Notes on Ford AV report, but first:

Disclaimer: I owned a Ford station wagon for several years. I loved that car; indeed the only car I have ever loved and I have avoided driving and owning a car for much of my life. That station wagon had two great features:

1. Could be seen from anywhere in any parking lot - The station wagon was an unusual shade of blue and it had weird-shaped side back windows. The odd look of this vehicle was a distinct advantage and every single time I am in a parking lot with a sea of similarly shaped black/dark grey sedans, I think of our former blue beauty;
2. The station wagon had a large back window with its own windshield wiper. I miss this whenever I have to drive our supposed more luxury car (that my spouse felt was needed when the kids grew up and which I have thus far lobbied unsuccessfully to sell because why do we need a car anyway).
3. One more for extra: Not a fancy vehicle, so you never felt you had to avoid bringing the dog, eating something, or otherwise relaxing. I even slept in it once during a particularly rainy camping trip. FYI: Never take me on a camping trip because the chance of rain will skyrocket to 90 percent.

Terminology use that I like - 

• Saying ridehailing instead of ridesourcing or TNCs (transportation network companies), 
• Saying self-driving, driverless, autonomous vehicle (AV) as referring to only fully AVs. 
• Using "the term driver-assist technology to describe features that assist drivers with convenience or safety benefits, but they are not autonomous because they require the human driver to always remain engaged and available to take control of the vehicle. These features are defined by SAE International as Levels 0-2 of Automation and leverage technology to augment a human driver but not replace them." The report also states that Ford will not use terms such as "blind spot monitoring, lane keeping assist and adaptive cruise control ... [as] “self-driving” or “autonomous” – and we’ll never refer to them as such – because they require the driver to supervise and maintain control of the vehicle."

Ford going for different business model possibilities - shared use that is fleet-based for human passengers and then otherwise for deliveries.

Ford is touting its street cred on service for people with disabilities, or, at least, for taking such individuals to healthcare appointments. I therefore hope that Ford will lend its support when I draft and start advocating for the All American Accessibility Act that will require every passenger vehicle to be accessible by a date certain (though I have not yet picked the date).

Smiley face on decision not to directly sell to consumers AVs - 😁

You had me at hello

Wow on the way stuff is explained on a for-dummies level without feeling condescending. This person or group should win an award. I am feeling satisfied as a transportation nerd who has a very pro-transit, pro-shared-use, pro-walking-and-biking perspective. Is there a drug coming to me from this report, has Ford learned to talk the talk, and perhaps even learned to walk the walk?

As for the movie Jerry Maguire, from which the clip is taken, I never bought the sudden I love you realization at the end of the movie. Just had to add that. Back to Ford report:

Talking up the partnership with ArgoAI.

Photo from ArgoAI website.

I didn't know that Argo AI is in Cranberry, NJ. Cranberry is quite close to a bunch of gated retirement communities. I am not proud to say that I know people - very nice people - who made the mistake of leaving Brooklyn to live in one of those retirement communities.

ArgoAI is also in Pittsburgh, as the photo shows.

I even got to see one of those AVs recently on a trip to Pittsburgh, which, by the way, is a neat place and rivals Boston with its pretty bridges.

What I don't like

No car company should be talking safety as if it is proud of its record. I am sure that Ford is well represented among the millions of roadway fatalities and injuries over the past several decades. In my opinion, as along as a car company has not capped its products' capability to speed, among other things, it should not engage in the pretense that it has produced a safe machine. I am also sure that Ford advertising has shown its vehicles on the open road operating at high speeds.

I found the human interface section insufficient. Nothing was mentioned about people with disabilities, about varying levels of cognition, people who speak different languages, children or older adults riding alone, or just people who happen to differ. Nothing about people without the ability to see or hear. Nothing about people who might not see or hear because they are watching a movie, listening to a podcast, or are engrossed with binge watching of Elisabeth Moss TV shows. One could be totally fixated on something like Mad Men or the Handmaid's Tale. Just as examples.

One should not brag, or even mention, being part of a project intended to deliver bad pizza to anyone at any time. I would leave out the collaboration with Dominoes. Really Ford, why not pick a great pizza place, like pretty much any neighborhood place in Brooklyn or even some on Long Island or in New Jersey? There's at least one wonderful option in New Haven as well. You buy up such nice startups, you hire smart people, but you are sad when it comes to pizza.

Notes to Ford

Reminder about the pizza and looking for your support for the All American Accessibility Act.

Not everyone speaks English or is able to hear at all. Make sure to embed interfaces for communication with people with different disabilities, different levels of cognition (as in teenagers who hardly look up when they cross a street), and who might be visiting from a place where people do not routinely learn to speak English fluently. There are people as well who are blind or visually impaired and then there are people like me, who do not pay attention or get distracted by the engaging thoughts running through their minds at any particular moment.

Fine, no problem - or might be a problem, but I do not know enough to judge that

Intended for a mass journalism audience that will get a sound byte or two from the report and briefly summarize it, the report is sometimes a bit of an AV-for-dummies publication.

Though the report might be for dummies, since I have no background in or substantive knowledge of software, vehicle design, or safety testing protocols, I will leave it to others to analyze Ford's language about cybersecurity, reaching a minimal risk condition (a/k/a pulling over to the side of the road or the equivalent), safety testing methods and practice, and crashworthiness.

Best sample from report

Most human drivers have a comfort zone. Some prefer to avoid highways and stick to local roads when possible; others would rather not drive at night or in bad conditions, such as during snow or ice storms. These driving routines and decisions can be considered a comfort zone. 

The difference between most drivers and Ford’s self-driving vehicles is that our comfort zone is set in code. Our Virtual Driver System only works within its Operational Design Domain (ODD), which prescribes which areas, streets, speeds, weather and time of day our vehicles can safely operate. Emerging from the requirements generated by our System Safety processes, the ODD defines the vehicle’s area of operation. As the capabilities of our vehicles improve, we expect the ODD will expand in size and scope over time.

Our production-intent self-driving vehicles are being designed to operate at typical speeds for urban streets (e.g. boulevards and collector roads) within strictly mapped geo-fenced areas. The vehicles will be equipped with technology designed to detect and respond to static external environments, such as road structures and features (e.g. curbs, lane markings and barriers), roadside objects (e.g. trees and debris), dynamic objects (e.g. cars, trucks, motorcycles and bicycles) as well as pedestrians, first responders and animals. Our vehicles will operate day and night under a variety of light conditions as well as during precipitation capped at light rain.

That is one wonderful explanation. And, one last time, a portal to the actual report.