I just returned from my first CES experience. People are not kidding when they say that the crowds, the lines, and the sheer magnitude of the conference are on another level; nothing could have prepared me! I was, however, mentally prepared to be blown away by the featured technologies and, to be honest, I was not. I have been debating whether or not to blog about this because who comes back from CES and says that?!?!
I must admit, I spent most of my time in the “Vehicle Technology” section. Just about every booth had a vehicle – either an existing vehicle with snazzy features or a conceptual design. Here are a few examples of the conceptual vehicles: Mercedes Benz “Urbanetic, (modular design)” Bell’s “Nexus” (flying car!), and Hyundai’s Elevate (walking car).
It was amusing to see how many companies are focusing on auxiliary technologies to support fully autonomous vehicles. Clearly these are fun to think about, but how soon will they actually be needed?! Some examples include:
Audi and Disney’s Virtual Reality – “The VR experience is intended to match, visually, what the passengers feel as they ride: If the car turns, accelerates or brakes, the VR environment will do the same thing.” Intel and Warner Brothers are doing something similar (see link here).
Byton’s futuristic dashboard – This 48-inch curved unit stretches across the entire dashboard and “gives the driver information about the car and its surroundings…displays the infotainment system, and gives the front passenger access to entertainment like movies and television shows.”
And there were two significant disappointments for me at CES:
Electric vehicle technology was barely mentioned. Outside of Nissan’s Leaf e+, electric vehicle technology did not get a ton of attention.
Where was all of the good swag?! Even my one-year old wasn’t excited by my souvenirs…
That all being said, it was an incredible few days and I’m grateful for the experience. My favorite was hanging at the Continental booth where we demonstrated a robot completing first/last mile package delivery from EasyMile’s EZ10 (see video below). What did other people think about CES?
This may seem a bit counter-intuitive, but just about every driverless vehicle deployment has at least one operator in the vehicle. This article highlights how all Uber test vehicles will have “two employees in each autonomous vehicle.” Lyft and Aptiv launched a self-driving program in Las Vegas and, as stated in this article, “a trained operator will be in each car.” Ford is testing vehicles in Miami and has “human back up drivers (see link here). Even Waymo, who took the safety drivers out of their driverless vehicles, decided to “put safety drivers back behind the wheels” and add “co-drivers” in an “effort to keep its safety drivers alert” (see link here). This is the case for just about every driverless vehicle deployment globally. But why?
It is clear the number one reason for safety drivers is safety. These safety drivers are trained to take over control of the vehicle, if required, at any time (see information about GM’s month-long training “driver” program here). Interestingly, AV manufacturers that are requiring two safety drivers cite the main reason for the second driver being oversight of the first driver or for capturing and recording data. Other reasons for a safety driver include passenger comfort, so passengers trying this new form of mobility can ask questions and feel more secure. The final reason is regulatory requirements. Some states are requiring human safety drivers – mostly due to outdated regulations (e.g., New York), while others are requiring a permit for the removal of the driver (e.g., California).
Ironically, Waymo has stated that one of their vehicles would have avoided an accident if the safety driver had left the vehicle in autonomous mode (see link here). This article combined an apology and a commitment to safety with a strong endorsement for their autonomous technology…. Brilliant!
As driverless technology developers advance from SAE Levels 2/3 to 4, with the ultimate goal of being fully driverless, it seems removing the human operator is one of the biggest challenges. This, along with many other factors, suggest that we are quite a few years away from fully autonomous vehicles being able to operate anywhere (Level 5), but please do let me know if you disagree!
There’s never a dull moment in this industry. The technology is advancing (see examples here and here), government regulations are being developed (see update on U.S. regulations here), and new partnerships continue to be formed (e.g., Ford teaming with Walmart and Postmates). New demonstration and testing activities are cropping up daily (see examples here and here) and the media continues to cover all of this with unwavering commitment! It’s an exciting time.
Industry is advancing their interests while governments – internationally and at all levels – are struggling to keep up. The question of standards creeps into many of the discussions; however, there has been little agreed-upon. The topics that generally are discussed as needing standards include: safety (in general), cybersecurity, data privacy, connected vehicles (DSRC), signage, and even standards on how the vehicles communicate with other road users. These are all huge topics independently and the implications of these standards, more often than not, will have implications for many industries (not just the driverless industry).
Who should establish these standards? Seemingly, it makes sense for the government to take the lead as a neutral third party representing the greater good. On the other hand, industry is getting patents for all aspects of the driverless technology, including, for example, pedestrian communication tools (see link here), which could influence standards. Ford is also developing their own standard for how driverless vehicles communicate with other road users, but they’re encouraging the industry to adopt them (see link here). There are also examples where government works with industry groups and standards organizations (e.g., connected vehicle standards or cybersecurity framework…not standards!). And here’s another example: the RAND Corporation, at the request of Uber’s Advanced Technology Group, developed an “company neutral framework for AV safety” (link here).
I’m sure we’ll continue to see every variety of methods to developing standards. My hope is that standards are not developed too late in the technology development process, the standards can be agreed-upon by most stakeholders, and that the standards do not limit innovation or advancement. What are your thoughts on how/when standards should be developed?
Note: I’ll be at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) – will you? Please email me (firstname.lastname@example.org) if you’d like to meet up!
As I stood in line waiting for my turn to sign the papers for my rental car, I was alarmed by the fact that this rental company (a reputable company, for the record!) was relying upon computers and software that looked like they were from the 90s. Rental car companies are, seemingly, well-positioned to be AV fleet operators since they‘re already maintaining fleets of vehicles, but one has to wonder….can they handle the significant technological upgrade (amongst other business model changes).
When one looks at the various types of companies getting into the AV space, it’s clear there are strengths and weaknesses associated with each one.
Rental car companies are already maintaining fleets of vehicles; however, they are not involved in the manufacturing of the vehicles or the development of any technology (outside of partnerships). It is helpful that their locations are typically on or near airports and cities, where there is significant density.
Technology companies (e.g., Uber, Lyft, Waymo) have a significant customer base and they are clearly strong in developing technology (and financing!); however, they don’t own, maintain, or manufacture any vehicles.
Auto manufacturers fill in the gap of the prior two categories: they manufacture vehicles, but they generally do not own or operate fleets of vehicles (outside of dealerships) or specialize in technology development.
Interestingly, every one of these companies’ existing business models are threatened with the emergency of the autonomous technology, so it’s no surprise that they’re all finding innovative ways to integrate it into their business models. It is the categorization described above that has led to the gray area that has emerged in recent years. All of these companies are forming unprecedented partnerships and/or investments…here’s a sampling: GM/Lyft, Avis/Waymo, Enterprise/Voyage (a driverless tech company), Uber/Volvo, Uber/Toyota, Hertz/Apple, and the list goes on!
Who will come out on top? It may take more than a decade to see winners and losers emerge, but what do you think?
Today, we see non-stop articles about society’s willingness to ride in a driverless vehicle. Companies and academic institutions have conducted countless studies globally that show a range of likelihood and circumstances that would enable people to accept this new technology. During my speeches and panels on driverless vehicles, I often ask audiences if they would be willing to ride in a driverless vehicle and the responses are wide-varying. It is largely dependent on the crowd’s age, their location, and their familiarity with the driverless technology. It’s fascinating to see the crowd ponder that decision: “Would I hop in a driverless vehicle today if it was waiting outside to take me to my next destination?”
Then I think back 10 years and wonder how that same crowd would have reacted to this question: “Would you be willing to hop in a car with a stranger to allow them to take you to your next destination?” I’m pretty sure most people would have thought I was crazy. Uber and Lyft have made getting into a stranger’s car 100% acceptable. Of course, the corresponding technology and perception of accountability does help, but I find it just as surprising that the drivers are willing to let strangers into their personal vehicles! Uber and Lyft, our “gateway drugs” to driverless vehicles, prove how a new technology that brings both reliability and convenience are likely to outweigh “old school” thinking regarding mobility norms.
Driverless vehicles have the potential to add even more reliability and convenience – in addition to increasing safety. For this reason, I have no doubts that our society will accept and embrace the driverless technology wholeheartedly. Do you agree?
I think this gets at the heart of the “driving towards driverless” question… Vehicles that fall into SAE levels 1-4 are available today, but the leap to true fully automated driving is non-trivial. See Wired article here for SAE levels definition. Every idyllic image of driverless vehicles, including people sleeping or working, requires full automation. Many of the stated benefits of driverless vehicles also require full automation. Waymo is likely the company closest to this reality, but many automakers are stating that they’re working towards full autonomy in the next few years. Should we believe them?
So what’s keeping us from full autonomy? Let’s ignore the lack of regulations and societal acceptance. The number of unpredictable and/or complex situations are, literally, endless. Fallen trees post-thunder storms, an overpass collapsing, construction work zones, traffic detours, and the list goes on! Our society seems to gauge progress towards Level 5 autonomy based on number of driverless test miles “driven;” however, how many miles will enable driverless vehicles to predict all of these extreme situations?
I believe that the more “connectivity” we have, the sooner full autonomy can come. “Connectivity” refers to all aspects of vehicle to vehicle (V2V), vehicle to infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle to everything else (V2X). Connectivity is going to increase the amount of information available to share with driverless vehicles and minimize the risk of those unpredictable situations. When will more V2X applications be available? This will require a significant investment in standards, infrastructure, privacy and data sharing policies, and cybersecurity protections.
Bottom line – I am not expecting to see fully automated (level 5) vehicles for a while, but what do you think?
Thank you to Giles Kirkland for the guest post below. Giles is a car expert and new automotive technologies passionate with over a decade of experience in the niche. He constantly researches on the latest studies, cutting-edge findings, and perspectives for the future. Keen on increasing his own knowledge as well as helping to educate others, he shares his expertise with tech enthusiasts and drivers across the globe. You can find him on Twitter and at Oponeo.
For decades, people have been looking forward to autonomous vehicles as they’ve always been considered to be the future of modern cars. Lately, they’ve become an active part of the news as major players like Tesla, Uber and Google have began experiments and testing. Most media outlets refer to these vehicles with praise. However, if you look closer, you’re sure to find mixed opinions. While some people are incredibly happy about the technology, many are still afraid of it.
The ethical dilemma: Will self-driving cars make moral decisions in the same way human drivers do? Drivers are required to make split second decisions that they make on moral grounds and some people think machines will be incapable of making such a choice.
The latest research shows that autonomous vehicles can be given the ability to make such moral decisions by using some simple algorithms, yet it’s still unclear if they will choose between saving the driver or killing less people.
Fear of losing control: People fear losing control in many areas of life. Aviophobia, the fear of flying, is a great example. Just like dreading the thought of not being able to control a plane, many future passengers still fear letting go of their steering wheel. So there are solid grounds for this phobia. On the other hand, human driving is not error-free and the chances of it occurring could be minimized with autonomous cars.
Lack of understanding: Whenever a new technology is introduced, the lack of understanding is what causes most of the non-acceptance. Many people are afraid of driverless vehicles because they fail to understand them. A little awareness and education regarding this topic would go a long way and would definitely improve the way self-driving cars are perceived .
A questionable track record of safety and comfort: The first fatal driverless car crash happened in March this year. While it led to Uber temporarily suspending its self-driving programs, it once again raised the question about the driverless car’s bad track record for crashes. However, when you compare statistics, the number of collisions per miles driven is much lower for driverless cars.
Claims about self driving cars making people queasy have also recently appeared. Fortunately large companies such as Uber are coming up with ideas that will resolve the problem fast.
Employment issues: Most technological advancements come with the fear of unemployment as technology tends to replace human workers. In this case, it would mostly be taxi and truck drivers who could lose their jobs. Hopefully, this technology will bring new opportunities and society will eventually adapt to the change and benefit from it.
Driving as a hobby: Many people choose to drive just because it is something they enjoy or have fun doing. Self-driving cars should in no way cause them to miss out on fun. There most likely will continue to be a market for such enthusiasts. Perhaps some models will have both options, to be driven manually and autonomously.
There are definitely some serious concerns regarding driverless cars, but most of them have already been or will be addressed and the pros surely outweigh the cons. In fact, according to one study, self-driving cars are expected to reduce traffic accidents by as much as 90%. The existing issues hopefully will be resolved soon and this new technology will make our lives much more safer, efficient and convenient.