Autonomous Vehicles, LEAF and others...

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
This dates from a week or so ago in the Bay Area, but got busy and forgot to post it:
First Company Approved For Autonomous Passenger Vehicle Program
https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea...pproved-For-Autonomous-Passenger-13486604.php

A Silicon Valley startup won permission Friday to offer rides to passengers in autonomous vehicles that have a trained test driver present.

The California Public Utilities Commission approved Zoox to be the first company in a pilot program that will test autonomous cars that have a driver ready to take over if needed.

Companies participating in the "Drivered AV Passenger Service" program will submit data on incidents and passenger miles traveled in the test vehicles, along with passenger safety and consumer protection elements, according to the utilities commission.

In addition, the program will test autonomous cars that are zero-emission vehicles. . . .
 
ABG:
GM Cruise, DoorDash partner for autonomous food delivery
They'll deliver takeout and groceries in San Francisco
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/01/04/gm-cruise-doordash-autonomous-food-delivery/

. . . The test, which kicks off early this year, will begin by delivering restaurant food to select DoorDash customers using Cruise autonomous vehicles. Later, the partners seek to expand the program to deliver groceries from select DoorDash grocers using the driverless cars. . . .
 
GCC:
UC Santa Cruz prof suggests self-driving cars will torpedo parking pricing as effective congestion management policy; “incentive to create havoc”
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/02/20190202-ucsc.html

With no need to park, autonomous vehicles (AVs) will clog city streets and slow traffic to a crawl, according to a new paper by University of Santa Cruz transportation planner Adam Millard-Ball, an associate professor of environmental studies. However, a policy fix could address these problems before autonomous vehicles become commonplace, he suggests. His paper is published in the journal Transport Policy.

  • In this paper, I identify and analyze a new channel through which AVs will have unambiguously negative environmental consequences—the removal of parking pricing, one of the most effective congestion management policies, from the urban transportation policy toolbox. AVs not only can avoid parking charges through cruising (that is, circling around while waiting for a passenger), but also have the incentive to seek out and exacerbate congestion—even gridlock—in order to minimize costs to their owners. . . .

    … This paper suggests that the parking behavior of autonomous vehicles would land cities with a twofold blow—a dramatic drop in the cost of parking that encourages more trips by car, and greater vehicle travel and congestion from each trip due to cruising, returning home, and traveling to free on-street spaces. The reduced price of parking would likely increase vehicle travel to dense, urban cores by 98%, while cruising and travel to and from remote parking spaces would add a further 8%.

    Fundamentally, AVs will negate one of the central pillars of Transportation Demand Management programs that seek to reduce vehicle travel in downtowns, university campuses and other employment centers.


    —Millard-Ball (2019). . . .

Under the best-case scenario, the presence of as few as 2,000 self-driving cars in downtown San Francisco will slow traffic to less than 2 mph, according to Millard-Ball, who uses game theory and a traffic micro-simulation model to generate his predictions.

“It just takes a minority to gum things up,” he said, recalling the congestion caused at airports by motorists cruising the arrivals area to avoid paying for parking: “Drivers would go as slowly as possibly so they wouldn’t have to drive around again.” Free cell-phone parking areas, coupled with strict enforcement in loading areas, relieved the airport snarls, but cities will be hard-pressed to provide remote parking areas for self-driving cars at rates lower than the cost of cruising—which Millard-Ball estimates at 50 cents per hour.

  • Even when you factor in electricity, depreciation, wear and tear, and maintenance, cruising costs about 50 cents an hour—that’s cheaper than parking even in a small town. Unless it’s free or cheaper than cruising, why would anyone use a remote lot?

    —Adam Millard-Ball. . . .

Regulation also falls short because, as Millard-Ball puts it, “It’s difficult to regulate intent. You can pass a law saying it’s illegal to drive more than 10 minutes without a passenger, but what if the car is picking up a parcel?”

Millard-Ball proposes congestion pricing—which can take different forms but essentially amounts to a user fee—as a solution. In London, motorists pay a flat fee of £11.50 (about $15) to enter the city center. Singapore and Stockholm employ similar models. More sophisticated models could charge by miles driven, or assign different fees to particular streets.

Economists and environmentalists agree that congestion pricing effectively reduces congestion and pollution, but it’s a politically fraught strategy because it raises the ire of commuters. Millard-Ball sees an opportunity here.

  • As a policy, congestion pricing is difficult to implement. The public never wants to pay for something they’ve historically gotten for free. But no one owns an autonomous vehicle now, so there’s no constituency organized to oppose charging for the use of public streets. This is the time to establish the principle and use it to avoid the nightmarish scenario of total gridlock.

    —Adam Millard-Ball

Moreover, he noted, self-driving cars could be outfitted with devices that would give policymakers options for levying fees based on location, speed, time of day—even which lane the vehicle occupies. . . .
 
Family of homeless woman killed by driverless Uber blames City of Tempe for paving job, sues for $10 million
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-driverless-uber-homeless-woman-killed-family-sues-tempe-20190203-story.html
 
GCC:
Mercedes-Benz researching “informed trust” of autonomous vehicles
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/02/20190204-mbtrust.html

Mercedes-Benz considers empathy and trust to be central factors for the acceptance of self-driving vehicles. For people to have trust in the machine, they must immediately and intuitively be able to recognise what an autonomous vehicle intends to do. Mercedes-Benz is conducting research into this “informed trust” with the help of the “cooperative car”.

The cooperative car is based on an S-Class, and features 360-degree light signaling. Turquoise lights on the roof indicate autonomous driving mode, and provide information on what happens next.

  • Continuous light shows that the vehicle is in autonomous driving mode, whether moving or stationary.

    Slow flashing means that the vehicle is braking.

    Rapid flashing announces that the vehicle will shortly be moving off.

Alternative light display concepts are also being tested with this vehicle: turquoise light strips in the windscreen, the radiator grille, the headlamps, the exterior mirrors and the lower area of the windows indicate to pedestrians and other road users that the vehicle is operating in autonomous mode.

Short rows of illuminated dots on the roof tell other road users that they have been recognized. In the process, only those pedestrians or cyclists whose path coincides with that of the vehicle are given a light signal. In doing so, the cooperative car recreates the natural eye contact that would have taken place between the driver and pedestrians.

The cooperative S-Class also informs its surroundings that it is about to go into operation while it is still at the side of the road. The light strips around the vehicle emit an appropriate light signal. The exterior mirrors fold out, and first the rear then the front of the vehicle lifts up. These movements resemble a living being that is waking up and stretching. People can understand this communication intuitively, Mercedes-Benz suggests.

Studies have shown that pedestrians prefer 360-degree communication in turquoise. 360-degree light signalling is particularly important when it comes to keeping pedestrians informed. These are the findings from several light studies that Mercedes-Benz carried out in Sindelfingen and on the Immendingen test site, which was opened in September 2018.

The research examined how pedestrians react to differently signalized autonomous vehicles in various traffic situations. It became clear that light signaling has a strong effect on the acceptance of autonomously driving vehicles, as well as on how safe pedestrians feel.

In particular, people want light signaling in situations where there was hitherto interaction with the driver. For example, people are used to seeking eye contact with a driver when they want to cross a road. If light signaling is communicating that a vehicle is in the autonomous driving mode, pedestrians can feel safe even if the vehicle occupants are obviously not paying attention to the traffic situation.

The majority of participants in the study preferred turquoise as the signaling color; all participants favoured a 360-degree display. Mercedes-Benz is contributing its findings from these studies to assist work being carried out on autonomous driving by SAE International. There Mercedes-Benz recommends the use of turquoise, a color which has not previously been used in the automotive sector, to enable 360° signalling. . . .
 
Nissan-Renault alliance to join Google on self-driving cars
Automaker group goes all-in on outside partnerships for future of driving
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Nissan-Renault-alliance-to-join-Google-on-self-driving-cars
 
Apple Reports (CA) Self-Driving Car Disengagements to DMV, Earns Worst Rank
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/12/apple-self-driving-car-disengagements-report/
(CA) Disengagement Reports 2018 – Preliminary Results
https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2019/02/12/disengagement-reports-2018-preliminary-results/

Hope the 2018 data shows up soon at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing. Will be interesting to see if Tesla reports 0 autonomous miles driven on CA public roads again.

Keep in mind all of the above is only for CA public roads.
 
^^^
Data is up at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disengagement_report_2018. And yep, Tesla reported 0 miles (again) for 2018.
 
cwerdna said:
^^^
Data is up at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disengagement_report_2018. And yep, Tesla reported 0 miles (again) for 2018.
https://insideevs.com/musk-tesla-full-self-driving-end-2020/

When the conversation turned to vehicle autonomy, things got a lot more interesting and featured more bold predictions. Musk says that by the end of this year — 2019 — full-self-driving optioned Tesla vehicles will be feature complete. He explains thusly,

“…meaning the car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention…”

He goes on to state he is very certain of that progress — he explains that he directly manages the Autopilot and engineering every week in detail — but clarifies that doesn’t mean it will be perfect or not need human oversight. There is also the issue of gaining approval from regulators to be taken into account.

Musk goes on to say that he believes the vehicles will be able to self-drive without human intervention by the end of next year — 2020.
LOL on his end of 2020 prediction, at least as long as they're using Tesla's software...
 
Apple publishes brief overview of its ‘approach to autonomous driving system safety’
https://9to5mac.com/2019/02/20/apple-self-driving-safety-paper/
 
cwerdna said:
https://insideevs.com/musk-tesla-full-self-driving-end-2020/

...Musk goes on to say that he believes the vehicles will be able to self-drive without human intervention by the end of next year — 2020.
LOL on his end of 2020 prediction, at least as long as they're using Tesla's software...
A Musk schedule promise. What's the calibration on those these days? +5 years?
 
GCR:
Rice, Texas Tech study finds automated cars and their operators fail to detect dangers
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/03/2190301rice.html

New research from Rice University and Texas Tech University has found that drivers often fail to spot hazards missed by automated vehicles, and it only gets worse the longer drivers ride in them. The study is published in the journal Human Factors.

The researchers examined the behavior of 60 licensed drivers operating an automated car in a simulator. Participants were told that due to the automation, they would not need to operate the steering wheel, brake pedal or accelerator pedal. They were instructed to monitor the roadway for vehicles that were stopped dangerously at intersections and intruding into the driver’s lane, which constituted a hazard that automated vehicles could not detect. Participants also had to distinguish between vehicles that were safely stopped and dangerously stopped at intersections.

The drivers’accuracy dropped between 7 and 21 percent over the 40-minute simulation. Even in the first 10 minutes the success rate was, at best, close to 88 percent, suggesting that all drivers missed at least some hazards.

Pat DeLucia, a professor of psychological sciences at Rice and the study’s co-author, said that one possible explanation for the results is that people get used to cars doing the driving and become complacent. Coupled with previous research that indicated people are terrible at monitoring for hazards that only happen every once in a while, and that over time their ability to respond decreases, the new study “suggests that this phenomenon of difficulty monitoring effectively over time extends to monitoring an automated car,” DeLucia said.

  • The bottom line is, until automated driving systems are completely reliable and can respond in all situations, the driver must stay alert and be prepared to take over. And this research clearly shows that is not happening, and gets worse as time passes.

    —Eric Greenlee, assistant professor of psychological sciences at Texas Tech and lead author. . . .
To put it another way, this study confirmed what every other study on the same subject has said - semi-autonomy that's reasonably reliable (but well short of the level needed to provide an increase in safety) guarantees inattentive operators. I can hear my ex-girlfriend with her degree in Human Factors Engineering saying the equivalent of "Well, duh."
 
GCC:
Volvo Buses and Singapore University NTU demo world’s first full size autonomous electric bus
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/03/20190306-volvontu.html

Volvo Buses and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore have demonstrated the world’s first 12-meter autonomous electric bus. The Volvo bus will soon begin trials on the NTU campus.

The 85 passenger Volvo 7900 Electric bus is equipped with sensors and navigation controls that are managed by a comprehensive artificial intelligence (AI) system. The AI system is protected with cybersecurity measures to prevent unwanted intrusions.

The Volvo bus has undergone preliminary rounds of testing at the Centre of Excellence for Testing and Research of Autonomous vehicles (CETRAN).

Plans are in place to test the bus on NTU campus and to extend the route beyond the university.

The fully autonomous electric bus provides a quiet operation with zero emissions. It requires 80% less energy than an equivalent-sized diesel bus.

This is Volvo’s first autonomous fully electric bus in public transportation. . . .

Related, also GCC:
Volvo Cars to limit all its cars to 180 km/h (112 mph); geo-fenced limits possible in future; proposals coming on intoxication and distraction
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/03/201900305-volvo.html

The company’s Vision 2020, which aims for no one to be killed or seriously injured in a new Volvo by 2020, is one of the most ambitious safety visions in the automotive industry. Since technology alone will not get it all the way to zero, Volvo Cars is now broadening its scope to include a focus on driver behavior. . . .

Apart from limiting top speeds, the company is also investigating how a combination of smart speed control and geo-fencing technology could automatically limit speeds around schools and hospitals in future.

  • We want to start a conversation about whether car makers have the right or maybe even an obligation to install technology in cars that changes their driver’s behavior, to tackle things like speeding, intoxication or distraction. We don’t have a firm answer to this question, but believe we should take leadership in the discussion and be a pioneer.

    —Håkan Samuelsson

Above certain speeds, in-car safety technology and smart infrastructure design are no longer enough to avoid severe injuries and fatalities in the event of an accident. That is why speed limits are in place in most western countries; yet speeding remains ubiquitous and one of the most common reasons for fatalities in traffic. . . .

Besides speeding, the two other major gaps are intoxication and distraction.

  • Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is illegal in large parts of the world, yet it remains a prime reason for injuries and fatalities on today’s roads.

    Drivers distracted by their mobile phones or otherwise not fully engaged in driving are another major cause of traffic fatalities. In many ways, they are equally dangerous as drunk drivers.

Volvo Cars will present ideas to tackle the problem areas of intoxication and distraction at a special safety event in Gothenburg, Sweden on 20 March.
Now if we could just get Tesla to prohibit A/P use where they know it doesn't work. But we'll probably have to do that through regulation, as they seem willing to continue risking the lives of their own customers and, more importantly, the lives of others for what, so they can gather data?
 
ABG:
Uber won't face criminal charges in fatal Arizona self-driving crash
For the backup driver, it might be another matter
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/03/06/uber-wont-face-criminal-charges-in-fatal-arizona-self-driving-c/

Uber Technologies is not criminally liable in a March 2018 crash in Tempe, Arizona, in which one of the company's self-driving cars struck and killed a pedestrian, prosecutors said on Tuesday.

The Yavapai County Attorney said in a letter made public that there was "no basis for criminal liability" for Uber, but that the back-up driver, Rafaela Vasquez, should be referred to the Tempe police for additional investigation. . . .

Vasquez, the Uber back-up driver, could face charges of vehicular manslaughter, according to a police report in June. Vasquez has not previously commented and could not immediately be reached on Tuesday.

Based on a video taken inside the car, records collected from online entertainment streaming service Hulu and other evidence, police said last year that Vasquez was looking down and streaming an episode of the television show "The Voice" on a phone until about the time of the crash. The driver looked up a half-second before hitting Elaine Herzberg, 49, who died from her injuries.

Police called the incident "entirely avoidable."

Yavapai County Attorney's Office, which examined the case at the request of Maricopa County where the accident occurred, did not explain the reasoning for not finding criminal liability against Uber. Yavapai sent the case back to Maricopa, calling for further expert analysis of the video to determine what the driver should have seen that night. . . .
 
GCC:
Optimus Ride plans self-driving vehicle deployments in NY, CA
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/03/20190321-optimus.html

Optimus Ride . . . plans to deploy its self-driving systems at two sites: the Brooklyn Navy Yard, a 300-acre modern industrial park with over 400 manufacturing businesses and 9,000 people working on site; and Paradise Valley Estates, a private 80-acre, nonprofit Life Plan Community located in Fairfield, California.

Optimus Ride will provide residents and workers at both sites with access to efficient and convenient self-driving mobility within defined, geofenced areas.

This news comes weeks after Optimus Ride announced a partnership with Brookfield Properties to deploy self-driving vehicles at Brookfield’s Halley Rise development, located just outside of Washington, D.C. With these new programs, Optimus Ride will be operating deployments in four US states.

Slated to launch in the second quarter of 2019, Optimus Ride’s deployment at the Brooklyn Navy Yard will be the first commercial self-driving vehicle program in the state of New York. Optimus Ride will deploy self-driving vehicles on the Brooklyn Navy Yard’s private roads, providing a loop shuttle service to connect NYC Ferry passengers to Flushing Avenue outside the Yard’s perimeter.

Paradise Valley Estates will welcome the Optimus Ride vehicle system onto its private, gated community this summer. During the initial phase of the program at Paradise Valley Estates, the primary service will be to provide prospective residents with self-driving tours of the community. Additionally, residents will be able to access Optimus Ride through its reservation and on-demand ride services to travel to-and-from their friends’ homes, as well as travel to the community/health center, and access outdoor activities within the property.

Also GCC:
ZF takes 60% stake in mobility provider 2getthere, provider of automated electric passenger transport systems
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/03/20190320-zf.html

ZF Friedrichshafen AG has acquired a 60% share of 2getthere B.V. The company offers complete automated transport systems and is located in Utrecht/Netherlands, with offices in San Francisco, Dubai and Singapore. Applications range from driverless electric transport systems at airports, business and theme parks to dedicated urban transport infrastructures. . . .

2getthere was founded in 1984 and has accumulated more than 100 million kilometers of autonomous mileage with driverless passenger and cargo transport systems in several major cities worldwide, including Rotterdam, Abu Dhabi and Singapore, as well as numerous ports and airports.

2getthere’s fully electric driverless systems at business parks in Rivium (Capelle aan den IJssel) and Masdar City (Abu Dhabi) have transported more than 14 million people reliably and safely. The reliability of the systems installed by 2getthere, including vehicle controls and software architecture, exceeds 99.7%. . . .
 
GCR:
Tesla Autopilot ranks next-to-last in study of self-driving systems
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...next-to-last-in-study-of-self-driving-systems

Tesla, its owners and fans, and its CEO Elon Musk crow a lot about the capabilities of its Autopilot self-driving system.

In independent comparisons, though, other autonomous driving systems keep coming out ahead. The latest is from Navigant Research, an automotive consulting firm, and the results aren't rosy for Tesla's Autopilot. It rated second from the bottom among a group of 20 companies working to develop self-driving systems.

One reason Autopilot didn't fare well here is that Navigant's study rates self-driving programs on things beyond the systems' performance. The study includes 10 criteria: the companies' self-driving visions; their technology itself; its capability, quality, and reliability; whether the companies have any partners and the quality of those partners; sales, marketing, and distribution strategies; marketing and production strategies; the product portfolio; and the companies' staying power.

The companies are ranked within those criteria using a proprietary matrix that Navigant holds close to the vest. "Companies developing suitable business models in conjunction with the core technology remain most likely to succeed in commercializing automated driving," Navigant said in a statement introducing the study. . . .

The top self-driving companies in Navigant's study have very different approaches from Tesla and are mainly working toward developing driverless taxi services: Google's (Alphabet's) Waymo, and GM's Cruise, along with Ford Autonomous Vehicles, which the company is developing without much fanfare. . . .
 
GRA said:
GCR:
Tesla Autopilot ranks next-to-last in study of self-driving systems
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...next-to-last-in-study-of-self-driving-systems

. . .
One reason Autopilot didn't fare well here is that Navigant's study rates self-driving programs on things beyond the systems' performance. The study includes 10 criteria: the companies' self-driving visions; their technology itself; its capability, quality, and reliability; whether the companies have any partners and the quality of those partners; sales, marketing, and distribution strategies; marketing and production strategies; the product portfolio; and the companies' staying power.
. . .
It sounds to me like Navigant gave us their opinion of Tesla rather than of their opinion of Autopilot.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
GCR:
Tesla Autopilot ranks next-to-last in study of self-driving systems
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...next-to-last-in-study-of-self-driving-systems

. . .
One reason Autopilot didn't fare well here is that Navigant's study rates self-driving programs on things beyond the systems' performance. The study includes 10 criteria: the companies' self-driving visions; their technology itself; its capability, quality, and reliability; whether the companies have any partners and the quality of those partners; sales, marketing, and distribution strategies; marketing and production strategies; the product portfolio; and the companies' staying power.
. . .
It sounds to me like Navigant gave us their opinion of Tesla rather than of their opinion of Autopilot.
Partly the case, but that is significant. The article goes on to say:
"As of the end of 2018, all automated driving market players have one thing in common: no company is providing commercial services without a human safety operator onboard the vehicle when carrying passengers. As work has progressed on many fronts in validating automated driving technology, engineers and developers are realizing how many years away they are from ensuring the stability of the technology," Navigant said.

"Indeed, earlier versions of Autopilot have been blamed in a number of fatal crashes around the world when their drivers weren't paying attention, and some which resulted in serious injury. In a recent conference call, Musk acknowledged that when the company's Full Self Driving Capability comes online, which he expects to happen later this year, "it won't be reliable at first," and drivers "will still have to pay attention."
So, Tesla continues to use their customers as beta testers, the price of testing failure being that they're injured or killed. As government regulators seem to be unwilling to stop this, I can only hope that lawsuits will sufficiently impact the company to force them to stop doing this.
 
Isn't great how fast Tesla is progressing to full AP:

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/b36x27/its_back_after_6_months_of_working_fine_2019515/

Elon predicts sometime this year. Then there's the Tesla AP software OTAs, i.e. the software engineers haven't learned yet
that any AP design change without a full simulation of all system paths shouldn't be released to manufacturing. It's probably
the same group writing software for the MCU (media control unit) and updating the music channels for Spotify. Tesla owners
selecting classical music but getting country is not a potential injury scenario after an OTA to the MCU. Hey for Tesla, beta testing
doesn't cost engineering time and a few deaths here & there apparently doesn't seem to bother the NHTSA.
 
Back
Top