Self-Driving Cars in California: 4 out of 48 Have Accidents, None Their Fault

As reported by the NY Times: Four of the nearly 50 self-driving cars now rolling around California have gotten into accidents since September, when the state began issuing permits for companies to test them on public roads.

Two accidents happened while the cars were in control; in the other two, the person who still must be behind the wheel was driving, a person familiar with the accident reports told The Associated Press.

Three involved Lexus SUVs that Google Inc. outfitted with sensors and computing power in its aggressive effort to develop "autonomous driving," a goal the tech giant shares with traditional automakers. The parts supplier Delphi Automotive had the other accident with one of its two test vehicles.

Google and Delphi said their cars were not at fault in any accidents, which the companies said were minor.

Since September, any accident must be reported to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. The agency said there have been four, but would not comment about fault or anything else, citing California law that collision reports are confidential.

The person familiar with the accident reports said the cars were in self-driving mode in two of the four accidents, all of which involved speeds of less than 10 mph. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the reports publicly.

Five other companies have testing permits. In response to questions from the AP, all said they had no accidents. In all, 48 cars are licensed to test on public roads.

The fact that neither the companies nor the state have revealed the accidents troubles some who say the public should have information to monitor the rollout of technology that its own developers acknowledge is imperfect.

John Simpson, a longtime critic of Google as privacy project director of the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog, pointed out that the company's ultimate goal is a car without a steering wheel or pedals. That would mean a person has no power to intervene if a car lost control, making it "even more important that the details of any accidents be made public — so people know what the heck's going on."

A chief selling point for self-driving cars is safety. Their cameras, radar and laser sensors give them a far more detailed understanding of their surroundings than humans have. Their reaction times also should be faster. Cars could be programmed to adjust if they sense a crash coming — move a few feet, tighten the seat belts, honk the horn or flash the lights in hope of alerting a distracted driver.

A higher priority so far is teaching them to avoid causing a serious accident that could set public and political acceptance of the technology back years, said Raj Rajkumar, a pioneer of the technology with Carnegie Mellon University.

In the October accident involving Delphi, the front of its 2014 Audi SQ5 was moderately damaged when, as it waited to make a left turn, another car broadsided it, according to an accident report the company shared with AP. The car was not in self-driving mode, Delphi spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said.

Google, which has 23 Lexus SUVs, would not discuss its three accidents in detail.

The accidents are not Google's first: In a briefing with reporters a year ago, the leader of Google's self-driving car program acknowledged three others between when the company first sent cars onto public roads several years ago — without the state's official permission — and May 2014.

In a written statement, Google said that since September, cars driving on streets near its headquarters in Mountain View had "a handful of minor fender-benders, light damage, no injuries, so far caused by human error and inattention."

Google said that while safety is paramount some accidents can be expected, given that its cars have gone "the equivalent of over 15 years of typical human driving," or approximately 140,000 miles.

The national rate for reported "property-damage-only crashes" is about 0.3 per 100,000 miles driven, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In that context, Google's three in about 140,000 miles may seem high. As the company pointed out, however, perhaps 5 million minor accidents are not reported to authorities each year, so it is hard to gauge how typical Google's experience is.

Three other states have passed laws welcoming self-driving cars onto their roads. Regulators in Nevada, Michigan and Florida said they were not aware of any accidents.

As self-driving cars proliferate, others issues will arise that human drivers have dealt with for decades, notably who's liable for an accident. Each test car is required to have $5 million insurance.

Interest in accidents will remain high, especially if the self-driving car is at fault, said Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina who has written extensively on the technology.

"For a lot of reasons," Smith said, "more might be expected of these test vehicles and of the companies that are deploying them and the drivers that are supervising them than we might expect of a 17-year-old driver in a 10-year-old car."

Why Driverless Cars May Not Need Windows

As reported by The Atlantic: For the last 80-some years, the model car has been pretty standard. The tail fins and bucket seats came and went, but there were almost always four wheels, two headlights, and windows, plenty of big, clear windows ringing the car. All of that will change soon because the robot cars upend so many parts of the game that the designers can begin again with a clean file in their design software.

Reconsidering the role of car windows may be the most obvious.

Windows won't be necessary when there's no human inside who needs to see to pick a path. The autonomous cars will use five, 10, or even more cameras looking at every angle and these cameras don't need to be much bigger than the dots on the back of a phone. Some may use elaborate laser range finders that currently live perched on the roof of some of the prototypes but these whirling gadgets don't need windows either.

When riders start having a choice, will they pick and choose autonomous cars with glass portals to the world? The first robot cars will almost certainly have them because it's never good to ask people to endure too many radical changes. In The Right Stuff, Tom Wolfe described how the early Mercury astronauts insisted that NASA add a window to the capsule:

Similar considerations are being made for windowless jet aircraft.

And why? Because pilots had windows in their cockpits and hatches they could open on their own. That was what it was all about: being a pilot as opposed to a guinea pig. The men hadn't stopped with the window and the hatch, either. Not for a moment. Now they wanted ... manual control of the rocket. They weren't kidding! This was to take the form of an override system: If the astronaut believed, in his judgment, as captain of the ship (not capsule), that the boost rocket engine was malfunctioning, he could take over and guide it himself—like any proper pilot.
 
The emphasis is Wolfe's but the same holds for the autonomous cars. Early riders aren't going to want to be ‘spam in a can,’ the astronaut's term; they'll want some control over this robot driver and windows are a big part of having a seat at the committee table.

Google's early prototypes started with stock cars from current manufacturers and lately they've been releasing pictures of their own design which looks like a smaller Volkswagon with windows in all of the normal places.

Daimler, though, understands that they have an opportunity to throw away the old rules and they've been muscling into the picture with the Mercedes-Benz F-015, a futuristic concept car that looks like a silver kidney bean. To the outsider, it's often hard to tell if there's any windows at all because the glass is coated to have the same silver gloss as the metal. The riders, though, can still see out a big front windscreen and slim side glass. But Daimler doesn't seem to think the passengers will spend much time actually looking out them. A number of the photos from the company emphasize the way that four passengers can sit facing each other, talking, working or playing games, all while ignoring the outside world.

If they do look out, they're just as likely to see the big touch screens on each door—screens that seem bigger than the slim windows. These can let anyone take control of the car— Daimler calls it "conducting"—and also pull up any other images.

The sales literature from Daimler certainly anticipates that the riders will be like the early astronauts, promising us "a continuous exchange of information between vehicle, passengers and the outside world." But one video shows a man rolling through the desert in the southwest while the touchscreens display imagery of the Louvre in Paris. It's not a car, it's a "digital living space" that provides "a perfect symbiosis of the virtual and the real world."

If the riders will be immersed in the touch screens and tablets as they roll through the world, is there any advantage to real windows? Aside from letting the passengers watch the scenery and feeling like they have some chance to control the vehicle, there's not much that the glass offers—and much that it detracts.

Standard glass is not as strong as steel and so the designers must compensate for the glass when desiging the frame. If there's a crash, the glass offers no protection. (Though the way that it shatters into a million tiny pieces is considered a step up from the way that crashes used to produce flesh-ripping shards.) In the winter the glass offers little insulation and in the summer, the windows let in too much heat, heat that must be removed by the air conditioner.

The windows also offer no privacy, letting anyone see in. If the riders really want to know where they're going, they can watch a video feed from the car's many cameras displayed on some tablet or wall screen. These cameras may even have zoom lenses and so the screens and tablets could offer a better view with greater detail than the old windows.  (A movie thriller will undoubtedly include some plot where the people inside are fooled about their destination with a hacked video feed.)

Celebrity vehicles are typically designed for privacy as
well as safety.

The sentimental among us may still choose windows out of nostalgia, but the autonomous car world could be dominated by fleets of robot cabs run by accountants. The managers will flinch at extra costs and almost certainly grow to see windows as an extra expense that breaks too easily and adds too much to the air-conditioning bill.

What will people choose? Today, buses with many passengers have windows so people can watch where they're going but custom coaches designed for smaller groups often have no windows. Rock-and-roll bands on tour almost always seem to choose the buses with no markings and no windows at all.

The early riders in autonmous cars may want the power of being a captain of a ship, but in time people seem to aspire to the lazy hedonism of being a rock and roll star. And so they'll probably choose cars as rock stars pick buses—with few windows except, perhaps, a small porthole like the astronauts were given, just in case.

SpaceX Abort Test a Success

As reported by Science Times: Last week, SpaceX performed its pad abort test for its Dragon capsule at Cape Canaveral.  While the test seemed to go off without a hitch, initially there was little word from the company about exactly how it went.  Now, SpaceX has confirmed that while the test itself was a success, there is still plenty of room for improvement to prepare the capsule to fly astronauts too the International Space Station within two years.

For the abort test on Wednesday, the Dragon fired eight SuperDraco engines to see how it would escape from a launch pad emergency.  The engines have been designed to allow astronauts to land the craft powered on land or sea.

Overall, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk was happy with the results of the test.  He said that the test showed the Dragon's ability to carry science payloads to the moon, Mars, the Jovian moon Europa and other places across the solar system.

"When boosted on a Falcon Heavy (rocket), it can pretty much go anywhere. So we're kind of excited about exploring that possibility", affirmed Musk.

Sometime later this year or early next year, SpaceX plans to launch the Falcon Heavy from Kennedy Space Center's pad 39A.  The heavy lift rocket will be the world's most powerful launch vehicle and will generation 4.5 million pounds of thrust at liftoff.  According to Musk, the Dragon has a combination of a heat shield and parachutes and is not only intended to fly astronauts, but also serve as a "generalized science delivery platform."

"So I think it should be quite versatile and useful in a lot of ways for both the science community and for transporting astronauts," he said.

Next month the Air Force is expected to certify SpaceX as eligible to compete for contracts to launch national security satellites as well.  Recently, the SMC has revised the agreement with SpaceX that would streamline the lengthy certification process that was criticized earlier this year.

The updated agreement "allows the flexibility to certify SpaceX when ready, while maintaining our 'laser focus on mission success'," said Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves, SMC commander, in a statement.

"SpaceX welcomes these actions," added Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX president and chief operating officer. "We look forward to completing the certification process and competing for (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) missions."

SpaceX has become one of the most recent pioneers in the race for space and continues to pursue its goals of reusable rockets to make spaceflight cheaper and reduce the time between flights.

"As long as we continue to throw away rockets and spacecraft, we will never have true access to space. It will always be incredibly expensive," Musk said.

FCC Shoots Down Petitions to Delay Open Internet Rules

As reported by Engadget: Remember when a wolfpack of cable companies and telecoms -- including AT&T, CenturyLink, the American Cable Association, USTelecom and more -- filed motions to delay the FCC from enacting parts of its open internet order? Well, the Commission was having none of that. Late in the day this past Friday, Wireless Competition Bureau chief Julie Veach and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau chief Roger Sherman handed down an order dismissing those petitions, pointing out that additional protection for the internet as we know it is crucial and that the petitioners' cases aren't as strong as they think.

Most of those groups had their sights set on one crucial proviso: the FCC's new rules would classify internet service providers as "common carriers," which they believed would bring not only the industry but the infrastructure that powers the internet under tighter, heavier government control. Despite the fact that companies that would now fall under that umbrella wouldn't be subject to the full scope of regulatory oversight per the Telecommunications Act, they're still fighting back in the name of the internet's future growth. To hear dissenting FCC commissioner Ajit Pai tell it, the FCC would have the "the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works." The petition filed by USTelecom, the CTIA, AT&T and CenturyLink spelled gloom and doom for the web as we know if the FCC gets its way:

"From day one, the Commission's assertion of comprehensive control over the Internet will subject broadband Internet access providers - especially, small providers - to enormous unrecoverable costs and reduce their ability and incentive to invest in broadband infrastructure."

To be clear, AT&T and company did not petition against the three "bright light" rules - no blocking legal content, no throttling and no paid prioritization - contained in the FCC's Open Internet Order. While we guess it's good everyone involved can agree on at least that much, it doesn't change the fact that courts still have to rule on the lawsuits challenging the validity of the FCC's plan. Tom Wheeler might be convinced of his eventual victory, but you can bet no one's going to leave the ring until one set of ideals has been laid out on the ground.

Mapping World Wide Homicides

Danger: A map shows the distribution of homicidal violence across the world – and how it is mainly concentrated in Latin America and the Caribbean. In fact, nine of out ten of the most dangerous places, according to murder statistics, are in this area (illustrated)

As reported by the Daily Mail: You might moan about the crime in your area, but this interactive map reveals that life is probably considerably less dangerous compared to the streets of Honduras.

This interactive map shows the distribution of homicidal violence across the world and how it's mainly concentrated in Latin America and the Caribbean.

In fact, nine out of ten of the most dangerous places in terms of murders are concentrated in this region.

The Homicide Monitor map, made by Brazil-based think tank The Igarapé Institute, claims to be the most comprehensive publicly available dataset on murder in the world and was designed to show how some countries and populations are more at risk of dying violently than others.

‘A better diagnosis of how homicide is spread can help in the design of effective violence prevention and reduction measures,’ the Institute says.

The map shows that Honduras has the highest murder rate
 in the world, with 7,172 homicides in 2012 – a rate of
85.5 per 100,000 people.Almost half of the victims were aged
between 15 and 29 and 92 per cent of them were male. This
image shows members of street gang 'MS13' in a jail
in Tamarac, Honduras

Users can spin the 3D globe and click on countries to see their murder rates, which allow places to be compared to each other, despite having different population sizes.

Information on the total numbers of homicides, the homicide rate and statistics related to gender, age and weapons are shown.

The map shows that Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world, with 7,172 homicides in 2012 – a rate of 85.5 per 100,000 people.

Almost half of the victims were aged between 15 and 29 and 92 per cent of them were male. A total of 83 per cent of deaths were caused by firearms.

This violence is thought to be driven by drugs as it’s a major drug route to the US. The UN Office for Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has called the border regions between north-west Honduras and south-west Guatemala 'some of the most dangerous places in Central America’.

Venezuela has the second highest murder rate, according to the map, at 53.7 homicides per 100,000 people, with the US Virgin Islands coming in third, with a rate of 52.6.

Venezuela was ranked the most insecure nation in the world by US consultancy Gallup in 2013 with the UN stating that crimes such as drug trafficking, kidnapping and human trafficking as well as murders is down to the poor political and economic environment in the country.

A book penned by Gareth A Jones and Dennis Rogers, called 'Youth violence in Latin America: Gangs and juvenile justice in perspective' says: ‘With the change of political regime in 1999 and the initiation of the Bolivarian Revolution, a period of transformation and political conflict began, marked by a further increase in the number and rate of violent deaths.’

Venezuela has the second highest murder rate, according
 to the map, at 53.7 homicides per 100,000 people. This
shocking image, taken on the street of Caracas
shows the aftermath of an attack on a policeman

The troubling trend has continued following the Chávez presidency.

Belize and Jamaica make up the top five most murderous countries. In Jamaica, the government is trying to drive down the rate by using the threat of the death penalty, as well as police patrols, curfews and actions to break up and control gangs.

The only country to be included in the top 10 of countries with the highest murder rates outside of Latin America and the Caribbean, is Swaziland in Africa, which has a homicide rate of 33.8 per 100,000.

The kingdom has been described as a crime hot spot, with muggings, burglaries, and gang crime commonplace.

Among the safest places in the world, in terms of the risk of being murdered, are Western Europe including the UK, China, Australia, Canada and Chile – an oasis of safety in South America. Argentina and the US have under 5.55 homicides per 100,000 people.

The data comes from publically reported homicide reports from 219 countries and territories, from the millennium to the latest available year.

The Monitors draws on national-level data collated by UNODC, as well as the Igarapé Institute, which collects information from more than 40 countries and territories in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The data is divided according to gender, age and the type of weapon when available.

‘The Homicide Monitor is intended to provoke reflection and stimulate debate,’ the Igarapé Institute said.

The US Virgin Islands is the third most dangerous place in the world in terms of murders, according to the statistics on which the map is based, with a rate of 52.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. This image shows a beach on St Thomas

New GPS Means Hyper Accurate Virtual Reality... also Drone Delivery and Better Car Safety (Yawn)

As reported by Popular Science: As anyone who has ever missed a freeway exit while relying on navigation software can tell you, even at its best GPS is something of a guess. With a margin of error of around a few feet, GPS is can be decent enough for guiding cars on roads, but the wide range limits GPS to environments where a few feet of difference isn’t a huge deal. A new, hyper-accurate system, developed by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin, can upgrade GPS accuracy from a few feet to a few inches.  

GPS works thanks to a system of 32 satellites orbiting Earth. The satellites all broadcast signals with their location and time signatures encoded. The GPS receiver on your phone picks up on these signals, and uses their time and location data to calculate how far away each satellite is. Using signals from four or more satellites, the GPS can tell exactly where on Earth it is, give or take the length of a car.

Those signals sent from GPS satellites contain information coded into waves with a specific frequency. Each cycle--meaning every time the wave travels from one crest to another--can be used as a sort of distance marker, accurate to fractions of an inch. These waves are much smaller than the signals that a regular GPS uses, so when the signals from different satellites overlap, the area of intersection is also smaller, which leads to more accurate location estimates. The UT Austin folks’ device uses a special receiver, called GRID, to measure those waves.

We’ve already seen small GPS units designed to work on this principle alone, with a specific focus on better drone navigation. What the researchers at UT Austin hope to do is get their program running internally on phones, but for now, GRID is an external device.

Apart from accurate drone delivery, the team at UT Austin wants to use it for better virtually reality. By tracking users' movements more precisely, the tech could make walking around in a virtual environment smoother and more immersive. A video of the system, used with a virtual reality headset, demonstrates its accuracy:

Apple Confirms that Tattoos are a Problem for the Apple Watch

As reported by The Verge:In an updated support document, Apple has acknowledged what some new Apple Watch owners quickly discovered over the last week: the Watch may not work properly for those with tattoos. The Watch's heart-rate monitor works by shining infrared or green light through the skin, but tattoos can interfere with that and prevent the Watch from getting a reading. "Permanent or temporary changes to your skin, such as some tattoos, can also impact heart-rate sensor performance," Apple writes. "The ink, pattern, and saturation of some tattoos can block light from the sensor, making it difficult to get reliable readings."  

Apple's description is vague about what type of tattoos will and won't pose a problem, perhaps because it doesn't precisely know. What's been widely suggested is that darker tattoos are the ones causing issues, preventing too much of the Watch's light from getting through. This isn't just a problem related to reading heart rates. Apple also uses those sensors to detect when the Watch has been removed from a person's wrist — if the Watch doesn't think it's being worn, it won't receive notifications; it can also cause the Watch to lock if a passcode is enabled. There are work arounds for anyone running into this problem, but they remove some of the conveniences and security that are supposed to be built in.