Responsibility for road deaths and injuries goes way beyond Uber, but that doesn't mean that Uber is not responsible when the evidence is showing that at 10 p.m. in Tempe, AZ, Elaine Herzberg was in full view of the Uber autonomous vehicle (AV). Certainly Uber should feel the pain if it indeed placed any driver or vehicle on the road that were incapable of safe operation on a public road.
But there is plenty of room for responsibility - blame, actually - to go around.
Streets designed for death
We have streets that are designed for speeds exceeding the speed limit. Almost every otherwise law-abiding person who drives does so at rates above the legal speed limit. From early reports, Uber's software had learned or been taught to replicate this unfortunate and unsafe human practice.
And deaths and injuries are so completely foreseeable because they happen every day some place in the US and around the globe. We are all responsible because as a society, we Americans have not pushed for a truly safe and multimodal transportation system and we have acted as if roadway deaths are a routine cost of living.
Pedestrians unsafe almost everywhere
Our outrage over the Uber killing should extend to ALL pedestrian deaths, most of which garner little or no news coverage. People walk, bike, and roll wheelchairs on the side of roads or across roads - without any or adequate traffic signals or intersection or mid-block crosswalks - because there is no option if one travels in most US communities without a car or light truck.
We have prioritized one mode of travel and one skill for operating one kind of machinery to such an extent that there is almost no other choice in most places, whether for transit, intercity bus, walking, biking, or ridehailing.
And it's crappier for people with disabilities
Imagine what it must be like to be blind, cognitively impaired, or to rely on a wheelchair in a country where, for the most part, outside of a limited number of neighborhoods in major cities, one is a second or third-class citizen in terms of accessing jobs, education, and even medical care, if one does not drive or have family with the resources and the flexibility to play chauffeur.
I do not know anything about the deceased Elaine Herzberg or how she came to be homeless and walking on an Arizona road late at night with her bicycle and other belongings, but I do know that like people walking, biking, or rolling wheelchairs along other other roads across the US, Ms. Herzberg found herself on a road in Tempe, AZ, that was not made for walking or any other mode except one.
Sun shows through clouds and music begins
I hope and I advocate that as part of the safety improvement AVs will bring with its transportation revolution and its billions in investment that we will spend some money on ensuring that our roads are safe for all modes and that we create a transportation network that is much more accessible to non-vehicle owners and drivers than it is now.
End of rant - for today.
Showing posts with label Safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Safety. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
AVs Through the Lens of Politics
In the past couple of weeks, political fissures in the autonomous vehicle (AV) world have become crystal clear. Prior to recent statements, representatives and others from vastly separate places on the political spectrum have reached consensus on AVs, but as experience this term in the US Senate demonstrates, loud voices opposing AV policy and legislation as well as current statements from the President's Administration show that consensus is under attack.
USDOT stands out of the way of business
The US Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, and her cadre of modal agency leaders at the US Department of Transportation, are all on the same page in their hopes for autonomous vehicles (AVs) and their attitude about government's role. They all did a nice job a couple of weeks ago at the public show of friendly solidarity at a large gathering in the USDOT building.
The USDOT Secretary, who is also the Senate Majority Leader's wife, and her modal agency leaders all declare that government should stay out of the way of the private sector to develop new technology and improved technology as well as reconfigured vehicles and business models. One point of caution that each USDOT official made, however, was the importance of safety - but without any word that government should take a particularly active role.
Lip service to people with disabilities and older adults
USDOT stands out of the way of business
The US Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, and her cadre of modal agency leaders at the US Department of Transportation, are all on the same page in their hopes for autonomous vehicles (AVs) and their attitude about government's role. They all did a nice job a couple of weeks ago at the public show of friendly solidarity at a large gathering in the USDOT building.
The USDOT Secretary, who is also the Senate Majority Leader's wife, and her modal agency leaders all declare that government should stay out of the way of the private sector to develop new technology and improved technology as well as reconfigured vehicles and business models. One point of caution that each USDOT official made, however, was the importance of safety - but without any word that government should take a particularly active role.
Lip service to people with disabilities and older adults
Every USDOT official uttered the magical, but quite general, incantation that AVs will bring freedom and independence to people with disabilities and older adults. But the devil is in the details and I did not hear anything about encouraging or requiring multiple and redundant interfaces that take into account different types of disabilities (or even preferences for interfaces). I heard zero about finally extending the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or otherwise mandating universal accessibility for all - or even a healthy percentage - of AVs sold, leased, or placed on the street for service within the United States. Nada.
The same goes for the presumption of improved mobility for those on the low end of the economic spectrum. Vague comments about the magic of AVs, but without any details.
But USDOT invited in interesting voices
Though USDOT modal officials all spoke from the same playbook, the invited voices did talk about encouragement of shared-use modes, reduction in VMT (vehicle miles traveled), the need for additional technology to manage roads, the importance of parking policy and fees, and the question of what will happen in rural areas. The trucking association in the US also appeared on the dais, though it remained with its old trope about how we will be employing drivers for decades to come.
R Street versus letter to Senate leaders
Two diametrically opposed documents were released in the last couple of weeks that demonstrate how far apart advocacy is on AV policy. One document is from the R Street Policy Study No. 134, spouting the wise alignments that the private sector preternaturally produces, versus the Letter to Senate Leaders on Driverless Car Bill, spouting a bunch of safety and consumer protection reasons for waiting on national AV legislation. Both come to some wrong conclusions.
R Street's report mostly examines ridehailing and it is almost uniformly against all regulation by way of examining the shared-use transportation industry issues of safety, labor, fees, licensing, and insurance, among others. It does not address people on the margins of the current transportation system who need policy and legal encouragement, even subsidies, to achieve transportation equity. It does not examine issues of public health when criticizing ridehailing companies for declaring that cities should discourage car ownership (self-serving as such statements are when uttered by the expected beneficiaries of such policies).
The AV issues that R Street takes the most time with regarding AVs are privacy and cybersecurity. It's knee-jerk reaction throughout the report and in this context is to say that "we should be careful not to overreact and impose stringent new regulations that could harm responsible business practices." R Street may be correct in saying that we already have legal protections in laws and regulations, but it does not discuss whether those have been enforced sufficiently and whether they have been effective.
Letter brought to you by the word "no"
How advocates for safety can write the Letter to Senate Leaders on Driverless Car Bill with a straight face is beyond me. I'll be the first to say that the federal government has a role - a substantial role - in ensuring that AVs will be safe, BUT for safety and consumer advocates to conveniently forget that human-operated vehicles cause tens of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries each year detracts from the credibility of their arguments - in my opinion.
These signers of the letter include advocates from the fields of public health, biking and walking, law enforcement, environmentalists, consumer advocacy, and road safety. What is interesting is that the signers do not represent a broad coalition from any of those particular fields. In fact, proponents of national legislation include many groups representing people with disabilities and advocates against human driving while under the influence of intoxicants.
In terms of the letter, the message is that we should not have untested vehicles operating on public roads. (Again, with car companies self-certifying FMVSS compliance, we pretty much already have that system.) The letter is against the lack of performance standards as part of the House and Senate bills - or requiring their development and implementation at the USDOT. The lack of performance standards includes not even the equivalent - my words - of the driving test that 16 year olds are required to take before being licensed to drive or even your average DMV vision test.
The letter seems to back, without explicitly saying so, California's regulatory approach, while stating expressly that providing consumers with information is not a substitute for federal safety standards. The letter is against preemption of state and local regulation and in favor of encouraging vehicle designs that are accessible for people with disabilities. And the letter actually spells that out, though only in terms of physical accessibility and not in terms of accessibility and redundancy of interfaces.
What I like
I am fully on board with the letter's stand on extending federal AV legislation to cover SAE level 2 - Telsa equivalent - vehicles. There are more and more distracted drivers in those vehicles every day who are not ready in a split second to take over operation of their vehicles. And there are more and more of these vehicles on our roads with every new car purchase.
Letter brought to you by the word "no"
How advocates for safety can write the Letter to Senate Leaders on Driverless Car Bill with a straight face is beyond me. I'll be the first to say that the federal government has a role - a substantial role - in ensuring that AVs will be safe, BUT for safety and consumer advocates to conveniently forget that human-operated vehicles cause tens of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries each year detracts from the credibility of their arguments - in my opinion.
These signers of the letter include advocates from the fields of public health, biking and walking, law enforcement, environmentalists, consumer advocacy, and road safety. What is interesting is that the signers do not represent a broad coalition from any of those particular fields. In fact, proponents of national legislation include many groups representing people with disabilities and advocates against human driving while under the influence of intoxicants.
In terms of the letter, the message is that we should not have untested vehicles operating on public roads. (Again, with car companies self-certifying FMVSS compliance, we pretty much already have that system.) The letter is against the lack of performance standards as part of the House and Senate bills - or requiring their development and implementation at the USDOT. The lack of performance standards includes not even the equivalent - my words - of the driving test that 16 year olds are required to take before being licensed to drive or even your average DMV vision test.
The letter seems to back, without explicitly saying so, California's regulatory approach, while stating expressly that providing consumers with information is not a substitute for federal safety standards. The letter is against preemption of state and local regulation and in favor of encouraging vehicle designs that are accessible for people with disabilities. And the letter actually spells that out, though only in terms of physical accessibility and not in terms of accessibility and redundancy of interfaces.
What I like
I am fully on board with the letter's stand on extending federal AV legislation to cover SAE level 2 - Telsa equivalent - vehicles. There are more and more distracted drivers in those vehicles every day who are not ready in a split second to take over operation of their vehicles. And there are more and more of these vehicles on our roads with every new car purchase.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Strongly Worded Letter
I'm wondering what President Obama - or whatever assistant - was thinking when he opened his morning email and read the quite strongly worded letter opposing autonomous driving technology. While the letter specifically targets the partially driverless technology of the Tesla Model S that arguably, through bad design and interface with the human driver, resulted in a deadly crash in May, the letter does not limit its message to that particular incident or to any particular driverless technology.
The ire of the signing partners is targeted directly at the US Department of Transportation and especially at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). The signatories of the four-page diatribe are:
Having seen Ms. Claybrook at the first NHTSA hearing in April, she chooses her words carefully and she does not make frivolous points. Though I disagree with quite a bit in the letter, there are some valid issues raised.
In a nutshell
The heart of the letter reads as follows.
Oh, but there is so much more. The signatories also praise the state of California for its backward - my word - regulations that require specially trained human drivers even in completely autonomous vehicles and its onerous (arguably burdensome) reporting requirements for any incidents involving autonomous vehicles.
Looks matter
The signatories most valid points go to the appearance of impropriety if not to propriety itself. The revolving door and relationships of current NHTSA officials do not pass the smell test of a normal person. Very fishy. I have to say I noticed this at the NHTSA public hearings this spring where NHTSA staff seemed quite familiar and chummy with car company representatives, for example. And their attention to the words of other parties was not impressive either. (Hint: If you conduct a public engagement process, at least buy into your own hype about it and actually listen.)
And the letter goes after all parties, not just the usual corporate adversaries of public interest organizations. Car companies are not specifically taken to task except insofar as they are adopting partially autonomous technology, but tech companies are. Google is named and the letter rails against "Silicon Valley hype."
It's not all negative: Kind words are written in the missive about Volvo and Mercedes, which have declared that they will accept liability if their autonomous vehicle technology is responsible for a crash. (Okay, as a person with a legal education, I just have to say that word "responsible" could launch a thousand lawsuits, subject as it is to various interpretations. This was not pointed out in the letter. Plus, those two companies do not have the screw-you attitude that Tesla flaunts, so they would probably be inclined to take responsibility, settle lawsuits, and make any bad press go away.)
Follow the yellow-brick link
If you have five minutes, definitely read the whole letter. The document is a complete attack on what the signatories see as the Administration's tendency thus far to be in thrall with this new technology and to permit its adoption and operation on the roads without proper rulemaking procedures - that is without transparency and public comment.
You can't stop progress or technology
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is doing quick prototype testing of autonomous vehicles and the Mayor of Beverly Hills is meeting with staff from Google and others as part of a strategy to bring transit AV shuttles to the wealthy enclave (well, small city) as quickly as possible.
The ire of the signing partners is targeted directly at the US Department of Transportation and especially at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). The signatories of the four-page diatribe are:
- Joan Claybrook, a former NHTSA Administrator and President Emeritus, Public Citizen,
- Clarence Ditlow of the Center For Auto Safety,
- Rosemary Shahan of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, and
- John M. Simpson of the Privacy Project at Consumer Watchdog.
Having seen Ms. Claybrook at the first NHTSA hearing in April, she chooses her words carefully and she does not make frivolous points. Though I disagree with quite a bit in the letter, there are some valid issues raised.
In a nutshell
The heart of the letter reads as follows.
Thus far the administration’s policies on automated technologies have been developed in the shadows. NHTSA granted Google the right to consider the robot the “driver” in its autonomous vehicles in an interpretation issued without public notice, let alone the opportunity for public input. In March, NHTSA announced an agreement with 20 automakers on voluntary standards for automatic emergency braking that were substantially lower than the findings of NHTSA’s own scientists. They also circumvented the public rulemaking process for auto safety features contrary to the law. The rules of the road for automated technologies that would dramatically alter transportation in this country should be developed thoughtfully, in the light of day and with the highest level of transparency and public participation.Tell us what you really think.
Oh, but there is so much more. The signatories also praise the state of California for its backward - my word - regulations that require specially trained human drivers even in completely autonomous vehicles and its onerous (arguably burdensome) reporting requirements for any incidents involving autonomous vehicles.
Looks matter
The signatories most valid points go to the appearance of impropriety if not to propriety itself. The revolving door and relationships of current NHTSA officials do not pass the smell test of a normal person. Very fishy. I have to say I noticed this at the NHTSA public hearings this spring where NHTSA staff seemed quite familiar and chummy with car company representatives, for example. And their attention to the words of other parties was not impressive either. (Hint: If you conduct a public engagement process, at least buy into your own hype about it and actually listen.)
And the letter goes after all parties, not just the usual corporate adversaries of public interest organizations. Car companies are not specifically taken to task except insofar as they are adopting partially autonomous technology, but tech companies are. Google is named and the letter rails against "Silicon Valley hype."
It's not all negative: Kind words are written in the missive about Volvo and Mercedes, which have declared that they will accept liability if their autonomous vehicle technology is responsible for a crash. (Okay, as a person with a legal education, I just have to say that word "responsible" could launch a thousand lawsuits, subject as it is to various interpretations. This was not pointed out in the letter. Plus, those two companies do not have the screw-you attitude that Tesla flaunts, so they would probably be inclined to take responsibility, settle lawsuits, and make any bad press go away.)
If you have five minutes, definitely read the whole letter. The document is a complete attack on what the signatories see as the Administration's tendency thus far to be in thrall with this new technology and to permit its adoption and operation on the roads without proper rulemaking procedures - that is without transparency and public comment.
You can't stop progress or technology
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is doing quick prototype testing of autonomous vehicles and the Mayor of Beverly Hills is meeting with staff from Google and others as part of a strategy to bring transit AV shuttles to the wealthy enclave (well, small city) as quickly as possible.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Data on Safety Is NOT In
Despite conventional - and my own - opinion that driverless vehicles will be safer than today's human-operated ones, and despite a recent report paid for by Google, the jury is still out on whether and how much safer driverless vehicles will actually be.
Why do I say this when a university prepared the Google report?
All driverless vehicle performance thus far has been:
There are some limited shuttles in campus or campus-like settings and there is the recent Chinese Baidu 18-mile trip, but again, these provide scant data of normal speeds in mixed traffic or with pedestrians and cyclists nearby.
Looks good so far
Though the Google cars and others have been on roads for a while and have good safety records - with no serious injuries or fatalities - and there are reasons, in theory, why a rational machine with better eyesight and judgment than humans, plus an inability to get bored, will be better at driving than we humans are, the real-world data is just not there yet to reach conclusions. I say this even as I am willing to hop aboard a driverless vehicle as quickly as I would walk onto an elevator or a subway. (With the snowstorm coming this weekend to DC, I will hesitate to get into my car for at least a week.)
The article I linked to above, discussing a January 2015 insurance report, did say something intriguing. The insurance report reportedly stated that driverless vehicles will operate at about the same safety level as middle-aged, sober, good human drivers. Assuming that is true and assuming we do not get an 80-90 percent reduction in crashes, that improvement alone (plus that I will read or watch movies and TV while en route) alone will be a huge improvement over our current record of 30,000-plus deaths each year in the US alone.
Alex
This past year, a sweet 24-year-old young man named Alex, the son of a dear friend, died in a car crash. His parents and his brother grieve anew with each holiday, each birthday, each season that is a first without him. Everyday the memories bombard them and I see his mother questioning how she will go on. And this is the experience of more than 30,000 families a year - the equivalent of an airplane crash each day.
Even though I believe the data is not yet conclusive and even though I believe we will not eliminate injuries and fatalities, I urge on all of those who are working to make driverless vehicles a reality because they will be safer than the vehicles we have today. And I haven't even mentioned the huge ramifications for energy independence and efficiency.
Why do I say this when a university prepared the Google report?
All driverless vehicle performance thus far has been:
- At low speeds (Google cars at 25 mph),
- In good weather conditions,
- Under test conditions (Ford's recent MCity snowy-day experiments), or
- On highways (Audi cross-country trip).
There are some limited shuttles in campus or campus-like settings and there is the recent Chinese Baidu 18-mile trip, but again, these provide scant data of normal speeds in mixed traffic or with pedestrians and cyclists nearby.
Looks good so far
Though the Google cars and others have been on roads for a while and have good safety records - with no serious injuries or fatalities - and there are reasons, in theory, why a rational machine with better eyesight and judgment than humans, plus an inability to get bored, will be better at driving than we humans are, the real-world data is just not there yet to reach conclusions. I say this even as I am willing to hop aboard a driverless vehicle as quickly as I would walk onto an elevator or a subway. (With the snowstorm coming this weekend to DC, I will hesitate to get into my car for at least a week.)
The article I linked to above, discussing a January 2015 insurance report, did say something intriguing. The insurance report reportedly stated that driverless vehicles will operate at about the same safety level as middle-aged, sober, good human drivers. Assuming that is true and assuming we do not get an 80-90 percent reduction in crashes, that improvement alone (plus that I will read or watch movies and TV while en route) alone will be a huge improvement over our current record of 30,000-plus deaths each year in the US alone.
Alex
This past year, a sweet 24-year-old young man named Alex, the son of a dear friend, died in a car crash. His parents and his brother grieve anew with each holiday, each birthday, each season that is a first without him. Everyday the memories bombard them and I see his mother questioning how she will go on. And this is the experience of more than 30,000 families a year - the equivalent of an airplane crash each day.
Even though I believe the data is not yet conclusive and even though I believe we will not eliminate injuries and fatalities, I urge on all of those who are working to make driverless vehicles a reality because they will be safer than the vehicles we have today. And I haven't even mentioned the huge ramifications for energy independence and efficiency.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Human vs. Machine - No Contest
In terms of reaction time, when quick thinking or braking is necessary, machines - including driverless vehicles - are way ahead of humans. What we require seconds for, to assess a situation and react, a driverless vehicle can currently do in tenths of a second. Think what it takes to barrel to a stop when traveling at 80 miles an hour.
This article explains the details in terms of safety of driverless versus human drivers.
And that driverless vehicle you eventually ride in might be a 3D printed vehicle., such as the one Local Motors is showing around. Ditto for the house you live in. More and more companies are getting in this game as well. A new term: Additive manufacturing. There's no waste in this polymer world.
We might not have cars anymore, but you could use the garage for a giant 3D printer. That's not even a joke.
This article explains the details in terms of safety of driverless versus human drivers.
And that driverless vehicle you eventually ride in might be a 3D printed vehicle., such as the one Local Motors is showing around. Ditto for the house you live in. More and more companies are getting in this game as well. A new term: Additive manufacturing. There's no waste in this polymer world.
We might not have cars anymore, but you could use the garage for a giant 3D printer. That's not even a joke.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Why Gradual Autonomous Features Will Not Work - Human Nature
I agree with Alain Kornhauser - and the research that backs up his position - that the approach of Tesla and other auto manufacturers of introducing partially autonomous vehicles could well cause more crashes. Imagine drifting off to sleep in the front seat during your 50th long, boring drive somewhere. On the 51st trip, suddenly awakened, you are supposed to immediately take over the wheel in a split-second, dangerous situation.
Oh really?
Oh and you just might lose the lawsuit - unless the manufacturer settles because it does not want a stream of bad PR - because right in front of you on the dashboard is a little box with a text warning you to keep your hands on the wheel and your attention on the road at all times.
Data shows humans need a few seconds
The expectation that you take over the wheel instantly will probably not work, according to research. A study out of Stanford says that people generally need five-to-10 seconds; two will do better than one, and one is a recipe for disaster. So that little alarm to take over the wheel will probably do as well as the alarm by your bedside in terms of the time it takes to focus one's attention and to shift from watching a video, napping, daydreaming, or even blankly staring at the road to "Holy crap, what is going on and I have to do something!" And that's if you have not fallen fast asleep.
I am skeptical of this halfway technology. It can work well if it works well all the time or almost none of the time, but the idea that in a small minority of situations drivers will be instantly ready to assert themselves, no.
Oh really?
Oh and you just might lose the lawsuit - unless the manufacturer settles because it does not want a stream of bad PR - because right in front of you on the dashboard is a little box with a text warning you to keep your hands on the wheel and your attention on the road at all times.
Data shows humans need a few seconds
The expectation that you take over the wheel instantly will probably not work, according to research. A study out of Stanford says that people generally need five-to-10 seconds; two will do better than one, and one is a recipe for disaster. So that little alarm to take over the wheel will probably do as well as the alarm by your bedside in terms of the time it takes to focus one's attention and to shift from watching a video, napping, daydreaming, or even blankly staring at the road to "Holy crap, what is going on and I have to do something!" And that's if you have not fallen fast asleep.
I am skeptical of this halfway technology. It can work well if it works well all the time or almost none of the time, but the idea that in a small minority of situations drivers will be instantly ready to assert themselves, no.
Friday, August 21, 2015
Apple Speculation and Hacking Worries
After weeks of travel and lots of work - okay, mainly incredible numbers of emails - I am finally returning to writing about driverless developments. Even in just weeks, the pace of these developments is speeding up. It is not hyerbole to say that more countries, more universities, more municipalities, and more companies are joining this competition every day.
We are at the point that there is quite a bit one can ignore, for example the patent for Ford's interior of a driverless car, which looks so similar to the Mercedes-Benz design that I wonder if Ford did not have a twelve year old trace it. Or Audi's almost-but-not-quite autonomous luxury sedan. I don't want an almost driverless vehicle, personally.
What's new the last few weeks is mostly speculation - huge speculation - about Apple and worries about hacking driverless vehicles so that they stop, start zigzagging, or go straight off cliffs.
No cute photos, just news.
Everyone speculating about Apple
Almost all of the speculation about Apple's foray into the driverless world is based on the Guardian article that reported on hard evidence of Apple's secret - or perhaps secretive is a better word - development of driverless vehicles.
Here's articles with educated speculation based on the Guardian article as well as tea leaves.
Christian Science Monitor
NextGov
University News
University of Texas is getting to work on hacking/security issues with driverless technology. I'm seeing more and more articles about how easy it is to hack into any connected device, which includes driverless technology. For some reason, this and the you-ll-be-nauseous in a driverless vehicle have caught the media's attention.
And in Canada, the University of Waterloo is getting the country's first driverless vehicle transit service. Varden Labs will operate a driverless shuttle at the university. The university president hitched a ride with a second-year engineering student.
Catching a Ride on Campus
Speaking of campus driverless shuttles, a driverless pod effort is being aimed at universities, amusement parks, and retirement communities. Seems that Auro Robotics is planning to push driverless, but avoid government regulations that control our roads. TechCrunch reports that Auro is already in agreement with Santa Clara University.
Update 9/3/15: Driverless shuttle vehicles are already at the Santa Clara campus and will be giving driverless rides this semester during a three-month pilot program.
One big plus of the Auro Robotics plan is that it will emphasize driverless vehicle safety in heavily pedestrian environments. Would be great to see that driverless networks will be safer for walking than the past century of human-controlled vehicles.
Hacking Fears Abound
From the same philosophy that brought you Murphy's law - updated for the 21st century - a common refrain, this time reiterated by National Defense Magazine: Anything that can be hacked (and that's anything) will be hacked. The attention in the last week or so has been on the easy hacking of driverless vehicles. You can add baby monitors, GPS devices, and a hundred other common devices that enable us to stay connected to personal information. It is remarkably easy to hack all of these devices and no one wants to be in a vehicle suddenly speeding, darting in and out of traffic, or careening off a cliff (that's all of the California coastline, by the way). No question that software developers involved with driverless technology must address this one; the insurance industry will make sure of that. Possibly legislators as well, but they are generally behind the eight ball, not being a class of tech-savvy, up-to-the-minute individuals.
Independence Day
Meanwhile an Indian startup has created a semi, but mainly, autonomous car for people who are blind or have serious visual impairments. The driver is the navigator and the car is designed to mimic a driving experience for the visually-impaired navigator. Now that we're on the verge of driverless and we're all going to give up the steering wheel, I'm not sure this invention will go anywhere, except, perhaps, to incrementally contribute to driverless technological development.
And - why driverless for everyone?
We humans are terrible drivers. It's an informative game.
We are at the point that there is quite a bit one can ignore, for example the patent for Ford's interior of a driverless car, which looks so similar to the Mercedes-Benz design that I wonder if Ford did not have a twelve year old trace it. Or Audi's almost-but-not-quite autonomous luxury sedan. I don't want an almost driverless vehicle, personally.
What's new the last few weeks is mostly speculation - huge speculation - about Apple and worries about hacking driverless vehicles so that they stop, start zigzagging, or go straight off cliffs.
No cute photos, just news.
Everyone speculating about Apple
Almost all of the speculation about Apple's foray into the driverless world is based on the Guardian article that reported on hard evidence of Apple's secret - or perhaps secretive is a better word - development of driverless vehicles.
Here's articles with educated speculation based on the Guardian article as well as tea leaves.
Christian Science Monitor
NextGov
University News
University of Texas is getting to work on hacking/security issues with driverless technology. I'm seeing more and more articles about how easy it is to hack into any connected device, which includes driverless technology. For some reason, this and the you-ll-be-nauseous in a driverless vehicle have caught the media's attention.
And in Canada, the University of Waterloo is getting the country's first driverless vehicle transit service. Varden Labs will operate a driverless shuttle at the university. The university president hitched a ride with a second-year engineering student.
Catching a Ride on Campus
Speaking of campus driverless shuttles, a driverless pod effort is being aimed at universities, amusement parks, and retirement communities. Seems that Auro Robotics is planning to push driverless, but avoid government regulations that control our roads. TechCrunch reports that Auro is already in agreement with Santa Clara University.
Update 9/3/15: Driverless shuttle vehicles are already at the Santa Clara campus and will be giving driverless rides this semester during a three-month pilot program.
One big plus of the Auro Robotics plan is that it will emphasize driverless vehicle safety in heavily pedestrian environments. Would be great to see that driverless networks will be safer for walking than the past century of human-controlled vehicles.
Hacking Fears Abound
From the same philosophy that brought you Murphy's law - updated for the 21st century - a common refrain, this time reiterated by National Defense Magazine: Anything that can be hacked (and that's anything) will be hacked. The attention in the last week or so has been on the easy hacking of driverless vehicles. You can add baby monitors, GPS devices, and a hundred other common devices that enable us to stay connected to personal information. It is remarkably easy to hack all of these devices and no one wants to be in a vehicle suddenly speeding, darting in and out of traffic, or careening off a cliff (that's all of the California coastline, by the way). No question that software developers involved with driverless technology must address this one; the insurance industry will make sure of that. Possibly legislators as well, but they are generally behind the eight ball, not being a class of tech-savvy, up-to-the-minute individuals.
Independence Day
Meanwhile an Indian startup has created a semi, but mainly, autonomous car for people who are blind or have serious visual impairments. The driver is the navigator and the car is designed to mimic a driving experience for the visually-impaired navigator. Now that we're on the verge of driverless and we're all going to give up the steering wheel, I'm not sure this invention will go anywhere, except, perhaps, to incrementally contribute to driverless technological development.
And - why driverless for everyone?
We humans are terrible drivers. It's an informative game.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Totally Driverless - Uber v. Google
The competition to oust Google as the leader in the fully autonomous vehicle sweepstakes is heating up with Uber getting aggressive. Read this morning about Uber's Bing acquisition and what it means. Speculation all around that Uber's purchase of the Bing software engineers is part of reaching toward the great driverless plan to replace those pesky human driver employees, I mean "independent contractors."
Google's reasoning in going completely driverless is correct, in my opinion, and Chris Umson gives a nice driverless for dummies TED talk about Google's rationale and the technology that is making this leap possible. According to Umson, we humans are not the best drivers and thousands of us die each year as a result.
Google's reasoning in going completely driverless is correct, in my opinion, and Chris Umson gives a nice driverless for dummies TED talk about Google's rationale and the technology that is making this leap possible. According to Umson, we humans are not the best drivers and thousands of us die each year as a result.
Friday, April 24, 2015
M City and Self-Driving Taxis (Uber?)
My apologies to the Buckeyes out there (a/k/a Ohio State students, alumni, and fans), but in terms of driverless vehicle technology, the University of Michigan is way ahead. U of M has its M City, currently under construction, with 41 companies signed up as partners. The idea, according to the linked article from Construction Equipment Guide (not a periodical I usually read), is to create realistic conditions - including pedestrians that run in front of cars, hills, and snowy days - in a safe testing environment. Plan is for vehicles to be "commercially viable" in 2021.
The article cites an estimate of 80 percent reduction in traffic accidents. I am guessing that is a conservative estimate because, currently, well over 90 percent of roadway injuries and fatalities are caused by human errors.
My mother the car might not be far off
If you think your mother can learn from experience, then the driverless vehicles of the future - and not too far in the future, either - are what you should be envisioning. Honda's president, Frank Paluch, said yesterday that these vehicles will have sensors, true, but they will also be able to remember and learn from their experiences. They might be better, actually, will definitely be better, than you are at recalling that pothole between your home and the supermarket. They might also remember and be able to detect where there is traffic and go a different route, something we humans are hit or miss on. I do not believe they will scream out anything like "I should remember downtown Silver Spring is a mess at this hour. Ugh!!!"
I only saw My Mother the Car in reruns, but here's the opening credits. This intelligent car, by the way, despite also being a protective mother, still needed a driver. And the show was arguably the high point of Jerry Van Dyke's acting career (the brother of Dick Van Dyke), not that I know much about that either.
The article cites an estimate of 80 percent reduction in traffic accidents. I am guessing that is a conservative estimate because, currently, well over 90 percent of roadway injuries and fatalities are caused by human errors.
My mother the car might not be far off
If you think your mother can learn from experience, then the driverless vehicles of the future - and not too far in the future, either - are what you should be envisioning. Honda's president, Frank Paluch, said yesterday that these vehicles will have sensors, true, but they will also be able to remember and learn from their experiences. They might be better, actually, will definitely be better, than you are at recalling that pothole between your home and the supermarket. They might also remember and be able to detect where there is traffic and go a different route, something we humans are hit or miss on. I do not believe they will scream out anything like "I should remember downtown Silver Spring is a mess at this hour. Ugh!!!"
I only saw My Mother the Car in reruns, but here's the opening credits. This intelligent car, by the way, despite also being a protective mother, still needed a driver. And the show was arguably the high point of Jerry Van Dyke's acting career (the brother of Dick Van Dyke), not that I know much about that either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)