Autonomous Vehicles

[Entai]

You will notice that the Governor of Arizona only singled out Uber for suspension, not any other company testing AVs in that State. When the Governor of a State describes your AV efforts as an "unquestioned failure" and there is a Federal and State safety investigation going on with your vehicle that has crashed and caused a fatality, when your competitors have publicly chastised your AV efforts and stated that their computer vision systems would not have resulted in a crash, there is no benefit to telling the Governor that you should have "full and unfettered access to all of the roads" in that State. Instead Uber's response correctly was to accept his decision, cooperate with the investigators, remove their AVs from public roads and keep its head down. An aggressive response by Uber would have been widely chastised. That is the reality of crisis management. And Uber's self driving vehicle programme is in a crisis.

Following my comments about the declining value of Uber's self driving business, I thought others might find this article from Ars today of interest. The article is : "Why it's time for Uber to get out of the self driving car business/Uber's self driving car project would be more stronger outside of Uber"

"More fundamentally, the project needs to earn back the public trust after last week's fatal crash. That's going to be hard to do if the project remains under the corporate umbrella of Uber, a company that doesn't have the best reputation for honesty and respect for the rules. Selling the project to a new owner could give it a fresh start in the public mind."

A new owner, particularly one perceived as honest and truly focused on safety might be a better home for Uber's self driving car project and allow it to test its technology on public roads, which is your point.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...ect-is-struggling-the-company-should-sell-it/

NO my point is why ban Uber at all.

Let them get out there and test along with everyone else, how else will they ever get better systems ?

The point is treat all AV companies the same.

if you say Uber is not safe, then none are safe.

if you say everyone else is safe, then Uber is safe.

Ban everyone, or ban no one.

Like I say the roads do not instantly empty, every time a human driver kills someone, 99.9999999% of all other traffic carries on exactly as if nothing had happened, exactly as it should be.

Uber need to be allowed to carry on exactly as they were. Let them learn from the mistake and build from it, not go into hiding, or get sold off, or anything else, just carry on exactly as they were.

 

[Nasher]

So why are there thousands of deaths on the roads if human drivers will always see what is wrong and stop in time ??

Because with 100s of millions of drivers, some will mess up. The amount of accidents to the number of drivers is tiny. There's a maybe few 100 AVs at most and already we're seeing them mess up and this time actually kill someone in an avoidable crash.

We're still decades away from a completely safe and trustworthy system, maybe not even within our lifetime.

 

[sesevans]

A number of industry players, who are very knowledgeable about Uber's self driving car programme and its difficulties have taken differing views on the fatal crash. I have mentioned that after the crash, Uber has withdrawn its entire programme and has been specifically suspended in Arizona, Toyota has suspended its self driving car testing, Nutonomy has suspended its programme, Hyundai has expressed caution, Aptiv has stated its anti-collision avoidance system was not being used by Uber's self driving Volvo cars, Velodyne is mystified as to how the accident could have happened. And today Reuters is reporting that Nvidia has suspended its self driving testing. Nvidia incidentally has a partnership with Uber.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-t...agen-in-self-driving-technology-idUKKBN1EX0BL

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...f-driving-tests-globally-source-idUSKBN1H32E0

On the other side of the equation, Waymo, Ford and GM have stated they are not suspending their road testing and Waymo has announced an expansion of their fleet today in partnership with Jaguar Land Rover. Mobileye CEO (Intel subsidiary) has chastised Uber's failure.

And the NTSB has now opened an investigation into a Tesla crash two days ago in California. The NTSB is "unclear if automated control system was active at the time of the crash".

https://www.reuters.com/article/tes...-tesla-crash-fire-in-california-idUSL1N1R90Y9

I think before we reach any conclusions about what needs to happen, it is necessary for the Federal and State investigations to be completed.

 

[Kenai]

We're still decades away from a completely safe and trustworthy system, maybe not even within our lifetime.

We may be decades away from a near perfect system but we're plenty close enough to a system that will be better than the status quo and that's the important bit. Autonomous vehicles are on the way, whether you want to accept that or not

 

[Nasher]

But then who pays when an AV crashes in to me? They still haven't even worked that out yet :/

 

[Kenai]

NO my point is why ban Uber at all.

Let them get out there and test along with everyone else, how else will they ever get better systems ?

The point is treat all AV companies the same.

if you say Uber is not safe, then none are safe.

if you say everyone else is safe, then Uber is safe.

Ban everyone, or ban no one.

Like I say the roads do not instantly empty, every time a human driver kills someone, 99.9999999% of all other traffic carries on exactly as if nothing had happened, exactly as it should be.

Uber need to be allowed to carry on exactly as they were. Let them learn from the mistake and build from it, not go into hiding, or get sold off, or anything else, just carry on exactly as they were.

There needs to be some minimum standards though, it shouldn't be everyone or no one, it should be everyone who can demonstrate in controlled environments they're at least safe enough to be let loose. If a company like Uber are lacking in appropriate safety standards, it's only right their ability to test on public roads gets restricted.

 

[Kenai]

But then who pays when an AV crashes in to me? They still haven't even worked that out yet :/

The insurance company who cover the vehicle, they're not driving around uninsured

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

One of the difference between how humans and AV are treated is responsibility. you can punish a human. how do you punish an AV? Do you punish the engineers that wrote the software? Or do you punish the company?
If you punish the company then your talking about fines, but the fines would be pathetic. If you punish the engineers, then i don't see anyone working in that industry for very long.

The Uber collision is a good example. IMO if a human driver did this then I would expect a driving ban and potentially a suspended sentence, because it would be negligence. How exactly do we punish the AV?

 

[sesevans]

The insurance company who cover the vehicle, they're not driving around uninsured

There are actually at least two different insurance arrangements in play here. The ride hailing fleet operator (or perhaps truck fleet operator) will either self insure or obtain third party insurance to cover the damages to its vehicle and other vehicles and any injuries to passengers in its AV. To operate currently in many States I recall reading for example that Waymo has arranged $ 5 million insurance cover for the risk that its "driver" causes damage or injury.

There is another insurance that Waymo has already arranged for riders in their Early Rider programme in Arizona. In December they teamed with Trov to " provide Waymo’s passengers with insurance for lost and managed property, and for any medical expenses resulting from rides." The cost will be "invisible" to the rider as it will be bundled into the overall cost of the ride.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/19/w...passenger-insurance-for-self-driving-service/

 

[Nasher]

The insurance company who cover the vehicle, they're not driving around uninsured

But you can't claim against the driver since they are just a passenger. It's basically roulette on if you hit someone or not, they have no control over it. They are relying on the AI's coding not being wonky and everything working as it should.

 

[sesevans]

As mentioned, Waymo has agreed to purchase 20,000 JLR I-Pace BEVs/self driving vehicles to be manufactured in Austria fully assembled and road worthy (ie the sensors, radar, cameras, etc will be installed by the manufacturer). Turns out this manufacturer is a rather specialist company called Magna Steyr, based in Graz, Austria. I am sure many on this Motor thread know them but they were not a name I had previously known. They are a contract manufacturer who have worked extensively for Daimler and BMW and now JLR. Their work includes the Aston Martin Rapide, the Audi TT, all E-Class 4 Matics, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Steyr

 

[Kenai]

But you can't claim against the driver since they are just a passenger. It's basically roulette on if you hit someone or not, they have no control over it. They are relying on the AI's coding not being wonky and everything working as it should.

Doesn't matter to you though as the 'been hit' party, insurance is insurance, doesn't matter if it's the driver, the car, the manufacturer or whoever else that is insured, you get paid out all the same.

As for the roulette nonsense, all that betrays is your lack of understanding of the technology behind these vehicles. They're already a long way past being death traps yet you post as if it's complete pot luck whether people are dying every time one goes near a road.

 

[sesevans]

But you can't claim against the driver since they are just a passenger. It's basically roulette on if you hit someone or not, they have no control over it. They are relying on the AI's coding not being wonky and everything working as it should.

The "driver" in Waymo's self driving vehicle is Waymo. Waymo are definitely not "just a passenger". Waymo has stated that they are building "the world's most experienced driver". They have designed and developed the technology completely "in-house." Waymo's announcement today of their purchase and adaptation of JLR's I-Pace is, according to the Company, just the beginning. They state:

"The self-driving products of the future will be designed around passengers, not drivers. That means riders will be able to choose from a broad array of options that will match their very specific needs: one for working remotely as you commute, one for dining with friends, even one designed for napping! The ultimate goal: with Waymo as the driver, products tailored for every purpose and every trip."

They definitely do not see their experience to date as "Russian Roulette". They accept full responsibility for their "driver" and if any accident were to occur that is their fault, they accept responsibility to other drivers, pedestrians, passengers, etc.

 

[Nasher]

Doesn't matter to you though as the 'been hit' party, insurance is insurance, doesn't matter if it's the driver, the car, the manufacturer or whoever else that is insured, you get paid out all the same.

As for the roulette nonsense, all that betrays is your lack of understanding of the technology behind these vehicles. They're already a long way past being death traps yet you post as if it's complete pot luck whether people are dying every time one goes near a road.

Only death traps for cyclists crossing the road at night

 

[jpaul]

As for the roulette nonsense, all that betrays is your lack of understanding of the technology behind these vehicles. They're already a long way past being death traps yet you post as if it's complete pot luck whether people are dying every time one goes near a road.

what is wrong with the previously stated logic - there are 100million vehicles in usa, 18 pedestrians die a day, so if the AV fleet was scaled up what would be the death toll ?
when the motor-car took over from the horse we might have accepted a higher mortality rate, but our tolerance has declined. (where is my luddite hammer)

Until the explanation, for the mortality is known, seems reasonable/decent to have suspended activity.

I am not sure why they are not obliged to have distinctive marking to reveal what they are to other road users.

 

[sesevans]

Ars published an interesting story: "A cab ride in a Jaguar?" posted here:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...-20000-electric-robotaxis/?comments=1&start=0

There were two interesting comments to the article which I post below. One talks about the economics of the ride hailing service envisaged by Waymo's use of a premium quality vehicle like the Jaguar I-Pace as follows:

"Seems like a perfect fit. Once you remove the human cost the second largest cost to tackle in a fleet operation is fuel. A BEV cuts that by 50% to 70% compared to an ICEV.

Excluding R&D costs eventually you could have a BEAV (battery electric autonomous vehicle) taxi fleet with an operating cost somewhere in the ballpark of $0.30/mi. It won't happen overnight but it shows the potential down the road.

As a point of reference Uber charges customers about $1.00/mi. It isn't a flat $1.00/mi but the price price works out to about $1/mi for the average trip. They charge about $2.50/mi for Uber Select which is what an i-pace would likely qualify for. Your average taxi or private car service is in the ballpark of $3/mi to $4/mi. Waymo couldn't offer fares at their operating cost I mean they need a profit and to recover the R&D costs but $1/mi or less is certainly possible. The only way to compete with an AV taxi fleet will be another AV taxi fleet."

The second comment is actually by the story author who discusses the implications for Tesla's AV ambitions:

"I didn't write this in the article, but the more I think about it, the worse this news is for Tesla. There's no chance it will have a ride hailing service operating autonomous cars in 2020, and Musk seems unlikely to swallow his pride and partner with someone like Waymo or Aurora for the self-driving stack. (I mean, Tesla is even building its own seats, which is unheard of for an OEM in 2018.)"

As to the first comment, the costs could one day be dramatically lowered below what Uber charges today, making this an existential threat to them unless they work out their strategy. Economies of scale in manufacturing would allow for significant profit margins over time, esp for an extremely low cost vehicle capable of giving 50 rides per day between charges.

 

[sesevans]

NuTonomy quickly reverses course.

They are back on the road in Boston testing their AV after a brief pause.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-n...s-vehicle-testing-in-boston-ceo-idUKKBN1H32W5

 

[sesevans]

State of California says Uber will not renew its driverless car permit which expires on Saturday

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/c...ot-renew-its-driverless-car-permit-2018-03-27

 

[sesevans]

Guardian reports that Waymo/Jaguar Land Rover deal worth up to £ 1.3 billion.

The conventional wisdom has been that car manufacturers (OEMs) have been reluctant to partner with Waymo and share data and this represents the second major OEM deal for Waymo (they partnered with Fiat Chrysler in 2015). Introducing 20,000 self driving Level 4/5 vehicles on US roads in the next two years is a big deal (Waymo currently has 600 Chrysler mini-vans in operation on US roads) as most estimates I have seen indicated that by 2019, fewer than 30k self driving cars would be on US roads (and no more than 50k by 2020). Also from Jaguar's point of view, an order of 20k vehicles is a big deal as estimates for the I-Pace are approximately 50k per annum (manufactured in Graz, Austria). The I-Pace is now the sixth form factor that Waymo has used to develop a self driving vehicle and wants to offer a solution for every possible type of trip a user might wish to make. Hence they have a real shot of setting the US/ global standard for autonomous vehicles.

Of significance, Waymo chose the Jaguar I-Pace for its luxury ride hailing vehicle rather than a Tesla vehicle. The I-Pace is priced $10,000 below the Tesla X.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/waymo-self-driving-taxis-jaguar-land-rover

 

[Fr0dders]

Bloomberg: "Uber disabled Volvo SUV's standard safety system before fatality"

A standard Volvo XC90, the vehicle Uber used that struck the pedestrian, comes equipped with standard collision avoidance technology. However in the specific Volvo used by Uber, this standard equipment was disabled by Uber, according to Aptiv plc, the supplier. Uber supplies its own sensors and software for its AVs. Aptiv clearly wants to separate itself from the Uber crash.

According to Bloomberg: "Aptiv’s radar and camera system using Mobileye chips and sensors helps power the Volvo XC90’s driver-assistance system, which provides collision avoidance, lane-keeping aid and other safety features." But this system only applies to the commercially available XC90, not to Uber's AV.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-suv-s-standard-safety-system-before-fatality

What's also in the article is that tests by safety tech company Mobileye revealed the existing volvo systems would have been able to detect the pedestrian one second before the crash based solely on the dash cam video.

The video from uber clearly shows the car did nothing at all, meaning their tech isn't even on par with stuff already out there on the market. Hugely damning of the Uber programme.