http://www.SmartDrivingCar.com Sunday, June 30, 2013

Calendar of Upcoming Events:

Registration to Close July 3!!! Workshop at capacityJuly 16-19, ’13 Stanford University, Palo Alto| Agenda | Breakout Sessions | Demonstrations Transportation Research Board’s premier multidisciplinary research and policy conference focused on Road Vehicle Automation. If you are actively involved in road vehicle automation and would like to actively contribute to the success of this workshop by becoming a patron or sponsoring one of the meals, please contact me at alaink@princeton.edu.

*****************************************************************************

State Senator Thomas H. Kean, Jr. : autonomous vehicle legislation. Introduced on June 24, 2013, Senate, No. 2898 directs NJ’s Motor Vehicle Commission to establish driver’s license endorsement for autonomous vehicles. The legislation establishes its own definition of “autonomous vehicle” as one that uses technology to “…carry out the mechanical operation of driving without the active control and continuous monitoring of a human operator.” (lines 15-17, p1.) At first reading, this seems to imply that if a vehicle performs lane keeping and intelligent cruise control simultaneously then the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (It is steering, braking and throttling as directed by a “computer” that is receiving information/data/actions from sensors rather than a human operator). However, “active control” is not defined. Is “active control” the instructions/data/actions that result in the steering/brake/throttle actions or is it the decision to allow the steering/brake/throttle to operate in a desired fashion?

I know that when I activate my cruise control and allow it to remain activated, I am in active control of the speed of my car. I’ve instructed it to maintain a constant speed until I choose to change it. Similarly, when I place my automatic transmission in Drive, I’ve instructed it to perform the details of choosing the correct gear so as to achieve my desired speed as well as to inject the correct amount of fuel and air into each cylinder so as to properly create the torque that will be needed to propel my car at my desired speed. All this is being done by technology, not me specifically; but, surely I am in “active control”. Correspondingly, if I’ve instructed my car to stay in the middle on my lane of travel, maintain a constant speed, but don’t collide with anything, I’m in active control. I’ve just left the details to a computer. Consequently, the definition of “autonomous vehicle” as proposed in this legislation may in fact be extremely narrow and confined to only some far-flung science fiction scenario where there is no instruction from any human. Certainly, that must not be what State Senator Kean has in mind.

His intention must be to address the issue of “continuous-monitoring”/driver-inattention; it can’t be to inadvertently hinder the development and adoption of safety-enhancing lane-keeping and collision-avoidance technologies. I agree, driver-inattention is one area that needs some progressive legislation/regulation.

If driver-inattention is indeed the intent of this Bill, then it should directly address all facets of this issue. It should acknowledge that substantial advancements have been made in the technological control of vehicles operating harmoniously with human drivers on existing roadways. It should recognize that these technologies are proving to be safer than most human drivers in normal and emergency situations. It should promote on-going research that has the opportunity to substantially improve safety on our roadways while allowing drivers to be inattentive. We certainly know that anti-lock brakes is one such system where the “computer” knows better how to apply maximum braking force and is safer; hence the name anti-lock brakes.

The Bill should focus on creating the technologies and mechanisms that create watchful “eyes & ears” that keep us safe when we choose to drive yet create opportunities that allow us to simply defer to these safer technological system should we care to and when these systems determine that they don’t really need a “front-seat-driver”. That would be impressive legislation!

Highlights of Recent Conferences:

June 17-18, Rutgers University Video Archive Christine O’Brien, President, Insurance Council of New Jersey, provided a very interesting perspective from the New Jersey automobile insurance industry with her presentation titled: Autonomous Vehicle Technology: Consideration for the Auto Insurance Industry. She made some comments on “pay-as-you-drive” initiatives by auto insurers. These approaches price auto insurance based on telematics-based monitoring of user behavior. Today these have about 2 million customers and are expected to grow to 100 million by 2020. She then turned to the industry’s strong interest vehicle-based collision-avoidance systems, pointing out the initial 18% reduction in the bodily injury claims by Volvo S-60 “City Safe” system which automatically brakes at low speeds if a frontal collision is anticipated. (This is a much more limited system than what Mercedes is offering in the 2014 E and S class. It is comparable to the Mazda “Smart City Brake Support (SCBS)” (video) which is “…is active from about 2 to 18 mph. It's capable of completely avoiding an accident between the CX-5 and a vehicle ahead if the relative speed between them is less than 9.3 mph…. There are all sorts of disclaimers in the owner's manual for when SCBS might not work (incidents involving pedestrians and cyclists being the most notable). “. Subaru’s “EyeSight” is substantially more robust; however, the option seems to have been priced to discourage its purchase. Subaru requires the purchase a moonroof and expensive GPS system for $2,645 before one can add-on the collision-avoidance “EyeSight” for an additional $1,295 (incrementally a real bargain; cheaper than the Nav system; however, not available a la carte, only on top even though it is completely independent of the moonroof and doesn’t use GPS) One must really question Subaru’s commitment to “EyeSight” and safety). She concluded by stating, “There is no doubt in my mind that the benefits of emerging vehicle technology are playing a key role in minimizing accidents. There are numerous incentives for drivers to own such vehicles, including the prospect of paying less for auto insurance. As all parties involved move forward to further enhance and develop the technology, it is critical for the auto insurance industry to be at the table because we, too, share the ultimate goal of saving lives.”

Note: John Friedman, Vice President State Government Relations, USAA Insurance, made a similar presentation at the ITS-NJ Technical Conference at Monmouth University on June 26.

David Larsen E/CL/CLS/S/SL-Class Product Manager and Richard Krueger Vehicle Compliance and Analysis, Mercedes-Benz USA presented a detailed description of the “Intelligent Drive” collision avoidance and safety system available this fall in the 2014 E and S-class models. The system is the product of a 10-year evolution and enhancement of the Distronic intelligent cruise control which now continuously monitors 70 inputs to do everything from drowsiness detection, pedestrian and cross traffic detection, blind spot monitoring, lane departure warning, lane keeping at speeds up to 85 mph and frontal/rear collision avoidance. One of the most impressive slides was one that compared the evolution of the

suite of collision-avoidance systems during this time in both functionality and price of these features. They are reminiscent of Moore’s Law in that the number of features and their functionality increase substantially while the increment price of the bundle of features has been decreasing to where the entire suite of features are now priced at $2,800. While the base price of both the E and the S-class vehicles are very high it was pointed out that the more affordable C-class is being redesigned for the 2015 model year and the “intelligent Drive” safety features can be expected to be available. (On the least expensive CLA250 Coupe, the Driver Assistance Package, which includes intelligent cruise control, blind-spot assist, lane keeping assist and collision protection assist, has an incremental price of only $2,500)

Note: Richard Krueger and Axel Walker Supervisor, Product Strategy, Mercedes-Benz USA made a similar presentation at the ITS-NJ Technical Conference at Monmouth University on June 26.

Nick Maxemchuck, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Columbia Univ. made a very important presentation ”How to prevent connected, self-driven vehicles from causing collisions” (presentation & slides start @ 1:21:20). He emphasized that the appropriate way to verify that the operation of such vehicle will be safe is not program testing on testing the physical implementation because there are simply too many combinatorial of situations and elements (participants & states) some of which occur very frequently, while many others are very rare, thus the testing of “all” combinatorial is NP-complete Instead he insists that probabilistic verification which explores the most likely elements first and make sure that they are sound, then doesn’t bother to explore them over and over again. So that if an event occurs one in a million times, you do not have to do the first event a million times before you encounter the 2nd. This allows for the establishment of an upper bound for failure. This can be accomplished with automotive systems by partitioning the problem into smaller pieces for model verification. He explains that through Conformance Testing interoperability on i-parties in N implementations can be guaranteed with N test (instead of N i tests that would be required by a composite machine representation)

Jerome Lutin, Senior Director, NJ Transit (retired), discussed the opportunity to substantially improve the operational performance and the safety of buses operating in New Jersey by ensuring that the design specifications for the next “15-year cycle” of buses purchased by NJ Transit incorporate the collision avoidance and driver assistance functions similar to the Mercedes “Intelligent Drive” as available this fall in the 2014 E and S-class models. Lutin pointed out that across the USA in recent years there has been an average of 63,000 bus crashes per year, resulting in 14,000 injuries and 351 fatalities. In New Jersey:

• NJ TRANSIT had four pedestrian fatalities in 2012 and 217 injured in 34 bus collisions and 163 incidents.• NJ TRANSIT reported paying out $43.2 million in injury and damage claims in FY 2012. Using passenger miles to

infer that about 33% of claims are attributable to Bus Operations suggests $14.0 million in bus claims. With an owned and contracted fleet totaling 2,403 buses (excluding 624 buses leased to private carriers), the average claims cost is estimated $6,404. per bus for the year 2012.

• Over the recent past (2002-2012) Safety & Claims data for NJ Transit Bus Operation compiled by Lutin at http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/RutgersAutomatedWorkshop061713/Ltin_Bus-data_Notes.pdf concludes that NJ Transit has self-insured buses at an average cost of $4,846 per bus per year.

It can be expected that Mercedes-like collision avoidance technology can reduce NJ Transit’s self-insurance exposure by 50% for each bus so equipped. If true, and given that the Mercedes collision avoidance systems are priced at an incremental amount of $2,800, Lutin argues that these systems would pay for themselves in as little as 1.5 years, or the first 10% of the new bus’s expected service life if cost are comparable to Mercedes’ incremental pricing. Life cycle cost of each bus with “Intelligent Drive” is cheaper than one without even if the incremental cost of the technology on a bus is 10 times that of a Mercedes. Safety pays for the system. The enhanced operational performance and expanded capacity opportunities for the XBL and the PABT are free icing on the cake, which itself is free! This is truly low “hanging fruit”.

June 26-28, Gold Coast, AustraliaFinal Program https:/its.papercept.net/conferences/conferences/IV2013/program/IV2013_ProgramAtAGlanceWeb.html The Symposium had excellent attendance and Registration was closed on June 1. Included were three pre-conference Workshops and seven technical Program tracks. Abstracts of the presentations follow. Publication of the papers as the 2013 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium is expected soon.Workshop on Human Factors in Intelligent VehiclesWorkshop on Human Interaction with Intelligent VehiclesWorkshop on Environment Perception and Navigation for Intelligent VehiclesTechnical Program on Vehicle ControlTechnical Program on Information FusionTechnical Program on Driver Assistance Systems I and IITechnical Program on Automated VehiclesTechnical Program on Sensors & PerceptionTechnical Program on Cooperative SystemsTechnical Program on Vehicle Environment Perception

Smart Driving CarsWednesday, Jun 16, 2013

Sneak peek at what Dr. Jerome Lutin, former Senior Director at NJ Transit will say at the symposium entitled:

Application of Autonomous Driving Technology to Transit - Functional capabilities for Safety and CapacityUSA Industry-wide average of 63,000 bus crashes per year, resulting in 14,000 injuries and 351 fatalities.

NJ TRANSIT had four pedestrian fatalities in 2012 and 217 injured in 34 bus collisions and 163 incidents. NJ TRANSIT reported paying out $43.2 million in injury and damage claims in FY 2012. Assuming 33% of claims

are allocated to Bus Operations on the basis of passenger miles suggests $14.0 million in bus claims. With an owned and contracted fleet totaling 2,403 buses (excluding 624 buses leased to private carriers), the average claims cost is estimated $6,404. per vehicle for the year 2012.

*****************************************************************************Smart Driving Cars

Thursday, June 6, 2013

NHTSA Preliminary Statement of Policy Re: Automated Vehicles http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/Automated_Vehicles_Policy.pdf contains the details of this preliminary policy. I highly recommend that you read it. My interpretation: http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/CommentOnNHTSA_PrelimStatement.pdf

Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fa talities in 2012 Not a pretty picture. Early estimates show a 5.3% increase in fatalities over ’11 to 34,080 due to a very large YoY increase in Q1 (12.6%) and a an extremely large increase of greater than 15% in the Northeast region. While some of this may be attributable to increased VMT, Fatalities per VMT also increased. http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/PDFs/EarlySafetyFacts2012NHTSA.pdf

Smart Driving CarsWednesday, May 29, 2013

“ Intelligent Drive: networked with all senses

The Road Ahead: Advanced Vehicle Technology and its ImplicationsMay 15 2013 2:30 PM Russell Senate Office Building - 253 Archived webcast Starts @ 26:20 AlainK Analysis *****************************************************************************

Smart Driving CarsThursday, May 14, 2013

Mercedes “Hard to Imagine” Commercial. I watch little TV, but I am pleased that Mercedes continues to hit prime spots with this ground-breaking commercial. NBC had it right after the running of the Kentucky Derby and it aired several times in the New York market during the Rangers Playoff games. They are even playing this spot on during the Daily Show. They must be seeing traction. *****************************************************************************

Uncongested Mobility for All: NJ’s Area-wide aTaxi System Part 1, The Demand for Mobility This year my students and I have been conducting a quantitative assessment of the mobility implications of the ultimate in Smart Driving Cars. The task was simple: How well could a truly safe fleet of self-driving cars serve the full spectrum of personal mobility needs…

***************************************************************************** Smart Driving Cars

Thursday, May 2, 2013 *****************************************************************************

Smart Driving CarsFriday, April 25, 2013

Mercedes is 1st Mover and Lifts Bar with ‘14 Mercedes E-Class Safety Features Supported by the following TV Commercials (If you haven’t seen them on TV they are worth watching “

“Hard to Imagine” Commercial “Clown” Commercial

From the Public Sector: My response to the US DoT on Surface Transportation System Automation (http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/Kornhauser_%20Response2AutomationRfI.pdf*****************************************************************************

Smart Driving CarsFriday, April 19, 2013

*****************************************************************************Smart Driving Cars

Monday, April14, 2013

The Business Case for SmartDrivingCars: For the consumer, SmartDrivingCars have three main values: increased safety, comfort and convenience. Of these safety is most easily quantified because damages are largely adjudicated in monetary terms. AAA estimates that traffic fatalities and injuries amounted to $256B in 2011, or a cost of about $1,328 in ‘05 dollars for each licensed driver. Of this amount approximately 50% ($664) is paid by private insurance, the pass-through portion of insurance premiums. Individual crash victims absorb 26% ($340) of the cost (basically the deductible of what the insured has to absorb if involved in an accident), other 3 rd parties absorb 14% ($185), the Federal treasury absorbs 6% ($80) and local municipalities 4% ($50). Google’s simulation of the operation of its self-driving car on the range of real crash scenarios resulted in a forecast of 81% fewer fatalities and 65% fewer injuries. This substantial reduction in car crashes would save in the US $183 billion annually. Moreover, these safety improvements would be enjoyed proportionally by each owner/user of a Google car. Thus, the insurer of the average licensed driver switching to a “Google car” could expect to reduce its pass-through liabilities by an average of $475 per year. Since these are simply pass-though dollars, one could expect that an insurance price-leader might readily offer discounts of up to, say, $450, keeping the expected remaining $25 for its “generosity”. The Google car user would also forgo $247 in expected “deductible self-insured” obligations.

The $450 insurance discount could readily finance, if not the expensive Google “lidars”, the lower cost radars and cameras contemplated by the auto industry for its initial wave of automated lane keeping and “always-on” collision monitoring and avoidance systems. For example, the Mercedes “jam-assist” system is expected to be available on 2014 models as a $3,000 “driver assistance safety option”. While jam-assist doesn’t have all of the features of a Google car, it may be able to capture as much as two-thirds of the safety benefits through the collisions that jam-assist can be expected to avoid during the car’s lifetime. If so proven, then the $300 discount that Flo, or the Gecko, or Good Hands or the General or some other insuer can readily offer would essentially finance this $3,000 safety feature. In fact Flo should escort you to the Mercedes dealer and pay for the option if you agree to buy a Mercedes and continue your current policy payments. (Remember, in giving Mercedes $300 per year over say 12 years, she is also keeping that $25 “generosity” for her effort, so she is happy.) In addition to substantially reducing the probability that this car is going to kill you, what’s in it for you? Well, how about the two-thirds of the $247 self-insurance expected obligation that you would avoid each year. More importantly you get the anxiety-relief that flows from having driving assistance while

traveling in some of the most tedious, boring and unpleasant roadway conditions. Finally, society wins because we can’t really place a value on the injuries and fatalities that will be prevented. They are priceless!

Going all the way with Google Cars (or even just two thirds of the way with “jam-assist”) would mean for New Jersey an annual avoidance of 500 (340) fatalities and 28,000 (19,000) injuries “valued” at $3.55 ($2.38) Billion per year.

We MUST make this happen. Everybody wins. *****************************************************************************

Smart Driving CarsMonday, March 31, 2013

*****************************************************************************Smart Driving Cars

Monday, March 25, 2013*****************************************************************************

Smart Driving CarsMonday, March 18, 2013

European Update: Workshop: Automation in Road Transport (contains links to participants & presentations)

….As background if you haven’t read it: from June 29,2011: Definition of necessary vehicle and infrastructure systems for Automated Driving Final report SMART 2010/0064

*****************************************************************************Smart Driving Cars

Monday, March 11, 2013Best videos from Workshop: Automation in Road Transport (contains links to participants & presentations)

Automated Steering Avoidance of imminent collision on Frozen Lake done Feb 23, 2013. Videos of automated collision avoidance maneuvers involving only steering followed by Volvo Platooning video

***************************************************************************** Smart Driving Cars

Monday, March 4, 2013*****************************************************************************

Smart Driving CarsThursday, February 28, 2013

This is BIG!!!

Continental and BMW Group Working Together to Develop Freeway-Grade Highly Automated Driving BMW Press Release Continental Press ReleaseThis is BIG, not only because they have “an agreement to jointly develop an electronic co-pilot for this purpose”, but because…

It aligns a component supplier with a manufacturer. Where does this leave Daimler and VW/Audi? To join up with Bosch?? What about Delphi? Join back with GM on this one?? Where does this leave the other manufacturers; will they align? The competitive race to attract consumers to the showroom has really heated up.

They’ve realized that safety is now clothed in comfort & convenience. Together, they make a powerful message to the car buying public. This technology will draw people into the showrooms. The wake-up call was delivered by the emergent competitor, , rather than government edicts or rule-makings. “… [I]n capitalist reality…, it is not [price] competition which counts but the competition from the new commodity, the new technology…- competition which commands a decisive cost or quality advantage and which strikes not at the margins of the profits and the outputs of the existing firms but at their foundations and their very lives.” Joseph A Shumpeter (1883-1950)

*****************************************************************************

Smart Driving CarsThursday, February 21, 2013

*****************************************************************************

Smart Driving CarsThursday, February 14, 2013

Smart Driving CarsFriday, February 8, 2013

Smart Driving CarsThursday, February 7, 2013

Smart Driving CarsThursday, January 31, 2013

mailto:alaink@princeton.edu