Design World

  • Home
  • Articles
    • 3D CAD
    • Electronics • electrical
    • Fastening & Joining
    • Factory automation
    • Linear Motion
    • Motion Control
    • Test & Measurement
    • Sensors
  • 3D CAD Models
    • PARTsolutions
    • TraceParts
  • Leadership
    • 2020 Winners
    • 2019 Winners
    • 2020 LEAP Awards
  • Resources
    • DIGITAL ISSUES
      • EE World Digital Issues
    • Future of Design Engineering
    • 2020 LEAP Awards
    • MC² Motion Control Classroom
    • Motion Design Guide Library
    • Podcasts
    • Suppliers
    • Webinars
  • Women in Engineering
  • Ebooks / Tech Tips
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
  • COVID-19

August 2017 Handbook: Autonomous & Connected Vehicles + more

By Frank Tobe | August 10, 2017

Share


 

The danger of treating autonomous vehicle control as a solved problem

A panelist made an interesting comment during the recently concluded TU-Automotive connected car conference near Detroit. It happened during one of the many sessions devoted to software infrastructure and connected services.

“In Silicon Valley, autonomous vehicle control and driving is viewed as a solved problem. The real emphasis is on making use of the associated data for connected services,” said a speaker from a software start-up.

What was noteworthy about this comment was the smug tone with which it was delivered. But the self-satisfied nature of it seems out-of-whack in that statistics show a self-driving car failed roughly every three hours in California during 2016. This data comes from the state’s Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Carmakers testing self-driving cars in California must file annual “disengagement” reports with the state showing how many times their vehicles malfunctioned. The definition of a disengagement includes every time a human driver has to quickly grab the controls, either because of hardware or software failure or because the driver sees a problem.

The reports cite 2,578 failures among the nine firms that conducted road-testing in 2016. The total autonomous miles driven aren’t impressive, coming in at a little under 657,000 with the vast majority of those miles accumulated by Google-parent Alphabet’s spin-out company Waymo. For comparison, Tesla’s Elon Musk has estimated that worldwide regulatory approval of driverless vehicles will require something on the order of six billion miles of data.

It’s probably safe to say that most people engaged in autonomous vehicle development see nothing sinister about the number of reported disengagements. None of this year’s disengagements resulted in an accident. And it is clear that some of them happened during tests of subsystems. Bosch and Delphi, for example, — both Tier One automotive suppliers — were at the top of the disengagement list. It’s likely their engineers were using city streets to get real-world performance data for R & D projects, not ironing out the last few bugs in prototypes.

Nevertheless, the results cited in the California report don’t inspire confidence about the reliability of autonomous systems. This is particularly so because some autonomous vehicle developers have a loose idea of what constitutes a disengagement. Waymo’s definition, for example, doesn’t include every time a human driver is forced to take over. Its disengagement count – just 124 in its 60 self-driving cars during 2016 — only includes incidents where something unsafe would have happened if the human driver weren’t there. In contrast to what it reports, Waymo admits its drivers have to go hands-on many thousands of times annually.

Critics claim these results indicate the technology isn’t ready for prime time and won’t be for the foreseeable future. They also note that at least one firm – Uber – stopped a self-driving pilot program in San Francisco in favor of running tests in Arizona and Pennsylvania, states where failure reports aren’t required.Lee Teschler Such tactics have bloggers questioning whether it makes sense to unleash autonomous technology on public streets at this stage of the game. Says one about autopilot systems, “Drivers should not be Guinea pigs and misled into a false sense of confidence.”

Which brings us back to the comments made during the TU-Automotive show. People in self-driving vehicle technology do themselves no favors when they come across as cavalier about the shortcomings of current autonomous systems. Nobody needs the perception that a traffic accident involving a self-driving vehicle is just a bug report incident for software engineers.

Tell Us What You Think! Cancel reply

MOTION DESIGN GUIDES

“motion

“motion

“motion

“motion

“motion

Enews Sign Up

Motion Control Classroom

Design World Digital Edition

cover

Browse the most current issue of Design World and back issues in an easy to use high quality format. Clip, share and download with the leading design engineering magazine today.

EDABoard the Forum for Electronics

Top global problem solving EE forum covering Microcontrollers, DSP, Networking, Analog and Digital Design, RF, Power Electronics, PCB Routing and much more

EDABoard: Forum for electronics

Sponsored Content

  • Master Bond Supreme 10HT High Strength, NASA Low Outgassing Approved Epoxy
  • Optimize, streamline and increase production capacity with pallet-handling conveyor systems
  • Drilling Rig OEM Benefits from a PLC with Edge Computing Technology: IIoT Case Study
  • #1 Reason for Retaining Ring Failure & How to Overcome It
  • Motion controllers: design from scratch or buy ready-made?
  • 4 Key Trends in Machine Engineering
Engineering Exchange

The Engineering Exchange is a global educational networking community for engineers.

Connect, share, and learn today »

Tweets by @DesignWorld
Design World
  • Advertising
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Manage your Design World Subscription
  • Subscribe
  • Design World Digital Network
  • Engineering White Papers
  • LEAP Awards

Copyright © 2021 WTWH Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media. Site Map | Privacy Policy | RSS

Search Design World

  • Home
  • Articles
    • 3D CAD
    • Electronics • electrical
    • Fastening & Joining
    • Factory automation
    • Linear Motion
    • Motion Control
    • Test & Measurement
    • Sensors
  • 3D CAD Models
    • PARTsolutions
    • TraceParts
  • Leadership
    • 2020 Winners
    • 2019 Winners
    • 2020 LEAP Awards
  • Resources
    • DIGITAL ISSUES
      • EE World Digital Issues
    • Future of Design Engineering
    • 2020 LEAP Awards
    • MC² Motion Control Classroom
    • Motion Design Guide Library
    • Podcasts
    • Suppliers
    • Webinars
  • Women in Engineering
  • Ebooks / Tech Tips
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
  • COVID-19