self-driving cars

NTSB Issues Safety Recommendations After Fatal Uber Automated Vehicle Crash

December 11, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The idea of self-driving vehicles has been in the works for many years, and has recently come into full fruition, with multiple manufacturing companies jumping on the futuristic trend.

However, federal regulators are now being pressured by the National Transportation Safety Board to put in place a new review process for automated test vehicles after an Uber automated test vehicle hit and killed a pedestrian.

Last year, the NTSB released its preliminary report regarding its investigation of the fatal crash, which occurred in Tempe, Arizona between a modified 2017 Volvo XC90–which was occupied by a single vehicle operator but was running on its computer-controlled self-driving system–and a pedestrian in March 2018.

While the vehicle operator wasn’t hurt, the 49-year-old female pedestrian suffered fatal injuries.

According to the report, the pedestrian was wearing dark-colored clothing, didn’t look toward the vehicle until the moment before the impact took place, and crossed the road in an area without direct lighting. The pedestrian was also pushing a bicycle that did not have side reflectors, although it did have a front and rear reflectors that were positioned perpendicular to the oncoming vehicle’s path. She also didn’t use the nearby crosswalk, but rather entered the road from a brick median. Additionally, the pedestrian’s post-accident toxicology test showed both methamphetamine and marijuana in her system.

As for the test vehicle, the report said Uber had equipped it with an in-development self-driving system that was comprised of forward- and side-facing cameras, radars, navigation sensors, Light Detection and Ranging, and a data storage unit. It was also factory-equipped with Volvo Cars’ driver assistance functions, such as collision avoidance with automatic emergency braking, driver alertness detection, and road sign information. These functions are only disabled when the test vehicle is in computer control mode.

The data from the self-driving system showed that the car’s vehicle operator intervened by grabbing the steering wheel less than a second before the impact, which occurred at 39 mph. The operator also began braking less than a second after the impact.

At 1.3 seconds before the impact, the self-driving system did determine emergency braking was needed, but these maneuvers are not enabled when the vehicle is being computer-controlled. The vehicle operator is expected to take action at the point, as to reduce the possibility for erratic vehicle movement. The system also does not alert the operator of the need for emergency braking.

During this month’s board meeting, which was held in order to determine the probable cause of the crash, the NTSB said an Uber division’s “inadequate safety culture” is what allowed the fatal collision to take place.

The NTSB found that the immediate cause of the collision was the Uber ATG operator’s failure to monitor the road and the automated driving system closely enough–which it says was due to the her being distracted during the trip by her cell phone.

The NTSB also says Uber ATG held inadequate safety and risk assessment procedures, had a lack of adequate mechanisms for addressing vehicle operators’ automation complacency, and gave an overall lack of oversight of its vehicle operators in general.

Here are the investigation’s findings:

-The automated driving system was able to detect the pedestrian a full 5.6 seconds before impact. The system did continue to track the pedestrian up until the crash, but was never able to accurately determine what the object crossing the road was, or what its path would most likely be.

-If the vehicle operator had been paying close attention, she would likely have had enough time to effectively react to the pedestrian and either mitigate the impact or avoid the crash completely.

-Uber ATG managers rarely actively monitored the behavior of their vehicle operators, although they had the opportunity to do so. This oversight was made worse by Uber’s decision not to include a second operator in the vehicle during this testing.

-Uber ATG added a safety management system, among other updates, to address the present deficiencies.

The NTSB made six total recommendations to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Uber ATG, and the state of Arizona–including that NHTSA requires developmental automated driving system test operators to submit safety self-assessment plans before they can begin operating on public roads. NHTSA will have to review these plans thoroughly to make sure all necessary safety precautions and standards are met.

Self-Driving Trucks to be Tested on Virginia Roads

September 23, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

VIRGINIA – In a partnership with Torc Robotics, Daimler Trucks will now be testing highly automated, heavy-duty trucks across highways in Virginia.

According to a September 9th press release, the two companies said they are currently actively developing and testing these trucks with SAE Level 4 intent technology on public routes in southwest Virginia, where Torc Robotics headquarters are located.

After months of testing and safety validation on closed-loop tracks, these public test runs of self-driving trucks will require an overseeing engineer and a highly-trained safety driver–who must hold commercial driver’s licenses and be specially trained in both vehicle dynamics and automated systems.

“We understand the needs of the industry,” Martin Daum, Member of the Board of Management of Daimler AG, said in the release. “Bringing Level 4 trucks to the public roads is a major step toward our goal to deliver reliable and safe trucks for the benefits of our customers, our economy and society.”

This announcement comes just months after Daimler agreed to acquire a majority stake in Torc–deeming Torc Robotics an official part of the new Autonomous Technology Group of Daimler Trucks, and allowing for these innovations.

Now, the truck manufacturer is consolidating its activities regarding automated driving globally–including within Torc’s locations in Blacksburg, Virginia as well as in Portland, Oregon and Stuttgart, Germany.

The Level 4 automated driving capabilities will allow trucks to drive themselves without needing a driver to monitor or engage–in certain conditions.

Torc’s system for automated driving, called ‘Asimov,’ has been tested throughout urban and long-distance routes in all weather conditions–including, rain, snow and fog.

“Our whole team is thrilled to be working alongside our Daimler colleagues as we pursue the commercialization of Level 4 trucks to bring this technology to the market,” said Torc Robotics CEO Michael Fleming. “We strongly believe it can save lives.”

The goal for these automated trucks is to eventually be able to haul freight on open highways between hubs.

The Level 4 test trucks are Freightliner Cascadia models complete with Torc’s self-driving capabilities, lidar sensors, cameras, and radar. During the tests, they will also pull weighted trailers to simulate carrying a load.

Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) plans to evolve automated driving technology and vehicle integration for heavy-duty trucks. It is currently working on a truck chassis for automated driving, “particularly the redundancy of systems needed to provide reliability and safety,” the release stated.

DTNA will also be building an infrastructure to support Level 4 testing–which will include a control center and logistic hubs, located along high-density freight corridors where customers can operate near interstates and highways.

While Daimler continues with Level 4 automated driving, it will continue the process of integrating Level 2 technology, which aims to automate both lateral and longitudinal control while still requiring driver engagement.

DTNA will also continue offering active steering capabilities through its Detroit Assurance safety tech and Active Lane Assist by including automatic lane-centering and lane-departure protection features. This safety tech is projected to become more widely available early next year.

“As we pair Daimler’s expertise in building safe and reliable trucks with Torc’s genius in engineering Level 4 vehicles, we have no doubt we will do great things in the future,” said Daimler president and CEO Roger Nielsen. “We look forward to writing history together. The U.S. highways are the perfect place to develop automated technology.”

With the number of trucks on the road consistently growing but fewer people entering the profession, truck-driving continues to be stressful and often monotonous. “There is a long-term need to rethink,” Daimler says on its website. “Firstly, in order to increase the safety of all road users through the use of intelligent technologies. Secondly, in order to take pressure off the drivers and make their job more attractive by assigning them other tasks. Last but not least, the total cost of ownership (TCO) plays an important role in the transport industry.” Daimler claims the high degree of automation further lowers the TCO.

These public road tests are a significant step in Daimler Trucks’ 570 million dollar investment to bring highly automated trucks to global roads within a decade. Daimler says in this effort, it will be following its three most important beliefs: that “safety has absolute priority; everything must be 100% reliable,” that it must continue to develop “products together with its customers,” and that “a clear and legal regulatory framework for operation and liability is needed.”

Report: Majority of Americans still skeptical of self-driving cars

March 9, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

For the second year in a row, three-fourths of American drivers are afraid to ride in self-driving cars, according to a new survey published by AAA.

The statistics come at a time when companies like Google and Uber vie for industry dominance, both by way of manufacturing and advances in technology. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to wrestle with regulatory standards for the fledgling industry.

But talk of competition or regulation may be premature. The bigger issue may be whether the public feels comfortable riding in fully autonomous vehicles at all. Only one in five Americans say they trust an autonomous vehicle to drive itself, an indication that the technology is still far from comprehensible, and the skepticism seems to be a matter of safety. More than half of U.S. drivers (54 percent) feel less safe when considering the prospect of sharing the road with autonomous cars, while only 10 percent of respondents say that they would feel safer.

Vehicles with semi-autonomous features fair better among the public. Sixty-one percent of survey participants indicate that they prefer at least one of several automated technologies to be available in their next car: automatic emergency breaking, adaptive cruise control, self-parking technology or lane-keeping assist. Still, most Americans trust their driving skills above all else, and 81 percent of those who took the survey believe that the fully automated vehicle features should work universally across all systems.

Other notable statistics from the survey include:

Baby Boomers are more likely to cite safety as a reason they want semi-autonomous features on their next vehicle (89 percent) than Millennials (78 percent)
Millennials are more likely to cite convenience (75 percent) and wanting the latest technology (36 percent) compared to older generations
Women are more likely to cite reducing stress as a reason for wanting the technology (50 percent) than men (42 percent)

Proponents of self-driving cars believe they can reduce, or even eradicate, accidents altogether. Jill Ingrassia, AAA’s managing director of Government Relations and Traffic Safety, noted that 35,000 people die each year because of human-related errors, but that further research is necessary to “ensure that these new vehicles are safely tested and deployed.” Based on the stats, it appears the public requires it.

Boston inks deal to test self-driving cars. Is Chicago next?

September 14, 2016 by Brett Manchel Leave a Comment

The folks in Bean-town have peered into their crystal balls and one of the things they’re seeing is self-driving cars. The Boston Globe reported this morning that the city has struck a deal with a group of unnamed tech companies and manufacturers to test autonomous vehicles, beginning in a matter of months. Coincidentally Uber is set to unleash a fleet of autonomous cars (though this particular fleet will include an actual human behind the wheel for safety reasons) on the streets of Pittsburgh later today.

More from the Globe: “If this technology is going to yield benefits for the consumer, we want to make sure it works in the city of Boston,” said Chris Osgood, the city’s chief of streets. “We want to make sure we’re doing our due diligence and understanding what the implications are. How do we set up the right policies and take the right approach to this so it’s going to have the biggest net benefit?”

Counting Pittsburgh, it seems Boston is the second major city in recent months to commit to exploratory testing. Could Chicago be the third? Here are four reasons why it might.

The mayor is a big Uber fan

His brother, Ari, is also a big investor. Back in 2014 reports started swirling that Rahm’s younger brother stood to make nearly a billion dollars from his Hollywood agency’s dealings with the popular ridesharing company, which is venturing into autonomous territory. On top of that, David Plouffe, a strategist to then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008 and former White House mainstay, now serves as one of Uber’s most prominent strategic advisors. The mayor has also favored rideshare-friendly legislation that keeps it at a premium in the Windy City (much to the consternation of the highly regulated limousine and cab service industry). Now that Uber has unleashed self-driving cars on the roads of Pittsburgh, it’s easy to imagine the company heading further west to a place that fits its self-driving test criteria and where it’s ostensibly been feeling the love.

Chicago has one of the largest populations in the country

This goes beyond the Uber and ridesharing craze. Chicago is a major city with a major population—nearly 2.7 million people to be more precise. That’s good enough for third on the national charts, behind only Los Angeles and New York. A study in 2015 by Zen99, a resource for folks who depend on 1099s, found that Chicago ranked ninth out of 70 U.S. markets that were favorable for ridesharing users. That’s not counting the untapped potential of autonomous ridesharing either. One could assume that a city that loves alternative modes of public transportation is bound to look closer at the ways self-driving cars impact the broader economy, both commercially and otherwise.

Like a good neighbor, State Farm is here

So is Allstate, based in Northbrook. They’re two of the biggest auto insurance companies in the country and the insurance industry has been wrestling with the notion that self-driving cars may reduce crashes and potentially eliminate them altogether. That poses big questions for State Farm, Allstate, Nationwide, and others, which will soon need to figure out how they’re business plays into the bigger picture. I’m not saying that either will be making a public relations push in favor of self-driving cars, but what better opportunity to do some experimentation while the guinea pig is rummaging around in your own backyard? Let’s assume the worst: self-driving cars get into tons of accidents. Maybe a public relations push on behalf of the insurance companies isn’t so far-fetched after all.

It’s the economy, stupid

The reality is this: Autonomous cars are the future of transportation. It’s not a matter of “if” but “when.” Rahm and others like to refer to Chicago as the Silicon Valley of the Midwest. If we’re to take that declaration at face value, we need to make the most of our opportunities, which could have huge economic benefits. Tech is big business and presenting Chicago as a tech-friendly hub feeds the narrative while drawing new talent to the city. Being labeled as a pioneer of autonomous transportation and the legislation that governs it has the potential to be hugely beneficial in the long run. I can already imagine Tim Cook pulling up to Apple headquarters in the West Loop. In a self-driving car no less.

Autonomous vehicles: We predict the future

February 24, 2016 by Brett Manchel Leave a Comment

What will we be doing 50 years from now? Along with the new iPhone L (how long before Apple switches to Roman numerals?), will we also be waiting for the release of the latest DriveOS software? Lamenting the fact that Grandpa won’t come to terms with swapping his old Ford 5 for a Ford 10? Perhaps insurance companies will finally be willing to negotiate premiums because, hey, we’re not the ones driving anymore.

Get ready: autonomous vehicles (AVs) – self driving cars – are on the verge of breaking through in a big way, and it’s with a cheery note of optimism that we peer into our crystal ball for a glimpse into the future—the not so distant future, depending on who you’re asking. The Obama Administration recently offered up close to $4 billion over the next decade to fast-track projects related to the safety of AVs, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has decided that artificial intelligence (AI) constitutes “a driving entity,” meaning drivers will no longer need to be living and breathing in order to operate a vehicle.

To reference an old cliché: It’s not a matter of “if” AVs become part of mainstream consumerism, but “when.” So when it does happen, what will our roads and our world look like? There are a lot of technological, infrastructural, and legal decisions to be made, and we’re taking educated guesses at what could happen.

Insurance makes a move

AV advocates have long preached the benefits of eliminating human error altogether, reducing the number of auto crashes by significant margins. For insurers and drivers, that may mean a national, comprehensive no-fault regime is on the horizon. An AV study by the RAND Corporation suggests that the concept behind no-fault auto insurance laws might become an appealing alternative to tort-based laws for drivers and AV manufacturers. In other words: your own insurance company, would cover your damages in the event of an crash, regardless of who caused the accident. Tort-based law, by contrast, is based on principles seeking monetary compensation from the at-fault party’s insurance company.

What ultimately happens depends largely on which side makes the first move, and likely, who can get the most public support: the insurance industry, the technology and manufacturing industry, or legislators. All have varying interests in the future of AVs. Both the traditional tort model and no-fault have pros and cons in a world dominated by AVs.

The insurance industry depends on receiving premiums and thrives on holding onto as much money as possible, while paying out as little as possible in claims. National no-fault means an insurer of a driver is responsible whereas tort-based systems allow wiggle room for insurers and injured parties to go after the at-fault party. The RAND Corporation paper depicts a world with comprehensive no-fault and limited liability – up to and including immunity – for manufacturers who’s AVs are involved in a crash..

Technology and manufacturing companies want to be efficient and at the forefront of new, exciting technology like AVs. They should also want to manufacture safe AVs, but for a device as complex and dynamic as a self driving car, companies need to be invested in their products, set on frequent updates and advancements.

Of course, if AVs are as safe as anticipated, auto crashes, and thus injuries caused by crashes, will decrease. The result: less no-fault insurance claims, which insurers may be willing to support. But manufacturers and software developers are still liable in some cases – if the software or hardware of an AV is defective – so they’ll want something to protect them, too. They’ll turn to legislators, demanding immunity or other legal protections, so, they often claim, they can continue to innovate without fear of a massive lawsuit bankrupting them. But with a blanket immunity, the incentive to create, update, and take responsibility for AVs is arguably diminished.

As the sides play out, expect an expensive marketing campaign from insurers, who still rely on high premium-paying customers to make money. “Are you in good hands?” may become a much more literal slogan, for example.

Digital corruption sparks new driving policies

Several months ago, WIRED magazine decided to conduct an experiment with two hackers who were able to infiltrate the computer console of a Chrysler-manufactured Jeep. The trial ultimately forced one driver into a ditch on the side of the road. Though the stunt was planned, it caught the attention of lawmakers who were none-too-pleased with the prospect of real-life remote-control cars. Two Senators in particular set out to look closely at the way hacking presented challenges in a fully autonomous driving world.

That brings into question matters of digital corruption policies and the establishment of security practices to protect drivers from themselves (accidentally installing malware, for example), as well as laws to deter and punish outside forces like hackers. Tailoring these laws to a world in which AVs are prominent would be beneficial in the long run. Expect Congress to take a much more detailed look in the coming years as AVs become more prominent

The legal field starts retrofitting old laws to fit new ones

The days of Napster and P2P file sharing sent some copyright lawyers into frenzy. Attorneys were grappling with a new technological capability—mass downloads—and relying on outdated precedents to argue infringement. So much was happening in such a short time that it became easy to misunderstand what was really going on. As file sharing and copyright laws progressed, a new set of case law began to afford the technology its own body of law, giving lawyers a means by which to prosecute effectively. We may soon see the same thing happen when it comes to the rules of the road for AV.

Today’s question

We have to decide, as a community, how all the moving parts of the AV puzzle will fit together. Who will make the rules, and how will those rules be enforced? At this point, there may be things we don’t know that need changing in order to have AV operating seamlessly. Ford, for example, is working to create an on-demand ride service—like Uber—with AVs. Who would’ve conceived of such an idea just five short years ago and what would the consequences be, both legally and economically? The future is coming into full view. The bigger question is: can we keep pace?