingly known as intellectual property, to become common knowledge. But an acronym is great because you have to be in the know to get it, though this one was easy to figure out. I was not the only one in the room who had not heard that particular acronym before, according to public remarks made.
Agreement List
I'm barely mentioning and not even listing this: Everyone except the CVTA guy loves driverless. What produces agreement and disagreement are the many details. It was a driverless, bureaucratic, mostly dark-suited love fest.
1. Preventing CBI from being disclosed. Every player producing, developing, or hoping to make tons of money on driverless vehicles wants to protect the CBI of themselves and their partners. Knowledge is power and no one wants to share a potentially superior and cheaper algorithm, sensor, AI software (okay, my tech expertise is non-existent). I did just watch the Imitation Game last night and I'm thinking of AI as a kind of Turing machine.
The balance of public disclosure versus CBI: Though there was, at the very least, lip service paid to transparency and the idea of information available to the public, there was broad agreement for the idea that as much information as possible be made public. That said, once details were touched upon, corporate interests expressed discomfort with any intellectual property - CBI- being open to scrutiny.
2. Trigger for new assessment letter or update - Should be a significant change, such as a change in the level of automation. There's not complete unanimity, but broad agreement. Otherwise the regulatory burden will become unbearable.
3. A little less agreement, though there was some consensus that for purposes of regulation and paperwork there should be a point person or company. Where several companies contribute equipment, software, and hardware to a driverless vehicle, who answers to and must file documents with a regulatory agency? You see where this gets into the weeds very quickly. The consensus was to have one entity per vehicle type (that's my language) be responsible so that every vehicle does not require massive paperwork from many companies. OMG, there will not be sufficient agency staff to do an adequate job in that reality.
4. The Safety Assessment Letter - get ready for it, because a new acronym is about to hit your brain, SAL - should have a cover or summary page up front. Basic contact and other information, probably a summary, should be on page one. Now while the details are not clear, the concept attracted a broad consensus.
5. Government should be supportive of corporate innovation, flexibility, and driverless in general.
6. Clarity, clarity, clarity on everything, but specifically the scope of the guidelines, and timing of required documentation to be submitted.
7. Quick response to SAL that it is complete or incomplete - and, if incomplete, how so. GM suggested that a response come from NHTSA's general counsel. Suggestions of 30 days were made, but there were others.
8. Template or templates for SALs were requested by several speakers. This will help both the parties preparing these documents and those analyzing them, whether inside or outside of government.
Disagreement and open questions list
1. Self-regulation or actual enforceable, mandatory regulations? This breaks down along predictable lines of tech and auto industry players versus safety advocates. With a new and completely different kind administration coming to Washington so soon, NHTSA under the Obama Administration will lose its chance to answer this question. The hearing provided an opportunity for public comment, but this game has just begun.
2. Triggers: Trigger level for regulation as an autonomous vehicle and for safety assessment letter: Is SAE level 2 the trigger? Level 3? Are the levels in practice actually clearly distinct? There are lots of opinions on this issue.
In fact, the whole issue of what constitutes a significant update triggering an update of an SAL is far from clear. Very in the weeds and I await a spectrum of comments from those far more conversant with automotive policy and government regulation. And may I say that this is where the average person needs experienced and knowledgeable players in government because the gobbledegook of regulatory details is a foreign language that one must be learned about to participate effectively.
3. Testing versus vehicles sold or in operation: There was disagreement or at least divergent opinions expressed about how testing should be regulated, particularly testing on public roads - like next to your car - versus how to regulate an industry that will be selling, leasing, and likely providing the contemporary equivalents of taxi, jitney, and transit service.
I thought it was interesting the mentions of consumer information because they harken to the 20th century model of individually-owned cars and light trucks versus the distinct possibility for driverless of substantial shared-use services, particularly in dense urban areas and suburbs. Does anyone look at vehicle or airplane safety information when they get into an Uber or onto a plane? That's not happening.
4. Timing of required filing of SAL - using that acronym already. Should the filing deadline be three or four months before an update or new equipment is put on the road? More? One suggestion was made of a mandated annual update for each letter. That was Lyft, but the word "mandate" is mine and perhaps I am misreading the statement made.
Singular points raised
Since industries sometimes cover up health and safety risks - not only the tobacco and football powerhouses - it is relevant whether there will be whistleblower protection and a safe space for companies to reveal unsafe conditions and things that need to be fixed. This raised the issue of tort liability in case of accidents, which is a deterrent to releasing information that admits of or suggests imperfect hardware, software, and equipment. A fear raised at the hearing was that safety data mandated for disclosure to NHTSA (or, presumably, to state regulators) would set companies up for liability in case of accidents.
Me to industry - Just take the lead of Volvo and the few others that are taking my advice, or, more likely, coming to the conclusion on their own to take the airline industry model of effective strict liability and promoting a safety culture. Pay out some money and forget about the who is actually liable. There will be accidents and the public appreciates assumption of responsibility rather than obfuscation. We all hope that driverless will be way safer than human-operated vehicles, but nothing is completely safe.
The Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) speaker was interesting for advocacy for protections of privacy, but not for a government mandate to protect personal data, or, in privacy-speak, requirements for deidentification of data. FPF dreams of a world where companies voluntarily adhere to standards, which effectively are agreed-upon, crowdsourced regulation or industry-wide standard practices, all embraced by the public. I'm on the fence.
The public comment period is open until Nov. 22. To submit comments in response to the proposed NHTSA guidelines, officially known as the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, visit the Federal Rulemaking Portal (sounds very Harry Potter) and for comments use docket NHTSA-2016-0090. Here is a direct link to a comment page.
Friday, November 4, 2016
Self-Driving Lorries Might Come Before Trucks
Trucks are an easy opportunity for driverless due to fleet purchases, labor savings, and non-stop time on the road without having to stop at Flying J or another truck stop to go the bathroom, shower, and eat. And it is not only fleets of large tractor-trailer trucks that will go without human operation, autonomous vans and small trucks will transform deliveries.
Wording: self-driving lorries may come before trucks
In the UK, concepts of quick-and-easy-to-assemble driverless delivery vans are being presented now. Charge, an automotive technology company, this week unveiled a truck that can be assembled in four hours. Charge plans to sell these vans at prices competitive with conventional, driver-operated, vans. Plus, less power of whatever type will be needed because the various sizes of these small lorries - translation: trucks - will be made of light, composite materials. I will ask the materials scientist in the family for an explanation (though sometimes this person finds it difficult to dumb down on the technical stuff).
The UK is fertile ground with the government declaration of intent to lead the self-driving race and have driverless vehicles on roads in 2020. Planting itself on Britain's fertile self-driving ground, Charge intends to have the vehicles ready for sale next year after driving legislation passes.
Deliveries without humans will mean no tips and no conversation. In my case, no "have a safe night and thank you."
Matching insurance
To go with the new driverless vehicles in the UK will be insurance for driverless vehicles. Adrian Flux is first with insurance policies for sale to the public for autonomous cars. Don't get too excited, the company envisions this product more as a conversation starter than as an immediate money maker.
Turtle-like regulatory environment across the pond
With the regulatory debates and polarized politics in the US, it is probable Americans will wait longer to buy or get shared use driverless as soon as the British, Singaporeans, or even the Japanese. In fact, the recent NHTSA letter prior to the impending sale of the Comma.ai after-market, partially driverless system possibly demonstrates an unwillingness to entertain anything other than sale of an entire car by a car company. NHSTA did not even give Hotz's company wiggle room or a roadmap to demonstrate safety. It's an odd episode because not one Tesla has been ordered off the road.
Michigan is pushing for itself to be in the forefront of driverless development and eventual sales, but to accomplish that, at the very least, the state will need a friendly federal regulatory and legal environment. One thing is for certain, New York will not be the first state to get driverless vehicles on its roads and the question is which will come first for the Empire State, Uber in Upstate New York or autonomous vehicles. The state has not yet passed a law allowing testing or actual driverless travel on its roads.
Well, perhaps driverless vehicles will be late to the US and we will get flying robo-taxis from Airbus instead. The company is shooting for testing to begin in 2017. That would require a whole different set of regulations, presumably, and the involvement of the US Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees air travel and safety.
Wording: self-driving lorries may come before trucks
In the UK, concepts of quick-and-easy-to-assemble driverless delivery vans are being presented now. Charge, an automotive technology company, this week unveiled a truck that can be assembled in four hours. Charge plans to sell these vans at prices competitive with conventional, driver-operated, vans. Plus, less power of whatever type will be needed because the various sizes of these small lorries - translation: trucks - will be made of light, composite materials. I will ask the materials scientist in the family for an explanation (though sometimes this person finds it difficult to dumb down on the technical stuff).
The UK is fertile ground with the government declaration of intent to lead the self-driving race and have driverless vehicles on roads in 2020. Planting itself on Britain's fertile self-driving ground, Charge intends to have the vehicles ready for sale next year after driving legislation passes.
Deliveries without humans will mean no tips and no conversation. In my case, no "have a safe night and thank you."
Matching insurance
To go with the new driverless vehicles in the UK will be insurance for driverless vehicles. Adrian Flux is first with insurance policies for sale to the public for autonomous cars. Don't get too excited, the company envisions this product more as a conversation starter than as an immediate money maker.
Turtle-like regulatory environment across the pond
With the regulatory debates and polarized politics in the US, it is probable Americans will wait longer to buy or get shared use driverless as soon as the British, Singaporeans, or even the Japanese. In fact, the recent NHTSA letter prior to the impending sale of the Comma.ai after-market, partially driverless system possibly demonstrates an unwillingness to entertain anything other than sale of an entire car by a car company. NHSTA did not even give Hotz's company wiggle room or a roadmap to demonstrate safety. It's an odd episode because not one Tesla has been ordered off the road.
Michigan is pushing for itself to be in the forefront of driverless development and eventual sales, but to accomplish that, at the very least, the state will need a friendly federal regulatory and legal environment. One thing is for certain, New York will not be the first state to get driverless vehicles on its roads and the question is which will come first for the Empire State, Uber in Upstate New York or autonomous vehicles. The state has not yet passed a law allowing testing or actual driverless travel on its roads.
Well, perhaps driverless vehicles will be late to the US and we will get flying robo-taxis from Airbus instead. The company is shooting for testing to begin in 2017. That would require a whole different set of regulations, presumably, and the involvement of the US Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees air travel and safety.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Blackberry in the Middle, with Ford Pulling Ahead
Remember when a Blackberry was the cool phone to have? I'm sure Blackberry does and that was only eight or nine years ago. Well, once the entire world started its heated affair with the Apple iphone, Blackberry was left alone to lick its wounds. Even government employees get iphones instead of the Blackberry, but now the company is a player in the driverless business and it still has to deal with Apple.
Stealing away employees
Apple has a driverless software operation in Canada, near Ottawa, where Apple is poaching engineering and management talent from Blackberry subsidiary QNX. Lots of talent. Ouch and Apple is way far from its Silicon Valley home. What exactly does it even have going on in the frozen north? Supposedly Apple will be developing an operating system for driverless vehicles.
Model T taxibot?
While Apple is pissing off Blackberry, Ford is making a partner. The car company, I mean mobility company, will be expanding use of Blackberry's secure operating system for driverless cars. (Here's another article; this one has more of a smartphone focus.)
Ford is planning on rolling out driverless cars for sale and shared use taxibot services in 2021 and the company wasting no time in preparing. Ford just hired a vice president of autonomous vehicle solutions, Laura Merling, to serve under the company's smart mobility chairman.
Current count in the Golden State
Is the count now 19 or 20 for companies with California permits to do driverless testing? NextEV is being added to the list and opening an 85,000 square foot facility that will have 400 employees. Lots of investment. NextEV is based in China and is called the Chinese Tesla counterpart. There is tons of Chinese money coming to the US for driverless development, both in Silicon Valley and in Michigan.
Stealing away employees
Apple has a driverless software operation in Canada, near Ottawa, where Apple is poaching engineering and management talent from Blackberry subsidiary QNX. Lots of talent. Ouch and Apple is way far from its Silicon Valley home. What exactly does it even have going on in the frozen north? Supposedly Apple will be developing an operating system for driverless vehicles.
Model T taxibot?
While Apple is pissing off Blackberry, Ford is making a partner. The car company, I mean mobility company, will be expanding use of Blackberry's secure operating system for driverless cars. (Here's another article; this one has more of a smartphone focus.)
Ford is planning on rolling out driverless cars for sale and shared use taxibot services in 2021 and the company wasting no time in preparing. Ford just hired a vice president of autonomous vehicle solutions, Laura Merling, to serve under the company's smart mobility chairman.
Current count in the Golden State
Is the count now 19 or 20 for companies with California permits to do driverless testing? NextEV is being added to the list and opening an 85,000 square foot facility that will have 400 employees. Lots of investment. NextEV is based in China and is called the Chinese Tesla counterpart. There is tons of Chinese money coming to the US for driverless development, both in Silicon Valley and in Michigan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)