By: Ahmed Abdelqader, Gurpreet Singh, and Sajid Abdullah

Autonomous Vehicles

Executive Summary

On October 17, our technology update report proposal was approved and we began researching the history, laws, and mechanics of autonomous vehicles. Our proposal comprised of the following objectives:

Inform others about the history and development of autonomous vehicles. Describe the legislation regarding autonomous vehicles and define key terms. Describe the mechanics of autonomous vehicles with comprehensive graphics. Conduct a survey to determine effects and implications of autonomous vehicles in

our city.

Our technology update report comprises of the objectives mentioned in the proposal. Since our goal is to provide a complete report of autonomous vehicles and how they can affect our lives, we developed additional aspects that were vital for our research:

Include examples of autonomous vehicles in industry and academia. Discuss how laws differ among the approved states. Determine how a sample population of New York City residents would respond to

the introduction of commercial autonomous vehicles. Develop advantages and disadvantages to commercializing the autonomous

vehicle in the United States.

After conducting research, our group compiled and analyzed results, as well as other types of information. We have consummated several details of information that highlight keys ideas in our report:

1. Attempts at creating autonomous vehicles have been documented as early as the 1930s, but significant advances have only been made in the 21st century.

2. The United States is leading in the industry of autonomous vehicles, even though the vehicle industry is dominated by East Asia.

3. Legislation for autonomous vehicles is incomplete – states have created a standard, but there is great room for improvement.

4. Google leads the industry in autonomous vehicles. The technology giant is based in California, which is the third state that legalized the testing of autonomous vehicles.

We determined that although autonomous vehicles are new to our society, we should continue developing their technology and introduce them to the commercial market.

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents

List of Illustrations …………………………………………………………………………3

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………...4

History

Chapter 1.1 Phantom Chevrolet …………………………………………………….6Chapter 1.2 World Fair 1939 ……………………………………………………….6Chapter 1.3 Stanford Cart …………………………………………………………..7Chapter 1.4 The Evolution of Autonomous Vehicles ………………………………..8Chapter 1.5 DARPA’s Competitions ………………………………………………..9Chapter 1.6 Google Autonomous Car ……………………………………………..10

Laws

Chapter 2.1 The Autonomous Car and Our Laws………..…………………………11Chapter 2.2 Definitions by Approved States ……………………………………….12Chapter 2.3 Autonomous Vehicles and New York City …………………………….15Chapter 2.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Autonomous Vehicles …………….17

Mechanics

Chapter 3.1 Initial Mechanics in Early Autonomous Vehicles …………………….19Chapter 3.2 General Mechanics of Autonomous Vehicles ………………………....20Chapter 3.3 Google’s Autonomous Vehicle – Mechanics ………………………….22Chapter 3.4 Google’s Autonomous Vehicle – On the Road ………………………..24Chapter 3.5 Google’s Autonomous Vehicle – Future ……………………………...24

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………...26

Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………..28

References ………………………………………………………………………………....30

2 | P a g e

List of Illustrations

Figures

Figure 1.3.1 Stanford Cart ………………………………………………………... 7Figure 1.6.1 Timeline of the History of Autonomous Vehicles ………………….. 10Figure 2.3.1 Most Preferred Advantages of Autonomous Vehicle ………………. 16Figure 2.4.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Autonomous Vehicles …………. 17Figure 3.1.1 Sensor, CPU, and Motor ……………………………………………. 19Figure 3.2.1 Radar Device ……………………………………………………….. 20Figure 3.2.2 Ultrasound Waves…………………………………………………… 21Figure 3.2.3 Camera Tracker for Lanes ………………………………………….. 21Figure 3.2.4 Intersection Guidance by the Radar and Camera…………………… 22

3 | P a g e

Introduction

A large component of our Writing for Engineers course is the technology update report. On September 13, 2013, Professor David Tillyer approved our topic of autonomous vehicles. Specifically, we chose to conduct research about autonomous vehicles and write about the history, laws, and mechanics pertaining to them. With several companies paving the way for autonomous vehicles within the next decade, our society should be familiar with certain aspects of autonomous vehicles. Little did we know that autonomous vehicles have had a rich development, a detailed set of laws that governed their use, and a relatively simple set of computerized machinery that allow them to function on the road.

Writing a report on autonomous vehicles is necessary because even though the ideas may be from the past, we are creating the future to bring those ideas to life. Currently, three states have legalized autonomous vehicles, allowing several universities and companies to attempt testing their autonomous technology. Within the next decade, autonomous vehicles can surely become commonplace within our society – we would just need to embrace them as we do with other technologies, such as the Global Positioning System, motors, and sensors. Coincidentally, autonomous technology is a combination of those three inventions. When installed into a vehicle, these technologies may innovate an entire industry and mode of transportation.

As of now, Google leads the industry of autonomous vehicles and there are several attributions to its success. Google is a technology company based in California, which is one of the states where autonomous vehicle testing is legalized. In addition, California serves as a neighbor state to Nevada, where autonomous vehicles are legalized as well and where the roads are lengthy and sparsely populated. These conditions help Google to develop new technology in vehicles, to create the ideal autonomous car for the 21st century.

Despite Google being embedded in our society, many people are not aware of the development of the autonomous vehicle. Not many people understand the laws that govern an autonomous vehicle or the implications of introducing the autonomous vehicle into our society. And of course, few people could accurately describe the mechanics of autonomous vehicles and explain how the technology empowers the driver. Our report aims to explain these aspects of autonomous vehicles to our class and professor, but this report could explain these aspects to other people in society too.

Because we are dealing with a concept that is new to the general public, our group needed to conduct primary and secondary research. To conduct primary research, we distributed a survey to determine a common opinion towards autonomous vehicles, and what the public demands from the new technology. For our secondary research, we used several online sources such as government websites and articles. We used electronic

4 | P a g e

copies of books to help us understand the history of autonomous vehicles, as well as some of the mechanics. Google offers a few videos to describe how autonomous technology works, and there are several online graphics that help with understanding mechanics.

Our report introduces autonomous vehicle history as a stepping stone. We begin to delve into the development of autonomous vehicles, with several noteworthy attempts by universities and companies. The history of the autonomous vehicle is detailed, but through secondary research, we were able to generalize the key events that led to society’s most promising autonomous vehicle, the Google Car. We then describe legislation with a combination of secondary and primary research, and determine what our society values most from autonomous technology. Following our analysis of primary research, we then explain the mechanics of autonomous vehicles and describe how each component works in the overall system.

Our primary research determined several key ideas through a survey completed by New York City residents. Although about seventy percent of respondents said they would legalize autonomous vehicles in New York City, the remaining percentage declined to do so, implying some sort of distrust of the software running autonomous vehicles. The survey also revealed that the most important factor in introducing autonomous vehicles in our society is increasing safety and decreasing the number of accidents.

The idea of improving safety correlates to the advantages of autonomous vehicles. Software and programming can do tasks repeatedly without fail, and with very high caliber efficiency. Humans perform at a certain level, and after some time, their efficiency will decrease. In addition to reducing the number of accidents, autonomous vehicles will be able to get to place faster than their human operated counterparts. Although these advantages are beneficial to society, it may take time for the effects to be realized. To take advantage of the autonomous vehicle, most of the cars in use today would need to be replaced with autonomous vehicles, which can be a lengthy and expensive process. On the other hand, this could be improved if there is a great demand for autonomous vehicles, setting a lower, affordable price.

Because of what our secondary and primary research has taught us, we should be hopeful for the future. Our group suggests that drivers should be conscious of their ability. We would recommend learning more about autonomous vehicles, as they can become relevant to our driving experience in a matter of years. In terms of trusting our industry with safety and performance, we recommend relying on Google to bring autonomous vehicles to our streets. The same company that has the world’s best servers, search engine, and global positioning technology can incorporate all of the new technologies into one vehicle. It would not be surprising if autonomous vehicles are prominently introduced into the market within the next five years. All we can say for sure is that after many attempts to making autonomous vehicles, we have finally succeeded.

5 | P a g e

History

Chapter 1.1Phantom Chevrolet

The first driverless car, Phantom Chevrolet” was controlled by a radio and demonstrated in Fredericksburg, Virginia on June 25, 1932. It was operated by another device in another car several feet behind the vehicle being controlled and traveled at a low speed. The device used to control the driverless car was valued at more than 10,000 dollars at the time. The car traveled successfully through the streets of Virginia with normal traffic. But on July 31, the car was being demonstrated in Pennsylvania and got out of control and ran into a crowd of people that were watching the demonstration. This incident caused many injuries but no one was killed. The car was being operated by John Lynch, the radio engineer, and he was placed under arrest.

Chapter 1.2World Fair 1939

The idea of the driverless car on highways was proposed at the 1939 World Fair in New York by Norman Bel Geddes, who was an industrial designer. Geddes was hired by General Motors, an automobile company, to design a miniature model, known as Futurama, of the futuristic cities of America with autonomous cars on roads. The size of Futurama was 35,000 square foot and the design consisted of “500,000 little buildings, 1,000,000 tiny trees and thousands of mini-miles of paved highways” (Reynolds, 2009), in precise scale. 16,000 miniature cars and trucks were displayed on multilane highways with no one controlling them on the driver’s seat. The multilane highways consisted of different speeds for different lanes. The notion was that as drivers would enter the highways, they would select an appropriate speed at which they would like to travel and then an electrical rod in the roadway would automatically direct the car to its appropriate

6 | P a g e

lane. Geddes suggested that this type of highway system would decrease travel time for drivers by more than ten times. The main goal of the Futurama display was to sell Americans the idea that public money should be spent on highways to develop Automated Highway Systems (AHS).

In the 1950’s General Motors teamed up with Radio Corporation of America (RCA) to develop an automated highway system. A group of engineers led by Joseph Bidwell, Head of General Motors Engineering Mechanics Department, installed “pick-up coils” on the front bumper of a car. The coils could sense the alternating current of the wire embedded in the road and would adjust the steering wheel accordingly. This technology was presented in 1958 by engineers and tested on the 1958 Chevrolet Impala. This system could not be implemented on the highway because General Motors could not convince the federal government to spend money on building new highway systems.

Chapter 1.3Stanford Cart

In 1960, James L. Adams, a Mechanical Engineering graduate student at Stanford, constructed the Stanford Cart. The cart was created for controlling a Moon rover from Earth with a radio control system. “The Cart had four small bicycle wheels with electric motors powered by a car battery and carried a television camera with a fixed view in the forward direction.” (Earnest, 2012) It was connected by a cable to a television display and the controls for steering and speeding the cart.

In 1966, Les Earnest, Executive Officer at Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab (SAIL), spoke to Adams about making the Stanford Cart a robot road vehicle using visual guidance. After Adams’ approval, Earnest employed Rodney Schmidt, an Electrical Engineering PhD student, to build a low power television transmitter and radio control link for the cart. SAIL was approved a television license by the Federal Communications Commission and then the cart was first experimented with a human operator controlling it on the streets by watching the computer based images on the television. Later, Schmidt was able to get the cart to automatically follow a high contrast white line under minor human interference at a speed of 0.8 mph.

Between 1971 and 1980, Hans Moravec of Carnegie Mellon University worked on the Stanford Cart. In 1977, Moravec built a mechanical device that revolved and moved the television camera from side to side which allowed the cart to catch multiple

7 | P a g e

Figure 1.3.1 Stanford Cart

views without moving it. In 1979, Moravec was able to autonomously move the cart in a “chair-filled room without human intervention in about five hours.” (Earnest, 2012)

Chapter 1.4The Evolution of Autonomous Vehicles

In 1977, Tsukuba Mechanical Engineering Lab in Japan created the first autonomous vehicle that drove by tracking white street markers for a distance of about 50 meters at about 30 km/h using video cameras. The car was equipped with two cameras that used analog computer technology for signal processing and it processed images of the road ahead. The car contained specialized hardware and circuitry that worked only when it was carefully adjusted on the road it travelled and the road had to have white lines on its edges. Other times, the vehicle would be not stay in control be unpredictable and dangerous.

Ernst Dickmanns, German aerospace engineer of Bundeswehr University Munich, started a series of projects in the 1980s. He built cars that could run on empty roads autonomously using video cameras and computers to track lane markings. In 1987, his autonomous car, VaMoRs, drove more than 90 km/h for about 20 kilometers. After this achievement, the European Union funded one billion dollars in today’s money to Dickmanns projects to conduct research in building autonomous cars. His next achievement came in 1994 when his two new autonomous cars “VaMP and VITA-2 drove more than one thousand kilometers on a Paris multi-lane highway in standard heavy traffic at speeds up-to 130 km/h.” In 1995, Dickmanns created another autonomous car and drove from Munich, Germany to Copenhagen, Denmark, at speeds up to 175 km/h.

In 1983, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded a computer research program called the Strategic Computing program. One of the research projects of the program was Autonomous Land Vehicle (ALV). ALV was an eight wheeled all-terrain road-following vehicle. It contained computers and generators that ran the car and the computers inside of it. The objective of the ALV was to operate between obstacles on both on-road and off-road and it had to do all the computing to operate onboard. The ALV had two sensors for observation: a color video camera and laser sensors which generated a map for large sized obstacles. In 1985, ALV could operate at the speed of 10 km/h on-road and by 1990 it could operate at speed of 80 km/h. In 1987, ALV reached speeds up to 5 km/h off-road and by 1989, it increased to 10 km/h.

In the 1990’s, the United States military anticipated that they would need remotely controlled and unmanned vehicles to do special tasks, such as bomb diffusion. DARPA funded a project called Demo II in 1992 whose primary goal was to demonstrate Unmanned Ground Vehicle systems that could conduct tasks that improve the structure of

8 | P a g e

the United States Department of Defense. Demo II used military automobiles called High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) for their project. They were equipped with black-and-white video cameras, which would focus on obstacle avoidance, and a single color camera for following the road. Demo II used the Smarty object detection system created by Martial H. Hebert and Anthony Stentz for object avoidance and detection. Smarty was a system which generated three dimensional coordinates of the detected object. The system would automatically update the color camera that followed the road on-the-fly, when the data was available from the stereo cameras.

In the early 1990’s, Dean Pomerleau of Carnegie Mellon University created Autonomous Land Vehicle In a Neural Network (ALVINN). ALVINN was an observing system which learned to control vehicles by watching a person drive them. The input to the vehicle was received from a video camera system. The output layer was the direction the vehicle should travel in order to keep the vehicle on the road. The problem with the system was the speed at which it learned to drive in a new situation, such as curvy roads. The speed was influenced by many factors such as the algorithms and computational power available at the time. In the late 1990’s, the computational power was available and algorithms were improved which increased the learning process.

Chapter 1.5DARPA Competition

After the success in the 1980’s and 1990’s, DARPA introduced a Grand Challenge competition in 2004 with a “Grand Prix” of one million dollars. DARPA's Grand Challenge was “intended to accelerate research and development in autonomous vehicles that will help save American lives on the battlefield.” It took place in the Mojave Desert in California and the vehicles were required to be fully autonomous with no humans allowed in the vehicle during the competition. From the qualifying round, fifteen finalists attempted the Grand Challenge. But the prize for the competition went unclaimed as no vehicles were able to complete the route. In 2005, DARPA introduced the second Grand Challenge and the prize was doubled to two million dollars. One hundred ninety-five teams entered and only twenty three made it the final round. History was made as “Five autonomous vehicles successfully completed the DARPA Grand Challenge, led by "Stanley," the Stanford University team's entry that finished the course in 6 hours, 53 minutes and 58 seconds.” (Miles, 2005) Second and third place went to Sandstorm and H1ghlander, respectively, both from Carnegie-Mellon University, followed by KAT-5, a vehicle sponsored by Gray Insurance Company, and finally 16-ton robot "TerraMax" of Oshkosh Trucks, the last to complete the race.

Inspired by the success of DARPA’s second Grand Challenge, DARPA held the third challenge in 2007 named “Urban Challenge” because the completion was moved from the desert to an urban environment, where the autonomous vehicles would navigate

9 | P a g e

Figure 1.6.1 Timeline of the History of Autonomous Vehicles

in moving traffic. The vehicles would “pass slow-moving vehicles on multi-lane roads, and patiently wait at stop signs until it is their turn to proceed. They will have to navigate parking lots, accommodate road blocks, and execute U-turns—all in compliance with the California Traffic Rules and Regulations.” (Thrun, 2007)The first place prize winner of two million dollars of the Urban Challenge was Carnegie Mellon’s Tartan Racing Team. Stanford University’s Stanford Racing team came in second for $1 million, followed by Virginia Tech’s Victor Tango team who won the third place prize of $500,000.

Chapter 1.6Google Autonomous Car

In 2010, Google announced their self-driving car project with the goal to help prevent traffic accidents, improve driver’s safety and free up people’s time by primarily changing car use. Google gathered most of its engineers to work on creating this driverless car from the DARPA Challenges. The program is headed by Sebastian Thrun, who led a Stanford team to victory in the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge. It began as a partnership with Google Maps, allowing autonomous vehicles to help gather information for Google Street View. In the summer of 2011, Nevada became the first state to allow autonomous vehicles on its roads. Google inaugurated the first autonomous vehicle license plate in the United States in spring of 2011. In 2011, Nevada unanimously passed both houses of the state legislature and allowed autonomous vehicles on its streets, with Florida and Nevada following after.

10 | P a g e

Laws

Chapter 2.1 The Autonomous Car and Our Law

Laws pertaining to human operators of automobiles are simple. Although the legal age to operate a vehicle varies from state to state, the overall process is generally the same throughout the United States. A prospective driver would need to obtain their learner's permit, which allows them to take driving courses and prepare for an exam that would eventually grant them their driver's license. Driving formalities such as observing road signs, speed limits, and safety precautions are also taught through these courses. The driver in training would take written and practical exams, and most people do not pass with a perfect score; many people pass with some mistakes, or fail the exam altogether.

As humans learn to drive, we do not always follow the appropriate actions that are set forth by the law. These infractions could have consequences ranging from car accidents or traffic jams, or even an absence of consequence, provided that the perpetrator does not harm anyone else. We have legislation regarding driving because our streets, roads, and highways are “systems”. These systems involve heavy machinery carrying human lives at moderate speeds. At any point in time, one driver's error could cost the lives of many, which is why we rely on our government to create regulations for our safety.

As autonomous vehicles are being built, and their software is being programmed, it is relatively easy to have a machine follow a specific set of rules. Robots have existed for quite some time throughout the last few decades, and with new instruments to record and capture video, as well as GPS navigation, we can use robots to do incredible things. With autonomous vehicles, we could minimize the error because computers can calculate much quicker than humans. Regardless of computer efficiency, how do we govern autonomous vehicles? Do they require special licensing? Does a person need to be in the vehicle while it operates? Is the person inside the vehicle required to have a driver's license? These are just a few of the many questions that autonomous vehicles have

11 | P a g e

evinced in our time. Thankfully, we can analyze the laws in California, Florida, and Nevada to determine what regulations our government provides on autonomous vehicles.

Chapter 2.2Definitions by Approved States

In states where the autonomous vehicle has been approved, there are variations to how each state decides to define an “autonomous vehicle.”

Nevada: Originally, when Nevada approved the testing of autonomous vehicles, they defined the vehicle as “a motor vehicle that uses artificial intelligence, sensors, and global positioning system coordinates, to drive itself without the active intervention of a human operator” (Nevada Legislation, n.d.). This was originally determined during late March of 2013, but there was an amendment almost three months later. The definition was changed to a vehicle that is equipped with “autonomous technology” and added a separate definition for autonomous technology.

The changes to the original amendment may seem small, but they have large implications. The original definition implies that it only needs to use GPS, artificial intelligence, and sensors to be considered an autonomous vehicle. The amendment and new definition of “autonomous technology” says that the technology for an autonomous vehicle is only technology that provides the ability to drive without “active human intervention”. In fact, the amendment explicitly states that any additional software including safety systems and driver assistance are not considered autonomous technology unless they (either individually or in conjunction with another system) can allow the vehicle to be driven without active monitoring by a human operator.

Continuing on from the definition of “autonomous technology”, we see a reference to a “human operator”. The operator of an autonomous car is one that is also the passenger and responsible for the vehicle and its actions. For example, the operator may input the address of the desired destination, and the autonomous vehicle will drive to the destination. It seems that limitations for the operator only exist for testing an autonomous vehicle on a highway. The operator must be able to do the following:

1. Be seated in a position to take manual control of the vehicle.2. Monitor the safe operation of the vehicle.3. Capable of taking control of the vehicle in case of a system failure.

From these limitations on highway testing of autonomous vehicles, we can see a few answers arise. If the operator must be able to take manual control of the vehicle, then the operator must have a driver's license. Because these laws apply to highway testing and not highway commercial use, it seems that we will not have autonomous vehicles on the highway for at least another couple of years.

12 | P a g e

If commercial vehicles have the same regulations as the testing autonomous vehicles, this means that those who are severely visually impaired cannot operate the vehicle. In fact, anyone who has a disability that will deprive of them of being able to manually drive a car would not be able to legally drive in an autonomous car. One could suspect that this law could change with the introduction of commercial autonomous vehicles, since one of the intentions for autonomous vehicles is to allow the disabled to get to places conveniently.

Currently, autonomous vehicles can be used for testing on highways and streets with several legal measures in place. The vehicle must be able to easily transition between manual and autonomous, and the method to do this must be easily accessible to the operator. The autonomous vehicle must be able to effectively display when it is driving autonomously or when the operator is driving manually. Lastly, there are two components coupled into the last clause:

The vehicle should have a method to alert the operator when there is a failure in the autonomous system.

The autonomous system must be able to follow all traffic laws of the State of Nevada.

The financial aspect of testing autonomous vehicles in Nevada is also; a company or individual that wishes to test their autonomous vehicle must follow all legislation described, and must also pay a surety bond of five million dollars of insurance. The cost of five million paid as a surety bond is a way to make sure the tester of the vehicle is liable for any damages. A surety bond works similar to a contract, but the company/individual can also submit a proof of accepted insurance that covers five million dollars or more. For obvious reasons, it can be difficult for private individuals and researchers in academia to conduct testing on the highways of Nevada. A company such as Google or Tesla could afford the insurance or bond, but these companies tend to test in California.

California: The state legislation of California has a similar definition for an autonomous vehicle, but has a simple definition for autonomous technology. The bill defines autonomous technology as technology that can drive a vehicle without a human operator's active vehicle control or monitoring. This implies that the human does not need to be as attentive as the laws stated in Nevada's legislation.

In fact, California's laws have fewer restrictions on autonomous technology. Legislation does elaborate that the autonomous vehicle only needs to have the capability of driving, without driver assistance services, making this clause very similar to Nevada's legislation. The main difference is that California defines an operator as one who is seated in the driver's seat of an autonomous vehicle or the person who causes the technology to start. This technically implies that the operator may not need to even be inside the car, let alone be in the driver's seat.

13 | P a g e

Although it may seem that California's legislation is less restrictive, the bill dictates that for testing purposes, the driver must follow the same qualifications as those listed by Nevada's legislation. The operator needs to be able to switch from automatic to manual, and must sit in the driver's seat. Additionally, for testing purposes, the same principal of insurance holds. The testing entity must have proof of insurance or a bond to cover the sum of five million dollars. The policies are very similar among both state legislations.

Despite being similar to Nevada’s legislation, California’s legislation includes a clause regarding information of the autonomous vehicle software. To be precise, the vehicle must have recording software of everything the sensors experience. If an accident occurs, the data regarding the recording thirty seconds before the accident must be kept in a read only format. This is to determine responsibility in accidents and to use for evidence in the case of a lawsuit. A read only format ensures that the data cannot be tampered with, and serves its purpose in legal standards. One can expect that other states will adopt the same legislation, or amend to improve on what California has built.

Florida: The State Legislation of Florida approves the use of autonomous vehicles, and defines the operator as a person who has a driver’s license and engages the autonomous software to control the vehicle. In addition, Florida legislation defines autonomous technology as technology installed on vehicle enabling it to operate without active control or monitoring by the operator. In addition, their definition for autonomous vehicles is any vehicle with autonomous technology, which does not include driver assistance features. Florida legislation also defines that the operator must be able to monitor the vehicle at all times, and maintains that currently, only testing can be done with autonomous vehicles. It also offers similar safety protocols as California and Nevada, although they are rather difficult to find on the state legislation website.

One can expect many amendments and additions to Florida’s legislation in the near future, because there does not seem to be much testing done in Florida. Because big corporations such as Google and Tesla are based in California, it is cost efficient to do testing in the states of California and Nevada (especially Nevada, as it contains dozens of state highways for testing). There is no presence of a leading autonomous vehicle industry in Florida, and thus, there are no engineers, programmers, or entrepreneurs to work with lawmakers. It seems like there will be no significant development in legislation unless there is development in legislation in California and Nevada. Even then, amendments made in California and Nevada may not apply to Florida, so it seems to be a stalemate for legislation.

14 | P a g e

Chapter 2.3Autonomous Vehicles and New York City

Currently, three out of the fifty states in the United States legalized the use of autonomous vehicles for testing. Often, projections for a consumer model are estimated to be released within the next ten years. As approved states develop legislation, we can research how autonomous vehicles can impact our city, and determine whether New York City residents are ready for such a change.

To conduct primary research, we created an anonymous survey to distribute to New York City residents. We used a systematic random sampling method by asking every fifth person that entered the North Academic Center. Of course, this sample would be much different from others – we distributed these surveys on a college campus, which implies that persons entering are usually well educated or studious. Regardless, by systematically choosing every fifth student, we do obtain an adequate level of entropy.

The first question uses a Likert Scale and asks participants to determine the strength of their opinion towards the legalization of autonomous vehicles in New York City. About thirty seven percent of responses leaned towards the opposition of the legalization of autonomous vehicles. Of those opposed thirty seven, ten responses were strongly against the legalization of the autonomous vehicle. This suggests that although we are becoming reliant on technology, some residents of New York City may not fully trust the idea of driverless vehicles on the streets. The other sixty three percent of responses were in favor of legalizing autonomous vehicles, and thus shows a majority of residents approving of the idea of autonomous vehicles.

The second question is a multiple choice question that asks the respondents to prioritize elements of legislation regarding autonomous vehicles. If legislation is approved, we would assume that most of the regulations would be similar to Nevada, California, and Florida. We decided to ask our respondents to choose among the following four elements as the most important factor for legalizing autonomous vehicles:

A. There must be a human operator in the car that can manually maneuver the car if necessary,

B. There must be a high value insurance policy to cover possible accidental damages,

C. The vehicle must have an alert system to warn the operator in case of software failure,

D. The vehicle must recorded video data of the actions in read-only format right before an accident.

After collecting the responses, forty six percent of responses included choice A as the most important factor in the legalization of autonomous cars. In that context, if the human

15 | P a g e

operator must be able to manually drive the car in case of emergency, then it’s unlikely that New York City residents will approve the use of autonomous vehicles for those who cannot drive, such as the visually impaired. The results followed with thirty two percent of responses for choice C, twelve percent of responses for choice B, and ten percent of responses for choice D. It seems like humans are relying on their own instincts for court settlements, in case of accidents, but want the primary use of autonomous technology to be improving safety.

The third question of our survey lists three positive consequences of the use of autonomous vehicles, and asks the user to rank the most preferred advantage (1 being most preferred, to 3 being least preferred). The following pictograph shows the results of the question.

Responses determine that the most significant advantage of autonomous vehicles is the reduction in the number of accidents, then improved traffic flow, followed by higher safe speeds and time saved. These responses reaffirm our observations from the second question, as the greatest expectation of autonomous vehicles is increased safety.

The final question of our survey is short answer and asks if our respondents can foresee negative consequences of autonomous vehicles. We wanted to draw any of these consequences from residents and determine if they could contribute to our research.

Some of the unexpected results included that autonomous vehicles damage driving culture. Other disadvantages, such as cost and vulnerability, were expected, helping us wrap up our conclusions and evaluate our survey results

16 | P a g e

Chapter 2.4Advantages and Disadvantages of Autonomous Vehicles

Although this section may not exactly describe the laws of autonomous vehicles, it outlines the advantages and disadvantages to our society and economy – two aspects of our life that are affected by what our government accepts and rejects. A table is produced below and generally describes the advantages and disadvantages of legalizing autonomous vehicles. Afterwards, each consequence is described in greater detail.

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES1. Fewer automobile accidents2. Greater speed limits/improved traffic

flow3. Accurate evidence/insurance

collection

1. Possible loss of jobs2. Decrease in manual driving

ability3. Detrimental to “driving

culture” 4. Costly/time consuming.

Advantages:

1. Fewer Automobile Accidents: The software used by autonomous vehicles runs an assortment of sensors and navigation tools such as a Global Positioning System. Autonomous vehicles have the ability to sense obstructions from far distances that a human operator may not observe. Autonomous vehicles have higher reaction time to accidents compared to humans, and in addition, are much more observant. Because of the sheer amount of data stored, an autonomous vehicle can understand its surroundings much quicker than a human operator can, and thus avoid potential dangers. Arguably, there is a possibility for accidents to occur from other drivers, but autonomous technology can steer the vehicle to an appropriate speed to reduce the likelihood of an accident.

2. Greater Speed Limits/Improve Traffic Flow: Typical highways have hundreds of cars traveling through different speeds on the same highway. The rates at which cars enter and exit a highway are different, because people travel at different speeds. For example, I may be traveling at forty miles per hour on a highway to get to work, while a family may travel sixty miles per hour for a picnic in another nearby state. If autonomous vehicles are fully realized, each car on a highway could travel at the same rate until the autonomous technology guides the vehicle to the appropriate exit. This would be a stronger application of vehicle to vehicle technology, and through this technology, the flow of traffic could be smoother. In addition to smoother traffic, for certain periods of time, vehicles could travel at a higher speed without having to worry about accidents. This implies that all the vehicles are moving at a relatively safe speed, which the sensors can calculate.

17 | P a g e

3. Accurate Evidence/Insurance Collection: In case any autonomous vehicles do end up in an accident, legislation requires that the last thirty seconds before the accident be recorded in a read-only format. Because of the massive data flowing in and out of the system of the vehicle, vital data regarding accidents can be collected by the vehicle’s memory storage. This could help file insurance claims reliably, as well as provide enough evidence in a court of law.

Disadvantages:

1. Loss of Jobs: Consider all driving jobs – for example, a delivery person, a chauffeur, a taxi driver, and other related occupations. If autonomous vehicles are legalized, these jobs will take a considerable cut, and at least tens of thousands of people will be laid off. If every occupational driver is laid off and replaced with an autonomous vehicle, the number of people losing their job could approximate to one million jobs lost. This would not happen at once, but if autonomous vehicles have completely replaced manual driving, the industry for drivers will diminish.

2. Decrease in Manual Driving Ability: If autonomous vehicles can drive us to our destinations, then we become reliant on autonomous technology. We would drive less for ourselves, and more for transportation. Personally, we would each gain less experience in operating a motor vehicle and this could be detrimental if we are unable to use our autonomous vehicles. We should still be able to drive a car ourselves, but with the option of autonomous vehicles, we are unlikely to be able to.

3. Detriment to Driving Culture: Besides transportation, a car symbolizes several things in American culture. It is a symbol of freedom, and the ability to go wherever you want, whenever you want. In addition, some drivers like driving for the sake of speed. What would happen if autonomous vehicles became standard? Motor vehicle enthusiasts would have their culture shrouded by this new technology, taking away a common rite of passage or pastime from the average American.

4. Costly/Time Consuming: This disadvantage does not apply if most people buy an autonomous vehicle immediately. However, most people do not buy a new car often. They use their current car for as long as possible, and even then, a new autonomous vehicle may be too expensive. A consumer autonomous vehicle can cost seventy thousand dollars, but in order for it to be affordable, the demand needs to be great. Additionally, it may be take a considerable amount of time to enjoy the full benefits of autonomous vehicles. For example, to properly increase highway efficiency, the majority of vehicles need to be autonomous. If it takes a few decades for the autonomous vehicle to become not only affordable, but standard in consumer culture, we might be investing our time and assets unwisely.

18 | P a g e

Mechanics

Chapter 3.1Initial Mechanics in Early Autonomous Vehicles

The mechanics behind autonomous vehicles, whether they are autopilot planes or road vehicles, are nearly all the same. All of them use sensors and gyroscopes to sense changes in movement and react accordingly to keep the equilibrium, or balance. That is the pivotal state of motion that all of these vehicles try to achieve. Whereas before this equilibrium was trusted in the hands of human drivers, companies like Google have started to shift this over to artificial intelligence in the form of computer systems, which can make decisions much faster and hold more data than any human can.

Autonomous vehicles started out as a simple mechanism to improve the braking system in cars. In order to stop cars from skidding on the road, drivers were suggested to pump their brakes rather than hold it down. That way, the car maintains some traction with the road. With the advent of ABS (or anti-lock brakes), a computer controlled the brake-pumps rather than a driver. Prior to ABS, drivers would step on the brake and the wheels would lock in place, causing the car to skid along the road. With ABS, a computer

19 | P a g e

Figure 3.1.1 The sensor (left) collects information from the surroundings or from the car itself, such as location and speed, and sends it to the central processing unit, or CPU (middle). The CPU interprets the data and sends it to the motors (right) so that they can make changes to the motion of the vehicle accordingly.

calculates the exact pumps per second and carries it out as the driver pushes down on the brake. The system pumps the brakes for the driver much faster than the human foot can pump it. This is due to the speed sensors in the wheels.

Another place where autonomous vehicles outshine their human-operated counterparts is parking. Parallel parking, a difficult feat for some people, is done completely through visual sensors, proximity sensors, and speed controllers. Companies have already offered this feature to consumers on SUVs, compacts cars, and hybrids. While this system uses no human input, it still needs a place to park and sufficient room for the vehicle, which is picked by the driver rather than the car. These sensors act like the driver’s eyes and ears while the motors act like the driver’s hands and feet. However, the computerized systems are a lot more accurate and are less prone to accidents and crashes.

Chapter 3.2General Mechanics of Autonomous Vehicles

All autonomous vehicles contain the same hardware and software that perform similar functions. A radar device is located in the front of the car, which periodically sends out microwaves towards anything in the path of the car. The reflected waves are then caught in the radar again and this information is processed in the internal CPU. The device is primarily used to determine cruise control speed of the car based on how fast the vehicle in front of the car is driving. On highways, cruise control speeds can reach up to 80 miles per hour, while on local roads, cruise control speeds don’t usually go past 40 miles per hour.

20 | P a g e

Figure 3.2.1 The autonomous vehicle (right) sends out microwaves through a radar device located in the front of the car which determines distance and speed of the vehicle in front of it (left).

Much like the radar device, autonomous vehicles also contain ultrasound devices in the rear of the vehicle which act nearly the same way the radar does. Its function, however, is much different. The reflected ultrasound waves assist in autonomous parking. The waves’ data gives proximity and speed data which is picked up by the ultrasound sensor.

A camera near the rear-view mirror tracks the lanes so that the autonomous vehicle can stay on track. The camera also supports the radar system in that both systems share data to better create a field of obstacles that the autonomous vehicle can traverse.

21 | P a g e

Figure 3.2.2 Ultrasound waves are output by the autonomous vehicles (bottom left). The waves reflect off of surrounding vehicles, including those that are approaching it from the rear.

Figure 3.2.3 The camera tracks the lane sidelines which helps to center the vehicle within the lane.

The camera and radar also help in making turns or switching lanes.

All autonomous vehicles also contain global positioning systems (or GPS), which keep it on track to its destination. Accelerometers keep track of the speed and acceleration of the vehicle. This system will keep a check on speed limits and make sure that the car can come to a complete stop within a certain distance from vehicles or obstacles. These general systems are common to all autonomous vehicles and help to create a safer vehicle that can run on its own without input from the human user.

Chapter 3.3Google’s Autonomous Vehicle – Mechanics

Companies have already started work on autonomous vehicles but Google is at the forefront when it comes to self-driving vehicles. Since 2009, Google has had autonomous vehicles on the road taking pictures for their Google maps. So far, their vehicles have not had a single crash to date, while human drivers get into crashes very frequently. To date, Google’s “fleet” of robotic Toyota Priuses have driven more than 190,000 miles, or 300,000 kilometers. They have driven in traffic, highways, and mountainous roads with very little human intervention. While the product is not currently commercially available, Google insists that the technology will have lasting impacts on the future of cars and drivers alike. Google’s main reasons in developing this technology is to reduce the number of road accidents, reduce traffic congestion on highways and

22 | P a g e

Figure 3.2.4 The autonomous vehicle makes a right turn at an intersection guided by the radar and the camera.

roads, and reduce fuel consumption by making vehicles more efficient for the general consumer.

Google’s autonomous cars use video cameras, radar sensors and a laser range finder in order to map out surrounding traffic, lanes, buildings and pedestrians. All the data is processed and sent to Google’s data centers for processing in mapping the terrain. The range finder, which is a device called the Velodyne 64-beam laser, generates a 3D map of the environment. These measurements are combined with high-resolution maps of the world to create different types of data models, allowing the car to drive safely, avoid traffic, obstacles and pedestrians, and respect traffic laws.

While the laser does an apt job at creating maps to help the car avoid collisions, it is not the only precaution Google has taken to make sure their vehicle is crash proof. Google has included four radars located on the front and rear bumpers. These radars allow the vehicle to monitor traffic from very far away and enable the car to quickly deal with very fast oncoming traffic.

In order to detect traffic lights, the car has a camera mounted near the rear-view mirror and adjusts speeds according to the light and the distance from the intersection. A GPS (or global positioning system) is used to keep track of the car’s location and maps it out on the 3D map generated by the Velodyne 64-beam laser. The inertial movement unit, a device measuring the speed of the car in reference to its braking capacity (or the acceleration needed to bring the car to a complete stop) helps to quickly adjust speeds based on changes in the environment such as pedestrians, traffic signals, or recent construction that is not able to be picked up by the GPS system.

Sebastian Thrun, a Stanford University professor and Chris Urmson, an engineer at Google, guide the project. Urmson had mentioned that using GPS-based techniques alone would yield location measurements that are off by several meters. In order to correct this, they decided to add the Velodyne 64-beam laser. Urmson has mentioned that the accuracy in using both the GPS and the Velodyne has significantly increased position calculations for the autonomous car. In order to be as safe as possible, Google engineers will first drive the car along the route several times without any aid from the autonomous parts but still collect data. In doing so, the lasers will create a mapping of surroundings several times and check for discrepancies in the mappings, differentiating between stationary objects such as buildings, mailboxes, lampposts and curbs, and moving objects such as other cars and pedestrians.

23 | P a g e

Chapter 3.4Google’s Autonomous Vehicle – On the Road

The Google car is very sensitive to pedestrians. It will yield regardless of whether it has the right of way. Google was very careful to give first priority to crossing pedestrians when programming the sensors. However, when it comes to other vehicles, the car is a bit more aggressive. In a four-way intersection, for example, it will follow road rules as the situation turns up (all-way stop, full-stop, yield, etc.) and make an initial advancement to let other vehicles know that it is about to move forward. Based on movements from the other vehicles, it will judge whether it is safe to move ahead or not. Urmson said that without this type of programming coded into the system, the car would not be able to function properly in the real world.

Thrun and Urmson believe that this technology could be beneficial in a multitude of ways. By taking full advantage of the computational advantages of computers in its current stage, Google is convinced that by having cars drive closer together, they could make better use of 80 to 90 percent of empty roads and get people to their destination quicker and more efficiently. The autonomous vehicles can also react much faster than humans in avoiding collisions and accidents, potentially saving numerous lives. Erico Guizzo from IEEE Spectrum believes that since this sort of advancement requires such huge computing power and data, Google would be the best company to lead the way in creating the first commercially available autonomous vehicle.

Chapter 3.5Google’s Autonomous Vehicle – Future

Urmson also envisions public transportation taking full advantage of autonomous vehicles. He described autonomous vehicles becoming a “shared resource.” With the relatively recent surge in smartphones, Urmson suggested a sort of taxicab service that could be called with the touch of a button on one’s smartphone and within minutes, the vehicle would come to pick the passenger up and bring him or her to their destination quickly and safely. Without having the worry of driving or dealing with the cab driver, the passenger would have more time relaxing or doing work.

This idea has already been put to the test. Google created the concept of Caddy Beta demonstrating the advent of shared vehicles. Caddy Beta featured multiple golf carts running completely autonomously. The caddies could be called using switches that send out a signal so that the caddy can triangulate its position and pick up the passenger. Unlike the sensors on the Google car, the sensors on the golf carts are not actually located on the golf carts. Instead, the sensors are located around the park. By using the signals given off by the sensors, they are able to avoid traffic and pedestrians. While this method

24 | P a g e

of placing sensors works for a small place like a golf park, it is not so feasible to place sensors all around the streets and highways. Instead, these sensors will now be located inside every Google autonomous car. The cost between shifting the sensors from the environment into the car is shifted from Google to the consumer. Whereas it would cost Google a large sum of money and convincing the government to place sensors all over the roads and highways, it would cost the consumers a bit more since all of the hardware and software is located in the car.

25 | P a g e

Conclusion

While our technology update report describes the history, laws, and mechanics of autonomous vehicles, it is important to understand the implications of the technology. With any innovation, technology can be used for the greater good, or to do great harm. A handful of key disadvantages can occur if we adopt autonomous vehicles, however, these disadvantages can be avoided if we fully embrace autonomous technology.

For the benefits of autonomous technology, we must trust the companies that are creating the software to guide their vehicles. The leading company in the autonomous technology industry is Google, whose search engine is one of most used and reliable in the world. Before Google, universities such as Stanford and Carnegie Mellon had attempted to create their image of autonomous vehicles. Before Stanford, Chevrolet and General Motors were the automotive companies that attempted to create autonomous technology. Now that we have Google, we have powerful tools and incredible people working on this technology, and thus we should trust the autonomous vehicle industry.

Our laws serve as another protective measure, a measure that can regulate the use and appropriate justifications for autonomous vehicles. Although autonomous vehicles are only legal in three states, two of the states have well defined meanings for autonomous vehicles, autonomous technology, and other aspects of autonomy with respect to legislation. These two states are California and Nevada. California is home to several remarkable engineering institutions, one of them being Stanford University, as well as several technology companies, namely Google. Although Nevada may not be as well – equipped as California, being east of California works as a mutual benefit. Nevada has many highways and empty grounds for autonomous vehicle testing, which benefits both states. From this union, both states can continue to amend laws, while the rest of the country will grow to adopt autonomous technology. And because of this advantageous head start, California and Nevada can serve as models of autonomous transportation society. Florida, the third approved state, will lag behind until autonomous technology is more popular there.

In terms of mechanics, autonomous technology relies on the uses of sensors, global position system, and other tools. These sensors, along with the computers built into the autonomous vehicle, help the autonomous technology make thousands of calculations in very short periods of time. The amount of data that transfers throughout the machine is massive, but can be processed faster than any human. In fact, if we follow Google’s example of autonomous technology, our autonomous car will be equipped with Google Maps, further improving the automobiles abilities.

Our primary research projects that a majority of people do want autonomous vehicles, but a significant population do not trust the technology behind the vehicles. In essence, this fear is understandable, but because of the reliability of the industry, autonomous vehicles

26 | P a g e

are a true investment for the future. We will only be able to absorb the full benefits of autonomous vehicles if we greet the opportunity with open minds. Otherwise, we will not advance forward and we will not continue to solve some of life’s challenges, such as the great number of car accidents and traffic inefficiency. By informing others about autonomous technology through our technology update report, we can be a part of a brighter future with autonomous vehicles on the road.

27 | P a g e

Appendix

SURVEY INSTRUMENT:**Note: We obtained a total of one hundred responses, but we asked about one hundred fifty two people. Some people were unable to fill out the survey at the time. Writing for Engineers Survey Autonomous Vehicles

Please answer the following questions. Make sure to make all marks clear. For multiple choice questions, circle your choice. For questions that offer two extremes, from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, please mark with an “X”. Thank you for complying with our instructions and completing this survey.

1. “Autonomous Vehicles, defined as vehicles that can drive themselves without the active monitoring of a human operator, should be available for commercial use in NYC.”

strongly disagree __ __ __ __ __ __ strongly agree

2. The following multiple choice questions describe features of autonomous vehicles, most of which are legally prominent in state legislations in Nevada, California, and Florida. If autonomous vehicles are legally approved, which feature of the law is fundamentally the most important?

A. There must be a human operator in car, who can manually maneuver the car if necessary.

B. There must be a high value insurance policy to cover possible accidental damages.

C. The vehicle must have an alert system to warn the operator in case of software failure.

D. The vehicle must keep a read only format of recorded data of the actions right before an accident.

3. Please rank the following positive consequences of legalizing autonomous vehicles, with 1 being most preferred, and 3 being the least preferred.

___ Improve Traffic Flow: cars will be more efficient through communicating with another, and thus able to flow through traffic effortlessly.

___ Reduced Number of Accidents: human error is much larger than machine error, and autonomous vehicles travel with greater caution.

28 | P a g e

___ Higher Safe Speeds & Time Saved: if a highway is comprised mostly of autonomous vehicles, they can all travel a constant, faster speed. This results in time saved for travel to desired destinations.

4. Do you foresee negative consequences of autonomous vehicles? If so, elaborate briefly:

__________________________________________________________________

SURVEY RESULTS:

The first question uses a Likert Scale, and states that autonomous vehicles should available for commercial use in New York City:

Twenty seven percent of respondents strongly agree with the statement. Twenty eight percent of respondents moderately agree with the statement. Eight percent of respondents slightly agree with the statement. Twenty two percent of respondents slightly disagree with the statement. Five percent of respondents moderately disagree with the statement. Ten percent of respondents strongly disagree with the statement.

The second question is multiple choice, and has the following breakdown of responses:

- Forty six percent of responses were choice A- Twelve percent of responses were choice B- Thirty two percent of responses were choice C- Ten percent of responses were choice D.

The third question is a ranking question, in which responders rank their preference. Our report includes a pictograph of the results, but we have shown the raw data below:

1. Reduced Number of Accidents was ranked highest by forty five responders. 2. Improve Traffic Flow was ranked highest by twenty nine responders. 3. Higher Safe Speeds and Timed Saved was ranked highest by twenty six

responders.

The last question was a short answer question regarding disadvantages of autonomous vehicles. Most responses include cost and vulnerability to hackers, but some responses included “hurts driving culture”.

29 | P a g e

References

Automated Driving: Legislative and Regulatory Action. (2013, July 30). RetrievedOctober 18, 2013 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/wiki/index.php/Automated_Driving:_Legislative_and_Regulatory_Action

Committee on Army Unmanned Ground Vehicle Technology (2003, January 9).Technology Development for Army Unmanned Ground Vehicles. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.

Earnest, L. (2012, December). Stanford Cart. Retrieved November 22, 2013, fromhttp://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cart.htm

Florida House of Representatives. (n.d.) Florida Senate 2012 Retrieved fromhttp://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_s1768__.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=1768&Session=2012

Gage, D. (1995). Uvg history 101: a brief history of unmanned ground vehicle (uvg)development efforts, Unmanned Systems Magazine, 13. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a422845.pdf

Guizzo, E. (2011, October 18). How Google’s self-driving car works. Retrieved fromhttp://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/howgoogle-self-driving-car-works

Miles, D. (2005, October 12). DARPA Autonomous Vehicle Race Proves What'sPossible. American Forces Press Service. Retrieved Fromhttp://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=18095

Moravec, H. (1999). Robot: mere machine to transcendent mind. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Nevada Legislature: The People’s Branch of Government. (n.d.) Chapter 428Aautonomous vehicles, Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-482A.html

Özgüner, Ü., Acarman, T., & Redmill, Keith. (2011) Autonomous ground vehicles. Norwood, Massachusetts: Artech House.

30 | P a g e

Phantom Auto Dashes Through Airport Crowd Injuring Ten (1932, August 2). The FreeLance -Star. Retrieved From http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XNhNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yYoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2045%2C1478321

Reynolds, N. (2009, October 14). The driverless road to transportation heaven. The Globe

and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/the-driverless-road-to-transportation  heaven/article4290025/

The Original 1939 Futurama. (2007, November 27). Wired Magazine, Issue 15.12.Retrieved From http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/15-12/ff_futurama_original

Thrun, S. (2007). Why We Compete in DARPA’s Urban Challenge Autonomous RobotRace. Communications of the ACM. Retrieved fromhttp://cse.unl.edu/~jiang/cse488/Docs/p29-thrun.pdf

U.S. Department of Labor (2012, March). Transportation and Material Moving Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/bus-drivers.htm   

31 | P a g e