Autonomous Vehicles: Part 2

This is the second blog on Autonomous vehicles, for the introduction and first part please see Autonomous Vehicles Part 1 .

Autonomous vehicles- the major potential ‘cons’:

Connectivity:

The sine qua non for the CAV (connected autonomous vehicle) is communications.  It is at the same time its strength and, borrowing from Greek mythology, its Achille’s heal.  To function, autonomous vehicles must rely on a tremendous amount of inter and intra connectivity.  All of the on-board sensors (lidar, radar and cameras, engine parameters, lane departure, etc.) have to flawlessly communicate with one another, as well as vehicle to vehicle, and communicate with traffic management (lights, flow, emergency vehicles, etc.).

jdaum-1

Sounds great in theory, but in actuality this is astoundingly difficult to pull off.  Keep in mind, this connectivity has to function flawlessly all of the time.  There was a bit of irony at CES 2017 in that every presentation I attended experienced a problem at least once with the remote presentation control unit communicating correctly with the media controller equipment.  And this was connectivity at its very basic level!  On a more complex level, there was Faraday’s problem during the press review where their car failed to accept the command to self-park.

Obviously, you can’t have a break in connectivity or the autonomous vehicle will come to a complete (unintended) halt (hopefully), and in doing so will become a potential accident instigator for both other autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles.  What level of redundancy will be sufficient to prevent a loss of connectivity?  While it seems feasible that intra- vehicle (between its numerous components necessary to have an autonomous system) redundancy is reasonably surmountable, what will be necessary to ensure the inter-vehicle, and traffic management, along with live web connectivity, is flawless?

Simultaneously with ensuring the continuous flow of connectivity, there are still two large problems to solve: All communication has to be hack proof (we have seen the videos of someone remotely gaining access to a vehicle’s electronics via one of the communication channels, and taking over one or more of the vehicles systems- acceleration, braking, steering.  Hackers have demonstrated this remotely on cars ranging from Jeeps to Teslas.).  Further a great deal, if not all, of the information has to maintain the privacy of the vehicle (and its occupants).

Additionally, complicating the connectivity issue is what was tagged “Babel” at the CES 2017 A United Language for the Connected Car session.  The general definition of babel is a confused noise, typically made by a number of voices.  Unfortunately, it applies to the current status of proprietary software designed for many of the components needed for a connected vehicle.  The herculean challenge is to get a universal open language used across all components/systems for autonomous vehicles.  Beyond the current Babel-of-software-language is the growing quagmire of state and federal regulations aimed at controlling autonomous vehicle access to our roads.  Currently, an autonomous vehicle approved by nascent laws in one state, may not be able to continue driving when it crosses into an adjacent state.  For example, while an autonomous car can be driven in Nevada, it can’t legally continue into nearby Oregon or Idaho, and if you are in an autonomous car in Florida, you could not continue on into any of its adjoining states.

Societal Impact:

The RAND Corporation pointed out in their 2016 publication Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers, that rather than autonomous vehicles reducing congestion on our roads, they may, in fact, increase congestion.  This conclusion is based on the reduced transportation costs borne by individuals.  For example, the cost of automotive insurance shifts from the owner to that of the manufacturer of autonomous vehicles.   This, combined with increased access (potentially no need for individual driver licenses), could see a substantial surge in the number of individuals travelling at the same time.  Of course, it could be moderated by increased reliance on mass vs low occupancy vehicles.  The elimination of the hassle often associated with finding a parking space (your autonomous vehicle could drop you off and then continue on to a remote parking area, awaiting your request for it to comeback and pick you up) may also contribute to a significant increase in willingness to ‘hop’ into your vehicle and head to a dense, high-use, urban area.

What are the implications for the potential loss of transportation sector jobs, their respective incomes and loss of tax revenues from reduced or eliminated parking garages, meters, etc.?

And while most believe that autonomous vehicles (or even semi-autonomous) will significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by crashes, the is one part of our society that has depended on these deaths- that of organ donations.  “It’s morbid, but the truth is that due to limitations on who can contribute transplants, among the most reliable sources for healthy organs and tissues are the more than 35,000 people killed each year on American roads (a number that, after years of falling mortality rates, has recently been trending upward). Currently, 1 in 5 organ donations comes from the victim of a vehicular accident.” [From Future Tense: The Citizen’s Guide To The Future. Dec. 30 2016]  The potential impact is catastrophic on an already stretched organ donation system.  “All of this has led to a widening gap between the number of patients on the organ wait list and the number of people who actually receive transplants. More than 123,000 people in the U.S. are currently in need of an organ, and 18 people die each day waiting, according to the Department of Health & Human Services. Though the wait list has grown each year for the past two decades, the number of transplants per year has held steady in the last decade, at around 28,000.”[ Fortune: If driverless cars save lives, where will we get organs? By Erin Griffith Aug 15, 2014].

Moral Dilemma:

You may be familiar with the paradox of Buridan’s ass.  As the story goes, a hungry donkey was placed equidistant between two identical bales of hay.  Unable to choose which one to go to, the donkey died of starvation.  The movement towards autonomous vehicles has at least two analogous conundrums: how many deaths by autonomous vehicles is an acceptable number of deaths, and, who is going to have the final approval of the algorithms designed to make a decision for an autonomous vehicle as to who should be sacrificed when a choice has to be made between certain death in a pending accident.  The analogy is that if we can’t reach agreement on both of these issues, the movement towards autonomous vehicles may come to a halt.

Even though these two conundrums are inextricably related, let me briefly explore each separately.  We know factually that autonomous vehicles can lower deaths currently associated with driver error, and that the number won’t rapidly be reduced to zero.  Using the approximately 32,000 automotive related deaths per year (cited in my Part 1), what percent reduction would be ‘acceptable’?  Would a 50% reduction resulting in 16,000 fewer deaths per year, but also 16,000 remaining deaths per year by autonomous vehicles be OK?  Would it take a 75% reduction resulting in 8,000 deaths per year by autonomous vehicles to be considered OK?  The consensus appears to be that while the astounding number of 32,000 deaths per year caused by human error behind the wheel, isn’t good, we seem to have ‘accepted’ it without demanding immediate action on a national or global level.  However, few believe we would be as complacent if the news was filled with 16,000 or even 8,000 deaths per year as a result of autonomous vehicles.

Recently a number of articles have appeared highlighting the other conundrum: algorithms being designed to decide who lives and who dies when the outcome of a pending accident is unavoidable.  For example: “A self-driving car carrying a family of four on a rural two-lane highway spots a bouncing ball ahead. As the vehicle approaches a child runs out to retrieve the ball. Should the car risk its passengers’ lives by swerving to the side—where the edge of the road meets a steep cliff? Or should the car continue on its path, ensuring its passengers’ safety at the child’s expense?” [Driverless Cars Will Face Moral Dilemmas by Larry Greenemeier, June 23, 2016, Scientific American] Or:” Imagine you’re behind the wheel when your brakes fail. As you speed toward a crowded crosswalk, you’re confronted with an impossible choice: veer right and mow down a large group of elderly people or veer left into a woman pushing a stroller.” [Driverless cars create moral dilemma. By Matt O’Brien, The Associated Press January18, 2017].  Who should be entrusted with developing and ultimately approving the necessary algorithms?  Shall there be one algorithm for all autonomous vehicles globally or will there have to be country/culturally specific versions?

Real World Impediments To Fully Autonomous Vehicles:

At this point, autonomous vehicle developers have not been able to handle several frequent occurrences typical to our driving environments.  If a fully autonomous car comes upon road construction, it doesn’t know how to ignore the programming that tells it not to cross a double yellow line, or purposely drive into a temporary lane without lane markers.  It is basically programmed to shut down- or, in Nissan’s case, phone ‘home.’  At CES 2017, Carlos Ghosn, Chairman and CEO of Nissan, during his keynote speech said they are planning on having a centralized station staffed 24/7, to handle “edge” circumstances for their autonomous cars.  In logic, the human contacted by the autonomous car would review the information available from the on-board sensors, and map an alternative route or action.  It is unclear how would this approach be able to scale up instantaneously, for example, when a large section of a country has an extreme disrupter such as flooding, earthquake, etc.?

Similarly, autonomous vehicles cannot negotiate a dirt road, or a road that lacks up-to-date gps mapping.  Neal Boudette in his article “5 Things That Give Self-Driving Cars Headaches” points out, autonomous cars will have a very hard time with unpredictable reckless drivers on the same road in a non-connected vehicle [New York Times, June 4, 2016].

Current thinking of many developers, is to require a (human) driver to serve as ‘back-up’ in those circumstances where the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle encounters a situation it isn’t programmed to handle.  Unfortunately, there are severe limitations to how well most drivers would be able cope with such an unexpected/instantaneous hand-off (one doesn’t have to look any further than the tremendous increase in accidents attributable to drivers distracted by texting).  The biggest problem is with a lack of sufficient reaction time even at moderate speeds, let alone highway speeds.  This is further complicated by the well documented fact of vigilance decrement.  The longer the autonomous vehicle is properly handling the driving, the less attentiveness and readiness the ‘back-up’ human will have to properly respond to the hand-off.

In order to succeed, there is going to have to be a significant educational effort of the current, and potential, driving public during the transition period when autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles share the road with traditional non-connected vehicles. Part of this education will need to focus on the trust issue confounded by demographic and age differences in acceptance.

In some ways, many of the concerns today are parallel to those around one of the earliest autonomous vehicles designed to transport people- the elevator.  Original elevators were relatively dangerous vertical transport platforms, operated by a trained elevator operator.  As safety concerns were addressed, elevators vastly improved including having doors, fixed stopping points, redundant mechanisms to prevent free fall, etc.  Shortly after the turn of the twentieth century push buttons were introduced that would permit selecting a specific floor and the elevator to proceed automatically to that floor.  However, it wasn’t until after World War II -forty years after automation- that elevator operators were no longer placed in most elevators.  One of the main reasons for the slow transition from manually operated to fully automated elevators was people were fearful of getting into an elevator that did not have a human operator.  How likely are you to entrust your life to the newest mode of autonomous vehicles?

Autonomous Vehicles Part 3 will explore: What is next?  Is the light at the end of the tunnel daylight or an oncoming train?

15 thoughts on “Autonomous Vehicles: Part 2

  1. There certainly are many hurdles to overcome with autonomous cars. One thing that wasn’t mentioned is the problem with obstructed sensors on which autonomous cars rely. Crusted ice, snow, mud can all render an autonomous car “blind”. Does this mean occupants will be stranded on a cold lonely northern road in winter.
    What happens when a car enters a long tunnel and loses the GPS signal?
    Having a human as “backup” driver sound great in theory. However, as people get used to the car doing all the driving, what will happen in an emergency. How long will it be before the driver switches from texting, reading, enjoying a beverage or meal, even napping to being fully aware and ready to take control of the vehicle (assuming it is not fully autonomous.) I believe that’s level 4 on the autonomous level.
    It’s hard to imagine that all the variations of different states / provinces and other jurisdiction can be programmed into the system, so travelling to other areas becomes a real challenge and possibly impossible.
    Then there are the electronics themselves. How many people have experienced strange electronic gremlins. Sometimes just a temporary glitch, other times a fault that needs to be corrected. When either of those happens to the electronics controlling the autonomous vehicle, it could either come to a standstill or result in a accident. Naturally, those probability of that happening of would increase with the age of the vehicle.
    I know that I’m not ready to put my life into the hands of computers, sensors and programmers.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Appropriate concerns Guenter, especially at this stage of the technology. The issue of losing GPS in a tunnel would be overcome by having adequate lane markings for the sensors. However, those would similarly be susceptible to snow and mud dropping off of passing vehicles under certain conditions. The aging electronics is a real concern, especially based on the increase in issues with CPUs and related controllers on today’s non-autonomous but heavily electronic system dependent cars as they age.
    Thanks for your comments.

    Like

  3. Linda Karpen Nachman

    Jeff, I find your blog fascinating. Thanks for sharing!

    Like

  4. Jeff,
    Thank you for sending this link to your blog. There is so much to take in about autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles – some of which most of us haven’t even thought about. I look forward to new articles/blogs on this.

    Like

    • Thanks Margi. I agree there is a lot to understand, especially since this is undoubtedly going to impact everyone- from the way goods are delivered, people get from A to B, where people live and work.

      Like

  5. That was fantastic-thorough, exploring facets I hadn’t even considered (organ transplant). Pretty damned awesome Jeff! Can’t wait till the 3rd installment!

    Like

  6. Jeff….GREAT articles (I read Parts 1-2) on autonomous vehicles. Loved the analogy of elevators!

    Like

  7. Guillaume Péronnet

    Hi Jeff, very interesting blog, well documented. Bravo ! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on autonomous/automated cars. On the transition time issue you should read this fascinating study:
    https://udv.de/en/publications/compact-accident-research/takeover-times-highly-automated-driving
    Not doubt that the robotization of the car will trigger more discussions !
    Guillaume

    Like

    • Thank you Guillaume. Excellent recommendation on the research on transition time. Clearly a major factor that will shape the human-machine design intricacies moving forward.

      Like

  8. Jeff, great posts that covered a whole group of issues I had honestly not considered. Looking forward to 3rd and was especially interested in organ transplant issue.
    Woody

    Like

  9. […] In my Part 2, I will explore Autonomous vehicles- the major potential ‘cons.’ Click here for Part 2  https://insight.daumphotography.com/2017/01/25/autonomous-vehicles-part-2/ […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s