The Darwinian Evolution of SmartDrivingCar s

1. The Darwinian Evolution of SmartDrivingCars by Alain L. Kornhauser, PhDProfessor, Operations Research & Financial EngineeringDirector, Program in Transportation Faculty Chair, PAVE (Princeton Autonomous Vehicle Engineering) Princeton University Presented at PAVE – Summer Workshop Princeton, NJ August 4-6, 2014

4. AHS: Automated Highway Systems: 1939 - 1997 “Waterloo” may well be the word “System”

5. APM: Automated People Mover: 1968 - “Waterloo” limited to serve “Few to Few” demand

6. PRT: Personal Rapid Transit: 1968 - Attempt to serve “Many to Many” but “Waterloo” may well be the word “Personal” & Exclusive Guideway?

7. V2V: Connected Vehicles: 1997 - “Waterloo” may well be: Zero value until market penetration is high

8. SDC: SmartDrivingCars: 2004 - “Waterloo” may well be: Government & Bureaucracy Real beauty is in its “autonomy”: Benefits are derived by each equipped vehicle all by itself” CityMobil2

9. What is a SmartDrivingCar? Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Driverless Cars Level 0 (No automation) The human is in complete and sole control of safety-critical functions (brake, throttle, steering) at all times. Level 1 (Function-specific automation) The human has complete authority, but cedes limited control of certain functions to the vehicle in certain normal driving or crash imminent situations. Example: electronic stability control  Level 2 (Combined function automation) Automation of at least two control functions designed to work in harmony (e.g., adaptive cruise control and lane centering) in certain driving situations. Enables hands-off-wheel and foot-off-pedal operation. Driver still responsible for monitoring and safe operation and expected to be available at all times to resume control of the vehicle. Example: adaptive cruise control in conjunction with lane centering Level 3 (Limited self-driving) Vehicle controls all safety functions under certain traffic and environmental conditions. Human can cede monitoring authority to vehicle, which must alert driver if conditions require transition to driver control. Driver expected to be available for occasional control. Example: Google car Level 4 (Full self-driving automation) Vehicle controls all safety functions and monitors conditions for the entire trip. The human provides destination or navigation input but is not expected to be available for control during the trip. Vehicle may operate while unoccupied. Responsibility for safe operation rests solely on the automated system & Trucks SmartDrivingCars

10. What is a SmartDrivingCar? Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Driverless Cars

11. What is a SmartDrivingCar? Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Driverless Cars

12. What is a SmartDrivingCar? Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Driverless Cars

13. What is a SmartDrivingCar? Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Driverless Cars

14. What is a SmartDrivingCar? Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Driverless Cars

15. What is a SmartDrivingCar? Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Driverless Cars

16. Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Driverless Cars What the Levels Deliver: Levels 1 -> 2: Increased Safety, Comfort& Convenience Primarily an Insurance Discount Play Levels 3: Increased Pleasure,Safety,Comfort& Convenience An EnormousConsumer Play Level 4 (Driverless Repositioning) :Pleasure, Mobility, Efficiency, Equity Revolutionizes “Mass Transit” by Greatly Extending the Trips that can be served @ “zero” cost of Labor. (That was always the biggest “value” of PRT; zero labor cost for even zero-occupant trips) A Corporate Utility/Fleet Play

19. Hmmm... this is enormously tragic because existing collision avoidance technology could have likely avoided this accident altogether even if Mr. Roper had not slept for 48 hours or was in complete compliance with all "hours of service regulations".  Even if Mr. Roper had not slept for 24 hours, tougher hours of service regulations would not have prevented this accident.  What would have prevented this accident would have been the availability of collision avoidance technology on this truck.  If Walmart somehow feels indisposed by this accident and wants to react constructively, Walmart should contribute to the advancement of collision avoidance technology and insist that all trucks moving their goods be equipped with such technology!  In fact, calling this an accident may well be a misnomer; maybe we should call it irresponsibility on Walmart’s part for not insisting that the trucks serving their stores have this technology.  The cost of this technology may well evolve to be more than offset by  the reduction in truck insurance expense. In other words, Walmart would not be indisposed and save money.  That doesn’t sound like an accident to me. It sounds like fiduciary (and societal) irresponsibility on the part of Walmart.  Of course, Walmart is not the only business that relies on long haul truckers to supply goods to its stores.  The Tracy Morgan collision should be a wake up call for businesses that rely on large trucks on US roads every day driven by drivers operating under pressure on deadlines.  Now that collision avoidance technology is available, Walmart and other business should insist that their logistics partners use trucks equipped with this technology.  They will save money in the long run and lives in the short and long runs.  Alain

20. Discussion! Thank You alaink@princeton.edu www.SmartDrivingCar.com