Hourdajian, Dawn
Download 466.57 Kb.
|
 
http://www.vehicleautomation.org/李斌 
yLibin@itsc.cnuanyu yuanyucb@163.com mailto:xj.wang@rioh.cn "Hourdajian, Dawn" Keqiang LI wang_jq wjqlws@tsinghua.edu.cn wjqlws@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn Lam, Shau-wai swlam@dchusa.com Lawrence Liu
*****************************************************************************  Uncongested Mobility for All: NJ’s Area-wide aTaxi System
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. While the availability of such a fleet is yet more than a few years away, we assumed that the spatial and temporal aspects of children going to school, adults to work and the array of normal lifestyle activities would remain unchanged as they tend to occur on a typical weekday throughout New Jersey. We chose New Jersey, not only for local reasons, but also because, to the possible chagrin of some, New Jersey is actually a microcosm of the nation. It has an extremely rural South and Northwest, sprawling suburbs in Central and Coastal and dense old and new urbanism in Northeast Jersey. It is served by an extensive commuter rail network yet the overwhelming majority of vehicular trips are currently served by the personal automobile. On a typical day, New Jersey Transit serves 0.9 of the 32 million trips (2.8%) while walking and biking serve 2.3 million trips (7.3%). The remaining 90% are served by the personal automobile. By “safe” we assumed a vehicle technology that is sufficiently reliable to yield at least the safety benefits touted for the Google car: 71% fewer accidents, 65% fewer injuries, 81% fewer fatalities. While very substantial, these safety enhancements are somewhat conservative, given the often repeated: “… 93% of automobile accidents involve human error” and the 2001 NHTSA report by Hendricks et al: “…In 717 of the 723 crashes investigated (99%), a driver behavioral error caused or contributed to the crash. Of the 1284 drivers involved in these crashes, 732 drivers (57%) contributed in some way to the cause of their crash. …six causal factors…accounted for most of the problem behaviors: driver inattention 22.7%, vehicle speed 18.7%, alcohol impairment 18.2% perceptual errors (looked, but didn’t see) 15.1%, decision errors 10.1%, incapacitation (fell asleep) 6.4 %...” (p ii). Consequently, by adopting the Google values, we are implicitly assuming that the Smart Driving Technology, while very good, is itself realistically not perfectly safe. With respect to the operation of the fleet, assumed was that one or more fleet owner-operator(s) would emerge to provide the service. These owner-operators could be either public, not-for-profit or for-profit private operators. They would be responsible for the provision, operation and maintenance of the fleet of self-driving vehicles. A level-of-service would be offered that is comparable to conventional taxi services, except that no human driver would be involved in neither any passenger trip nor the repositioning of empty vehicles. Consequently, we’ve named the system an autonomous taxi (aTaxi) system. Fare collection was put aside as irrelevant by the assumption that the level-of-service would be so compelling that essentially all “vehicular” trips would be served in some way by the aTaxi system. The enhanced mobility implications of the aTaxi system are assumed to dominate any negative utility implications of how the system is financed. This allowed us to side-step the non-trivial mode choice issue and enable us to address and ascertain the mobility implications of a very high-quality full-blown aTaxi system. To properly assess the aTaxi system’s ability to serve essentially all trips, it is imperative to appropriately characterize each and every trip taken on a typical day. This was accomplished through the enhancement of an Individual Daily Trip Synthesizer (IDTS) (Mufti, Gao ). IDTS begins with Census Block data and builds a file representing each of the nearly 9 million New Jersians characterized in the 2010 Census. Using the Journey-to-Work Census file, an additional 263,000 individuals are added to represent out-of-state residents that work in New Jersey. Each of these 9,054,821 individuals is assigned demographic characteristics such as age, gender, household size, family income, etc. that when assembled reflect the distribution of these demographic characteristics reported in the Census Block Data. The corresponding Census Block centroid gives their home location to within a very short walk. To make the file a little more social, first and last names were assigned probabilistically to each individual from White Pages name-address files. Based on an individual’s demographic characteristics, a daily trip tour is assigned that begins and eventually ends at home. The very young, the very old, the sick and those incarcerated in prisons don’t travel. The rest go to school, to work and/or to other activities throughout the day according to the trip maker’s demographic characteristics and school, employment and other activities files, each of which contain precise geographic location (geo-coded street address) and trip attraction characteristics such as employment levels, enrollments, and daily patrons. Each trip is assigned a departure time (in seconds from midnight) based on the trip type and the operational characteristics of the dominating trip end. For example, each school and employer has a starting and ending “bell” time along with a parameter that characterizes the punctuality of the operation. Behavioral aspects, such as students tend to arrive early at school rather than late and few depart early, more late, are modeled in the non-symmetric probabilities used in assigning trip departure times. The result of the trip synthesizing effort is the creation of a file containing the precise spatial and temporal values for each of more than 32 million trips. In total, these trips are representative of the desired mobility of all who travel in New Jersey on a typical weekday. Characteristics of one such realization of the trip synthesizer were reported by Gao. Given the 32 million trips, the question becomes how well does an aTaxi system serve such trips? First, some trips are extremely short. Short trips, less than a mile in length (~7.3%), are taken by either walking or biking. Also, New Jersey has an excellent commuter rail system. Trips from/to New York City, Philadelphia and within a ¼ mile walk to a train station are assumed to use NJ Transit rail for at least a portion of the trip. Each of these trips takes NJ Transit to/from the other trip end’s nearest station with an aTaxi “multi-modal” segment completing the trip. The departure time of the non-NJ_Transit segment is set to the appropriate train arrival, thus replicating the temporal bunching of onward trips following train arrivals. In total, the analysis described above leave almost 30 million trips that are to be served by the fleet of aTaxis on a typical day. The 2nd part of this series will describe aTaxi service scenarios, similar to elevator services, that accommodates naturally occurring ride sharing opportunities. Taking advantage of these basically eliminates all congestion in New Jersey without the need for any infrastructure expansions. The 3rd part of the series will describe the commensurate environmental and safety implications. ***************************************************************************** Calendar of Upcoming Events:  The Premier Road Vehicle Automation Event in North America. July 16-19, ’13 Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 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 conference by becoming a patron or sponsoring one of the meals, please contact me atalaink@princeton.edu.
 June 11-12, Detroit MI
***************************************************************************** Smart Driving Cars Thursday, May 2, 2013
Smart Driving Cars Friday, 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 “ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3eISidnchMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr-vxprjMVE
***************************************************************************** Smart Driving Cars Friday, 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 3rd 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 scenariosresulted 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 Cars Monday, March 31, 2013 ***************************************************************************** Smart Driving Cars Monday, March 25, 2013 ***************************************************************************** Smart Driving Cars Monday, 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, 2013 Best videos from Workshop: Automation in Road Transport (contains links to participants & presentations)
Smart Driving Cars Monday, March 4, 2013 ***************************************************************************** Smart Driving Cars Thursday, February 28, 2013 This is BIG!!! Continental and BMW Group Working Together to Develop Freeway-Grade Highly Automated Driving BMW Press Release Continental Press Release This 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, Smart Driving Cars Thursday, February 21, 2013 ***************************************************************************** Smart Driving Cars Thursday, February 14, 2013 Smart Driving Cars Friday, February 8, 2013 Smart Driving Cars Thursday, February 7, 2013 Smart Driving Cars Thursday, January 31, 2013
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/05/the-1990s-automated-highway-of-the-future-work-in-progress/ May 16, 2013 The National Automated Highway System That Almost Was Read more: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/05/the-1990s-automated-highway-of-the-future-work-in-progress/#ixzz2UX41mome Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
.
Search... Smithsonian.com
Blogs
May 16, 2013 The National Automated Highway System That Almost Was |
| REDDIT
| DIGG
| STUMBLE
| EMAIL
| MORE
A computer visualization of the driverless car of the future (1997) Visions of driverless cars zipping around on the highways of the future are nothing new. Visions of automated highways date back to at least the 1939 New York World’s Fair, and the push-button driverless car was a common dream depicted in such midcentury utopian artifacts as 1958′s Disneyland TV episode “Magic Highway, U.S.A.” But here in the 21st century there’s a growing sense that the driverless car might actually (fingers crossed, hope to die) be closer than we think. And thanks to the progress being made by companies like Google (not to mention just about every major car company), some even believe that driverless vehicles could become a mainstream reality within just five years. Despite all the well-known sci-fi predictions of the 20th century (not to mention those of the 21st, like in the movies Minority Report and iRobot) many people forget the very earnest and expensive investment in this vision of the future from recent history. That investment was the multi-million dollar push by the U.S. Congress to build an automated highway system in the 1990s. In 1991 Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which authorized $650 million to be spent over the course of the next six years on developing the technology that would be needed for driverless cars running on an automated highway. The vision was admittedly bold, seeing as how primitive all of the components needed for such a system were at that time. Even consumer GPS technology — which today we take for granted in our phones and vehicles — wasn’t a reality in the early 1990s. The real-world benefits of automated highways were thought to be improving safety by removing human error from the equation, as well as improved travel times and better fuel economy. 
Dashboard of an automated vehicle of the future (1997) The National Automated Highway System Consortium was formed in late 1994 and were comprised of nine core organizations, both public and private: General Motors, Bechtel Corporation, The California Department of Transportation, Carnegie Mellon University, Delco Electronics, Hughes Electronics, Lockheed Martin, Parsons Brinckerhoff, and the University of California-Berkeley. The goal was eventually to allow for fully automated operation of an automobile — what a Congressional report described as “hands-off, feet-off” driving. The program was not without its detractors. In December of 1993 Marcia D. Lowe at the Worldwatch Institute wrote a scathing op-ed in the Washington Post. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Lowe mentions “The Jetsons.” Computer-equipped cars driving themselves on automated highways. A scene out of “The Jetsons?” Not exactly. Smart cars and highways have quietly emerged as the latest and most-expensive proposal to solve the nation’s traffic problems. Government spending on the little known Intelligent Vehicle and Highway Systems program is expected to exceed $40 billion over the next 20 years. (By comparison, in the first 10 years of the Strategic Defense Initiative, Washington spent $30 billion.) Even more astonishing is the total lack of organized opposition to the idea, despite evidence that smart cars and highways may well exacerbate the very problems they are supposed to solve. 
A demonstration of the automated highway system in San Diego (1997) By 1997 the program had to show its technical feasibility in a demonstration in San Diego, California. On July 22 of that year the demonstration test vehicles rode down 7.6 miles of the HOV lane on Interstate 15. The Associated Press even reported that the prototype
A researcher demonstrates the driverless car by showing his hands aren’t on the wheel (1997) During the lead up to the San Diego demonstration in 1997, the NAHSC produced a video called “Where The Research Meets The Road.” You can watch the video below. Needless to say, the program didn’t deliver driverless cars and automated highways to Americans. So what was the problem? The legislation didn’t really give the Department of Transportation any direction on how they should go about the research—only that they needed to demonstrate it by 1997. But perhaps the biggest problem was that the legislation never clearly defined what was meant by “fully automated highway system.” ***
Posted By: Matt Novak — Cars,Transportation | Link | Comments (5) 5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies. Please note: JavaScript is required to post comments. Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free Advertisement .
Follow Us
Read more: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/05/the-1990s-automated-highway-of-the-future-work-in-progress/#ixzz2UX45rhSy Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter .
Search... Smithsonian.com
Blogs
May 16, 2013 The National Automated Highway System That Almost Was |
| REDDIT
| DIGG
| STUMBLE
| EMAIL
| MORE
A computer visualization of the driverless car of the future (1997) Visions of driverless cars zipping around on the highways of the future are nothing new. Visions of automated highways date back to at least the 1939 New York World’s Fair, and the push-button driverless car was a common dream depicted in such midcentury utopian artifacts as 1958′s Disneyland TV episode “Magic Highway, U.S.A.” But here in the 21st century there’s a growing sense that the driverless car might actually (fingers crossed, hope to die) be closer than we think. And thanks to the progress being made by companies like Google (not to mention just about every major car company), some even believe that driverless vehicles could become a mainstream reality within just five years. Despite all the well-known sci-fi predictions of the 20th century (not to mention those of the 21st, like in the movies Minority Report and iRobot) many people forget the very earnest and expensive investment in this vision of the future from recent history. That investment was the multi-million dollar push by the U.S. Congress to build an automated highway system in the 1990s. In 1991 Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which authorized $650 million to be spent over the course of the next six years on developing the technology that would be needed for driverless cars running on an automated highway. The vision was admittedly bold, seeing as how primitive all of the components needed for such a system were at that time. Even consumer GPS technology — which today we take for granted in our phones and vehicles — wasn’t a reality in the early 1990s. The real-world benefits of automated highways were thought to be improving safety by removing human error from the equation, as well as improved travel times and better fuel economy.
Dashboard of an automated vehicle of the future (1997) The National Automated Highway System Consortium was formed in late 1994 and were comprised of nine core organizations, both public and private: General Motors, Bechtel Corporation, The California Department of Transportation, Carnegie Mellon University, Delco Electronics, Hughes Electronics, Lockheed Martin, Parsons Brinckerhoff, and the University of California-Berkeley. The goal was eventually to allow for fully automated operation of an automobile — what a Congressional report described as “hands-off, feet-off” driving. The program was not without its detractors. In December of 1993 Marcia D. Lowe at the Worldwatch Institute wrote a scathing op-ed in the Washington Post. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Lowe mentions “The Jetsons.” Computer-equipped cars driving themselves on automated highways. A scene out of “The Jetsons?” Not exactly. Smart cars and highways have quietly emerged as the latest and most-expensive proposal to solve the nation’s traffic problems. Government spending on the little known Intelligent Vehicle and Highway Systems program is expected to exceed $40 billion over the next 20 years. (By comparison, in the first 10 years of the Strategic Defense Initiative, Washington spent $30 billion.) Even more astonishing is the total lack of organized opposition to the idea, despite evidence that smart cars and highways may well exacerbate the very problems they are supposed to solve.
A demonstration of the automated highway system in San Diego (1997) By 1997 the program had to show its technical feasibility in a demonstration in San Diego, California. On July 22 of that year the demonstration test vehicles rode down 7.6 miles of the HOV lane on Interstate 15. The Associated Press even reported that the prototype highway should be running by 2002.
A researcher demonstrates the driverless car by showing his hands aren’t on the wheel (1997) During the lead up to the San Diego demonstration in 1997, the NAHSC produced a video called “Where The Research Meets The Road.” You can watch the video below. Needless to say, the program didn’t deliver driverless cars and automated highways to Americans. So what was the problem? The legislation didn’t really give the Department of Transportation any direction on how they should go about the research—only that they needed to demonstrate it by 1997. But perhaps the biggest problem was that the legislation never clearly defined what was meant by “fully automated highway system.” ***
Posted By: Matt Novak — Cars,Transportation | Link | Comments (5) 5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies. Please note: JavaScript is required to post comments. Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free Advertisement .
Insurance & Technology Does your car come equipped with stability control, forward or rear sensors, or parking assistance? Then you're seeing the foundation that will eventually lead to fully autonomous vehicles, says Craig Beattie of Celent. "There's going to be a phase ... 
4 Ways Driverless Cars Are Poised to Shake up Insurance Driverless cars are closer to reality than you think. Here are some impacts they might have on the insurance industry. By Nathan Golia May 17, 2013 Share on email
1. Incremental Changes Already Impacting Safety… Does your car come equipped with stability control, forward or rear sensors, or parking assistance? Then you're seeing the foundation that will eventually lead to fully autonomous vehicles, says Craig Beattie of Celent. "There's going to be a phase before [full autonomy] where a bunch of technologies come into adoption and take over parts of the driving experience," Beattie says. "Honda has some lane following technology, for example — if you couple that with adaptive cruise control, where you set the target speed but maintain a safe distance, you can do a lot of freeway driving without doing anything." Eventually, systems will evolve beyond warning systems that aim to spur a driver action to just taking the action themselves, Beattie says. "Most of these systems are geared so they give the driver something to do before they kick," he explains. "Right now, it's clearly the driver's responsibility to do something if the system kicks in, but we're swiftly moving into an area where it's getting a bit foggy."
Login or Register to Comment 
Greg MacSweeney As more driverless cars are on the road, risk should go down, along with insurance rates. But, as emariacher says, liability will be shifted to manufacturers, who will need insurance to cover their liabilities.
Cara Latham Undoubtedly, driverless cars will eliminate some of the driver errors that lead to extensive injury and damage, but as the sources in the article note, new risks will come into play as new and untested technology is increasingly included in future automobiles. Though, I am inclined to think that whether a message pops up on a dashboard or driver window would be deemed irrelevant if the owner of the vehicle is no longer operating the vehicle and can more easily and safely focus on such messages.
Kathy Burger This won't be limited to driverless cars, but presumably apps connecting "drivers"/owners to their auto insurance carrier would be part of the car's features/capabilities. Instant/real time first notice of loss. Could also include connections with the health insurer, in case of injuries.
emariacher Driverless cars - Tomorrow’s yesterday jobs: End of car insurance Year 2030: there will be less accidents, and manufacturers will be liable for them instead of the driver. Car accident will be renamed as “software bug” and dying on the road will be renamed as “having a blue screen”. 
 Follow Us
Read more: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/05/the-1990s-automated-highway-of-the-future-work-in-progress/#ixzz2UX45rhSy Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Big auto insurers are very involved in the innovation process around making cars safer, says Mark Breading of SMA. But even as some technologies reduce the likelihood of certain kinds of accidents, others introduce new risk vectors, he notes. "I've thought a lot about, in auto insurance, to what extent can you engineer away risk," Breading says. "But as you design new approaches, you're going to introduce new risks." For example, airbags reduce certain kinds of injuries while at the same time introducing new types, he cites. "If you have info projected on the windshield, is that safer or is it dangerous?" he asks. "There's so much tech that's being put in the car that requires attention. The more information that comes at us creates distracted driving and is going to create new risks." 3. Early Adopters Already Need Coverage Basil Enan, the CEO of online broker CoverHound, says that he sees Google self-driving cars "a couple times a week" around his home in the Bay Area. Many of his customers, he adds, are cut from the same cloth of tech-savvy drivers. "A lot of our customers are likely to be the ones who are more early adopters of those products," he says. "We already see some insurers provide discounts for semi-driverless technologies. The insurance companies tend to take a very slow approach to these things but it's very compelling for our customers." But there's an offset to that, he notes: "Many of the cars we see with those functions are very expensive, so you have premiums offsetting the discounts. Cars are also getting more expensive to fix because they're designed with things that total the car to save the passenger." 4. Driverless Cars Threaten Telematics Momentum Pegasystems' Tom King said in an interview at the ACORD LOMA show in Las Vegas this month that he believes "telematics' long-term impact are going to be eclipsed by driver assistance technologies." "Does telematics even matter?" he asked. "By the time insurers really get to it, chances are we're gong to have self-driving cars on the street." Those will require different models for insurance, King wrote in a blog entry on the subject: Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but chances are liability rates will drop so dramatically for autonomous cars that telematics (at least insurer sponsored telematics) will be cost prohibitive with minimal return on investment. In effect, autonomous cars will make telematics UBI irrelevant in much the same way that the internal combustion engine eclipsed the Stirling Engine. Celent's Beattie agrees: "If we assume that fully autonomous vehicles hit the road at some point, telematics-based insurance has a lifespan. When we get fully autonomous cars, it will be very clear what's happening." Driverless Car Could Be Hacked By '14-Year-Old From Indonesia,' Senator Warns http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/driverless-car-hack_n_3292748.html Driverless cars have been touted as an innovative way of making roads safer by reducing human error. Computers don't get behind the wheel while drunk, or tired, or texting, proponents argue. But self-driving cars also pose new safety risks, because computers are vulnerable to something that human drivers are not -- hackers. Such concerns were aired this week during a Senate hearing on the future of driverless technology. Though still years away from mass production, autonomous vehicles could place passengers at risk of "catastrophic cyberattacks" unless proper measures are put in place, according to Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va). “In other words, can some 14-year old in Indonesia figure out how to do this and just shut your car down … because everything is now wired up?" Rockefeller said Wednesday during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing. The federal government is taking Rockefeller's concerns seriously. At the same hearing, David Strickland, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said his agency has requested $2 million for research to "share data about nefarious behavior" and ensure the "the overall system cannot be corrupted to send faulty data." "We have initiated cybersecurity research, with the goal of developing a preliminary baseline set of threats and how those threats could be addressed in the vehicle environment," he said. Driverless cars use artificial intelligence to sense nearby objects and mimic human decisions made behind the wheel. Engineers say the cars would not only make roads safer, but could also increase their capacity by allowing cars to operate closer together without crashing. California, Nevada and Florida have legalized self-driving cars, though there is no law requiring vehicles to have drivers. Google has built and tested driverless cars, and some Google employees commute to work in them. But security experts have expressed concerns about the push to add more technology to cars. Researchers at the University of California and University of Washington have found ways to infect vehicles with computer viruses and cause them to crash by shutting off their lights, killing their engines or slamming on their brakes, according to the Globe and Mail. They were able to infect a car's computer system by implanting a virus on a CD that spread when the passenger listened to music. http://www.newsday.com/business/new-york-auto-accident-lawyer-david-perecman-discusses-the-new-2014-s-class-mercedes-a-luxury-car-with-a-virtual-chauffeur-1.5312553 New York Auto Accident Lawyer David Perecman Discusses the New 2014 S-Class Mercedes, a Luxury Car with a Virtual Chauffeur Published: May 22, 2013 4:04 AM New York auto accident lawyer David Perecman at The Perecman Firm discusses the new 2014 S-Class Mercedes, a luxury car that can steer itself using cutting-edge technology. New York, New York (PRWEB) May 22, 2013 A new S-Class Mercedes has semiautonomous steering and is a remarkable advance in the development of autonomous cars, reported The New York Times (5.19.13). The auto steers itself using an array of radar, infrared and optical sensors to track lane markings or the car ahead. New York auto accident lawyer David Perecman supports technology that will make driving safer. “Advancements in technology have the ability to make driving safer for all,” said Perecman, an auto accident lawyer in New York for over 30 years. The car, which requires a driver’s hand on the steering wheel while it steers itself, can maneuver through city traffic or drive up to 120 miles an hour on the highway under the right conditions. The car can also park itself, brake automatically to avoid hitting people or other vehicles, and sense when a driver is getting fatigued, according to The New York Times. The 2014 S-Class premiered in Hamburg, Germany. The vehicle is considered the flagship of the Mercedes line and has an estimated starting price of $100,000. Engineers say it will take at least a decade to work out all the technological issues, said The New York Times. There are a number of legal problems that will need to be resolved, as well. “Questions to consider include, if a car gets in an accident while on autopilot, who is responsible, the car owner or the automaker,” said Perecman. The car’s software needs to do all the things that come naturally to humans, said The New York Times. This includes judging whether a person standing at a street corner is planning to cross the road or is just waiting for a bus. The car will also need to gauge the intentions of erratic human drivers. “If the issues are worked out, self-driving cars may be safer than human driven cars. It will be interesting to see how the technology develops,” said Perecman. The auto accident attorneys at The Perecman Firm in New York have helped many people obtain the compensation they deserve following auto accidents in New York. Contact The Perecman Firm at 212-977-7033. The New York Times article is “A Benz With a Virtual Chauffeur.” About David Perecman and The Perecman Firm, PLLC: For the past 30 years, the New York personal injury, medical malpractice, construction accident, and auto accident lawyers at The Perecman Firm, PLLC have handled all types of cases of vehicular accidents in New York. David Perecman, founder of the Firm, has been recognized for his achievements as an Honoree in the National Law Journal's Hall of Fame, in New York Magazine's "The Best Lawyers in America" and The New York Times Magazine "New York Super Lawyers, Metro Edition" for the years 2007-2010. The prestigious U.S. News & World Report ranks The Perecman Firm among the top 20 personal injury firms in New York City for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. The Firm has recovered millions of dollars for its clients. Among the more recent victories, Mr. Perecman won a $15 million verdict** for a construction accident (Index 112370/03) Supreme Court, New York County, a $5.35 million dollar verdict*** for an automobile accident (Index 2749/04) Supreme Court, Kings County, and a $40 million dollar structured settlement for medical malpractice (Index 2146/03)****Supreme Court, Kings County. The Perecman Firm serves Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Long Island, Westchester, Upstate NY, Morris County, and Rockland County. **later settled while on appeal for $7.940 million *** later settled for $3.5 million **** total potential payout "Lawyer Advertising"+ "Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome." For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prwebNYautoaccidentlawyer/NYautoaccidentlawyer/prweb10758337.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/automobiles/a-benz-with-a-virtual-chau ffeur.html?pagewanted=all http://www.worldcarfans.com/113051557704/2014-mercedes-s-class-officially-unveiled-videos Directory: ~alaink -> SmartDrivingCars SmartDrivingCars -> Tuesday, August 20, 2013 SmartDrivingCars -> Personal Rapid Transit in Cape May County SmartDrivingCars -> Existing Transit Service patco high Speed Line SmartDrivingCars -> Prt proposal \chapter{Ocean County} SmartDrivingCars -> Research needs statement SmartDrivingCars -> Releases Policy on Automated Vehicle Development SmartDrivingCars -> Countdown to Mainstreaming of Self-Driving Vehicles SmartDrivingCars -> A scenario: The End of Auto Insurance SmartDrivingCars -> Deliberations from Expert Workshop on Shared Mobility and Automation from the Road Vehicle Automation Workshop Objective SmartDrivingCars -> Comment about ca dmv av regulatory Proposal Prof. Robert Peterson, Santa Clara University draft 1/4/15 Download 466.57 Kb. Share with your friends:
|
Live webcast available
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 must be seeing traction. 
June 26-28, Gold Coast, Australia
“Hard to Imagine” 
“Clown” Commercial
, 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)
mailto:alaink@princeton.edu
somini says:
May 16, 2013 at 6:23 pm
This is a great article, a perfect example of all those revolutionary technologies that will be mainstream in the next 3-5 years.
Just a small niggle.
The movie is called “I, Robot”. iRobot is probably an Apple trademark, you never know. :)
Reply
WolfmansRazor says:
May 16, 2013 at 11:48 pm
Thanks for this. I remember reading about this concept in “Time for Kids” way back in elementary school where it was presented as something which would be a reality in the very near future. I’d always kind of wondered what happened to the idea, since I hadn’t heard anyone discuss it until the recent announcements from Google.
Reply
