The Case for Driverless Cars

The Case for Driverless Cars 1 May, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title

Page

Executive Summary

3

Introduction

4

The Market

5

Driverless Cars

6

Value Proposition

7

Issues

8

Technology

10

Conclusion

11

References and Further Reading

12

AUVSI: The Case for Driverless Cars

2

Executive Summary Driverless cars have been a dream for drivers around the world since the invention of the automobile more than 100 years ago, but have yet to be realized on a mass scale. Recent demonstrations and competitions, utilizing corporate and government investments, have shown that driverless car technology is maturing to the point where such vehicles may be commercially viable within a decade.

In 2010, more than 35,000 people died in crashes in the United States, costing the economy $230 billion per year and consuming a greater share of national healthcare costs than any other cause of illness or injury. Traffic congestion is an $87 billion annual drain on the U.S. economy, including 4.2 billion lost hours or one work week for every traveler.

The U.S. consumer car market is a potential market for early adoption of driverless cars. With a strong desire for safety and large amounts of congestion, driverless cars offer solutions to a variety of problems for consumers. Adding in gasoline, taxes, insurance, and loans, a U.S. consumer pays on average $9,000 per year on his or her car, with 10-16 million cars sold annually in the U.S. A variety of non-technical issues remain in order to field driverless cars. Legal, liability, regulatory, culture, and privacy concerns all need to be addressed in order for consumers to be able to use, and desire to use, driverless cars. Once these issues are sufficiently addressed, consumers will have the final say as to whether they trust and desire the capability of driverless cars enough to give up control and embrace the many potential benefits that driverless cars present.

AUVSI: The Case for Driverless Cars

3

Introduction Driverless cars are one of the great technological advances inspired by science fiction that have yet to be realized. On par with space colonization and robotic maids, driverless cars have the potential to positively benefit humanity, but they have been seemingly unobtainable despite technology advances.

In recent years this outlook has changed, mainly due to investments by the U.S. government and innovative companies. Traditional U.S. automobile manufacturers, European and Japanese manufactures and even an Internet search company are all developing automated vehicle technologies that are currently being tested around the world.

In this scan, we look at the current U.S. consumer car market, how it might change with driverless cars, and some emerging issues as technology hurdles are overcome.

AUVSI: The Case for Driverless Cars

4

The Market For this scan we will focus on the U.S. consumer car market. This market is a subset of the potential applications of driverless car capabilities but is well quantified. Assuming consumer trends continue, basic value propositions for driverless cars can be understood. Below are a variety of statistics to help understand the largest addressable market and current vehicle use.

Average Annual Miles Average Annual Car Cost (15,000 miles per year) Licensed Drivers (2009) Vehicles in Operation (2009) Number of Daily Vehicle Trips per Driver (2009) Average Vehicle Trip Length (2009) Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel per Driver (2009) Annual Sales Average Miles Driven Over Life of Car Average Life of Car in Years

13,476 miles $8,776 209.618M 248.460M 3.0 9.7 miles 29.0 miles 14.13M 152,137 25

United States New-Vehicle Sales, by Manufacturer* Other Imports 20M 16M 12M 8M 4M 0M 2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Volkswagon Nissan Honda Toyota General Motors Ford Chrysler

*Source: NATA DATA 2011. http://www.nada.org/Publications/NADADATA/2011/default, accessed on 3/28/12.

AUVSI: The Case for Driverless Cars

5

Driverless Cars Automation Trend — Car manufacturers continually add automation features to improve vehicle safety.

For example, Antilock Brake Systems (ABS) take operator input (hitting the brake pedal) and decide which brakes to use and when. Adaptive cruise controls adjust car speed to match traffic. Automated parallel parking, lane departure warning and drowsiness assists are steps toward vehicle automation.

Shift in Authority — Research in many companies is pushing automation technology to fully automated vehicle control. In such a state, the steering wheel, brake and gas pedals are not needed, as the operator has no direct control of the vehicle. In a driverless car, the vehicle’s occupants have no tactical control or no authority over the vehicle’s actions moment to moment. Occupants retain operational control, determining destination and, if desired, what route to take. With this shift in authority come many positive advantages described in the Value Proposition section, but one major question: Who has the responsibility for the vehicle? This is addressed in the Issues section.

End State Use Case — Picture yourself stuck late at a meeting and you can’t pick up your son from school to go to his baseball game. You send your car to pick him up. As he gets in, you talk to him from your camera phone explaining you will be a couple minutes late. The car drops your son off in time for warm-ups, picks you up and delivers you in time to see him come up to bat.

Business Models – With this new capability, new car ownership business models could emerge. Two future models are addressed below.

As-Is: Consumers will still buy cars, similar to today. Cars will still be customable, evolving to provide more comforts to occupants. Cars become mobile Wi-Fi hot spots and more in-car services are added, adding to the utility of in-car time. There is potential to rent personal cars out to others through an intermediate service. Homes, businesses and shopping areas will integrate more charging stations for electric vehicles.

Car as Service: Rather than owning a car, consumers pay an annual cost to use a car. Cars are reserved or called as needed, much like a taxi service. Once called, a car is dispatched with no one inside to the location of the consumer. A car size and type is specified when reserving. A ride to work may use a smaller, cheaper, efficient vehicle, while a ski trip or hardware store trip will require a bigger vehicle. Cars are no longer customable and may display more advertisements. Electric vehicle charging stations are centralized, making them more efficient.

Cars can drive themselves to station without need of picking up occupants.

Cost to Consumer Vehicle Type Flexibility Vehicle Personalization Electric Vehicle Friendliness Price Point ↑ - Better ↓ - Worse

Personal Ownership ↔ ↓ ↑ ↓ $9k per Year ↔ - Same

AUVSI: The Case for Driverless Cars

Car As Service ↔ ↑ ↓ ↑ Unknown

6

Value Proposition Current and Emerging Needs Safety

 



Efficiency

  

Pollution

 

Driverless Cars

In 2010 more than 35,000 people lost their lives in crashes in the United States Cost of crashes to the U.S. economy is more than $230 billion per year and consumes a greater share of national healthcare costs than any other cause of illness or injury Drunk Driving:  4 million adults drink and drive each year  112 million drinking and driving episodes in 2010  10,839 people died in 2009 from a crash in which at least one driver had a BAC of 0.08 or greater.

Traffic congestion is an $87.2 billion annual drain on the U.S. economy 4.2 billion lost hours (one work week for every traveler) Up to 10 percent of police time is spent dealing with traffic.



2.8 billion gallons of wasted fuel each year 22 percent of CO2 emissions come from cars and trucks.





  

  



Accessibility

 

53.5 million people over the age of 65 in the U.S. by 2020 22 million people over the age of 75 in 2020, expected to double by 2050.

AUVSI: The Case for Driverless Cars



Faster reaction time than a human Can see 360 degrees and process thousands of Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure information packets a second Programmed to follow local traffic laws Never gets distracted, tired or impaired Potential to dramatically reduce crashes and car related injuries and deaths.

Can follow each other closer, increasing existing road capacity Can react faster and together in starting and stopping, increasing capacity through intersections Reduced car accidents will decrease traffic congestion.

Increase capacity on roads, reduce car accidents, efficiently redirect themselves to reduce backups Allow for more efficient and effective use of recharging infrastructure for electric vehicles.

Allow for mobility for those who may have difficulty safely driving a vehicle: blind, aging, physically impaired.

7

Issues Liability (Legal/Insurance): There are a variety of potential legal issues for driverless cars, the biggest one being liability. Who is responsible during a crash? If the occupant has no responsibility or authority over the car’s movements, can they be held responsible? Will car manufacturers take responsibility?

Who is responsible for vehicle maintenance and liable when a maintenance failure causes a crash?

There are court cases where car manufactures have been sued for a variety of issues, even if the car functioned as designed and advertised (see Geier v. American Honda Motor Co). 







Personal Cars — In most crashes, one or both drivers are liable for any damages. If the car had any defect, the manufacturer could be liable. In an extreme case, a manufacturer was found liable in an accident because a car did not have the appropriate airbags. It was determined that given the vehicle’s price point this safety feature should have been standard equipment.

Consumers see the costs of these liabilities in insurance and car prices.

Taxis – Yes, there is a driver in the taxi. However, if a person is injured while riding in a taxi, who is liable? The taxi company has the money, and thus the insurance, to handle property damage and injury claims. Consumers fund the insurance through taxi fares.

Public Transit – Yes, most public transit systems still have a driver or an operator. When getting onto a bus or light rail, a person gives up the authority and responsibility of operating the vehicle. Where is the liability when a bus or light rail crashes? It lies with the transit authority.

Consumers see this cost in taxes and ticket prices.

Air Travel – Yes, there is a pilot onboard the plane. But when an accident happens, the airline is generally held as the responsible party. The consumer sees this cost in airfare fees.

The cost burden for driverless car accidents will be placed on the consumer, whether they are up-front vehicle costs or regular service costs like insurance or ticket prices.

Regulatory: Several states are moving legislation forward to support driverless cars. Nevada is leading the way with recently passed legislation, but many other states (California, Hawaii, Florida and Oklahoma) are following. New state laws may not be enough, as there are federal and treaty issues that may need updating.

Culture: U.S. consumers consider their car a symbol of personal freedom and style. Driving for the first time on your own, generally at age 16, is a major rite of passage for any young adult. Driverless cars have the potential of allowing this freedom at a younger age, negating the benefit of any rite of passage.

Many consumers consider their car a part of their personal style, connecting to certain brands that project particular qualities. Certain business models of driverless cars may limit such personal branding.

AUVSI: The Case for Driverless Cars

8

Car manufacturers are continually evolving to meet customer needs so as driverless cars evolve the car culture, brands will adapt.

Privacy: Driverless cars, along with vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications, will broadcast regular positioning information for a variety of safety and efficiency reasons. For example, a vehicle that drives over a patch of black ice can call out to warn other cars and alert safety crews to fix the patch. Additionally, other information gathered if a person rents a vehicle, including passengers, pickup and drop off times, and what occupants are doing inside their cars, have the potential to be monitored, depending on the technology and business models implemented. This information can be used to better tailor a product for a person’s needs, but will also bring up personal privacy concerns.

Existing laws concerning personal privacy while traveling may be challenged if governments and companies want access to some of the travel data. These concerns may limit what business models are accepted by the public and what safety, navigation, and passenger information is shared.

AUVSI: The Case for Driverless Cars

9

Technology The last 10 years have shown a great leap in public interest in driverless car technologies. This was spawned by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Grand Challenge in 2004 and 2005 and the DAPRA Urban Challenge in 2007. Car manufacturers around the world have been developing their own driverless capabilities to either bring driverless cars to market or test new safety features. Google, hiring the leaders from the Stanford DARPA Grand Challenge team, has developed its own driverless car and logged 200,000 miles between two vehicles.

Driverless car technologies tend to fall into one of three areas: platform, sensors and software.

Platform — Most driverless cars rely on a standard vehicle platform and are augmented with new sensors and software. As driverless cars evolve, human interfaces such as the steering wheel, brakes and accelerator may disappear and interiors will change to allow for easier nondriving activities.

Sensors — To see the external environment, driverless cars will continue the trend of more sensors on vehicles. The human eye is quick to adjust to a variety of environments, but most sensors have trouble adapting to changing light conditions, shadows and different background colors. As such, driverless capabilities will rely on a large suite of sensors to best create an accurate picture of the vehicle’s surrounding environment. Costs will come down as sensors, traditionally bought in smaller numbers for use on military or advanced systems, are mass produced for the consumer vehicle market. Sensors used in driverless cars include: 

 

 

Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) Cameras: These cameras are currently used for lane departure and reverse collision detection. Their use will increase as software is better able to use the data.

Radar: A popular sensor in cars for reverse collision detection and adaptive cruise control. This sensor’s use will increase to potentially encompass the entire car.

Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR/LADAR): LIDAR sensors have been used on experimental vehicles for a long time but have been too expensive for mass use. They give a large amount of accurate relative distance data and can look out tens of meters around the vehicle.

GPS: Though not accurate enough to determine which lane a vehicle is in, GPS will remain an important sensor in localization.

Vehicle to Vehicle and Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2X) Communications: This sensor will listen to broadcasts from other vehicles (speed, direction location, hazards, etc) and infrastructure (stop light timing, lane closure, etc.) for safe and efficient navigation.

AUVSI: The Case for Driverless Cars

10

Software — LIDAR and cameras can produce tens of thousands of data points a second and only recently have computational capabilities been able to utilize that much information in real time.

Fusion and localization algorithms that previously only used small data samples can now take in a very large amount of information and map against existing and emerging world models. This allows for better localization of a vehicle’s position, its surroundings, and the actions of other vehicles and people in the area. It takes a human more than a second between the time he or she sees something in the road and is able to respond (brake, steer, etc.). A computer software suite will be monitoring the road thousands of times per second and able to calculate and execute an appropriate response to a situation in a small fraction of a second. Additionally the software takes in information from sensors and other cars that would be impossible for a human to process in time to make a decision.

AUVSI: The Case for Driverless Cars

11

Conclusion Driverless cars have great potential to support future personal and commercial transport action. A large set of issues are being address by government, industry and academia to support the safe introduction of driverless cars into the marketplace.

Technology is maturing at a pace that will support mass market driverless capabilities within a decade.

This addressable market is greater than 10 million but may change if car ownership models evolve to better utilize driverless cars. Future business opportunities are emerging that address these new ownership models.

Ultimately, consumers will have the final say as to whether they trust and desire the capability enough to give up vehicle control and embrace the proposed benefits of driverless cars.

Gratitude to the Community A large community is working to tackle a lot of the issues addressed here. Many examples of their fine work are linked below. A special thank you goes out to all of the reviewers of this paper and to everyone who is helping to make Driverless Cars a reality. Please feel free to contact us at cmailey@auvsi.org.

AUVSI: The Case for Driverless Cars

12

References and Further Reading Books & Magazines: http://issuu.com/auvsi/docs/missioncritical_spring_final_hi http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12044 http://tomvanderbilt.com/traffic/the-book/ http://www.carjacked.org/ Papers: http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/drinkinganddriving/?s_cid=vitalsigns-092-bb

http://www.nesl.edu/userfiles/file/lawreview/Vol44/1/Saulen.pdf http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6798 http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2009/PRR-2009-28.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/cost-MV-a.pdf http://www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/201145734460.DrivingCosts2011.pdf http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809952.pdf http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb30/Edition30_Chapter08.pdf Websites and Blogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car http://www.pointclouds.org/blog/hrcs/ http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/ http://www.its.dot.gov/ http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html http://ycharts.com/indicators/auto_sales http://www.nada.org/Publications/NADADATA/2011/default http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geier_v._American_Honda_Company

AUVSI: The Case for Driverless Cars

13