If Ridesharing Is Banned, What About Ride-Trading?

As reported by SlashDot: The cab companies got Seattle to crack down on ridesharing companies by arguing that by letting drivers charge money for rides, they were essentially operating illegal unlicensed taxi services. So it's not hard to imagine other cities taking similar action on the same ambiguous legal grounds, as Los Angeles did in sending cease-and-desist notices to Uber, Lyft and Sidecar, ordering them to stop operating entirely.

I tried some of these services and actually never saw what the big deal was. Much of the time, they were almost as expensive as taxis, much too pricey to use on a regular basis, and I would never use them unless my own poor planning left me somewhere without my own car and desperate somewhere faster than public transit could take me. Perhaps cab companies were afraid of where the services were eventually headed -- especially towards a model where drivers could set their own prices. As far as I know, currently all ridesharing services set a minimum price per mile and don't let drivers set their rate any lower. But many drivers would probably be willing to drive at a price lower than what the app allows, and a set-your-own-price model probably really would put the cab companies out of business.

Perhaps some cities will take a more benign view of ridesharing in the long run, but as long as money is changing hands, (1) the city will certainly view it as within their rights to regulate the ridesharing industry, and (2) taxi companies will be able to argue, not unreasonably, that the companies are effectively running unlicensed taxi services. Of course the real solution would be for cities to stop limiting the supply of taxi medallions and artificially enriching cab companies at everyone else's expense (if the city's concern is with rider "safety", they could increase the number of taxi medallions while still requiring all drivers to take safety training). But that doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon. So instead, what if a company created an app that attempted to circumvent the legal restrictions, by allowing users to trade rides -- not for cash, but for returning the favor? 

Here's how it could work: When you sign up as a new user, you have a "miles" balance of zero. (The very first users of the system would have to start out with a nonzero balance, so that there are some units in the system to trade, but everyone who joins after that starts at zero.) You have to earn miles by giving someone else a ride before you can redeem your miles by getting a ride yourself. So you log in as a driver, and some other user "hails" you through their smartphone app, much as riders hail drivers through Uber or Lyft. You pick up a passenger and give them a ride to their destination, and at the end of the journey, they transfer a number of "miles" to you indicating how far you drove them. You now have a positive miles balance, and you can "spend" it by hailing a ride yourself later on. Drivers and riders could leave ratings for each other just as they do on Uber and Lyft. What Couchsurfing is to Airbnb, this service would be to Uber.

Since no money is changing hands, the arrangements would presumably not be covered by existing taxi statutes. You could even make an argument that a city couldn't pass a law regulating these ride-trades even if they wanted to, because as voluntary arrangements between consenting parties, they're protected under our First Amendment right of freedom of association! Of course, libertarians believe all commercial transactions between consenting parties ought to be exempt from regulation as well, but most state and local governments take a dim view of that premise. However, take money out of the equation, and you're on much stronger ground that your ride-trading arrangements aren't covered by existing laws.

(It is of course silly and inconsistent that the law often forbids selling something for money, but allows trading it for something of "value", or permits it if the nature of the trade is not made explicitly clear. If a girl sleeps with you and you occasionally "lend" her money, she's a high-maintenance girlfriend, but if she ever does you the courtesy of spelling out the arrangement explicitly, she's a prostitute and can go to jail. But as long as the government makes those silly and arbitrary distinctions, we might as well use them when they count in our favor.)

Would ride-trading with strangers be safe?

Well, when a rider pages a driver, the system could tell the rider the license plate of the car associated with that driver's profile, so unless the driver was in a stolen car, the system would always have a record of the license plate (and, hence, the owner) of any car that picked up a passenger. More generally, if I were a user in a system like this and someone told me it sounded unsafe, I would just say the same thing I always say about Couchsurfing (where I've hosted over 50 people with no bad experiences). Namely: "Look, have you or any of your friends ever gone home with someone you met at a bar? And that's fine, I'm not judging you, I'm just saying that was a hell of a lot more risky than meeting up with someone in a system where you can read other people's references." Besides, in many cities there's already thriving subculture of slugging -- picking up total strangers so you can use the carpool lane and they get a free ride.

I feel like I would be happy to have this ride-trading service available if I ever wanted a quick ride across town and didn't have my car. The only "cost" to me would be the cost of giving someone an equal-length ride at some other point in time when I wasn't in a hurry. (Or even giving someone a lift to a place that I was already going.) It's an efficient transaction because it lets me spend miles when my time is valuable, and then rack up the miles later on when I have some time to kill that's not as valuable. You can realize even more efficiencies by letting people pay "premium rates" for periods when demand is high (Friday and Saturday nights) or supply is low (early mornings when people need rides to the airport), so that the balance of miles that you pay for a ride may be greater than the actual number of miles traveled. 

On the other hand, there's an inefficiency in that the system cannot serve the needs of people who want a ride, but whose time is too valuable to spend it driving in order to "earn" the miles to redeem for the ride. This is a limitation in any system that bans money as a means of trade and only lets you trade a service for a repayment-in-kind of the same service. 

To environmentalists who would object that this promotes greater car usage: First of all, it might result in more impromptu car pooling over routes that were being inadequately served by buses, in which case the passengers were going to have to take cars anyway, so they might as well be piled into fewer of them. But in any case, I would actually take the bus more if a service like this existed. I live in Bellevue, about a 20-minute bus ride outside of Seattle, and I'd gladly take the bus in to Seattle if I was going to a specific destination close to the bus line, and knew I was coming right back afterwards. The problem is that once I'm in Seattle, if I want to get to some other arbitrary destination in Seattle, taking public transit is slow and annoying (and, you may have heard, often involves some waiting around in the rain). I drive my car in to Seattle not because I want to drive to the city, but in order to have a car while I'm there. If I could summon a ride in under two minutes to take me anywhere else in the city (with the only price being to return the favor to someone else later), I wouldn't need my car and could take the bus downtown.

So, even assuming a service like this would be useful, why would a company create it? We know how Airbnb and Uber make money, by skimming a cut off of each transaction. But how would a company make money just by connecting riders and drivers for complimentary rides through a free app? Well, Couchsurfing connects users for free stays in each other's houses, and they got venture capitalists to invest $22 million. The thinking seems to be that if even a free a service has enough users, it must be worth something. 

The major obstacle to deploying the system, is that the system would require a critical mass of users in any given city, before it could become effective. If there aren't enough drivers active in the city, then hailing a ride would take so long that after factoring in the delay, you might as well have taken the bus. You'd need enough drivers active to be reasonably sure that in any given neighborhood, you can catch a ride quickly -- and for the drivers have to be out in force, they have to know that there's a critical mass of riders who are ready to offer some miles in their balance for rides. Services that require a critical mass of users in order to be successful, are notoriously hard to get off the ground. If the project had the feeling of a social movement behind it -- in the spirit of resource sharing, as well as environmental friendliness insofar as people like me would be more likely to start using the bus -- perhaps the founders could sign up a base of users over time, prior to actually launching the service. And then once the number of enrolled users was large enough, could launch the live service with a critical mass of users already in place. (Of course, if they tried that out here, this being Seattle, most of those enrolled users who said they would show up, would probably flake out.) 

GPS for Athletic Health

As reported by Liberty Voice: The NFL is nothing if not tops in adopting new technology. At least, they consider themselves to be near the top. Yet the idea of using GPS as a means to monitor a football player’s performance and health is only starting to make its way around the league. At the moment, a number of individual teams are eyeing the new technology and, sooner rather than later, the league itself might get involved. Revenue being the alpha and omega of the NFL’s existence, the league likely has its own ulterior motives for seeing a complete adoption of GPS.  

The reason? In a nutshell, better performance means healthier players, and healthier players play longer. And players that play longer might give the league what it wants: an 18-game season.

The idea of monitoring athletes with GPS, or a Global Positioning System, has been around for a few years and over 400 sports leagues around the world are already using the technology to some degree or another. Most of the Australian Rugby League, half of the English Premier League, and a number of NBA teams have jumped on board. Australian-based Catapult Sports, the world’s largest maker of the devices, sees American sports as the next great frontier. The NHL has starting looking into the technology, the NCAA national champion Florida State Seminoles have been experimenting with it and, as of now, 12 NFL teams have officially started incorporating it into their practices.

A football player wearing a GPS device is like a race car feeding data back to its crew. If the car is running low on gas, its tires starting to wear out, or the driver’s instincts are starting to falter, the crew knows in real-time, just as an NFL coach can watch for signs a player needs to slow down or be taken out of a practice. Performance factors like the force of hits a player suffers, fatigue over a period of time, strength and conditioning results, the amount of ground a player covers and on and on can suddenly be quantified. And within all this data is the means to possibly prevent, or at least delay, player injuries.

In a league as lousy with injuries as the NFL, anything that might keep its players healthy is worth its weight in gold. And since Roger Goodell has never been one to hide his intention to put as much football on television as possible, there are both sincere and ulterior motives to use technologies like GPS to keep everybody around. Depending on one’s level of cynicism, it is possible to imagine the league sincerely cares about the health of its players. But it is also undeniable the league profits from players staying on the field as long as they can during a season.

Despite the league’s fantastic popularity, the problem of what to do with injured players is desperately important for any long-term survival plans. The looming lawsuits by former players are as serious as the NFL’s ever had to face, and there is no guarantee it will come out in their favor. There is also been a significant drop in youth league participation- a 9.5 percent drop between 2010 and 2012- meaning parents are very concerned about the concussion. The league claims new advances in helmet design will protect from concussions, but it remains to be seen if the kids will be allowed to come back.

GPS will become an integral part of the effort to minimize injuries and keep the league as lawsuit free as possible. Fortunately, teams using GPS have already seen results. The Florida State program says certain injuries have been reduced by almost 90 percent and over in Australia, the major Aussie-rules football leagues claim an almost 50 percent decrease. There is no reason to think the NFL can’t see comparable results in upcoming years.

The question Roger Goodell is undoubtedly asking himself is what to do with all these future healthy players. Adding two more teams to the playoffs is not even a hypothetical; by 2015 or 2016, it will be a reality. What comes after is the big question. The league has recently denied it, but their ulterior motive, their fondest wish if players can play longer, is to expand the season to 18 games. The NFL’s Player Association has repeatedly fought it, but if the league agrees to eliminate a few pre-season games and dangle enough money, the Association will likely give in. Bloated or not, the league will get its 18 games.

So GPS seems to be a promising technology, not just for professionals but athletes in general. For NFL players, though, it could end up being a both a blessing and a curse. Healthy enough to keep playing but worn down by so much more time on the field, they might end up thinking nothing has really changed.

Ford Uses OculusVR Tech To Get Behind The Wheel Of Virtual Cars

As reported by Motor Authority: Facebook's purchase of OculusVR may be making headlines, but Ford has liked its virtual-reality technology for some time. In its Virtual Reality Immersion Lab, the Dearborn automaker uses Oculus Rift headsets to evaluate the exterior and interior designs of cars that don't exist in the physical world, at least, not yet.  

Once they don a headset, engineers can explore virtual vehicles while motion-capture cameras track their movements and coordinate with software to match the digital presentation with their movements in the physical world. This allows Ford to evaluate designs without having to spend time crafting mockups. Engineers can walk around a virtual car to preview its exterior design, or "get in" to see if the interior layout will work once the car leaves the design studio and is put in the hands of customers.

Virtual reality speeds up the design process, Ford says. The Rift system can switch between different lighting conditions so engineers can see, for example, how a car will look in bright sunlight and compare it to how it would look on a cloudy day. Employees in Dearborn can also link with counterparts in Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, and India, keeping everyone on the same page.

The technology also gives Ford engineers X-ray vision. They can--virtually--see through a vehicle's structure, which helps when making decisions about the packaging of mechanical hardware, and changes to the design that might interfere with hard points.

So while it's unclear what Facebook's plans for Oculus are, it seems Ford has found plenty of use for virtual reality.

Classified X-37B Space Plane Breaks Space Longevity Record

As reported by IT World: A little-known U.S. space plane quietly broke its own space endurance record this week as its current unmanned mission surpassed 469 days in space.

Much of the information about the X-37B and its mission is classified, but the little that is public points to it being a development vehicle for new Air Force space capabilities while serving a secondary role for the U.S. military and intelligence community as a testbed for new space-based surveillance technologies.

The current mission, dubbed USA-240, is the third for the X-37B and began on Dec. 11, 2012, atop an Atlas V rocket at Cape Canaveral. The spacecraft is taken into orbit on a rocket but lands like the space shuttle by gliding down to Earth.

That isn't the only similarity it shares with the space shuttle. It looks visually similar, sort of like a mini shuttle, and it, too, started life as a NASA project. The space agency solicited proposals in 1998 for projects that would push the boundaries of space development and exploration, and later awarded Boeing a $137 million contract for the X-37.

Originally envisioned as something that would be launched from the shuttle to test reusable launch vehicle technology, the X-37 never made it into space and eventually was transferred from NASA to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2004.

That's when it moved into the shadows.

It didn't emerge again until April 22, 2010, when the Air Force launched an Atlas rocket carrying what had been renamed the X-37B. Details of the mission were kept secret, but soon after launch, amateur satellite hunters spotted the X-37B orbiting the Earth at about the same altitude as military satellites.

The mission lasted 240 days, ending with a landing at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on Dec. 3, 2010.

A second mission, using a second spacecraft, took to the skies just under three months later, on March 5, 2011. The gap allowed engineers to make some changes to the craft based on what had been learned in the first flight.

Again, little information was forthcoming from the Air Force, but the flight turned out to be a record breaker. Though the mission was designed to last up to 270 days, the Air Force said it would push past that point and kept the X-37B in orbit until June 16, 2012 -- a total of 469 days in space -- ending again at Vandenberg.

The current mission has now surpassed that record-breaking second flight.

The X-37B program appears to be aimed at giving the Air Force a space plane that can stay aloft for long periods, return to Earth and then be turned around fast and put back into orbit, said Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and an authority on satellites and launches.

"The Air Force now has a policy of acquiring capabilities rather than missions, so some general somewhere probably thinks it would be spiffy to have a space plane that can launch at short notice," he said. "It's worthwhile learning lessons from the shuttle and how to do turn-arounds cheaper."

Mystery surrounds the actual missions being undertaken during these flights, but McDowell thinks it's serving a similar role as the space shuttle by carrying a science or intelligence payload.

"I believe it's testing some kind of experimental sensor for the National Reconnaissance Office; for example, a hyperspectral imager, or some new kind of signals intelligence package," said McDowell. "The sensor was more successful than expected, so the payload customer asked the X-37 folks to keep the spacecraft in orbit longer."

That theory is backed up by comments made by the Air Force to The Christian Science Monitor before its first flight that it would be involved in "various experiments" that will allow "satellite sensors, subsystems, components and associated technology" to be taken to space and back.

Another clue to the X-37B's role might be in its control within the Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office, a Washington, D.C., unit that attempts to fast-track new technologies to help deal with specific threats that might have a short lifespan. That's distinctly different from the rest of the Air Force's space operations.

The Rapid Capabilities Office officially reports to senior U.S. military leaders but also,according to Aviation Week and Space Technology, exists as a "little acknowledged interface between the Air Force and the intelligence community."

Alaska Latest State To Seek Ban On Drone Use By Hunters

As reported by RT.com:  Alaska is poised to become the third US state to ban use of unmanned aircraft, or drones, by hunters, as several other states have taken steps to curb use of the technology when in pursuit of wild game.

On March 17, the Alaska Board of Game approved a regulatory proposal that would prohibit hunters from using unmanned aerial vehicles to locate and track game. The state’s Department of Law is expected to approve the rule on July 1, the Anchorage Daily News reported.

Alaska Wildlife Troopers proposed the rule change to the Game Board after hearing of a drone-assisted moose kill in the state in 2012. The practice is not widespread, but the troopers say the increasingly cheap and advanced technology has the capability to transform the state’s game hunting landscape.

"Under hunting regulations, unless it specifically says that it's illegal, you're allowed to do it," Capt. Bernard Chastain, operations commander for the Wildlife Troopers, said. "What happens a lot of times is technology gets way ahead of regulations, and the hunting regulations don't get a chance to catch up for quite a while."

 
Last month, Montana banned drone use in hunting, as did Colorado in January. Idaho and Wisconsin include drones in their current prohibitions against “use of aircraft to hunt, to harass hunters, or to disturb wildlife,” according to Fox News.

In addition, hunting groups in New Mexico, Vermont, and Wyoming have started efforts to outlaw drone use.

“We feel that the use of drones to aid in hunting is inappropriate and overwhelming technology that would essentially undermine the concept of fair-chase hunting,” Eric Nuse, leader of the initiative in Vermont, told Fox.

Nuse - former executive director Orion, The Hunter’s Institute - echoed the Alaska troopers’ rationale for pushing a drone ban despite limited evidence at present of hunting use.

“We want to make sure it doesn’t get a foothold,” he said. “We see this as a great chance for abuse and before people have invested a lot of money in this technology let’s speak up first.”
Colorado’s law was spurred by hunters who do not want drones to give sportsmen an unfair technological advantage.

“We prefer not to see regulations as a general rule,” said Tim Brass, a spokesman for Colorado’s Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. “Sportsmen have a tradition of policing themselves. This was part of our effort to do that.”
 
Brass said a YouTube video of a drone tracking a moose in Norway encouraged him to pursue a drone rule in Colorado.

“Hunting should remain an activity of skill and woodcraft, not just technology,” Brass’ group said after the Colorado Parks & Wildlife Commission voted to ban drones. The group added that drones could have legitimate uses for agriculture and search and rescue missions, for example.

Related, in December, Fox highlighted a Louisiana exterminator who uses a drone to hunt feral pigs that have severely damaged crops and wildlife throughout the South. 

With Update On Flywheel Tech, Volvo Eyes 2020 Rollout

As reported by Motor Authority: About a year ago Motor Authority brought you the first details on a flywheel-based hybrid system Volvo is developing that could reduce fuel consumption by up to 25 percent. 

Volvo has since partnered with Flybrid Automotive, part of transmission specialist Torotrak, to further develop the technology and eventually bring it to production.

The way the system works is that whenever a driver hits the brakes, such as during the approach to a red light, kinetic energy that would otherwise be lost as heat is transferred from the wheels to a Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) mounted to the axle not driven by the engine. 

The kinetic energy spools up a flywheel inside the KERS, in essence storing the energy for as much as 20 minutes before it begins to disperse. When the driver hits the gas pedal, the stored energy is transferred back to the wheels via a specially designed transmission, and can either boost power or reduce load on the engine.

To maximize efficiency, the flywheel is made out of carbon fiber and weighs just over 13 pounds. It’s contained within a vacuum and spins at up to 60,000 rpm. The system is designed so that the engine is also switched off as soon as braking begins. 

The energy in the flywheel can then be used to accelerate the vehicle when it is time to move off again--even without the engine. Volvo says the KERS can deliver as much as 80 horsepower. As you may have guessed, the system would be most efficient during stop-start city driving.

With the pedal floored, drivers should experience boost for around 10 seconds. And since conventional brakes develop such a huge amount of energy, which is normally wasted, even gentle braking for eight seconds will fully recharge the KERS. That’s much quicker than what a conventional electric hybrid needs to charge up its batteries, and the flywheel-based system has the added benefit that it is cheaper to produce and maintain. It's also a lot lighter: the prototype KERS weighs only around 130 pounds.

A 254-horsepower S60 T5 prototype Volvo is using to test the system can accelerate from 0-62 mph in just 5.5 seconds, which is about 1.5 seconds quicker than the regular S60 T5. Better still, the KERS creates a part-time ‘through-the-road’ all-wheel-drive system to add extra traction and stability under acceleration since its attached to the axle not driven by the engine.

So when might we see in production? A Volvo engineer told Autocar that “some form of KERS” would be inevitable on production cars after 2020.

Survey: More Than 1 In 4 Car Crashes Involve Cellphone Use

As reported by CBS NY: Texting and driving is dangerous but a new survey finds talking on a cellphone while behind the wheel may be even worse.

As WCBS 880′s Paul Murnane reported from Stamford, the National Safety Council’s annual report found 26 percent of all crashes are tied to phone use, but noted just 5 percent involved texting.

Safety advocates are lobbying now for a total ban on driver phone use, pointing to studies that headsets do not reduce driver distraction.

Some motorists said they support the idea.

“Everybody’s on a telephone. If people do cut you off, you look and they’re talking on the telephone. I think they are a problem.” a driver told Murnane. “Hands-free or not.”

“People just get too involved in the conversation. Either pull over or wait,” said another man.

The survey found a 1 percent increase in cellphone-involved accidents compared with the previous year.

A spokesperson for the non-profit Governors Highway Safety Association told Marketwatch.com that it may be that drivers are more comfortable calling than texting in a moving vehicle.

The group believes the data on distracted crashes is underreported.