Travis In Austin

Here is the text of the current bill. Distinguishing autonomous from driver assistance devices, provides for driver's license, and insurance. Also provides only TXDot and manufacturers can operate them for testing, and insurance requirements. Also provides that minimum standards will be developed. https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB1167/2015This is where politics intersects with technology. Automakers will want Congress to step in and create legislation on autonomous vehicles that provides that US DOT, specifically Highway Safety Administration be the one that creates standards so that they know the money spent to develop a production autonomous vehicle will be legal in all 50 states. Texas, like CA, NV, etc., wants to be able to generate business by allowing companies to develop and test here.there.They also seek to clarify that technology such as adaptive cruise isn't autonomous. The ability to change a lane or turn at an intersection would be. UT got 20 million last year for research on how to handle for autonomous vehicles, including the ability to bid for priority. If traffic is the concern you never want to see that make the light of day.

A bill got filed last week for this session by Rodney Ellis. His bill would require special DPS license with designation for AV. http://tti.tamu.edu/policy/texas-tribune-points-to-tti-research/ Last session it was HB 2932 (2013), (we are every two years, odd numbered years and session ends in August unless recalled by Governor). Links to that bill which never went anywhere. https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB2932/2013 You can sign up to track bills for free to see where they go. However, it is a free for all at the end of the session and anything can happen.

But, to my knowledge, existing systems are already good in all 50 for the reasons you state. There are no laws because there have been no degrees of autonomy. There are laws. Several states have already passed laws regulating autonomous cars and the Federal government issued an advisory back in 2013. "Self-driving vehicle technology is not yet at the stage of sophistication or demonstrated safety capability that it should be authorized for use by members of the public for general driving purposes." Four state, Michigan, CA, NV and FL have adopted legislation for limited testing and use. About 15 or so have rejected it, for now, Texas being one, and others have mot considered it. The big question is in t he states where there in nothing on the books, is it legal to operate there? There is no federal law to prevent it, just the policy statement from DOT you mentioned in 2013.

Well, you are expect faster action than I am. The ramp up to significant saturation of the (I think) L3.5 or whatever vehicles like the Infinity in the video that could easily handle an HOV lane autonomously (bearing in mind that is hands off as I use the Oxford definition) is going to take at least a couple of years. I think the restrictions are going to take place slower. Further, this really SHOULD be a state thing in at least the early years until uniformity across the Interstate system becomes necessary. Not sure the Feds have anything to do with HOV lanes or city laws. Dave It can't be a State thing. For this thing to take off the way you would like, a manufacturer has to be able to build one system that is good in all 50 states. One way, of many, to be able to do that is to apply for and get certification from DOT/NIHTSA that specifically seeks federal premption. Different systems can seek seperate certification, they will want their 15 year patents if available, but they don't want to have to tailor to each state. It would take a century to do that and you would only have them in large markets. If they get DOT approval and premption state's cannot limit the use or outlaw them. States can license their use differently, and can tax them differently.

Morton's I love, but Perry's Steak House was started in Clear Lake and you should for sure hit that while you are there. Y'all stay out of trouble.

I wear them, for ten years, very expensive ones so I can hear what is going on in court. They have two microphones forward, one rear. They have 4 program settings, general, television/movie, music/cconcerts, and I believe cocktail party. If you are like most people you will have a hearing loss that is centered around eithet 3, 4 or 6khz. As aging progresses a notch from 6 to 8 develops and then later high frequencies go. if you are down in the high frequencies you will need digital and open fit style. Typical hearings aids focus more on the frequency of human speech. Advanced digital will get you a wider frequency range. I was blown away with how much better music sounded and just how much I was missing. Looking forward to hearing how your experience is after you have tried them out.

Well, you are expect faster action than I am. The ramp up to significant saturation of the (I think) L3.5 or whatever vehicles like the Infinity in the video that could easily handle an HOV lane autonomously (bearing in mind that is hands off as I use the Oxford definition) is going to take at least a couple of years. I think the restrictions are going to take place slower. Further, this really SHOULD be a state thing in at least the early years until uniformity across the Interstate system becomes necessary. Not sure the Feds have anything to do with HOV lanes or city laws. Dave

Awesome photos. So how do they taste?

Same way we mandate at least two people in an HOV lane. Lots of grousing about that, but it's still enforced. Dave That isn't how they would mandate automated vehicles, buy them and pay a fine. They would be mandated by federal law the same way that 3 point seat belts are required for every seat position, the same way that air bags are mandated, and at least a 100 other safety items that are federally mandated to be on a vehicle. Now they could start allowing a single occupant to use an HOV lane to provide an incentive for people to purchase them and a fine if they were not using it in AV mode while in the lane. I think what they are going to need if they go with that model is separate distinctive plates for models that meet that requirement and/or a TxTag on the front windshield, PLUS, there will have to be some sort of a light on the front and back of the vehicle, or the hood like a cab, and indicates that the vehicle is in AV mode. They could put up sensors like on toll roads that reads every vehicle that passes, if it doesn't have the tag, or had the tag but it is not in AV mode, you get an automatic ticket (like red lights). There would be significant legal impediments from trying to switch an HOV lane to purely an AV lane. In other words, it would initially have to be for both for some period of time. Three states have legislation allowing the limited testing and use of AV currently. CA, NV (where google developed their AV) and FL. Texas considered legislation last session, passed in the House, and was killed. Last time I checked, there has been no bill submitted in this current session regarding AVs, but of court there is plenty of time left before the deadline. Technology in transportation/vehicles is different than technology in general. Faster chips, memory, etc. moves at the pace that technology allows and it ultimately becomes the subject of market forces. Technology in transportation, specifically in passenger vehicles, is regulated by the DOT, and they of course have to answer to Congress. Cruise control, stability control, ABS, windshields, tires, pretty much everything you can think of has to be submitted, reviewed, and approved by DOT before it can be installed on a vehicle. In some cases Congress gets involved, like with airbags, and mandates them to be installed in every vehicle by a certain date (airbags was a seven year window). The federal government regulates vehicles, state governments regulate drivers. There is a considerable amount up in the air on how that is going to be sorted out. Will a separate license and test be required to operate an AV? Do state's have to approve AV use before the federal government approves a vehicle? That of course will take time to sort out. The technology is here, and affordable productions models might be right around the corner, but the regulatory and legal scheme need to keep pace as well. Travis

The ground is wet, Therefore it is raining and TS is throwing out snark bait. I think I got that right from the article.

Top of the line Ford Fusion is what, 36K MSRP? Add 5K and you are at 41K, wash the discount off of MSRP with increase in car prices of 3 percent per year, lets be generous and call it 40K, twice what average worker in Houston can afford per the article I linked. I would say that 5 percent of new Ford Fusions sold in 2017 at that price will be AV. They sold about 300K units last year, just over 10 percent of those were hybrids. So if they offer it in 2017, which Ford has committed to doing, and it adds 5K to price, I predict 15,000 units will be AVs. They get that price with an AV option down to 25K and Honda and Toyota don't have it available, they could sell 150,000 AV units. Your fleet vehicle raises a good point, Fleet purchases. Government purchases of vehicles required airbags before they were required because of the savings in insurance costs, this drove supply. If there is a cost motive to employers (outside of tax breaks), to insist on AV, a big IF, I believe the numbers on the road will be far greater than I originally anticipated. So I guess in addition to price, if big fleet owners jump on board you will see a big jump, just like they did with Hybrids. I will be getting the Tesla, or other electric equivalent, when they have a little track record of reliable safety at least at a Level 3. So hopefully next year. AVs raise a lot of interesting questions for the eventual consideration of police departments, which is the vast majority of what I do now, represent officers and the associations/unions they belong to. There are squad cars (cruisers) of course which have to be able to run Code 3 and that would obviously be in manual mode, but there are a significant number of vehicles assigned to detectives, administration, etc. that could easily handle their functions in AV mode. City will probably want it so reports can be prepared on the way back to the station, type while you drive, and the associations will probably not be in favor of it. It will be interesting to see how that all sorts out. T

No source. I provided the source for the 5k cost. I am not a rich man or a spendthrift but I assure you 5k is my price point. Right now I drive a company provided Ford Fusion, 2014. My book describes the top model as well and it has adaptive cruise, automatic braking, etc. No idea where you are getting your facts but I can afford a top of the line Fusion and I suspect it will be pretty thoroughly automated and able to drive autonomously at least on roads like the Infinity Q50 video by the time I retire in 5 years...and I would bet more. Not my ideal car, but I'll buy 5k less room and other stuff to get the comfort and safety of the most automation available. And I really think I am hardly alone. Dave The source? Economics 101. Airbag history and legislation, seat belt history and legislation AND about 20 posts ago I linked to an article that said that the average worker in the US can afford a 30K car in today's dollors, I also posted an article where they interviewed the head guy from Delphi who said autonomus vehicles will most likely be a slow transition. I believe he stated 20 years for one half the vehicles but I might be mistaken. I cited an article from Volvo that HOPES they can lease less than 100 AVs by 2017, their 70K vehicle. If they offer a 25,000 vehicle in 2 years with a 5k option I think you are going to get a fair number of folks to bite, they will live in the big cities and have a terrible commute. You get Congress to offer a 5K tax credit in 2 years and you have a 30K AV car available, I think the vast majority of new car buyers are going to buy AV. If AVs are available as an option on vehicles in the 60 to 80K range, than very few. The law of supply and demand in a free mkt is pretty well established, and it all centers around price. Believe it or not the median wage in the US is 26K. Two thirds earn less than 42k. Here is that article on what the average wage earner can afford. Oh, in Houston it is 20K. So if you are looking forward to the day in Houston when the average vehicle on the road is an AV they need to cost 20K. (They will also need to offer it in a pickup for it to have anu hope in Texas). http://www.autoblog.com/2014/03/12/who-can-afford-the-average-car-price-only-folks-in-washington/ What that probably means is that folks are going to have to wait and buy used AV vehicles to afford them. So assuming the USA remains a relatively free market system, simple economics dictates that if the average person is going to have an AV then it has to cost at or below what the average person can afford. Apparently someone somewhere said a 5K option in 2 years. So in Houston that is a 15K car with the option, assuming they just have to have an AV and wouldn't rather get a used sports car or full size pickup like 90 percent of American males between 18 and 30. Policymakers can increase demand with tax credits, providing AV only lanes, reduced or free tolls for AVs etc. If we go socialist and everyone gets a free or subsidized AV car then, and only then, does price not become an issue. Totally unlikely. The other alternatives is for Congress or States to mandate it (Interstates by Congress, State Highways by the States). While that is certainly conceivable, there is no way to predict what will happen and nothing quickly, any legislation would have a lengthy phase in. So what you are left with is price. People who are safety conscious, willing to pay extra for the greater good of urban traffic, and can afford it, will buy it. People who have different priorities will not, like saving for a house, paying for a child's college, starting a family, or even eating. What is the price including the 5K option? If someone can tell me that you don't need to be a Nobel prize winning economist to know how many are going to sell. After all, we know there will be about 50 Volvos in Sweden in 2017. They are not afraid to talk about what there goals are. I haven't been able to locate anything on the cost other than the article I posted that talked about 200,000K of equipment in the Infinity and no one really wanting to talk about price yet. Source? I keep looking for a source on price and the only I could find is the Volvo article that even mentioned sales goals. Technology hasn't figured out a way to get around price as the principal factor in determining demand, so the big question still remains in my mind, what's it going to cost in 2017?

Those light speakers were interesting.

I think Mark is saying that the history of safety Inovation on automobiles available in the US has never been driven by normal market forces. Ford offered a safety package option in the late 50s (Lifeguard) but it didn't sell. Airbags were a consumer option for a decade before legislation was passed to mandate them, and even then the automakers were given 7 years to comply. Cruise control became more common because of cost, oil crisis of '73 got people more concerned with MPG and cruise control helped increase mpg and started selling. Autonomous technology, based on past experience, will only occur if legislation mandates it, or it is affordable to the masses and results in a savings of some type. Dave's early posts stated, While those lamenting the loss of old technology are always around us I am frankly surprised at the vociferous resistance to reducing the 60,000 deaths, 200,000 injuries, untold billions in health care cost, trillions in infrastructure investments, and billions of man hours lost to the total chaos that is our road system. I suppose it is conditioning. Even combat soldiers eventually get used to the idea of constant danger. We could virtually eliminate uninsured driving and drunk driving for less than 100 per vehicle, and we don't. Why would we think that we would require autonomous vehicles or that there will be a big rush at 5K per vehicle in two years? It will be a matter of price. When they can make an autonomous vehicle that the average person can afford, it will sell like gang busters, and not until then. The fact that none of the experts are talking about cost yet tells me it is a ways off.

Sorry to hear about this, all of you are in our thoughts and prayers. Travis

Well without getting into the whole gun control debate, the LEGAL reason is that driving is a privilege, not a right.

Been watching Craig Ross perform for over 30 years, he never ceases to amaze me, what a talent, you could see it in PPage's expression.

Kennedy Center Honors 2012 - Led Zeppelin: https://youtu.be/Ta0gDfGb9u0

We are a way off from remote control passenger flights, but getting your Domino's pizza delivered by drone may be just around the corner. http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-reveals-delivery-drone-project-1409274480 On C-span today Google was testifying before Congress, complaining that the approval process for commercial drones is too slow, apparently the waiver they finally obtained is for a drone that is already obsolete because of their new and improved drone.

Immigrant Song by Trent Reznor and Karen O. https://youtu.be/ljbBayiWglg

C-band can still travel 120 miles. Also, typically this stuff comes up well in advance of the landing. All you'd have to do is remote pilot the thing with the 2 second delay until you can get a local controller ready at an airport, or even halfway remotely close to one.Think about flight 93 on 9/11. Even with it being rushed we still had time to try to scramble jets to it and it was still full of fuel. All you'd have to do is hit a button and we instantly have control. Set up a local pilot at an airport and let him take over when you get close. With this latest example, they dove for 8 minutes straight. Just take control then set up a local pilot for landing. I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like they were running on fumes. They had plenty of time to set up a local link for landing. I don't see why that would be necessary. Well you don't adress any of the real world problems of remote control overide of an airliner. Just two quick comments: First, as I said, currently there is no airliner capable of remote control flight. Who is going to pay for the cost of new airliners to be equipped for remote contro? It isn't financially feasible. To retrofit would be even more cost prohibitive. An airliner, even a 737, is about 100x more complex than the most advanced drone. This is because drones are unmanned and airliners are not and their design and systems reflect that. Your plan, apparently, is for an ATC to take over the flight. Our ATC system has no capability to remotely control an aircraft. So aside from no system to control the plane, and no planes that are capable of being remotely flown I suppose it is feasible, in about 20 years after a congressional mandate. (We cannot even get collision avoidance systems on passenger trains done on time). Flight 93, hmmmm. Two F 16s were in fact scrambled, but they never made contact with flight 93. Why? NORAD wasn't notified of flight 93 until after it crashed. Newark to Cleveland, turns around and gets all the way to PA and passengers have to take matters in their own hands. While it might seem simple to do, it isn't because of the simple fact that airliners are not designed or built to fly remotely. Just because the military has designed and built aircraft to fly remotely doesn't change that simple fact. I think your idea will become a reality if, and when, we see commercial flight go from a piloted to an automated model, and to my knowledge, that isn't even on the radar screen.

I'm just wondering why, if we are on the relative verge of ubiquitous Level 3 or 4 automation, why we don't, in the meantime, mandate interlocks that prevent someone from starting a vehicle that has a certain level of alcohol, and the same thing for insurance, no paid insurance, it will not start.

Predictions that come up short in the face of reliable polling. Has a familar ring to it. That team should be quite happy with what they achieved. A tremendous amount of pressure on these kids, too much in my opinion. http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaab/eye-on-college-basketball/25124806/what-west-virginia-guarantee-kentucky-easily-improves-to-37-0?v=1&vc=1

Hope you have dual alternators! Edit: You have a twin so you have another. Why? Are they having troubles with the ones they are using on the -10 engines on the Predator drone? Ours are technically starter generators which are 24 volt, and 300 amps I believe which we upgraded to along with glass cockpit upgrade and power inverter system. I can't remember if they are Bendix or APC. I remember they were about 6,500 each so I don't look forward to them having any problems anytime soon. Travis

We can control and land drones halfway around the world in almost real time. I don't believe this for a second, especially when the alternative isn't even to try at all while 150 people plunge to their deaths for 8 minutes straight while everybody just sit there and watches. Give the keys to the remote control to the same people who already have the ability to blow us out of the sky at any given time anyway. Well that is the problem, our drones are not operated halfway around the world for take off and landing. They take off and land with line of sight C band data link, they are controled locally for 20 minutes after takeoff before they are handed off to Creach, and then they are handed back to local control 20 minutes before landing. A 2 second lag time is too long for them to land them without crashing them. One armed one wouldn't respond to satellite comm over Afghanistan, they had to scramble an F-15 to shoot it down. 8 have reportedly crashed on take off or landing, and at least 38 have crashed total. Even assuming it was reliable enough to use to land an airliner with 100 to 500 passengers, there are too many ways to disable and crash a commercial airliner independent of a remote controlled autopilot capable of locking out manual control. Then there is the cost issue, who is going to pay for the satellites, control stations, retrofitting the planes, and having a remote control pilot ready in place 24/7/365 for every airliner? Or is Boeing going to do it, Airbus, FAA? Then you have air traffic control you have to update so that it can respond when it sees a loss of altitude with sufficient time to be able to notify the airline to take over. The retrofitting of the planes would cost a significant amount. Boeings do not have landing gear capable of being remotely extended, and I doubt Airbus does either. The only way to prevent the crash of an aircraft by a pilot hell bent on suicide is to have another pilot in the cockpit to prevent it from happening. I wish there was better news about something being able to come to the rescue for such a senseless act, but aircraft pretty much have to be one way or the other, manned or unmanned. Our drones, Viper and Predator, are relatively simple machines. The technology is in the Hellfire missiles and other guided weaponry they carry. The Predator uses the exact same engine as I have in my twin. Very simple, very reliable, but remote controlled flight is a long way off from being able to fly passengers.