Second Edition of 'AV Update'

The latest, and second, edition of Autonomous (or Automated) Vehicle Update is now available here.

Interest in AV's is continuing to increase and for the first time that we are aware of a national leader has pointed towards this technology.

Also it is encouraging that the US House of Representatives had planned to discuss the impact of AV's on surface transportation.  Although postponed, we look forward to tuning in live to this meeting when it is eventually re-scheduled.

'Countdown to Autonomy'

On page 40 of the October/November 2013 edition of Traffic Technology International, there is an article called 'Countdown to Autonomy' that I put together to help traffic managers understand the potential implications of fully automated vehicles.  

Hopefully this will be of interest to a wider readership as I explain why I think that we should all try and be prepared as we can for the implications that result from this technology. I also point out some of the wider impacts on transportation projects which should be of interest to both transportation professionals and tax-payers.

Why Fully Self-Driving Isn't the Automaker's Goal

A number of automakers have been making statements recently around the subject of automated (autonomous, self-driving, driverless) cars.  The general message seems to be: 'We are going to add safety features to our car that will automate most or all of the driving task, but the driver will always need to be in the loop and of course the pleasure of driving is so great that there will always be times when the driver will just take over.'

For example:

BMW: “We already have a lot of assistance packages in our cars, but for some of our customers their favourite part is the 'Off' button because we do not want to replace the driver." - (drive.com.au)

GM: "W"e always want the customer to know that we're not trying to replace them," he says. "These systems are there for their convenience." (autonews.com)

Mercedes Benz: "“Nobody wants a ‘big brother’ in the car,” Zetsche said. “However, a friend who frees us from chores or helps us in complex situations is very welcome. For us, the car means freedom and independence, and it will remain so at Mercedes-Benz.” (Forbes)

Tesla: "It’s not just the sensors that Musk doesn’t like; he doesn’t much care for the phrase “self-driving car” either. Instead, he seems to prefer “autopilot.” While it might seem like trivial semantics, it does make it clear that this technology is intended as a tool for drivers — not a replacement for drivers. For safety and liability purposes, a human will still need to be paying attention when these cars hit the market." (extremetech.com)

Notice the commonality in outlook here?

These attitudes in some ways highlight the automakers quandary. They have a tried and tested 130 year old business model of incremental improvements where they seek to sell every single one of us at least one vehicle. They sell speed, power, luxury, connectivity, versatility, safety (except some of the previous sales points are in direct contradiction of safety?...) and even efficiency, as the younger generations are so much more aware of 'green' issues.

Such a business model is great for the shareholders of these automakers - but considering most vehicles stand around idle for 90% of the time, this can be considered a serious waste of the earth's finite resources. Also consider that human error is a factor in some 93% of crashes - we have a terrible conundrum where there is an entire industry, including aftermarket parts, that relies on crashes occurring.

Whereas a truly self-driving, NHTSA Level 4 automated vehicle, one that is capable of driving unmanned, challenges (if not disrupts) this business model. Instead it inevitably leads to the development of automated shared mobility fleets - especially from the business models of taxi, car-rental, car-share, ride-share and P2P companies.

We know from studies that 1 shared vehicle can typically take 9 to 13 private vehicles off the road (Shaheen, UC Berkeley). Studies around the shared automated fleets, or 'aTaxis' suggests that 1 fully automated Level 4 car could take at least 2.5 private vehicles off the road during peak hours (Kornhauser, Princeton) - and maybe more.

With these aTaxis the average person could relinquish ownership of their private vehicle and hire the right size vehicle for their commute to work, family time at the weekend, shifting goods etc. - and save 40% of annual transportation outlay in the process (as extrapolated from 'Transforming personal mobility - Earth Institute, Columbia University).

Therefore with and aTaxis we would find that the automakers sell many more cars to the fleets and less to private owners. Which means that their 130 year old business model no longer looks so robust. Fleet owners will want very different characteristics in their cars and they will be very aggressive on beating down prices.

So comments like the ones automakers make in these articles about 'keeping the driver in the loop' and that 'drivers will always want to drive' etc. don't really stack up when you consider the likely new business models and the societal benefits that Level 4 automated vehicles can bring.

Also note that the 2020 date for this technology from the automakers is not for Level 4 automated technology - but Level 3 (tending towards Level 4), where the driver is required to take over the driving task when necessary - because that preserves their business model - 1 driver, 1 car (or more).

Whereas Google have explicitly stated that their aspiration is to go for Level 4 if they can manage it, which would mean bypassing Level 3 altogether. On the Friday following this presentation by Ron Medford of Google there was a public meeting regarding autonomous vehicles in California.  There I took the chance to ask the panel, about when they thought fully self-driving cars would be available. Anthony Levandowski of Google replied that they stand by Sergey Brin's statement at the California autonomous vehicle bill signing, which was where he intimated that they are aiming for about five years, i.e. 2017.

So when you read what the automakers are saying on the subject of driverless cars, please consider that there is another side to the story and the business models and agendas lie behind much of what is said.

2017 is the date that we should be preparing for. To not do so risks all sorts of avoidable societal and economic collateral damage.

Is Canada Ready for Self-Driving Cars?

A few weeks ago I was interviewed over the phone by Rob Drinkwater of the Canadian Press.  He was doing an article on driverless, or self-driving cars and in his investigations he was told that he should speak to me to get a different perspective than the government one.

So he contacted me and we spoke a couple of times for about an hour in total.  Although I sought to explain just something of the breadth and depth of this subject, I managed to pepper the conversation with some statements to help reinforce the point I was making.

Well, with the government folks that he contacted not saying too much, Rob's fall-back was our interview - in which it seems he pulled out all of the emphatic sound-bites, and put them together in his article.

Because of the provocative theme, and it being a syndicated article the story was picked up by all the major media outlets in Canada and was published in some form in every major Canadian Municipality.

A few of the outlets that carried the article and their headlines:

• CBC: Is Canada Ready for Self-Driving Cars?
• Huffington Post: Self-Driving Car Technology To Hit Canada 'Like A Tidal Wave': Transportation Advocate
• The Globe and Mail: Canada needs to get ready for self-driving cars: transportation advocate

Hopefully, even though the article is woefully short on facts, it has helped raise the awareness of the subject and has prompted more discussion.  Certainly the number of comments and 'shares' on social media impressed me that there is a growing interest in this subject.

Of course the reader can probably simply replace the word 'Canada' and place your own country name in there, and the main point of the article will still be a valid question: "Is my jurisdiction ready for self-driving cars?"

It is my belief that the more that people know now, then the more prepared they will be when decisions are needed around this technology.  In my opinion it is already time that Governments need to be thinking about policy, and businesses need to be thinking about strategy.  Right now we are in the 'sweet spot' when it is possible to be 'proactive', but as the months go by and the deployment of self-driving cars looms larger, then some responses will start to be 'reactive'... which isn't usually a good thing.

The First Edition of 'AV Update'

The Autonomous Vehicle (AV) story is a fascinating one, that could end up fundamentally impacting the lives of most everyone on the planet in the next two decades.

As not everyone has the time to follow this story as it unfolds, my associate, Barrie Kirk, and I have put together an 'AV Update' newsletter that we will distribute on an occasional basis.

If you want to read it (and then hopefully subscribe to the email version), then just click on this link.

In this first issue there have been some developments which give some clues as to what Google's intentions may be in the shared mobility space.  By investing heavily in Uber it does suggest that they will have the infrastructure already in place for when automated taxi fleets become possible - probably in 2017 as that is the date that Google aspire to have their self-driving car technology in public hands.

The rumour about a possible Google, Continental and IBM alliance is also very intriguing in the possibilities it would open up.  Rather than speculate now, let's just wait until the Frankfurt Motor Show starts in just a few days, and see if there are any announcements on this subject.

Autonomous Vehicles: An Inconvenient Truth (Continued)

It's an Inconvenient Truth, but vehicles capable of driving unmanned could be with us by 2017.  That's based on what Ron Medford of Google said at the recent TRB Workshop on Road Vehicle Automation, and on what Sergey Brin (Google co-founder) said at the signing of the California Autonomous Vehicle Bill on 25 Sept 2015.  (Since confirmed on numerous occasions - and in particular by Anthony Levandowski of Google to a question that I asked the panel at the California Public meeting on the Friday after the main Workshop).

On 22 May I presented on this 'Autonomous Vehicles: An Inconvenient Truth' subject in association with Barrie Kirk and Globis Consulting.

My key 'Inconvenient Truths' were:

1. We aren’t planning for exponential
2. Much sooner than you think
3. Business models will be impacted if not disrupted (public and private sectors)
4. This is but the Dawn of the Robot Revolution 

But since May I have chosen to add some more to the list - see below.

So let's unwrap that a little bit, bearing in mind that there shouldn't be much of a credibility gap with this technology any more, because at the TRB Workshop the White House saw this as possibly the hottest technology policy issue, and the Director of California DMV who does not like hyperbolae saw this as a 'game changer':

1. We aren't planning for exponential

We have four years and small change from now (July 2013) until our 'five year warning date' for the possible deployment of Google self-driving car technology.  If you understand 'exponential' then you will appreciate that in the next four years we are going to see as much technological advancement since 40 years ago - 1973.  I will leave you the reader to get your head round that one - think about how much things have improved that haven't seen a paradigm shift - like cars.  Then consider areas where we have had a paradigm shift - like telecoms - where we have seen four paradigm shifts in that time (Landline-Cell-Smartphone-iPhone/Apps-Social Media Revolution) and are expecting the fifth this year with the release of mainstream wearable computing in the form of Google Glass.

The problem with the transportation mindset, is that the last paradigm shift on the roads started back in 1868 when Karl Benz patented the modern motor car.  Since then we have seen numerous incremental improvements, but no paradigm shifts.  So don't be surprised that the telecoms sector gets what that means, but that anyone in the transportation sector has never experienced it on the job.

Billions of dollars worth of infrastructure projects are being planned or built at the moment, designed to function for 20, 30, 40 years or more.  Have any of the designs been made with a cognisance of the impacts that deployment of autonomous vehicles could cause?  I'll go out on a limb and say the answer is a resounding 'no', and add that it would be great if a reader of this blog could correct me.

2. Much sooner than you think

Just in case you missed it.... 2017

I bet you, your business and the government services around you are not planning for a paradigm shift in how we 'do' road transportation, and all that means to society, to happen in about 4 years time.  But there it is - Google probably know better than any of us the socio-economic impacts of what a self-driving car means, and they have fulfilled their social compact obligations to us, by giving us as much warning as they can that the paradigm shift is coming.  It's now up to us to sort out what all this might mean.

3. Business models will be impacted if not disrupted (public and private sectors)

In most developed nations every jurisdiction is required to produce a Long Range Transportation Plan, because mobility is a key part of a healthy and functioning society - this is basically a business or operational model intended to ensure we plan wisely how our tax dollars are spent.  As many of the key autonomous vehicle developers have facilities in the Silicon Valley, and as Google Self-Driving Cars have been driving on Californian Roads, then you might expect that the San Francisco Bay Area Plan (Draft) to probably be leading the world in what this technology means....  Well, page 125 notes that they exist and that they will be researched.  Yep, that's it - not much help to their planners and engineers, or anyone else for that matter.

Now 2017 may turn out to be an underestimate of how long it takes to have this technology ready to be used safely by the public.  But surely it is best if we all plan for this date, including all businesses and public sector organizations, as the downsides and unintended consequences of not planning could be severe.

Those that don't plan risk becoming collateral damage in terms of business disruption and possibly even impact on your personal situation (e.g. if you are planning on buying a new or replacement car in the next four years there are certain things you would benefit from knowing).  There is more on some specific business models that will be impacted in 6. below.

4. This is but the Dawn of the Robot Revolution 

I may sound nuts (well I think I sound nuts!), but check out the latest DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC).  Then look at the DARPA Grand Challenge of 2004 that 13 years later may see self-driving cars on our roads.  Then take note of No. 1 on my list above - technology is exponential.  Then consider that as a result of the DRC we could see robots doing manual work outside of factories in maybe 2021-2023.

My guess is that the Artificial Intelligence Operating System (AIOS) being developed for the first autonomous car will likely be the base AIOS for many future robotic developments.  This might dominate the robotics market just as the Microsoft Windows OS has dominated the PC market.

I am also willing to bet that not too many long range plans by municipal and regional governments are taking this robotic future into account.  It likely leads to the de-construction of capitalism as we know it - our wealth could be measured by how many robots we own...

I am not making this up - robotic development is happening at a staggering rate.  Check out some Boston Dynamics videos as an example of the public/civilian face of what is possible.

I'll add an extra Inconvenient Truth for fun:

5. We don't have a consistent name for this technology...

So what's in a name?... I appreciate that this is a US-centric view:

The law uses autonomous - currently Bills passed in Nevada, Florida, California and District of Columbia all define 'Autonomous' vehicles.  I am fairly certain that the bills in process in 15 other US States also do too.

The latest NHTSA definitions use 'Automation' - which was pushed at the first TRB Workshop for Road Vehicle Automation in Irvine in 2012, and 'stuck' with the help of the the NHTSA regulations, SAE and others at the second TRB Workshop in Stanford.  I do find it odd that not even the public bodies can agree on a common name here.  I can imagine the highway designers, having 'Automated Vehicles' in the design codes, and trying to interpret that with the Law that refers to Autonomous Vehicles.

Google use 'Self-Driving', which is simple and descriptive but as they are the principal ones using it, it makes it hard for regulators to adopt it at the moment.  Plus it's an extra word.  On a recent poll on LinkedIn it came out ahead of the other names (but that was in the 'Self Driving Car' group! - who'd have thought!). 

Driverless is probably the most colloquial term that returns the most hits from the search engines.... along with stories of vehicles out of control with no driver present...  Maybe not!

None of the above are unique to this technology - although there are plenty of others that are unique but have not gained anything like as much traction - e.g. Brad Templeton's 'Robocars' - initially I disliked it, but it is uniquely searchable and right now that would be really useful.  My own attempt with 'Autonome' has issues and no traction.  We ideally want a single unmistakable word that is easily searchable - or a unique acronym that everyone can agree on (I will not list the various acronyms - I am at over 20 thus far...).

Next time you get a document that you think should contain a reference to this technology - say a long range transportation plan.  See if you can find it using the search terms above.  I found one document that used none of the terms above and needed me to search for 'Advanced Vehicle Technology'.

My next Inconvenient Truth is deliciously ironic when you consider that many observers agree that autonomous vehicles will see trillion dollar money flows:

6. If this is so important, so soon, so transformational and so disruptive, then why isn't there any money flowing around it yet?

Sure there is lots of private money being spent by the autonomous vehicle technology developers, and a few researchers and University off-shoots getting funding to develop the technology.  But what about the government departments and the businesses that will be affected?  Why aren't they spending money to understand this better and making plans for impacts and potential disruption?  Is anyone concerned that we are in the processing of committing billions of dollars to infrastructure projects with no knowledge if their design is robust enough to accommodate the deployment of autonomous vehicles in as little as four years time?...  Aren't my tax dollars potentially being wasted by ignoring the possibilities here?

My glib answer - there is very little research money flowing around autonomous vehicles because it doesn't have the word 'Connected' in it.  There is a lot of history and politics and vested reputations and vested interests here, so as an example I will cite the US DOT ITS Joint Program Office presentation at the TRB Workshop on Road Vehicle Automation, slide 11:

"Unconnected, automated vehicles could negatively impact road network operations"

and the pièce de résistance:

"“…driverless cars will only arrive if and when all cars are connected to one another and the infrastructure.” - Strategic Analytics"

I would very much like the US DOT to present the evidence to back up those statements - particularly the second one. My research tells me that the second is an incorrect statement (note how polite I am being), and Brad Templeton who is a Google consultant was also very keen to point this error out on the open mic after the presentation. 

But there are plenty of other reasons why autonomous vehicles don't have any money flowing yet into research and revision of operational, business and revenue models.  The main one at the moment being because no one else is spending any money on it.  If no one else is, then why should I? (Errr... Maybe because you stand the risk of going bust, or wasting a lot of money and resources, if you do nothing for too much longer?).  The pressure is building behind this dam, and when it breaks then just about everyone will want studies and all sorts doing to give them confidence moving forward.

Knowing what I know, here are a very few examples where I would be doing my due diligence now:

Public sector:

• transportation projects or infrastructure, or projects with a surface transportation component
• operational, business and revenue models relying on predicted road traffic flows more than four years out
• energy generation and distribution
• health service provision - particularly trauma and critical care and organ donations
• financial/treasury models relying on revenues more than two years out
• Public Private Partnerships (P3s)

Business sectors - expect significant impacts or even disruption to existing operational, business and revenue models:  

• Trucking
• Taxis / Limousines
• Vehicle Rental
• Car Share / Ride Share etc.
• Car Parking
• Auto Insurance
• Postal / Parcel Delivery
• Public Private Partnerships (P3s)
• Auto Body Repair
• Any vehicle fleet operators
• Disabled/Seniors services

Finally - this is an extension of No.6 really, but it is a huge challenge

7. We need a new paradigm in government where policy precedes technology

Hopefully this is pretty much self explanatory.  Either we make plans now on the assumption that this tech will 'do what it says on the tin', or do what is time-proven prudent and we wait until the tech is 100% safe in pilot form, and then wait some more for the 'early adopters' to go up the learning curve before we jump in and get the 'early majority' benefits. 

The danger of making plans now is that it is all wasted as the tech deployment and market penetration and impacts are nothing like expected. In fact it could do an 'electric car' on us and despite promising much, it then fails to deliver.

The danger of following the tried and trusted prudent method is that the early adopters are proved right and gain a massive business or operational advantage that quickly becomes so insurmountable that our jurisdiction loses out big time to its neighbours.  Businesses shrink or go bust, the economic vitality is lost and it all goes downhill from there.  Consider this statement in light of the 'trillion dollar money flows' argument - this won't be one sector suddenly struggling, it will be multiple sectors with a magnified impact as a result.

Because autonomous vehicles have the potential to transform society, and because I have demonstrated some money flow scenarios where market penetration is very rapid, then I recommend that each jurisdiction look very carefully at the pro's and con's of putting policy before technology.  With this tech, the normal prudent paradigm of steady and cautious may prove to be our un-doing.

There may be a middle ground that is the optimal solution - I just raise a warning that it is an inconvenient truth that technology is developing so fast, and its impacts could be so great, that a new paradigm in governance may also needed to better cope.

Whatever autonomous vehicles bring to society, I can assure you that it will not be business as usual.  

Is that another Inconvenient Truth?...

Why Automated Vehicle Zones (AVZs) Might Develop

This is a poster that I presented at the TRB workshop on road vehicle automation at Stanford University (15-19 July 2013).  Please excuse the poor quality of production, but rather note the concept which generated a reasonable amount of interest amongst those TRB participants who stopped to discuss my poster.

In it I propose that if you follow the business models that result in the inevitable rise of fully automated (NHTSA Level 4) taxi fleets, and combine that with the aspirations of urban planners (reflecting the desires of many mayor's and councillors in major cities) then AVZs are a natural development of the convergence of these streams.

On the poster I assumed that Google would release their technology in 2018, with it being certified safe for unmanned use by 2020 - thus leading to the first AVZ, somewhere in the world around 2023.  But in a public session on the Friday, I asked the panel when NHTSA Level 4 technology might be deployed - and Anthony Levandowski of Google referred me to the comments made by Sergey Brin at the California Autonomous Vehicle bill signing ceremony on 25 Sept 2012.  At that time Sergey Brin intimated that the Google tech would be in public hands within five years - so in July 2013 we are looking at 2017 - that is 4 years and small change.

In which case, if I am correct with my business models and estimates for market penetration, we might see the first AVZ in 2020.  The competitive edge that any city might gain by switching to an AVZ is considerable - not to mention the quality of life, safety and emissions benefits.