Elektrobit Opens Up New Horizons For Automated Driving

Elektrobit represents one of the most important suppliers of embedded software solutions for the automotive industry. EB is introducing new functions to improve driver assist systems. EB’s electronic horizon combines navigation software and driver assistance software that ultimately offers a smoother experience.

“EB is one of the few automotive suppliers offering an electronic horizon solution that combines both navigation software and driver assistance systems software, thus offering a seamless experience from one single source. EB’s electronic horizon features the most detailed road geometry data currently in the market. It offers the same precision as data used for highway engineering and thus allows for smoother and more accurate driver assistance functions like predictive curve lighting and range determination. The EB Assist Electronic Horizon Solution is also able to deliver this information both to EB’s own driver assistance software development environment and to a wide range of other driver assistance platforms from various supplies. In addition, electronic horizon data can be visualized on EB’s new driver assistance testing tool, the ED Assist Car Data Recorder.“

For the Full Press Release Click Here

Our Top Ten Quotes about the Google Driverless Prototype

Google’s unveiling of their driverless prototype generated an abundance of news articles that are even flowing into this week. We’ve chosen ten quotes from several different articles that we found to be the most interesting and informative. View the top ten quotes below.

googleprototype

1.   “Google’s car is disruptive, it seems small and silly looking and limited if you look at it from the perspective of existing car makers.” — Brad Templeton, Robocars
Full article here

2.   “Google plans “about 100″ self-driving car prototypes” – Technology Tell
Full article here

3.   “Seniors can keep their freedom even if they can’t keep their car keys. And drunk and distracted driving? History.” – Time
Full article here

4.   “The toy-like concept vehicle has two seats, a screen displaying the route and a top speed of 25mph (40km/h).” – The Guardian
Full article here

5.   “It was inspiring to start with a blank sheet of paper and ask, “What should be different about this kind of vehicle? We started with the most important thing: safety.” – Telematics News
Full article here

6.   “Some will find their jobs start to change or even disappear such as professional drivers (taxi, truck, bus etc), auto-body repair, auto-insurance, road safety professionals, transportation planners etc.” – Paul Godsmark, CAVCOE
Full article here

7.   “Google’s Next Phase in Driverless Cars: No Steering Wheel or Brake Pedals” – New York Times
Full article here

8.   “Nothing is going to change overnight, but (Google’s announcement) is another sign of the drastic shifts in automotive technology, business practices and retailing we’re going to witness,” – Yahoo News
Full article here

9.   “Beep, beep. Car, which currently reaches only 40 km/h, faces many legal, regulatory hurdles’’ – CBC News
Full article here

10.   “Google’s First Car: Revolutionary Tech in a Remarkably Lame Package” – Wired
Full article here

Is Google’s new product a lame, toy-like car that will face serious legal hurdles and never get on the road? Or is this prototype a disruptive technology that is going to create drastic shifts in a wide range of industries and professions? What will Google come up with next? Tell us what do you think?

cartoonprototype.jpeg

 

Top News Items

Driverless transportation is developing further each day. From rules and regulations to funding and licensing and even autonomous prototypes. Below are a few recent news articles that we thought readers would be interested in checking out. These articles are also available on our ‘News’ page.

DMV Announces Manufacturers’ Rules For Testing Self-Driving Cars On California Roads

California Department of Motor Vehicles has created rules for how driverless cars are tested on the roads.The rules cover vehicle testing, insurance, registration and reporting. For the full article click here.

U.S. Energy chief says driverless car suppliers may qualify for tech loan funds

Energy Department Secretary Ernest Moniz hinted Thursday that auto suppliers developing driverless-car features could be next in line for more than $16 billion in unspent vehicle technology loan funds. Read the full article here

When driverless cars break the law of land for owners

The big questions behind autonomous vehicles: Who is responsible when something goes wrong? Lawmakers will have to grapple with how to govern machines and hold software accountable. Read the full article here.

Don’t laugh; the new Google prototype car has implications for your business

Google officially announced at the inaugural Code conference that they have built their very own prototype self-driving car. Read more about the prototype and how it will change where we live and work here.

OmniAir Certifying ITS Technology

In our continuing series on organizations in the automated and connected vehicle space, we talked with Suzanne Murtha, the Executive Director of The OmniAir Consortium, Inc. (OmniAir). OmniAir is dedicated to the certification of intelligent transportation systems and equipment. OmniAir focuses on these areas of interest:

  1. Electronic Payments
  2. Connected Vehicles
  3. Tolling
  4. Commercial Vehicles
  5. Applications related to above mentioned hardware

The OmniAir Consortium is made up a wide range of organizations in the ITS space. These include:

OmniAir’s initial focus was on the establishment of certification programs for the automated tolling industry.

OmniAir Certification Services executes the certification process on 6C tags with a special team of analysts and testers through its member organizations.

OmniAir’s program allows governments and tolling agencies to ensure that they are buying equipment that has been certified and will meet the standards that the users require. This allows for competition across suppliers and ensures that no one company has a monopoly on a particular standard.

Another major work area for OmniAir is connected vehicle technology. OmniAir participant companies started working in this space 15 years ago. Original efforts were somewhat unstructured but over time they have continued to be more focused. Today, OmniAir has tested on behalf of the USDOT making sure that the equipment being used in the safety pilots is at least at a minimum level of certification.

One of the challenges for OmniAir and associations in general is that they have a wide range of members each with their own agenda and motivators. As OmniAir’s Executive Director, Suzanne is specifically focused on turning this challenge into an advantage for OmniAir members. OmniAir is contributing to standards which can ensure that the needs of all organizations including suppliers, manufacturers, installers, government agencies and end users are all considered. This is one of the key reasons that OmniAir is considered for a variety of solutions.

The next area OmniAir intends to pursue is certification and verification of Autonomous Vehicles. Two areas in particular where OmniAir will focus are:

  • Qualification of the performance of the AVs?
  • Policies/rules/standards for their operation and use?

There are several questions faced by the autonomous vehicle industry. One of these is deciding who or what gets certified. Is it the driver, components, systems, all of the above? Furthermore who gets the license? The car? The driver? OmniAir is already working with one state agency about certification of driverless vehicles. Automated vehicle certification is clearly a growth area for OmniAir.

How Will Consumer Attitudes Impact Advanced Automotive Safety

A significant risk for any new technology is consumer acceptance. New automobile safety technologies are no exception. The big question is: How great will the challenge of consumer acceptance be and what is the best way to address the issue?

Telematics Update posed the above question to five unique industry professionals:

  • Zac Doerzaph, Director, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
  • Leo McCloskey, SVP –Programs, ITS America
  • Mohammad Poorsartep, PM Connected Transportation Initiative, Texas A&M Transportation Institute
  • Chris Schwarz, Senior RE, National Advanced Driving Simulator
  • Jay Joseph, Senior Manager – Product Regulatory Office, Honda

The results from the group were very mixed. Some felt this would be a great challenge while others felt it wouldn’t be much of a challenge at all. On the other hand, there was consensus that the technology is coming and that it will make a difference in vehicle safety. Each responder had a very interesting perspective.

Click here to take a look and let us know what you think.

Recommended Books

We’ve updated the site to include a book section including these books:

The New Killer Apps: How Large Companies Can Out-Innovate Start-Ups - Chunka Mui, Paul B. Carroll - December 2013
The New Killer Apps reverses the conventional wisdom that start-ups are destined to out-innovate big, established businesses. Through crisp analysis and compelling case studies, Mui and Carroll show that this just isn’t true. Or, at least, it need not be. Yes, small and agile beats big and slow, but big and agile beats anyone. This book offers a roadmap for how large companies can Think Big, Start Small and Learn Fast. In doing so, they can get out of their own way, take advantage of their natural assets, and vanquish both traditional competitors and upstarts by nurturing and unleashing their own killer apps.

Driverless Cars: Trillions Are Up For Grabs  - Chunka Mui, Paul B Carroll - March 2013
In January 2013, Chunka Mui started a series of columns at Forbes on the driverless car, drawn from research that he and Paul Carroll were conducting for their coming book, “The New Killer Apps: How Large Companies Can Out-Innovate Start-Ups.” That seven-part series garnered almost 500,000 views and generated hundreds of informative comments from all over the world. Given the immense interest, Mui and Carroll have turned that series into this ebook. They’ve integrated all the columns, incorporated many of the comments and added their latest research.

Future Ride - Peter Wayner - July 2013
The future of transportation is coming faster than ever. Cars that drive themselves are already on the road giving rides to people all day long. When they become widespread, every part of society will change as everyone can enjoy the pleasure of their own chauffeur. The transformation of society will be one of the greatest ever, redefining how we think about our cities, our homes, and our daily lives. Adults will have more time, children will have more freedom, and everyone will be able to accomplish more while letting the robots handle the chore of maneuvering the cars. The book is split into 80 very short chapters examining different ways that society will change.

Traffic  - Tom Vanderbilt - July 2008
Tom Vanderbilt examines the perceptual limits and cognitive underpinnings that make us worse drivers than we think we are. He demonstrates why plans to protect pedestrians from cars often lead to more accidents. He uncovers who is more likely to honk at whom, and why. He explains why traffic jams form, outlines the unintended consequences of our quest for safety, and even identifies the most common mistake drivers make in parking lots. Traffic is about more than driving: it’s about human nature. It will change the way we see ourselves and the world around us, and it may even make us better drivers.

The Google Car, a look at some of the technologies that make it go

Last week driverless technology had a big week in the news as Google announced that its self-driving car project has become advanced enough that over the past year they’ve “shifted the focus of the Google self-driving car project onto mastering city street driving”.

Google Tech 1

Eric Jaffe of Atlantic Cities took a ride with Google’s Dimitri Dolgov, the car’s software lead and in his article Jaffe described the ride as “amazingly smooth.”  Here’s how Jaffe described part of the trip.

“We go through a yellow light, the car having calculated in a fraction of a second that stopping would have been more dangerous. We push past a nearby car waiting to merge into our lane, because our vehicle’s computer knows we have the right-of-way. We change into the right lane for a seemingly pointless reason until, a minute later, the car signals a right turn. We go the exact speed limit because maps the car consults tell it this road’s exact speed limit. The car identifies orange cones in the shoulder and we drift laterally in our lane, to give any road workers more space.

Between you and me: amazingly smooth.”

For Google’s engineers, a safe and boring trip is now expected. Google’s twenty-four self-driving cars have driven over 700,000 miles since 2009 with only two minor accidents, both due to driver error. The car has been put through its paces on the highway Google decided to start testing on unpredictable city and suburban streets. Twice during Jaffe’s ride along Dolgov had to take manual control of the car, a relatively high number for a test drive and a source of frustration for the engineers. The fact that the car was completely on its own the rest of the time however illustrates just how far this project has come. Two years ago, the Google car couldn’t handle half the situations it could now and the situations it still can’t handle are detected fast enough for the car to stop safely or the driver to take over, a clear illustration of Google’s “safety first” attitude. But what makes Google’s driverless car driverless? What systems are responsible for this outstanding achievement?

Google Tech 2

The first part of the Google Car technology is the LIDAR system (Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging). This system is essentially a laser radar composed of a rangefinder and a Velodyne 64 beam laser. It has the appearance of a large gray bucket mounted atop the Google Car.  This “bucket” contains those 64 lasers and spins them around 10 times a second. The rangefinder determines how far away the car is from something by measuring how long it takes for the LIDAR’s lasers to hit an object, bounce off and return to the system. The LIDAR is used in conjunction with pre-loaded maps of the test area constructed in painstaking detail by Google’s engineers using Google Maps and Street View. These maps cannot account for mobile objects like LIDAR can but give the positions of all static objects along the current test drive and that gives the car a good idea of what to expect. Taken together, the LIDAR and maps let the car see like this:

Google Tech 3

In the picture above the car encounters a set of traffic cones during Jaffe’s ride along. The car wasn’t able to navigate past the roadwork but it saw the obstacle and came to a safe stop before hitting it. All of this footage is recorded on a laptop that the Google engineer riding with the backup driver has with a comment box to record anything interesting or to flag any major issues.

Other important components of the Google Car include GPS, cameras and radar. GPS (Global Positioning System) devices, such as portable units and those in smartphones, communicate with dedicated satellites in orbit to determine their location. It can deliver a driver within several meters of their intended destination, enough for their eyes and ears to take over. The Google Car has LIDAR, radar and cameras for its eyes and ears but GPS gives it a big picture. This is essential for long term navigation.

LIDAR can give the shape of all objects around the car but short range digital cameras allow the car to read things, like road signs. Radar has a similar job as the cameras and LIDAR but at much longer range, up to 160 meters in any direction to be exact. Radio waves are emitted from the radar, hit a solid object and bounce back to give an idea of how far the object is, how big it is and where it’s likely to move. This preps the car for non-static obstacles its camera and LIDAR can’t see yet. The Google Car’s software is sophisticated enough to use all of these tools to create a safe, smooth ride and Jaffe describes later in his article how the car performed.

“The car then passed a few more staged tests. We slowed for a group of jaywalkers and a rogue car turning in front of us from out of nowhere. We stopped at a construction worker holding a temporary STOP sign and proceeded when he flipped it to SLOW — proof the car can read and respond to dynamic surroundings, making it less reliant on pre-programmed maps. We merged away from a lane blocked by cones not unlike the one that stumped us earlier.”

We hope this article gives you a good overview of what this amazing technology can do and how far along it is. In the coming blogs, we plan to go into much greater detail about the individual systems, their history of development and how they work.

The Future Calling: GM on Cell Phone Integration for Advanced Auto Safety

We’ve seen lots of articles and presentation on how DSRC technology is the foundation for safety applications in Connected Vehicles.  Should other communications technologies be used as well?  If so, when would one technology make sense over the other?

Donald Grimm, Senior Researcher at GM, outlines the benefits of integrating cell phones to the safety network and the opportunities they present, in an exclusive podcast with Telematics Update.

Click here to listen to the exclusive discussion.

NHTSA’s New Rear Visibility Rule and what it Might Mean for Connected Cars

Last month (March 2014), NHTSA submitted the final rule requiring more stringent rear-visibility standards in light vehicles. This rule is the end result of a process that began in 2007, when Congress passed the Kids Transportation Safety Act. By reviewing this rule, I’ve learned some things about NHTSA’s role as a regulatory agency, and how the regulatory process may influence connected cars.

Let’s talk first about connected cars. When NHTSA and the U.S. DOT talk about “connected vehicles,” they aren’t referring generally to any kind of cellular, Wi-Fi, satellite or other commercialized connectivity options. NHTSA’s connected vehicle program focuses specifically on Wi-Fi-like standard known as dedicated short-range communications, or DSRC. The U.S. DOT and many other organizations have been cooperatively developing DSRC for a standardized connected vehicle network using a chunk of spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band—which has been set aside by the FCC for government use, including connected vehicles and other Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).

The DSRC technology itself is relatively mature and may be useful today for a variety of applications. However, it is widely believed within the industry that for DSRC to be adopted into consumer vehicles, NHTSA will have to mandate DSRC connectivity as a requirement. NHTSA has recently announced via press release an intent to “move forward” on connected vehicle regulation, but has yet to officially begin the regulatory process by publishing in the Federal Register.

Reviewing NHTSA’s new rear visibility rule highlighted the fact that NHTSA’s regulatory power mainly concerns safety. (NHTSA is also authorized to administer Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] standards, but this power is from a specific act of Congress.) Generally, federal regulations allow NHTSA only to adopt rules that pertain specifically to vehicle safety. Furthermore, NHTSA may only adopt rules that pass cost-benefit analysis (i.e., the cost of a mandate must result in a greater or equal benefit in the monetary equivalent of lives saved and injuries prevented).

NHTSA actually was unable to show that its new rear visibility rule passes cost-benefit requirements. However, NHTSA didn’t have to, because they were specifically required by the K.T. Safety Act to adopt a rule that amends the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to increase the field of view behind a vehicle. So in this case, NHTSA only had to show that the adopted rule meets the requirements of the act in the most effective and cost-effective way. In the discussion surrounding the final rule, NHTSA commented that it believes that the rule will also result in significant non-safety benefits. However, it cannot consider these in formal cost-benefit analysis, because its regulatory authority concerns safety.

I can’t see how a DSRC connected vehicle mandate will pass cost-benefit analysis. The U.S. DOT and others often throw out ‘facts’ like, “95% of all crashes are caused by human error;” the implication being that connected vehicles will prevent these crashes. I’ve never seen the idea that connected vehicles will prevent any number of crashes to be sufficiently supported.

We should take note that NHTSA is currently only considering mandating vehicle communication devices, not any kind of automated safety devices. Most of the research I have seen suggests that safety features that provide driver feedback are nearly useless unless accompanied by automated safety systems. Even NHTSA’s new rear visibility rule is anticipated to prevent only about 1/3rd of backover crashes. Some commenters on the rule mentioned that automated systems might be more effective. NHTSA responded that, basically, that might be true but they didn’t know enough about those systems and anyway they were required by Congress to increase the field of view behind a vehicle.

NHTSA is currently analyzing data from a Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot Deployment study in Ann Arbor, MI. (Full disclosure, I volunteered as a subject and have a DSRC transmitter in my car.) In order for NHTSA to propose a rule, they are going to have to find a way to argue that DSRC communications will save more lives than it would cost to impose a mandate. I am looking forward to seeing what they come up with.

Eric Paul Dennis, Center for Automotive Research (CAR)
Follow Eric on Twitter: