GM unveils autonomous Bolt EV without steering wheel or pedal, aims to bring it to market next year

electrkek.com ^ | Jan. 12th 2018 | Fred Lambert

[equaviator]

Today, GM unveiled the first image of its upcoming autonomous fourth-generation Bolt EV-based vehicle – the “first without a steering wheel or pedal.”

The automaker also says that it filed a petition asking the DOT permission to deploy the vehicle as soon as next year.

The move represents an accelerated self-driving timeline for the company, which could potentially leapfrog most other companies working on the technology since the most common timeline is a commercial launch in 2020-2022.

The vehicle would represent the next generation of Cruise AV autonomous car based on the Bolt EV.

In June, GM announced the completion of the first batch of 130 Chevy Bolt EV autonomous prototypes at its Orion Assembly Plant located in Orion Township, Michigan...They are already using part of their fleet to carry Cruise employees “anywhere in San Francisco using their app” – an early version of the service they plan to offer to the public someday.

Although GM claims to be the 1st without a steering wheel or pedal, Google has demonstrated pedal-less, steeringwheel-less autonomous vehicles first as part of its Google X labs in 2014 and now part of its Waymo spinoff. Google has since added back steering wheels to its own vehicles and *steered* the organization to more as add-ons to existing vehicles, especially Lexus crossovers and Chrysler Pacifica Hybrids.

A few months later, they claimed to be ready to “mass produce” self-driving Chevy Bolt EVs and they announced an expansion of the test fleet to New York...In order to plead their case for the safety of their vehicle and submit their petition for the permission to deploy the vehicle, GM released a new “2018 Self-Driving Safety Report”.

The report explains the various passive and active safety features of the vehicle as well as all the redundant hardware.

[adorno]

I figured the car would fold up into a briefcase like on "The Jetsons."

"Your" car will fold up to be invisible to the naked eye, since you won't even have to own one.

[WayneS]

I have yet to turn control of my screwdrivers over to a robot.

At least somebody is flying the airplanes on which we are passengers - especially during more complicated and dangerous actions such as take-offs and landings. Even when an autopilot system is activated, there are still at least two humans on-board who are capable of operating the aircraft, and they have control interfaces available to them.

I am simply unwilling to put my life 100% in the ‘hands’ of computers. But, to each his own.

In the meantime, I will be practicing my off-hand marksmanship so that when I’m riding a motorcycle and one of those things runs out of control and tries to kill me, I will at least have a chance of shooting it’s tires. ;-)

[roadcat]

You’re probably a pampered liberal and have never been in a mob situation. I have, several times. The perps don’t care if they’re watched or recorded. I’ve been jumped by black groups, and was lucky to survive (one time saved by good blacks, another time by good whites). I’ve seen a white couple get a heavy garbage can thrown on top of them injuring them. A friend of mine was yanked out of his car and beaten.

You’re sadly deluded and will probably die in your autonomous car while I will live a long life.

[Fresh Wind]

Videos are why Antifa thugs wear masks.

[adorno]

You’re probably a pampered liberal

Okay, you win the argument automatically.

You're doing exactly the same thing that liberals do when they can't control the argument or are losing the argument, and then come up with their ultimate argument tactic, such as calling the opposition racist of ignorant or just plain dumb.

YOu don't know me. I'm probably a lot more conservative that you. But, you strike me as either a liberal type yourself, or as somebody not intelligent enough to understand a different argument that doesn't jive with your simple-minded approach.

So, according to you, I have to have been in certain precarious situations in order to understand them. Heck, I've never been shot to pieces in order to understand that I was having a bad day. I haven't have my vehicle overturned in order to understand that I might be in danger. I haven't had my head sliced off in order to know that ISIS and Al-Qaeda are not my friends.

I dig go to war, and I survived. I lived in the slums, and I survived. I lived among blacks and Hispanics in their neighborhoods and in their homes, and I survived. I knew how far I could go before I might be in danger. I'm Hispanic myself (born in Puerto Rico, actually), and I know first-hand what minorities go through in their daily lives. Having lived the kind of life that I've had, is what attracted me towards conservative ideals.

The situation that you describe is not something that everybody encounters often, and it happens seldom, but I do know that when it happens to you, it's one time too many.
Even so, autonomous vehicles have nothing to do with how people will treat you or attack you. That a vehicle is catching all the action, is a good thing. And, actually, with the autonomous vehicle, it's very likely that a person would not even be in a vehicle being attacked, since, it's just a ride that delivers a person and just goes off to serve another rider.

In any case, using a occurring type of event to try to derail usage of autonomous vehicles, is actually repressive.

[adorno]

Last sentence should read:

In any case, using a SELDOM occurring type of event to try to derail usage of autonomous vehicles, is actually repressive.

[roadcat]

I'm not trying to control the argument, but I am winning it. You are posting quite a bit in favor of autonomous vehicles, which leads me to believe you may work in the industry supporting the spread of them. I have a liberal brother-in-law that similarly pushed on acceptance of all-electric vehicles. I got tired of his pronouncements that all cars on the road would be electric vehicles within 5 years, that I bet him $100 that he would be wrong. That was in 2009, and he welshed on the bet in 2014; very few electric vehicles were on the road, and they still aren't to this day. You may wish that all vehicles 20 years from now will be autonomous, but that is a pipe dream for now. There will be a lot of pushback. I will be one of them, owning several vintage vehicles that I still drive on the road and intend to do so until I die.

As for precarious situations, yes I've been in them. I grew up poor and used to play in the projects with friends. I have had guns pulled on me, put in my face, as well as knives. I've been beaten, and robbed. Bad characters are not going to play nice with you just because you say so, or roll up your car windows and have a camera recording them. Some of them are nasty crazy. Knowing that, I own guns and use situational awareness to protect me and my family. I realize you can't always protect yourself.

My father's best friend was attacked by several black men at a bus stop near our house, they doused him with gasoline and set him afire. He survived with skin grafts but lost use of an arm. My grandfather was jumped by several blacks, but he beat them off; they didn't realize he had martial arts training. I learned from him to be aware of dangerous situations. Don't think an autonomous car is going to save you by calling the cops; don't put your self in a bad situation. That's why I won't be using an autonomous car.

[roadcat]

That a vehicle is catching all the action, is a good thing.

By the way, I have dash cameras recording everything in my vehicle, both ahead and behind. I know it won't protect me from harm, although it will be useful in court. Good to know the difference.

[11Bush]

All I can say is WOW! That is some mods you have done. I am more that impressed and envious. I keep looking but to tell the truth I don’t know if I could get in one today. When I bought mine I was just out of the Army and a lean, mean, will you get the idea. Must say that I sure turned the ladies heads back then, the car not me.

[Hugh the Scot]

I have worked with automated equipment, and I have worked with computers all my life.

I have strong reason to doubt your assertion based on the naive confidence displayed in your statements.

The one nugget of accuracy that I found, is your acknowledgement that computers make mistakes faster than any human can react.

I design and build automated equipment for industrial applications, and have seen first-hand the absolute lack of subtlety with which a machine executes it's programming.

Have you ever had a headlight on your vehicle go out suddenly, and then later for no readily apparent cause, come back on? This same wiring, using these same connectors cannot ever be relied upon to autonomously operate a motor vehicle safely, and therein lies the absolutely fatal flaw in the autonomous transportation fantasy.

A sensor that fails in an automated assembly process, whether it is due to age, or neglect, or power transients, or simple, common dirt, can be made to fail in a safe state. That's the origin and meaning of "FAILSAFE"... That upon failure the sensor or switch output goes to a state, either ON or OFF that inhibits the machine from operating in the absence of meaningful input.

A motor vehicle, by it's very definition cannot be made to fail-safe. It is in motion, among others of its type and cannot safely just stop operating.

Skipping over a few lines; as finicky as a simple optical sensor is, machine vision is orders of magnitude more complicated. To recognize a thing as a "thing" with no more resolution than presence or absence, requires that the item to be "seen" be in precise alignment with the sensors programmed expectations... Not too far away, not too close, certainly never rotated or canted at an angle to the sensor, and must be precisely illuminated as well. No machine ever invented, or ever to be invented will have the capability to identify an oncoming object and react appropriately in every circumstance. (or even the majority of circumstances) Solid or liquid, soft or hard, concave or convex... All of this has to be known IN ADVANCE in order to properly program the machine's reaction, which as you noted, will be irrevocably swift and final.

You say you've worked with computers "all your life" and I believe you. That also helps me understand your lack of judgement on this topic.


I'll tell you what: Come back when you can tell me all of the reasons why it hasn't been done already, and I might share your enthusiasm, but the truth is it's a horrible idea, and if people continue to insisit that "It's going to happen" regardless, then many people will die re-learning what some of us old farts already learned.

[adorno]

Oh, but it is going to happen.

In fact, it’s already happening.

And, btw, I have worked all my working days with computers.

I have held just about every position there is in development and in IT management and systems analysis, with PCs and mini-computers and mainframes. I’ve worked in many types of businesses, and in small and large ones. I’ve also been an independent contractor.

Enough about me.

When it comes to machines failing, I would never say they are perfect, because there can never be anything done to perfection. But, machines can perform many boring and redundant and simple functions, much more precisely than humans. IT has progresses to the point that now we have artificial intelligence that is quite capable, and is being applied to applications which threaten to make a lot of jobs, and even careers, obsolete. Driving is one of those functions.

There is nothing pertaining to driving that can’t be duplicate by a “machine”, or a robot. Autonomous vehicles are being designed to replace the human factor in transportation. Will they be perfect? Heck no! But, they will perform better and more precisely than humans, and with a lot fewer mistakes or errors. Testing of that kind of vehicle has already proven to be so advanced, that the designers and makers feel it’s ready, right now, to replace the human factor in driving.

You don’t have to believe in the tech right now. But, it’s coming to our roads a lot sooner than you might think or expect.

And, like a lot of other tech that surprised people, even you will eventually embrace it.

[dsc]

“if people continue to insisit that “It’s going to happen” regardless, then many people will die re-learning what some of us old farts already learned.”

Well said.

Another thing, either more important or less, depending on your perspective, is that these monstrosities would represent a drastic curtailment of liberty.

[equaviator]

“This has zero to do with “self driving cars” and everything to do with absolute control of the population”

It was part of the deal they made with Obama. They installed Mary Barra at GM because hers is an image of being too cute to fail. This is the one reason for the federal government to step in and curtail “progress”. The American people are NOT asking for autonomous vehicles.

[equaviator]

Okay, here’s a question for you...

In your opinion, was GM’s decision to lead the world in autonomous vehicle design and manufacturing based on their own “Voice of the Customer” program or was it actually based on an agreement they made with the Obama regime to go all-in with saving the Planet in exchange for a bailout?

[Hugh the Scot]

[DoodleDawg]

I can see where this car can get me from my house to work. But once I’m there, how does the car navigate into the parking garage, find a parking space, and pull into the spot?

[adorno]

GM is just doing what every other carmaker is doing, and in fact, some of the other carmakers might be ahead of GM when it comes to the AI-tech in smart-cars, or autonomous tech. Tesla and Google and other companies have been testing dreverless technology for about a decade now. A decade is way before Obama came into office.

The carmakers are making sure that they’re not left behind in the “futuristic” technology for vehicles. So, if GM was following Obama’s lead for saving the planet, what about Ford and Chrysler/Fiat and Toyota and Volvo and all the others? Ford has mentioned releasing their driverless vehicles with Level 5 (completely autonomous) technology sometime between 2020 and 2021.

I know about how Obama was disruptive in the economy and especially in the automobile industry, but he didn’t have anything to do with the autonomous vehicles thing. The challenge to develop autonomous vehicles predates the Obama administration, and of course, when something seems or is ready for actual implementation, everybody is going to jump on board.

BTW, driverless technology should be separated from the “save the planet” technology, since driverless cars will be made with regular fuel driving mechanical parts. So, in that case, Obama would be hating driverless vehicles too that have fossil-fuel engines, or ICE.

Myself? When driverless comes around, and I have a choice between ICE engine vehicle vs EVs, I’ll be choosing ICE.

The other part about driverless for EVs, is that, the liberals would end up hating the tehnology where EVs are concerned. That’s because EVs would mean millions of jobs lost, and many billions in lost tax revenue to all levels of government, and as we all know, liberals like spending money, but if it’s not there, they will rue the day that they ever decided on EVs to replace ICE.

[equaviator]

“as we all know, liberals like spending money, but if it’s not there, they will rue the day that they ever decided on EVs to replace ICE.”

Yeah, Obama probably would not have influenced the accelerated development of driver-less tech but I still have the feeling that there was some attempt, successful or not, to hasten the end of fossil fuel ICE’s...because human beings and their love of driving automobiles are the reason that we human beings must also “save the Planet”. To give up some of this freedom so that we won’t have to relocate to another solar system, yadda-yadda...Obama and Climate Change ‘parishoners’ the world over want there to be an effect (Save the Planet) where there is yet to be sufficient probable cause and technical correctness. I hope they fail!

[adorno]

Again, it wasn’t Obama’s idea or any democrat’s idea to develop driverless cars.

People seem to be confusing or conflating driverless with electric vehicles. They’re not the same technology or the same idea.

What Obama and democrats wanted and want, is power that’s not derived from fossil-fuels. As such, they would be destroying a lot of the tax sources for their huge and never-ending big government programs. But, what the democrats want is not really to end fossil-fuel usage, but to control the energy sector, like they want to control everything else. In essence, they want the issues with which to bash republicans with, and once they get complete control of government and complete government oversight of all industries with regulations, then, they would rethink their opposition to fossil-fuels, since the opposition would not longer matter and they would have achieved their ultimate goals of complete control over all the economy and over all the people. IOW, the liberals’ opposition to fossil-fuels is just a ruse in order to attain their complete agenda.

[IamConservative]

I guess I’m too simple minded, but I don’t see how you can replace all the judgment used to drive. Flagmen in construction zones, school drop off zones, parking at a sports event, new roads that aren’t on maps yet, ice and snow conditions, etc.

This is a HUGE financial and liability risk for GM. Wait until one of these plows through a school loading zone and a lithium fire starts.