Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....

[GeoffBeacon]

While I can accept the overall logic of Geoff Beacon's arguments about EVs I'm happy to be taking a path that currently represents the art of the possible.

My move from diesel to an EV that offers, in my view, the closest alignment of my needs with the lowest possible day to day carbon footprint is doing two things.

Firstly, I'm no longer contributing to the local burden of Nitrogen oxides and PM 2.5 that is making air quality hazardous in congested parts of my small home town. Secondly, I'm making a real, visible statement about the direction of travel.

I'm not going to change the world with this approach any more than the zero food miles associated with the organic vegetables from my allotment will change the impact of the local supermarket but I'm setting what I think is a good example to friends, neighbours (some of whom think I'm nuts!) and most of all to my six grandchildren.

Have a great holiday season, everyone. My primary target is to get from here to Bristol for New Year down two of the UK's busiest roads without reverting to an ICE. One small step......

I know any criticism here sounds churlish. So let me say that's a good start but the next stage must be to design lifestyles with hardly any cars.

[silkman]

Geoff,

I totally agree. Replacing ICE vehicles with EV's is just a start. But it has to be a journey..... and mine will start on the M6 through Birmingham!

[Jim Hunt]

Environmentalists should be turning their attention towards retaining financial advisors and fund managers to advise government on what need to be done to get a swift transition.

Have you seen what Shell and others are up to here in the UK, and further afield across Europe?

http://www.V2G.co.uk/2017/12/mrh-announces-a-partnership-with-ionity/

Following in the footsteps of Shell at the end of last month [MRH] announced [yester]day that:

MRH, the leading independent forecourt trader, today announces a partnership with IONITY : a joint venture formed by leading car manufacturers which develops and implements a High-Power Charging (HPC) network for electric vehicles across Europe. The joint venture between BMW Group, Daimler AG, Ford Motor Company and the Volkswagen Group with Audi and Porsche, will build 400 fast charging stations across Europe by 2020.

[Jim Hunt]

I know any criticism here sounds churlish. So let me say that's a good start but the next stage must be to design lifestyles with hardly any cars.

Along the lines of our nascent MaaS experiment in Camelford?

http://www.V2G.co.uk/2017/09/an-electric-car-club-for-camelford/

[gerontocrat]

People are going to buy vehicles. The useful data is to compare the carbon footprint of an EV with an ICEV from construction through use to scrapping.

The studies in Europe which took that approach strongly suggest the EV has a much lower carbon footprint than the ICEV even with the current mix of electricity generation fuels.

That advantage will grow as electricity from renewables increases and coal and then LNG decline.

People like Bjorn Lomberg are experts at using dodgy logic and out-of-date data to support their claims.

CAVEAT: A much more serious question is whether the phrase "sustainable economic growth" is an oxymoron. (Defn:-a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).
I for one believe that the assumption that once CO2 is sorted out the plant will be saved for mankind and we can then continue on our merry way is hogwash.

[Bob Wallace]

the next stage must be to design lifestyles with hardly any cars

Then how do I go to the grocery store?

[Bob Wallace]

is whether the phrase "sustainable economic growth" is an oxymoron

As long as the inputs are sustainable then why can't we have growth?

Must billions of people live in abject poverty?

[gerontocrat]

is whether the phrase "sustainable economic growth" is an oxymoron

As long as the inputs are sustainable then why can't we have growth?

Must billions of people live in abject poverty?

The inputs we are consuming now are not sustainable - look at the threads on forests, wildlife, habitat loss, soil condition etc etc. Studies reckon we consume nature's capital (i.e. beyond the planet's ability to regenerate) every year a bit earlier - currently sometime in August?
In a finite world a system that requires ever increasing consumption of finite resources must, in the end, fail.

However, the alternative is NOT abject poverty for billions, but that is the current trajectory.

[Jim Hunt]

Then how do I go to the grocery store?

Get your groceries delivered by an all electric van instead?

[Bob Wallace]

is whether the phrase "sustainable economic growth" is an oxymoron

As long as the inputs are sustainable then why can't we have growth?

Must billions of people live in abject poverty?

The inputs we are consuming now are not sustainable - look at the threads on forests, wildlife, habitat loss, soil condition etc etc. Studies reckon we consume nature's capital (i.e. beyond the planet's ability to regenerate) every year a bit earlier - currently sometime in August?
In a finite world a system that requires ever increasing consumption of finite resources must, in the end, fail.

However, the alternative is NOT abject poverty for billions, but that is the current trajectory.

Please address what i asked.  Obviously we can't continue use unsustainable inputs, even without growth.

[Bob Wallace]

Then how do I go to the grocery store?

Get your groceries delivered by an all electric van instead?

And if I need to go to the doctor or dentist? 

[GeoffBeacon]

the next stage must be to design lifestyles with hardly any cars

Then how do I go to the grocery store?

We should have local grocery stores like when I was young.  We should have local market gardens. We need experimental developments to give a rich gene pool of settlement types so we can find lifestyles that work - with only a few +cars. Suggested parameters for car-limited settlements:

% of residents employed locally
% of food produced locally
% of goods bought from local retailers
Average weekly travel distances
Average carbon footprint of residents
Protection of ecosystems

Until travel is carbon free we must cut down on the vast distances we travel today. When we travel longer distances it should be by rail or coach.

For those that can't manage cycling, for local use we should be making lighter, slower vehicles: vehicles that can mix reasonably comfortably with bikes and pedestrians, rather than a ton of steel and stuff, traveling at people-killing speeds.   

[Jim Hunt]

And if I need to go to the doctor or dentist?

Walk? Cycle? Take the all electric bus? Take an all electric taxi. Hire an all electric car club vehicle?

In extremis take an all electric ambulance?

[oren]

It's difficult to solve all problems at once. To make humanity sustainable we need to fix many other things besides cars and electricity, including top soil, groundwater, forests, ocean pollution, overfishing, construction methods, aviation, and tons of other stuff. And of course, stop human population growth by reducing number of births, and preferably shrink back over time. In such a future there shouldn't be poverty at all. But to focus within this thread's scope, the simpler question is: what is better, an ICEV or a BEV, assuming there is a parallel move to solar+wind electricity. I think the answer is obvious. Hopefully, allother sustainability issues will be addressed over time, but even if they are not, humanity is still better off with BEVs. Will this avoid AGW? Sadly not, but even slowing it down will help.

[Bob Wallace]

And if I need to go to the doctor or dentist?

Walk? Cycle? Take the all electric bus? Take an all electric taxi. Hire an all electric car club vehicle?

In extremis take an all electric ambulance?

Take an all electric taxi.

That's a car.

Look, I fully understand the attraction of largely car free living.  Walkable cities and all that.  But that does not mean we get rid of cars.  We reduce their use.  But there are times we can't walk and places where public transportation (buses, trains, subways) don't go.  Cars are buses with fewer seats.  Don't use a big vehicle when a small one will do.

[GeoffBeacon]

is whether the phrase "sustainable economic growth" is an oxymoron

As long as the inputs are sustainable then why can't we have growth?

Must billions of people live in abject poverty?

Is it abject poverty to live in Venice with no car?
Is it abject poverty to avoid beef and sheep meat?
Is it abject poverty to live in wooden houses - avoiding bricks and steel?
Is it abject poverty to avoid air-travel?

Cutting the polluting things leads to de-growth because the green activity can't grow fast enough to replace the necessary fall in the polluting activities.

However, we could still have enough to consume and live lives happier than the ones we do now.

For the time being, green growth is a fantasy.

[Bob Wallace]

Until travel is carbon free we must cut down on the vast distances we travel today. When we travel longer distances it should be by rail or coach.

It would be a big help if we cut down the distance we travel today.  But, in general, we won't.  We've been preaching "Reduce, reuse, recycle" for over a half century it hasn't fixed the problem. 

We will not get the vast majority to change their lifestyles, we won't get them to lower the quality of their lives by appealing for less carbon.  Just will not happen. 

Our only workable solution is to give people acceptable alternatives.  Alternatives that do the job as well, or better, and cost the same, or less.  The "Let's all wear hair shirts" approach fails.

[Bob Wallace]

Is it abject poverty to live in Venice with no car?


Geoff, do you not understand abject poverty?

[Mathiasdm]

the next stage must be to design lifestyles with hardly any cars

Then how do I go to the grocery store?

For most people, the answer should be 'on foot' or 'using a bike or cargo bike'. The answer could also be 'using a shared car' in case of a very large amount of groceries.
Going to the doctor or dentist could have the same response.

Of course, this doesn't work for everyone. If you live in a low-density area, the grocery store could be far away. That's another problem to solve: living in high-density cities results in less need for cars.

And if I need to go to the doctor or dentist?

Walk? Cycle? Take the all electric bus? Take an all electric taxi. Hire an all electric car club vehicle?

In extremis take an all electric ambulance?

Take an all electric taxi.

That's a car.

Look, I fully understand the attraction of largely car free living.  Walkable cities and all that.  But that does not mean we get rid of cars.  We reduce their use.  But there are times we can't walk and places where public transportation (buses, trains, subways) don't go.  Cars are buses with fewer seats.  Don't use a big vehicle when a small one will do.

I don't think anyone is proposing getting rid of cars. Like you say: reducing their use to only when they are needed would be a great improvement (also for other things, like safety of pedestrians and cyclists).

Until travel is carbon free we must cut down on the vast distances we travel today. When we travel longer distances it should be by rail or coach.

It would be a big help if we cut down the distance we travel today.  But, in general, we won't.  We've been preaching "Reduce, reuse, recycle" for over a half century it hasn't fixed the problem. 

We will not get the vast majority to change their lifestyles, we won't get them to lower the quality of their lives by appealing for less carbon.  Just will not happen. 

Our only workable solution is to give people acceptable alternatives.  Alternatives that do the job as well, or better, and cost the same, or less.  The "Let's all wear hair shirts" approach fails.

The transport minister in Flanders proposes this as well, he calls it 'seducing people to use bicycles or public transport'. Of course, transport ministers here have been saying that they want to 'seduce' for the past 30 years, and the amount of cars still grows.

I think to solve this problem, there are a number of things that need to change:

• Put your money where your mouth is: there should be much more investment in railroads, light rail, separate lanes for buses and dedicated cycling paths. Alternatives need to be as good as possible. A lot of politicians claim they want to improve public transport, but don't actually take the effort to do so. The same goes for cycling: a bit of paint is not enough to create a safe cycling path.
• You need both a carrot and a stick. In my city, a 'circulation plan' was introduced, which no longer allows cars to go through the center of the city to get from one side to the other. They can still go to the center, just not through it. As a result, it's often faster to take a bike, and the amount of people cycling has gone up. Additionally, according to recent numbers, the amount of accidents has gone down a lot. Other possible 'sticks' include road taxes, and I'm sure there's more to choose from.

[gerontocrat]

Re: Cars, cars and more cars.  And trucks, and....

One man's view of cars and society in the UK, much of which  share. ( I no longer am a driver)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/20/anti-bird-spike-tree-nature-cars-shame

"Anti-bird tree spikes: we love cars so much, we destroy nature for them


There’s a world where fearsome beasts roar through every village, town and city, every hour of the day. These creatures kill hundreds of children and adults every year. They belch toxic gases that hasten death in many thousands. And yet we genuflect to their shiny bodies – so much so that we ban birds from trees to stop their droppings defacing the skins of the beasts resting below.........

These spikes cut open modern Britain in a myriad of unflattering ways. They are not shocking or unusual, but utterly typical of a society that poisons the air we breathe, has extinguished the stars with artificial light, and builds parking lots on paradise every day of the week. They demonstrate how deaf we are to beauty: that we will sacrifice birdsong (proven to enhance our emotional wellbeing) rather than have to wipe down the Audi once a week. They reveal how intolerant we are of urban nature. We rail against “dirty” urban foxes, rats, gulls and pigeons, when it is our filth that enables them to survive so successfully alongside us in cities.


Most of all, they emphasise the extent of Britain’s estrangement from the natural world. "

I guess what thgis shows about the UK is pretty well universal

[Sigmetnow]

Now open for orders from Netherlands, Norway, and the UK, in addition to the U.S. and Canada.

Tesla opens electric semi truck reservations in Europe
https://electrek.co/2017/12/20/tesla-opens-electric-semi-truck-reservations-europe/

[Sebastian Jones]

Bob Wallace asks why we cannot have sustainable growth so long as the inputs are sustainable.
I do suspect he is asking rhetorically, but on the off chance he is not, I'll take a crack at his question.
Systems cannot grow indefinitely because they would eventually consume everything else, which is not sustainable....
Consider an organism: it goes through a period of rapid growth until it matures when growth essentially stops.
The global human economy will either follow this trajectory, or copy that of a cancer which never matures but overshoots its resources and crashes/dies/kills its host.
Bob further asks if stopping continued growth is dooming countless millions to abject poverty.
There is plenty of wealth in circulation currently, enough to provide every inhabitant of the planet an average 1950s American lifestyle. We have a problem of distribution, not a shortage of wealth.
There is a powerful argument to be made that we have already overshot our sustainable footprint and that we are now faced with the much more difficult task of managing shrinkage.

[gerontocrat]

Nicely done, Mr. Jones.

[Bob Wallace]

Systems cannot grow indefinitely

I said nothing about indefinite growth.  I suspect what we are going to see (assuming we don't cook ourselves) is a population decline so a period where growth can be higher per  capita but not overall.  100  years from now someone else can deal with the growth issue.  Future generations can struggle with the issues of human labor no longer needed and how to establish an economy that grows, or doesn't grow, just the right amount.

There is plenty of wealth in circulation currently, enough to provide every inhabitant of the planet an average 1950s American lifestyle. We have a problem of distribution, not a shortage of wealth.

Wealth is not adequate housing.  We need to grow housing stock (in particular, quality), transportation, electricity, water, etc.  There's a lot of wealth tied up in non-productive stuff like multi-million dollar art and little shiny rocks.

There is a powerful argument to be made that we have already overshot our sustainable footprint and that we are now faced with the much more difficult task of managing shrinkage.

We have to change inputs.  I'm not sure we have to shrink.  We can have all the electricity we want, for example.  Much more than we use today.  We grow far more food than we consume.  (The US and Africa waste 40% to 50% of food produced.)

I firmly believe that our quality of life would be better if we cut populations to well under 50% what they are today.  But I'm not sure that's because we have to. 

We won't (purposely) shrink populations fast enough to avoid extreme climate change.  We have to get fossil fuels out of our lives sooner than we are likely to hit peak population. 

[Sigmetnow]

EV battery warranties.

For Tesla, “It hasn’t really been a problem so far since data from early Model S and Model X vehicles show a trend of reaching 150,000 miles before coming close to a 10% capacity loss.”

Tesla releases Model 3 warranty with new 70% battery capacity retention guarantee

For example, the Chevy Bolt EV offers a guaranteed limit of 60% of the capacity over 8 years or 100,000 miles and the Nissan Leaf guarantees roughly 66% capacity over the same timeline (100k miles/96 months for the 30kWh pack).  The 2018 Leaf will have similar warranty protection, though the specifics aren’t yet released.

https://electrek.co/2017/12/20/tesla-model-3-warranty-new-battery-capacity-retention-guarantee/

[Rob Dekker]

I see many people here advocating public transportation.
While I'm not against that, I would like to see your opinion on city bus systems.

Every time when I see one of these CO2 belching diesel city busses drive by with only one or two people I wonder how big that carbon footprint is compared to other forms of transportation.

I found this little chard (look at Average Local Bus for comparison) :



This suggest that from CO2 emission perspective it makes more sense to drive a small car than it is to use the local bus system.

On top of that, if you just want to get from A to B, the city-bus is a very inefficient system. It does not pick-up people where they are, nor at the time they want to be picked up, it drives a route that is a huge diversion from where you want to go, and it does not drop you off at where you want to go either.

With this data, including that it is rather CO2 intensive, I feel that maybe we should abolish city bus systems, in favor of more modern systems like Uber or another point-to-point system, especially since systems that drive small BEVs (possibly autonomous) are just around the corner.

What's your opinion ?

[Bob Wallace]

First, electric buses are for real.  China has over 100,000 on their streets.  LA  recently ordered 100 BYD battery powered buses after testing a couple for awhile.

Here's what I see...

We're going to have self-driving vehicles soon.  There's already a driverless bus running a short loop on the Vegas strip, providing hop on/hop off transportation.

if you just want to get from A to B, the city-bus is a very inefficient system

Exactly.  But with self-driving vehicles we could enjoy impromptu routes.  Put in your destination and the central computer could have a 1, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 seat vehicle pick you up and take you to your destination with few stops.  Size the vehicle to the number of people starting at about the same place and going to about the same place. 

A one passenger robotaxi might pick you up if you're going on a route where no one else wants to go at the time.  A 64 passenger robobus might pick you and a few dozen riders up if you're all heading to the 'big game' or the same suburb/industrial park.

With most people getting on and off at the same place the taxi/bus could gather its passengers, then get in the express lane, and carry you a zip speeds.

Maybe when your robobus arrives at your suburb you'd transfer to a smaller robovehicle for the last mile.

There are minibuses that operate something like that in Bangkok.  They cruise the major bus stops until they get a load and then drive non-stop to an outlying village.  Passengers don't have to sit on a bus and endure stop after stop after stop.

Later on, when we approach 100% RE, the energy per mile may not matter so much.  What may matter is getting as many people into the smallest space as possible in order to reduce street crowding.  Long runs with a lot of passengers might see over 100 people in double deckers.

[Bob Wallace]

Even more flexibility.  Pick you up at work in a single passenger robotaxi and drop you off at IKEA.  Pick you and your new piece of furniture up at IKEA in a van and drive you home.

Pick you up at home in a robo designed to carry surfboards and take you to the beach.  Or designed to carry bikes or ATVs.

Pick you and your family up in a robo designed for a scenic drive.  Lots of glass and comfortable chairs.  Built in refer and microwave.  Top quality music system.

[oren]

City buses make lots of sense in crowded cities where passenger density is high. I use a city bus for my commute, and it's always filled with tens of people. Surely CO2 emissions per passenger mile are lower than my neighbors who drive their car. Of course the bus system could be made much more efficient and user friendly, but I wouldn't abolish it.
BTW the most efficient transportation around here are those many commuters on their electric bikes.

[BenB]

Perhaps the debate on growth is a bit of a side-track here, but I'd just like to comment on one issue. I think people who consider eternal growth impossible are misunderstanding what economic growth is. It has nothing to do (per se) with consuming more raw materials or using more energy. It simply means adding more value. Paying someone to walk to an old person's house and spend the day with them to keep them company can generate economic growth, as can planting trees in a local park, reducing pollution or giving people a better education. Obviously in the past a lot of growth has been tied to consumption, but there's no reason why that has to be the case in the future.

This is important, because if you tell people that sustainability involves crashing the economy, you'll get very, very few people on board. If you tell people that a sustainable future involves improving our quality of life and standard of living in ways that use far fewer resources, create less waste, pollute less and use less energy (and in so far as they need it, use renewable energy), then most people will support it.

[GeoffBeacon]

I think people who consider eternal growth impossible are misunderstanding what economic growth is.

Theoretically, yes. However, in the next few decades, it is not practical to replace polluting economic activity (traveling by car & plane, eating beef &etc) with the green economic activity at a rate fast enough to have "green growth".  The sums say we need green de-growth and build settlements that allow only a few cars.

We need to go further than the 13 cities that are starting to ban cars. We need neighbourhoods where cars are banned - or at least priced out.

[Sigmetnow]

Tesla Model 3 cars are now being delivered to non-employees.
(To early reservationists, who live near the Fremont, California, factory delivery centers.)

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/my-delivery-is-on-for-tomorrow.104445/

[Jim Hunt]

Even more flexibility.  Pick you up at work in a single passenger robotaxi and drop you off at IKEA.  Pick you and your new piece of furniture up at IKEA in a van and drive you home.

Believe it or not I recently had a conversation about the cybersecurity implications of such things with an expert in such matters over a Lego tableau in the basement of the Great British Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

http://www.V2G.co.uk/2017/10/v2g-in-the-beis-basement/#LEGO

[Bob Wallace]

Even more flexibility.  Pick you up at work in a single passenger robotaxi and drop you off at IKEA.  Pick you and your new piece of furniture up at IKEA in a van and drive you home.

Believe it or not I recently had a conversation about the cybersecurity implications of such things with an expert in such matters over a Lego tableau in the basement of the Great British Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

http://www.V2G.co.uk/2017/10/v2g-in-the-beis-basement/#LEGO

I don't find the meat in your sandwich.  A discussion about cyber security?  What does that mean? 

Do you mean that someone might hack the system and redirect robos to the wrong destination?

[Bob Wallace]

However, in the next few decades, it is not practical to replace polluting economic activity (traveling by car & plane, eating beef &etc) with the green economic activity at a rate fast enough to have "green growth".  The sums say we need green de-growth and build settlements that allow only a few cars.

The installation of a wind and solar mini-grid in a village where there has been no electricity is green growth.  I don't think we should withhold electricity and clean water from those who don't have it while we wait for whatever you have in mind.

Settlements with few cars is about your desire for a particular lifestyle.  If I lived in a city I would want it to be a walkable city as well.  But reworking our cities to turn them into walkable places is likely to have only a tiny impact on our carbon load. 

We'll get a much faster reduction in CO2 by replacing ICEVs with EVs and replacing fossil fuel generation with renewables.

We need green growth and green replacement.

[Jim Hunt]

I don't find the meat in your sandwich.  A discussion about cyber security?  What does that mean?

I guess you didn't click through to the UK Government web site?

You could try the "Connected and Autonomous Vehicle" section of this for starters?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/663181/Embargoed_National_Cyber_Science_and_Technology_Strategy_FINALpdf.pdf

[Bob Wallace]

No, I didn't play "Go Fish".  I clicked to your nothing burger Lego page.

If you've got something to say then say it.  Don't send people looking for what you might be thinking.

[Jim Hunt]

If you've got something to say then say it.  Don't send people looking for what you might be thinking.

I'm endeavouring to direct your attention to what the Great British Government claims to be thinking. If that is no interest to you so be it.

[Bob Wallace]

You link a 16 page paper.  What in that paper do you think relevant?

I can find a couple of sentences saying that we need to be thinking about cyber security for self-driving cars.  That's pretty much a "duh".

The Government will provide direction and clear expectation to industry to ensure that vehicles safely communicate with the world around them

As if the UK government had a clue.  These are the idiots behind Brexit and Hinkley Point.

[Jim Hunt]

As if the UK government had a clue.  These are the idiots behind Brexit and Hinkley Point.

Perhaps you'd prefer to read about what the scientific advisors to those idiots claim to be thinking?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/669103/future-mobility-workshop-security.pdf

[Bob Wallace]

Jim:

1)  Do you realize how obtuse your posting is on this topic?  State your point, man.

2)  Do you not realize that these are topics which have long been discussed and there is nothing new in the paper you finally linked?

[TerryM]

Come on guys - The winter solstice is upon us.
Ho-Ho-Ho & all that.


Terry

[Rob Dekker]

For once I agree with Terry.
Take a deep breath Jim and Bob.
You are both valuable contributors to this fine forum.

[sidd]

The last link posted by Mr. Hunt is quite good. Quite a few issues need addressing with autonomous vehicles, and the paper is a good start at delineating them.

A large difficulty is that a zero day could affect millions of vehicles on the road at once. Not a good thing.

sidd

[Bob Wallace]

I don't need to take a breath.  But it is annoying when people don't take a couple of minutes to copy over the text they think important and expect others to go look at a document from their perspective.
--

Now, cyber security and robotaxis.  Set up a system that is pretty much impossible to hack. 

1) Keep hackers out of your central system.  I don't know enough about how system security works to figure that out but someone can at least make it very, very difficult.

2) Use single-use keys to communicate with individual robos. Give each robo a 'million' random number string and a unique formula.  Central starts a handshake with the robo -

"High Robo Zwi221234, it's Central. Run your ID formula using five (or three or twenty) numbers starting at position 43,237.  The answer should be 962,832.1753."

"Hi Central.  Your answer checks.  You're for real.  OK, what are my instructions?"

Central submits a new answer and starting place and then "Go to Jim's house and take him to his Lego playgroup".

Robo runs the formula, confirms that the instructions came from Central, and heads off to pick up Jim.

(I'm funnin' you Jim.)

Each car has a unique million number string.  Once portions of that stream are used they are never used again.  If numbers are running low just drop by a service center and get a new piece of flash memory.

[sidd]

" Set up a system that is pretty much impossible to hack. "

I think that is not possible. What might be possible is to stagger software release cycle so that large numbers of vehicles (especially in the same area) are not suspectible to simultaneous attack.

Judging by current software quality and trend, I am pessimistic. We will see attacks that cause horrific wrecks. But those will not come close to the 40K or so traffic deaths a year that the USA lives with today. Not that much will stop the autodriving RV guy from going in the back for a sandwich and a beer.

The point is that autodriving doesn't have to be perfect, just better than average human. At that point insurance will make it cheaper to let the car drive than the human.

sidd

[oren]

Assisted driving could prevent lots of accidents and be way better than human driving. Total self-driving could be the target of cyber-terrorism, think of the recent cases of truck drivers running into crowds, now take self-driving trucks, lots of them, and the fact that no system can be made completely secure, and you get a recipe for big trouble. I have a feeling this could delay total self driving for a while.

[Bob Wallace]

" Set up a system that is pretty much impossible to hack. "

I think that is not possible. What might be possible is to stagger software release cycle so that large numbers of vehicles (especially in the same area) are not suspectible to simultaneous attack.

Judging by current software quality and trend, I am pessimistic. We will see attacks that cause horrific wrecks. But those will not come close to the 40K or so traffic deaths a year that the USA lives with today. Not that much will stop the autodriving RV guy from going in the back for a sandwich and a beer.

The point is that autodriving doesn't have to be perfect, just better than average human. At that point insurance will make it cheaper to let the car drive than the human.

sidd

I'm not talking about software updates.  I'm talking about specific instructions to robotaxis as to where and when to pick up their next customer and where to drop them.

Software downloads could be protected in the same way, I would imagine.  Just verify Central and the individual vehicle. 

If a hacker can't get access to the vehicle's software because they can't guess a one time use password then there's not a lot to worry about.  A hacker would have to know both the individual vehicle's formula and million digital number sequence.  And to cause major problems they would have to crack the code for a lot of individual vehicles. 

There would be no information sent from Central to the vehicle or from the vehicle to Central except the results of the calculation and the start point on that individual vehicle's number sequence.

You could even have handshake confirmations back to Central to verify the directions received.
--

There needs to be a basic set of instructions at the 'brainstem' level.  Something written in non-volatile memory.  Etched in.

"Hit nothing.  Run off no cliffs/docks/whatever." 

Real simple self-preservation limits that make it impossible for a hacker to instruct a self-driving car to run into anything.

[Bob Wallace]

Assisted driving could prevent lots of accidents and be way better than human driving. Total self-driving could be the target of cyber-terrorism, think of the recent cases of truck drivers running into crowds, now take self-driving trucks, lots of them, and the fact that no system can be made completely secure, and you get a recipe for big trouble. I have a feeling this could delay total self driving for a while.

Over 90% of all crashes are due to humans.  Drunk, sleeping, being inattentive (texting, looking for something they dropped in the floor), looking right when the problem is coming from the left, speeding, driving too fast for road conditions, etc.

EVs won't suffer any of those human frailties.  They will constantly monitor everything around them in all directions.

Again, build in hard instructions which cannot be overridden.

"Hit nothing.  Run off no cliffs."

[Sigmetnow]

...
"Hit nothing.  Run off no cliffs."

Like this:   (For “robot,” read “car.”)

The Three Laws of Robotics (often shortened to The Three Laws or known as Asimov's Laws) are a set of rules devised by the science fiction author Isaac Asimov. The rules were introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround" (included in the 1950 collection I, Robot), although they had been foreshadowed in a few earlier stories. The Three Laws, quoted as being from the "Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.", are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics


Tesla addresses the risk by (among other things) separating internet links from the car-control software, and only allowing legitimate commands to be passed. (Note:  The hackers had to disassemble the car to obtain access for their research!)

Some reverse engineering of this service showed that the Tesla Model S does NOT seem to send raw CAN frames from the infotainment system to the vehicle. Instead, there is a Vehicle API (VAPI) whereby the CID asks the gateway to perform any one of an “allowed” set of actions.

The existence of a gateway that operates in this manner is very good for the resilience of the car, for it means that even if the infotainment network is compromised, that does not grant an attacker the ability to inject raw CAN frames into the vehicle network. They can only send “legitimate” VAPI requests.

The assertion that infotainment compromise does not grant an attacker the ability to directly communicate with vehicle systems, of course, reduces down to the gateway’s ability to withstand attack. We did not audit the security of the gateway in depth and welcome further research in this area.

https://blog.lookout.com/hacking-a-tesla

Edit:
Also this:

- Over-the-air update process: If Tesla needs to fix a security vulnerability, they can do so with a simple update which takes the driver only one push of a button to apply. No recall or USB key in the mail needed. Further, the driver does not need to subscribe to a cellular data service in order to receive these updates, they are provided free of charge.

- VPN configuration: The Model S uses a properly configured VPN which does not suffer from common misconfiguration issues.

- Account password rotation: The onboard account passwords are rotated every 24 hours.