from the but-officer-my-car-meets-government-standards dept.
According to this news item, one of the holdups to the wide usage of autonomous cars is a lack of regulations that can be used to certify the control systems: http://www.automotivetestingtechnologyinternational.com/industry-blogs.php?BlogID=1973
Regulatory challenges
The influence of legislation around the world on the way tests will be performed in future is relatively small. For example, there are as yet no binding standards for driverless cars. This makes it a very complex task to make cars reliably safe for the global market. However, there are of course calls for safety levels, backed up by defined safety standards such as ASIL. They are a pre-requisite for planning reliability for investments in necessary new testing equipment. Crucial for the breakthrough of autonomous driving will be the speed at which global legislation can introduce the appropriate regulations. The sooner this happens, the faster the requirements for validating a completely driverless car can be implemented.
(bold added by submitter)
The same author suggests that the well established V-model for system development, validation and verification might be short-cut in some way to meet aggressive timing requirements -- which sounds like a great recipe for disaster to this AC. Have any SN readers had any involvement in this area?
A general reference on V-models is an interesting read. According to the article, it started at Hughes Aircraft in the 1960s (Los Angeles).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Friday May 19 2017, @07:32PM (29 children)
I'm waiting to read about a grizzly autonomous car accident. Any takers how long it takes before such event hits the courts in a circus way?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday May 19 2017, @07:39PM (8 children)
When it does hit the courts, the autonomous car will likely have a lot of data to show that a human was at fault. Or maybe that something in the environment happened so fast that the system could not respond, and a human wouldn't have done any better.
What would be more interesting is a true failure in the autonomous car control system. One of those statistical classifiers fails to properly classify a pedestrian. I wonder if we'll ever see something like that?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @07:57PM (6 children)
It'll be like trying to use footage from police body cams for anything besides showing the cop was complete right to shoot somebody. Or like big pharma only publishing results that make it seem like their shit works, etc.
You know the golden rule? He who has the gold, makes the rules.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday May 19 2017, @08:02PM (5 children)
I suspect the autonomous car makers have the gold.
I'm sure all of the data collected by the autonomous car will be available to the other party(ies) of the accident and their insurance companies and lawyers.
There is another failure mode of autonomous vehicles that I did not mention. Not a software failure. But a hardware failure. Oh, my, one of those ceramic caps quit working after being in the sun all day, and the car killed someone.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 19 2017, @08:55PM
I'm sure the ceramic caps can "get the chair". They are kind of used to electricity though.. ;)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday May 19 2017, @10:42PM (3 children)
Sudden attack of pedantry: ceramic caps will be A-OK, the electrolytic ones would have something to protest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday May 20 2017, @04:51AM (1 child)
Agreed. I have observed more SMPS fail due to increasing ESR in electrolytic capacitors than anything else.
I am very careful these days when designing with electrolytics to leave wide safety margins in for deterioration.
Otherwise, its like I shipped something that times out in five to ten years.
And fails in the most mysterious way.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Saturday May 20 2017, @01:58PM
Maybe it's better to design them such that they detect the electrolytic capacitor failure and refuse to commence operation? preferably with a LED indicating "solder new caps - blink, blink".
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 20 2017, @02:13PM
Ceramic caps are excellent unintended microphones.. :P
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 19 2017, @09:23PM
We already have a lot of data to show that big corporations and rich human will do anything to squeeze the last blood out of anyone else. And autonomous cars will be different..?
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Friday May 19 2017, @08:14PM (3 children)
Is the grizzly the passenger, or the victim?
I like the idea of Joe-six-pack getting into an accident, storming angrily out of his wrecked car to retaliate in typical shitty human fashion, only to discover that the autonomous car was carrying a 600-pound bear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @08:40PM
Who is driving?! Ohmygod, bear is driving, how can that be?! [youtu.be]
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Friday May 19 2017, @09:00PM (1 child)
I'm pretty sure that I would pay good money to witness that event firsthand...from a bear-proof area.
Bonus points for a close-up on Joe's face, when the realization 'it's a bear!?!?!' sets in... ;-)
*commencing ROFLcoptors now*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @09:16PM
Kids these days, never went to the circus where there were bears (plural) riding bicycles... This was for real, the bears rode around inside one of the rings of the "three ring circus".
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @08:55PM (1 child)
i piss in my own face
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 19 2017, @10:19PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0QhxF4OmhQ [youtube.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday May 19 2017, @10:51PM
I'm waiting for a bored Russian kid to replace a bunch of autonomous car's software updates with a copy of Carmageddon.
"What a mess!"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Unixnut on Friday May 19 2017, @11:58PM (8 children)
> I'm waiting to read about a grizzly autonomous car accident. Any takers how long it takes before such event hits the courts in a circus way?
Didn't it happen already? That guy who got beheaded when his Tesla on autopilot cleaved its roof off going under a truck trailer, because the autopilots sensors did not detect the trailer or something. He was on his phone or something at the time, so not paying attention. Must have been a quick and unexpected death for him.
I seem to remember two incidents of people dying because they let the Tesla do the driving. True that isn't "fully autonomous", as Musk made clear after the deaths, but the car is advertised as being able to drive itself, albeit with you "constantly paying attention to the road" (which makes me wonder what the point of the system is, if I have to be aware and constantly paying attention, might as well drive myself to relieve the boredom).
I guess I would call the Tesla autopilot "first gen" autonomous, smart enough to do the job, but stupid enough to kill you in certain situations. So the deaths have already started, IMO.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 20 2017, @12:19AM
It's system that will probably aid anyone without sufficient sleep or using drugs to get home. But leaving driving to it completely at this development level seems foolish.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 20 2017, @01:01AM (1 child)
Ugh not this shit AGAIN.
Get a fucking goddamned clue.
Tesla Marketingbabble Blablabla != Autonomous, Self-Driving Car.
Jesus fucking Christ I thought we had established that by now.
In what fucking universe does the value of Telsa Marketingbabble Blablabla approach the value of Autonomous, Self-Driving Car?
Yes, if you drive for a living, your job is toast in 10 years. (Depending on how spectacular that first wreck involving an Autonomous, Self-Driving Car is of course.) BUT TAKING YOUR HANDS OFF THE WHEEL AND NOT EVEN PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD WHILE USING A DRIVING AID WITH INSTRUCTIONS THAT SPECIFICALLY FUCKING SAY NOT TO TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF THE WHEEL....
This comment is already too long.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 20 2017, @01:08AM
Oh and I forgot to add how I really feel.
Warp drive is discovered to be real after all, first warp flight, some asshat posts on Soylent, "Hurr durr can't work Tesla's Ludicrous Speed setting doesn't actually go to plaid herp derp durr."
Sorry. It was a very difficult day, more difficult than Fridays usually are at my job. I should be relaxing instead of loading up this webpage yet again.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday May 20 2017, @03:21AM (4 children)
I seem to remember that the truck trailer had a painting on the side that looked like open countryside So it looked safe...
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 20 2017, @02:00PM (2 children)
Let's ban countryside paintings near roads or on vehicles....
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday May 23 2017, @08:16PM (1 child)
Billboards, too. I find them distracting, especially when they are animated, and especially when they portray moving traffic situations in order to grab attention.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 23 2017, @08:56PM
Just had a cruel imagination.. The driver stops, and wind down the side window. Puts the rocket grenade launcher on the shoulder and aims at the billboard. No more billboard, driver happy and reminded everytime he passes of the good deed ;)
On a serious note. Those billboards must have a power supply. without that they will stop working. Other than that, maybe it's possible to successfully report them for endangering traffic. Or even sue them? especially if they have caused an accident.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday May 20 2017, @03:43PM
So they trained the autonomous AI on Road Runner cartoons?
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday May 20 2017, @02:41AM (3 children)
You say that like there aren't grizzly auto accidents that occur everyday with human drivers behind the wheel. Honestly other than in a few odd conditions I think that the severely decreased reaction time of autonomous vehicles will cause a noticeable decrease in collisions, especially in single vehicle situations.
https://www.google.com/#q=percent+of+car+accidents+caused+by+human+error&spf=1495247801066 [google.com]
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Saturday May 20 2017, @02:03PM
There are, but autonomous car will be unpredictable. They can go mad at the same time in droves. They can be used for remote attacks. And so on.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday May 20 2017, @04:35PM (1 child)
I doubt that fatal accidents from AI cars will be treated by the media, regulators, Congress, etc. the same way we treat human drivers. I have no doubt that what you say is correct -- and even with the current state of AI tech, we'd probably save lives compared to the average human driver.
The questions are going to emerge when some horrible accident occurs with AI because -- especially if it's "grizzly enough" or unusual enough -- there will be questions about whether it could have been preventable. Some of that may just be humans imagining that they could do better when they couldn't. (The lack of control does odd things to risk perception; hence why many people fear flying, but don't fear driving, though the latter is far more dangerous -- in driving, though, they are "in control.")
But some of it may end up questionable if an accident is due to a sufficiently weird "edge case" that AI likely couldn't handle. At that point, it won't matter if the AI car overall is more safe statistically: media perception will likely be that the car "caused the death" of passengers and/or others in a case where a human driver could have performed better. it could create a consumer or regulatory panic that leads to avoidance of AI cars until they are proved to be more "secure."
(Score: 2) by carguy on Saturday May 20 2017, @05:13PM
While I agree with most of your post, this bit:
> ... we'd probably save lives compared to the average human driver.
seems to keep coming around.
I'm not an average driver, and I'll guess that you are not either. I'm middle aged (no teen hormones), I don't drive drunk or otherwise impaired, don't work two or three jobs (implying driving when extremely tired) and I'm usually not in a hurry (plan my day to avoid the need to rush). I'm going to wait until the self-driving cars have stats that look as good as people like me.
Separate point -- here's an interesting take on the relative safety of flying vs driving -- based on number of trips, not on passenger-miles,
http://www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/flying_or_driving_which_safer [science20.com] Here's a cut from the end of this approach:
If we take some arbitrary numbers, we can begin to approximate how these numbers relate. With 10,090,274 domestic flights in the U.S., that becomes the number of possible events that could've resulted in accidents. With cars, I'm going to make the following assumption that taking all the licensed drivers (202.8 million) and assuming that they only drive to and from work. This would result in two trips per day for about 261 days or 522 trips per driver. As a result, the total number of driving events would be a staggering 105,861,600,000 events. On this basis, we can see that an automobile driver is 10,000 times more likely to be exposed to the circumstances leading to an accident.
Driving looks pretty safe when seen this way.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 19 2017, @07:55PM (5 children)
Buyers have to have faith in them, before they can be sold.
Although, the number of drivers who put their lives at risk already with driver assist technologies may indicate that there are buyers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday May 19 2017, @08:05PM (4 children)
I'm optimistic about technology generally.
But of all the cool self driving videos I've seen, I don't seem to run across any where the self driving car drives in bad weather. Or where the road is covered with snow. Or where you can't make out the lines that indicate where the lanes are.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 19 2017, @08:18PM
You've seen what the companies have wanted you to see. There are still a dozen or more companies doing research and testing autonomous cars on public roads or in demonstration areas. And as long as they aren't being sold or used by the public, they have time to work out how to handle hazardous conditions like snow, messed up roads, or maybe the effects of GPS jamming.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @09:03PM
There's at least one company doing testing in Michigan iirc. The only caveat is that last winter we had about one day with any appreciable amount of snow and slush on the road. In my non-expert opinion, they should at least wait for a real Michigan winter, and even then, that's hardly the worst case scenario for winter driving in North America.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday May 19 2017, @09:48PM (1 child)
Yep I'd like to see one handle driving on 280 from Campbell (California) to 580 in Dublin. Then 580 through Livermore, up over the Altamont Pass, then through Tracy to 5 to Stockton. Then in Stockton take 4 to 99, then right on 26 then 26 to Valley Springs. All that leaving at 4PM on a Friday afternoon with out making any serious booboos....then...maybe then I'll consider riding in an autonomous car.
Otherwise I think that a lot more testing and learning needs to happen. Plus I'd want fair warning so I could avoid that stretch during the testing.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Saturday May 20 2017, @07:46AM
Cars already enable people to crash in bad and even good conditions.
Youtube has plenty of dashcam videos of Russians driving too fast in snow and ice conditions (possibly *all of them* are driving too fast)
So long as these cars have fewer accidents, which are less severe than normal people (ie, morons), then insurance companies will start to insist on them, and charge you more if you take control of a car yourself.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @07:55PM (3 children)
"one of the holdups to the wide usage of autonomous cars is a lack of regulations that can be used to certify the control systems"
Which of course doesn't mean they work or are safe but merely "certified".
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 19 2017, @08:11PM
Precisely.
If you comply with a "certification", you can transfer liability on the authors for not covering the corner case in which your car kills 5 people.
Autonomous cars are improving every day, but lawyers have sharpened their quills waiting to sue deep-pocketed manufacturers (on behalf of poor victims, of course).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @09:23PM (1 child)
Yep, government-certified must be OK (NOT). From some limited contact with the employees at US DOT / NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety) it was pretty clear to me that it won't be government employees that write any regulations. They might get some help from gov't associated labs and test tracks (there are several) or outside contractors.
All the real talent with a clue about understanding these systems is going to be inside the car companies. So how is this chicken-egg situation going to play out?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by archfeld on Saturday May 20 2017, @02:48AM
Query the actuaries and the insurance companies. The hold the financial 'hammer' and wield the funding that elects the officials that will make or break the early adoption of these technologies.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday May 19 2017, @08:13PM
Read: Hold harmless.
Caveat emptor.