
Autonomous vehicles are just around the corner - jkuria
https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21737418-driverless-vehicles-will-change-world-just-cars-did-them-what-went-wrong
======
atroyn
We are at the peak of the autonomous driving hype cycle, and the trough of
disillusionment is going to wipe out a few players, and see the massive
consolidation of others. These start-ups are very capital intensive and once
the funding environment shifts, it's going to be a big problem for a lot of
them.

The initial launches of autonomous taxi services will be underwhelming -
relative slow, sometimes frightening (there will be accidents for sure), and
with limited deployment areas in limited weather. The novelty will wear off
quickly, and then the real work is going to start.

There are basically going to be two ways to survive it - be part of a larger
organization that can shoulder a long-term R&D burden to go from 'toy' to
'real infrastructure'. I can see Cruise and Waymo making it that way, unless
GM gets cold feet.

The other survivors will be either super lean like Voyage, who went straight
to revenue generating niches like retirement communities and rely on being
downstream of the technical innovation being done elsewhere (no in-house
vehicle or sensor development to cut down R&D costs and move quickly).

Or else they'll be in niches like logistics (e.g. Peloton, Nuro) where the
parameters of the game are different, and the structure is more B2B than B2C.

One other play is the autonomy-tech licensing structure like Aurora is trying,
but that's a hard sell, especially since they're dealing with German
automakers who (from first hand experience in this domain in particular) are
clueless about autonomy.

This is an incredibly exciting, risky time to be a part of this new, emerging
industry. It feels in many ways like the very very early P.C era, where
everything is very much still in play. I'm glad I made the career shift to get
there.

~~~
danmaz74
> German automakers who (from first hand experience in this domain in
> particular) are clueless about autonomy

You made me curious, care the elaborate?

~~~
atroyn
Without revealing too much, German automakers have expertise primarily in
logistics, with some expertise in automotive design.

There is a vast pyramid of Tier-1 and Tier-2 suppliers that feed into that
logistics chain. A lot of those suppliers are promising automakers that they
can deliver either components that feed into autonomy, or else autonomy in
full. This fragments the effort across literally hundreds of small teams, many
of whom have little to no expertise at all in the necessary disciplines.

Additionally, every German automaker also has its own in-house autonomy team,
and the relationships between in-house, contracting, and supplier teams is
chaotic. Many managers see autonomy as another way to build a small empire and
make a name for themselves, and it just results in a huge organizational
snarl.

The fact that this is an area no one knows how to execute on yet since it's
brand new, coupled with these gross inefficiencies, will mean autonomy efforts
from the automakers will be stillborn. They will eventually learn from it
though, acquire the right teams, and get on with putting it into their cars
just as they're doing with EV.

~~~
danmaz74
Thanks for the answer. But "some expertise in automotive design" looks a bit
of an understatement to me.

------
Bizarro
And in 5 years they will be "just around the corner" again.

There's so many hurdles before it becomes something that is commonplace or
accepted, that really it's decades around the corner.

The technical hurdles to get to level 4 and 5 are just the start. Once you get
past that, there's going to be a whole slew of legal and public opinion
challenges.

The first time an autonomous vehicle is involved in an accident that kills a
few kids, you'll have a Challenger level probe to figure out what happened and
probably a whole revamp of safety measures.

Don't count your chickens yet.

~~~
lxmorj
Maybe. Where's our Challenger level probe for mass shootings?

~~~
randallsquared
Pending an accidental mass shooting.

------
Dowwie
As to whether that corner is on this block is another matter. It might be
within the postal code.

Taking on a great project that hasn't been attempted before presents great
challenges along the way that couldn't be anticipated.

These forecasters mean well but have no idea.

------
bittermang
We haven't even begun.

Gearheads will refuse to let go of their cars. They love driving and
maintaining their vehicle. They'll argue that no robot can drive better than
they can, no matter how wrong they are.

Imagine a world where police no longer pull you over for speeding, running red
lights, or other traffic infractions. The legal fight will be huge, as those
easy revenue sources suddenly disappear.

There are hundreds of more fights and scenarios like this we haven't even
begun to imagine, that will tie up progress in the courts for decades.

We're going to need a concentrated force focusing on this tech as the next
thing we are going to do, and able to get out in front of these issues. Right
now, I see autonomous driving as a thing that a few groups are seriously
working on, while everyone else takes a passive stance, or dips their toes
into the idea as a passing fancy and not a serious milestone to tackle. We
need to move it past a novel toy, and in to a serious undertaking that we all
need to be vested in shaping the future of.

Because in my opinion, the automobile is the most efficient and prolific human
killing machine we have ever invented. I feel autonomous driving is a step
toward fixing that issue.

~~~
tyingq
_" Imagine a world where police no longer pull you over for speeding, running
red lights, or other traffic infractions"_

That's an interesting point I hadn't heard before. Are there stats for what
kind of revenue various little cities, counties, etc, in the US are generating
with speed traps, red light cameras, and similar tactics? Those tactics
obviously lose to self driving cars.

~~~
bittermang
_That 's an interesting point I hadn't heard before._

Exactly.

Because why would they? Why would we even need speed limits, if the computer
it in control and proven safe at X speed, because it has a Y reaction time vs
a human's Z reaction time.

~~~
yur83838
people still need to cross roads

~~~
jhall1468
Waymo's car stops at crosswalks when people are on waiting.

~~~
GarrisonPrime
Another problem, then:

If people see a vehicle has stopped for them to cross, they oftenbassume it's
safe for them to cross. Unfortunately they are then less attentive to see if
other lanes are following suit.

Pedestrians are constantly being hit in my "friendly" town where the culture
has people stop for pedestrians even if the vehicle has right of way. But then
the stopped vehicle blocks the view of another car in a neighboring lane,
which keeps on coming.

~~~
jhall1468
Not a problem. That's not even a niche case and would be easy to train. The
simple examples you're coming up with are the 99% situations that are readily
trainable and have been. Literally the only thing stopping Waymo from
production is the 1%... the situations that are so niche and unique that the
Waymo AI hasn't seen them.

------
graycat
Yes, and when we get around that corner, we will be told the same again. And
when we get around that corner we will find a lot of car wrecks. And the next
corner will be some auto insurance companies, lawyers, and politicians saying
"Not on public streets".

Eventually enough people will figure out and/or admit that some of driving a
vehicle on current public streets with current traffic occasionally but too
often requires real, actual, full, no compromise, human intelligence complete
with ability to read, hear and understand, and speak and be heard, to
comprehend situations and plan and execute solutions. That's essentially full
AI, no compromises, parlor tricks, claimed grand successes in narrow contexts,
driving on roadways defined by electronics, etc.

~~~
GarrisonPrime
You're assuming the driving environment will remain the same.

It's possible the convenience and cost savings of autonomous transport would
be great enough that society would be willing to change its relationship with
roads.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
But that can't possibly happen overnight. Until every car on every road is an
auto-car, we'll have a mix of auto-cars with ordinary, human-driven vehicles.
And in that time, what happens?

~~~
sundaeofshock
We spend trillions of dollars over the course of a couple of decades, with
major disruptions of our transportation network, along with the overall
economy.

Smart roads are not going to happen.

------
jt2190
This isn't a stand-alone article. It's the introduction to The Economist's
"Reinventing wheels" special report issue. There's no timeline given for
"around the corner" in the headline. Instead:

> This special report will assume that the technological hurdles to full
> autonomy can be overcome. It will consider the implications of autonomous
> vehicles (AVs) for personal mobility, car ownership and carmaking, but will
> also look at the wider economic, social and cultural knock-on effects. How
> will everyday activities be transformed? How could AVs reshape cities? And
> what lessons does the rise of the car in the 20th century hold for
> driverless vehicles in the 21st?

------
netforay
Wow, all 10 first comments are negative about it. I wonder would these people
would bet against it?

I would love to bet in favor of the article.

~~~
chronic729
MIT PhD grad, former Tesla Autopilot software, currently at Waymo.

I will bet against the article. You will not be able to buy a L4 self driving
car in the next 5 years, at minimum.

~~~
raldi
I don’t want to buy one; I want to be able to summon one on demand. Same
timeline?

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> BCG, a consultancy, reckons that by 2030 a quarter of passenger-miles
travelled on America’s roads will be in shared, self-driving electric
vehicles, reducing the number of cars on city streets by 60%, emissions by 80%
and road accidents by 90%.

Besides the fact that it's obvious how these nice, tidy, exact-multiple-of-ten
values are unlikely to be accurate, that last 90% in particular was totally
pulled out of thin air and without any experimental, theoretical, or other
justification whatsoever.

That's according to a study on the safety of self-driving cars, by the RAND
corporation, _Driving to Safety; How Many Miles of Driving Would It Take to
Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle Reliability_ :

[https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1478/RAND_RR1478.pdf)

Quoting from that (bullet points, sidebar on first page):

    
    
      Autonomous vehicles would have to be driven hundreds 
      of millions of miles and sometimes hundreds of billions 
      of miles to demonstrate their reliability in terms of 
      fatalities and injuries. 
    
      Under even aggressive testing assumptions, existing 
      fleets would take tens and sometimes hundreds of years 
      to drive these miles—an impossible proposition if the 
      aim is to demonstrate their performance prior to releasing 
      them on the roads for consumer use.
    
      Therefore, at least for fatalities and injuries, test-driving 
      alone cannot provide sufficient evidence for demonstrating 
      autonomous vehicle safety
    

In other words, forget about knowing with any degree of certainty how much
safer autonomous vehicles are than humans (or even if they are safer at all)
before they actually hit the road. And let's all admit that if we're eager to
see self-driving cars in mass use, it's because we think the tech is cool and
not because of any justified belief in their safety.

------
joejerryronnie
I'm sure people are thinking/working on this but it seems that nobody is
talking about the infrastructure improvements that would likely be necessary
to support fully autonomous vehicles (smart roadways, etc). To me, this should
really be a two-pronged approach; the vehicle and the environment. Trying to
engineer a vehicle to successfully navigate an environment soley designed for
human cognition seems like a losing battle. But, if roadways were fitted with
a myriad of sensors and communication networks which couldn't be thwarted by a
can of spray paint, I think the success rate of the actual autonomous vehicle
would be much better.

~~~
atroyn
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, this is a legitimate take.

My thinking is this is two-pronged. It won't make sense to make the
infrastructure investment until there are sufficient proof points that this is
1.) something people want and 2.) something that's economically viable.

It's likely that the early geofenced version of passenger autonomy will
demonstrate what further infrastructure is needed and how much it would cost.

One interesting side point; dedicated lanes for autonomous traffic are already
being proposed on some roadways, particularly interstates in the U.S and
highways in Europe. The economic benefits from autonomous logistics (e.g.
trucking) are more readily capturable, so the infrastructure investment might
make more sense there up front.

~~~
trevyn
He’s getting downvoted because not many people talk about “smart roadways”
since it became clear that sensor-based machine learning autonomous vehicles
were commercially feasible, and dare I say inevitable.

Good autonomous vehicles don’t work primarily by sensing and detecting the
roadway, they work by sensing the _environment_ and having a complete,
detailed 3D map of drivable areas, matching their environment to the map as
they go along. This only requires annotation of the terrain, not clear road
markings or anything like that.

The 3D detail of the environment _is_ the smart roadway. With always-on GPS
and an _incredibly_ detailed map of the environment stored on a honking hard
drive in the trunk, there’s never a question where you are in the world.

In fact, now that I think about it, this makes _reduced_ infrastructure
possible, since you don’t even need things like signs or streetlights in an
all-autonomous world, and can even get by with narrower lanes.

~~~
atroyn
I work in autonomous vehicle R&D, and if we had an environment filled with
reliable sensors it would considerably simplify our problem.

There is no such thing as a _complete, detailed 3D map of driveable areas_.
Most current efforts rely heavily on high resolution, large scale,
semantically labeled maps, but on any given stretch of road this is only a
first approximation of the environment. Live sensors embedded in
infrastructure that could pass along real-time information and updates,
particularly from directions our on-board sensors can't capture, would be very
useful indeed.

And yes, road markings are part of the semantics we use.

~~~
shaki-dora
I don’t think the two of you are actually disagreeing.

------
kgilpin
Autonomous vehicles will make it much safer to be a cyclist, a pedestrian, or
a child near a road. These are some positive changes I am really looking
forward to.

Imagine knowing that if your child runs in the road, the cars will stop?
Safety is a great feeling.

------
meri_dian
Unfortunately we're walking around a circular structure

------
geezerjay
Autonomous vehicles are already here and have arrived a couple of decades ago.
They are referred to by the umbrella term "rail transport". There are whole
transportation networks all around the world, including the US, that are
entirely driverless.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems)

~~~
neals
Autonomous != driverless

~~~
vadimberman
The link posted above mentions completely driverless trains as well (grade 4).

