
GM says it will put fleets of self-driving cars in cities in 2019 - evo_9
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/mobility/2017/11/30/gm-will-put-self-driving-car-fleets-raod/108164014/
======
pen2l
> The automaker is using the all-electric Chevrolet Bolt as its autonomous
> mule

Wonderful.

Has anyone tried the Bolt yet? I think Bolt is turning out to be what Tesla
Model 3 was intended to be... it's cheap, electric, rides excellently, and
looks pretty slick. One of the best things about it is the top-view, which is
a god-send when it comes to parallel parking:
[https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5kei2BVFGb8/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5kei2BVFGb8/maxresdefault.jpg)

It seems really innovative in lots of clever ways. For example the "one pedal
driving" is neat (push the pedal to go.. and when you take your foot off the
pedal, the car slows down, the point being that you basically stop using
brakes and save energy that way).

~~~
CaveTech
While the tech and features are pretty great, I think many disagree with it
looking slick. I'm in the market right now, but I could never see myself
driving a Bolt. I'm stuck waiting several years for a model 3 to get an EV
with actual aesthetics (that isn't 100k+).

~~~
pen2l
I honestly really like Bolt's look, and not because it "stands out" as being
electric. I like crossovers (Prius, Impreza, etc.) and I think this one has
great aesthetics. I like model 3 less, but that's just me.

Different strokes for different folks hey.

(but I will concede on one thing if we're talking about pure aesthetics:
Tesla's "T" logo is really cool, Chevrolet's "+" is anything but. I honestly
think they should change the logo. As established as that brand and logo may
be, they should be targeting the newer generation... "Chevrolet" definitely
does not scream cool to anyone born in the last 40 years)

~~~
JBlue42
Cross-overs are pretty popular. There was an article not too long ago about
how they pretty much all blend in together.

The Bolt looks more like European cars than what we imagine 'American' cars
looking like (though that has changed over the decades). We'll see many more
like it as more people move to cities but still need cars.

Yeah, Chevy doesn't scream cool. I've had an Acura since 2003 and _knock on
wood_ will drive it until it's dead. I wouldn't put as much stock in an
American-made car to last as long.

------
tmpnam1234567
Cruise Automation's software is a sloppy collection of special cases, coded by
hand. We write ad-hoc rules to handle each situation we observe.

We don't really develop any neural networks ourselves. We use what we can get
off GitHub: freely available research and school projects that we paste
together, often without understanding them.

We use ROS ([http://www.ros.org](http://www.ros.org)). ROS is not reliable for
a timing-critical automotive system. That's why our cars drive so
slowly/cautiously and stop so abruptly/frequently. It's because we're always
on the verge of reacting late and hitting something.

Our technology is not "real" in the way that Waymo's technology is real. We
build demos and promote them in the media. That's the truth.

Am I proud of this? No. But GM is paying for my house in San Francisco, so...

~~~
ilaksh
What's the status of this ROS 2 real-time proposal
[http://design.ros2.org/articles/realtime_proposal.html](http://design.ros2.org/articles/realtime_proposal.html)

What sort of structure would make more sense than the ad-hoc rules?

Do you have comprehensive profiling for the latency or logging so you can
detect when there is a lag and then patch ROS or the TCP stack or whatever is
causing it?

I can see how reliability is critical, but whether it is so important to be
actually real-time is less obvious. If you can get latency variability down to
within about 1 ms, is that not adequate to greatly exceed human capability?

I guess when it comes down to it there needs to be some certainty that there
cant be a big hiccup that creates a big latency spike. So whatever underlying
Linux or whatever needs to be real-time in that sense. And there needs to be a
real-time backup system that cuts in if the other system takes too long to
react (hits a hiccup which it is not supposed to be able to).

I mean, if your idea is to throw everything out and start over with a real-
time OS and some bespoke NNs, is it quite certain that any team would actually
be able to replicate the task integration and actual functionality of the
system you have with that approach?

------
Fricken
Here's the slideshow that accompanied GM's presentation to investors
yesterday. It's a breezy read:

[https://www.gm.com/content/dam/gm/events/docs/5265893-685163...](https://www.gm.com/content/dam/gm/events/docs/5265893-685163-Chartset-11-30-2017)

Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt, in his part of the talk repeatedly emphasized the
efficiency of their validation process that contributes to their high rate of
improvement. Every outside indicator suggests Cruise really is moving faster
toward their goal than anyone else.

Vogt also repeatedly emphasized that they have a mountain of engineering
challenges still ahead of them before they're ready for an initial commercial
deployment. They're rapidly scaling up testing, and hope to drive 1 million
miles/month by the end of 2018. For Comparison, Waymo just announced they've
done 4 million miles testing on public roads total, since 2009.

~~~
make3
oh, they're lidar based. those sensors are super costly.

~~~
kodablah
FTA: "GM says the cost of the next-generation lidar will be cut by about half
to $10,000."

~~~
Fricken
That's a misquote. Lidar is down to $10k from $90k. With the acquisition of
Solid state lidar startup Strobe, they hope to get the costs down to ~$300.
It's not clear if that's a per-unit cost, or a per-vehicle cost.

For sensors Cruise's Bolts currently use 14 cameras, 3 articulating radars, 8
regular radars, 5 Velodyne32 ultrapuck Lidar units, and 10 ultrasonic
proximity sensors.

~~~
make3
5 lidars! wow

~~~
Animats
That's what Waymo's little bug-like car had. One in front, one in back, one on
top, and one below each side-view mirror. Full coverage.

LIDARs are getting cheaper. Continental, the big auto parts maker, bought
Advanced Scientific Concepts and is preparing to bang out low-cost LIDAR units
in quantity.

Color TV cameras were once insanely expensive. This is the RCA TK-41, the
first good color TV camera.[1] Each image orthicon alone (it used three) was
about $10,000 in the 1950s. The camera in your phone costs about $10 and far
outperforms a TK-41.

[1]
[http://www.earlytelevision.org/rca_tk-41.html](http://www.earlytelevision.org/rca_tk-41.html)

~~~
deepnotderp
Flash LIDARs have some serious problems:

They require extremely high power outputs since the beam spreads out. This
limits the range significantly but also makes it so that you need very
powerful lasers, and the only way to make that eye safe is to use 1550nm
light, which requires InGaAs photodetectors, which are much more expensive. In
addition, you usually need SPADs which have very high noise levels. You can
reduce this noise somewhat by cooling them, but that's very expensive and
infeasible for automotive applications m

~~~
Animats
That's what I thought when I visited Advanced Scientific Concepts in 2003 and
saw the prototype optics working on an optical bench. They pointed the thing
out an overhead door and imaged the parking lot. It worked. But it was too big
and too expensive for the 2004-2005 DARPA Grand Challenge.

Over time, ASC units got smaller, range and resolution improved, but pricing
remained around $100K. Then Continental, the European auto parts company,
bought ASC. Continental's units are smaller, cheaper and more rugged.[1] They
haven't announced a price point yet, but being a major automotive parts
manufacturer, they know how to get the price down on something when they make
it in volume.

Continental is quietly coming out with all the parts for self-driving cars.
They make the sensors, actuators, and high-reliability computers. They work on
the little stuff, too, such as systems for cleaning the sensors while in use.
All the things you need to do it, instead of just prototype it.

[1] [https://www.continental-automotive.com/en-gl/Landing-
Pages/C...](https://www.continental-automotive.com/en-gl/Landing-
Pages/CAD/Automated-Driving/GlobalHighlights/3D-Flash-Lidar)

~~~
deepnotderp
Again, it's not like they don't work, but the point is that it's hard to
shrink and make cheaper while retaining good performance.

------
LeanderK
I fear that we are moving towards a future that is shaped by monopolies (or
the "digitalisation" supports monoposlistic strategies). If you read the
slides, you notice that GM understands that by controlling everything
(manufacturing the car, supply chain, the app) it makes more profits. I think
that there is a trend in many industries towards monopolies, if you for
example look at amazon or google. I don't think it's healthy and I am
convinced that there is not enough awareness to tame these giants.

~~~
pythonaut_16
Vertical integration shouldn't be an outright concern. Even if GM can
integrate its entire supply chain, if they're still competing with other
companies the consumer should come out alright in the end.

If monopolies start to hurt consumers then we can hope that the anti-trust
regulators will step in, and hopefully in the case of a car manufacturer the
anti-trust violations would be well defined enough for regulators to actually
act.

------
lafar6502
This will be a blow to Tesla if old dinosaurs are able to execute and deliver
smoothly without all this hype and bs

~~~
ajross
To be fair, though: this is literally the definition of hype and BS. GM is
just saying what they're going to do. I mean, yeah, if it works then Tesla and
Waymo are probably toast. But if Tesla and Waymo haven't made it work yet,
what are the serious odds you're putting on General Motors catching up and
passing them within two years?

~~~
Fricken
GM is already ahead of Tesla in vehicle autonomy. It's even debatable as to
whether GM is ahead of Waymo. Waymo is poised to deploy first in Phoenix, but
they haven't even begun serious testing in dense urban areas, which are far
more challenging and where Cruise is focused and making headway. GM may or may
not achieve it's targets on time, but without question they are putting their
money where there mouth is.

GM is the most vertically integrated and they're showing very good progress
relative to the competition, they're in the best position to deploy at scale.
Their acquisition of Cruise was money well spent. GM has a legit opportunity
to achieve dominance.

And really, if anybody is spreading hype and BS about autonomous vehicles it's
Tesla. Developing an autonomous OS to minimum viable product is a ~5 year job,
depending on how well or poorly things go.

Musk was tweeting in the spring that they'd be able to demonstrate L5
capabilities on underpowered hardware by the end of this year. Which is total
bullshit. Many car companies are making nebulous claims about when they expect
to achieve autonomous capabilities, but Tesla lied outright to get people to
reserve their Model 3 orders.

~~~
tonyhb
> Waymo is poised to deploy first in Phoenix, but they haven't even begun
> serious testing in dense urban areas

I've seen Waymo cars in SF around Market st, near Dolores Park and near Noe
Valley. I assume that they're also testing heavily in their main cities, so
(anecdotally) I don't think this is accurate.

~~~
Fricken
Waymo has been in and out of San Francisco since the beginning, but as far as
I know it's not full-scale testing in preparation for a deployment. Waymo
either is, or has been in 14 different cities, but their primary focus is in
Phoenix.

~~~
bduerst
>their primary focus is in Phoenix.

For the level 4 driverless tests, yes. GM isn't even close to L4 driverless
testing yet.

Also, Waymo has gathered enough road data that they're doing accelerated
testing in simulation now. I think you might be underestimating the complexity
of the self driving car tech when doing your comparison.

~~~
Fricken
The subject here isn't GM's in-house autonomous development program
(Supercruise), it's their subsidiary Cruise Automation, who has been doing L4
testing for at least 18 months now. Cruise Automation began in 2013 as a
silicon valley robotics start-up, and was acquired by GM in early 2016.

Cruise is also using simulation. They mentioned in their presentation
yesterday that they have 3 simulation engines, and together they do 150
simulations/minute. I'm not sure exactly what that means but simulation is an
integral part of their validation process just like with Waymo.

~~~
bduerst
My point is that your comparing progress by measuring the number of cities
they're in is senseless, because at a certain point road data stops and
simulations take over.

Also, GM nor Cruise have launched _driverless_ L4 testing yet, which Waymo was
the first company (ever) to do last month:

[https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/fully-driverless-
cars-a...](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/fully-driverless-cars-are-
here/)

~~~
danblick
My understanding is that "driverless testing" here means either (1) moving the
safety driver to the back seat or (2) following the vehicle with a second
vehicle with a remote kill switch.

Thanks for posting that link though, I've been curious to read more about
this.

"""At first, most of Waymo's driverless cars will have an employee in the back
observing the vehicle's behavior. If something goes really wrong, they'll be
able to push the "pull over" button to stop the car."""

~~~
bduerst
Yes, _driverless_ testing involves having a passenger function that where the
passenger can request that the car pull over at the next available spot.

I'm not sure why you're splitting hairs on that though, when there's a
definitive difference between having testing with someone in the driver's seat
and _not_ having someone in the driver's seat.

------
fred_is_fred
Has the issue that self-driving cars have with snow been solved? Half the
country would like to know.

~~~
rhino369
I'd buy a self driving car that just doesn't work in bad conditions.

The bigger question is "has the self driving issue been solved in clear
conditions." Is there any real evidence someone has a self driving car that is
better than human drivers?

I see a lot of promises.

~~~
Eridrus
There is a wide range of ability when it comes to driving cars, these don't
have to be better than everyone to be useful, just better than the worst
drivers, which I think it's clear they already are.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
If all the car reviewers get their hands on it and say it's like a timid
person lost in downtown Baltimore driving a uhaul truck it's gonna crash and
burn

You have to do something well to redeem that or sales will be a flop. It
doesn't look like self driving cars will be much cheaper, better handling,
cheaper to own or more luxurious than normal car so the only thing left is for
them to drive as better than most people.

The kind of review you want is "this thing costs $10k more than a Prius but
being able to sleep off a hangover on your way to work is worth every bit of
that $10k"

~~~
Eridrus
Self-driving cars will first be deployed in fleets that you can request, where
the cost of the cars will be amortized over the many people who get to make
use of them, making them far cheaper than owning, operating and parking the
car. Much of this margin will probably be captured by the self-driving car
companies for the near future, but in the long term with a competitive market
they should be far cheaper than current cars for the vast majority of users.

------
jpm_sd
Competition is a wonderful thing. I might never need to buy another car!

------
danielblazevski
Another chapter in the super interesting story of the GM vs Tesla battle. Part
of me wants to compare Tesla to strategies of companies who needed more
established companies to compete with to generate higher demand, yet still had
the best product and came out ahead.

But wonder if GM could pull ahead since it has more of a history of mass
producing things, and all the infrastructure around that all built. Time will
tell.

~~~
pseudometa
The possibility is there, but one might also have imagined that Microsoft,
Nokia, and Blackberry would be dominating the smartphone market today.

------
jumpkickhit
A rolling fleet could be amazing.

If say a typical car/insurance payment was ~$500 a month, and an on-demand
auto car service was $499 a month or less, it could work.

You never have to park. You can work/browse/call on the ride. Get dropped off
right in front of wherever you're going. Could work out really awesome.

~~~
Tiktaalik
This is somewhat of a nightmare scenario for city governments due to the
properties of induced demand.

A rolling fleet of self driving cars eliminates many of the deterrents to
driving. No parking, storage, and insurance costs and one doesn't even need a
license. Elimination of all these costs could significantly incentivize people
to choose driving as their primary form of transportation, which would
significantly increase vehicle traffic and all the associated costs and
problems that come along with that.

~~~
sumedh
You are still going to have peak hour traffic.

------
tatoalo
This is Comma_ai's(via George Hotz) take on the relative GM investor
presentation:
[https://www.pscp.tv/w/1vOGwNgwBQRKB](https://www.pscp.tv/w/1vOGwNgwBQRKB)
[direct periscope link]

~~~
csours
In which George does not understand corporations and investor presentations.

Disclaimer: I work for GM, but not on any of this.

~~~
Fricken
I would frame this as comedy rather than any kind of serious analysis.

------
pryelluw
The one thing that keeps me from believing this will happen is GMs history of
shooting itself in the foot. They have amazing engineering and design
capabilities but deliver low quality cars. Their lineup has had (and has) some
exceptions, but generally I avoid them.

It's why I hope GM does not delivers on this statement. Their quality track
record[1] doesnt inspire me confidence.

[1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_swit...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_switch_recalls)

------
tome
Do we definitely already know it's going to be possible to deploy self-driving
cars in an economically meaningful way?

~~~
wrsh07
Yes, and that's without accounting for the cost reduction of reduced
accidents.

~~~
tome
Can you provide some evidence? I'm not being snarky. I genuinely don't know
how we know this will work.

~~~
wrsh07
We see a lot of back-of-the-envelope math about total costs. Eg FastCompany
has a post [1] that suggests total costs today [with more-or-less publicly
available equipment] would be about $300k.

I think if it remained north of $200k, it would be viable for kind of specific
applications [eg truck driving] where you're replacing modestly compensated
workers over many years. [truck drivers have a median compensation of $40k by
a quick search, and hopefully the equipment would have an average expected
lifespan of >5 years with nominal maintenance]

However, multiple companies at this point are claiming very inexpensive LiDAR
units [2] [3].

If you assume costs drop to $100k [including maintenance] for a self-driving
car, now three years of driving a truck would pay for itself [and taxis
wouldn't be far behind].

In [1], analysts estimate costs will be down to $10k total by 2025. At that
point, car ownership will be dramatically different. Analysts discuss the
confluence of electrification, servicification [of rides], and self-driving
cars to be kind of unpredictable. Each of these would be a massive shakeup for
the industry, and the combination will be pretty interesting to watch.

[1] [https://www.fastcompany.com/3025722/will-you-ever-be-able-
to...](https://www.fastcompany.com/3025722/will-you-ever-be-able-to-afford-a-
self-driving-car)

[2] "Reduced cost of LiDAR by 99%" [https://medium.com/kylevogt/how-were-
solving-the-lidar-probl...](https://medium.com/kylevogt/how-were-solving-the-
lidar-problem-8b4363ff30db)

[3] Waymo claims <$10k: [https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/01/googles-waymo-
invests-i...](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/01/googles-waymo-invests-in-
lidar-technology-cuts-costs-by-90-percent/)

------
atmosx
Would you invest in a car as of today, knowing that in a few years US, JP, AU
and EU (at least) will have driverless cars as a service?

Hm, maybe I'm rushing it a bit.

~~~
lttlrck
the thing stopping people from switching from car ownership to using a car
service is probably not the presence of a driver.

------
Steeeve
I'm happy that progress is being made. I'm not excited as a person who likes
driving to be sharing the road with a bunch of computers. I'm not worried that
they'll crash into me. I'm more concerned that they will be in my way.

~~~
lern_too_spel
On the other hand, I'm happy that as a cyclist I won't have to worry about
drivers using their phones.

------
zerostar07
So what's the best open source self-driving-car platform ?

------
JCummings01
The secret history of GM’s Chinese bailout [https://qz.com/594984/the-secret-
history-of-gms-chinese-bail...](https://qz.com/594984/the-secret-history-of-
gms-chinese-bailout/)

