Ford, GM and Toyota Collaborate For Self-Driving Safety Rules (detroitnews.com) 67
Ford, General Motors, and Toyota have formed a new consortium called the Automated Vehicle Safety Consortium (AVSC) to develop safety standards for self-driving cars. "The newly formed Automated Vehicle Safety Consortium in conjunction with the auto engineering association SAE International says it will fill a critical need by providing a safety framework around which autonomous technology can responsibly evolve before self-driving vehicles are put into widespread use," reports The Detroit News. From the report: Being able to advance the safe deployment of fully self-driving cars represents a new step toward the benefits the technology will bring, said Edward Straub, director of automation for SAE and executive director of the new consortium. Straub said the automakers in the new consortium would turn information discovered through their self-driving testing over to SAE committees every three to six months, and the information would be discussed in public SAE sessions as a set of guidelines are being developed.
Straub said other automakers and technology companies would be welcome to join the consortium, provided they have experience testing fully autonomous cars. The announcement of the new partnership may be a reaction to the inability of Congress to pass legislation that would allow car manufacturers to sell thousands of self-driving vehicles in the near future, said Michelle Krebs, senior analyst for Autotrader. "GM, Ford and Toyota clearly saw a need to set standards that eventually may become regulations because the proposed regulations, which had been moving quickly, have now stalled," she said. Straub said the automakers in the new consortium are operating independently of the efforts to pass legislation in Congress.
Straub said other automakers and technology companies would be welcome to join the consortium, provided they have experience testing fully autonomous cars. The announcement of the new partnership may be a reaction to the inability of Congress to pass legislation that would allow car manufacturers to sell thousands of self-driving vehicles in the near future, said Michelle Krebs, senior analyst for Autotrader. "GM, Ford and Toyota clearly saw a need to set standards that eventually may become regulations because the proposed regulations, which had been moving quickly, have now stalled," she said. Straub said the automakers in the new consortium are operating independently of the efforts to pass legislation in Congress.
Re: (Score:1)
Will have full self-crashing by the end of the year.
Fixed that for you.
after 3-4 year updates cost $250-$500/year dealer (Score:2)
after 3-4 year updates cost $250-$500/year dealer only and if you need an bigger disk to say hold the super mapped roads 1TB $250 + $250 labor at the dealer to install.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you haven't been to a dealer lately. It's more like $1000 labor plus $500 for a 250GB drive.
Simplest rule (Score:5, Funny)
Each car can electronically compare purchase price with each other, most expensive car gets right of way, least expensive car gets the ditch.
Re: (Score:2)
Not self-driving, so not invited (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not self-driving, so not invited (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd need a special subroutine for 50cc mopeds - always filter to the front of the queue at the lights then when they change to green accelerate away at the pace of a kneecapped tortoise staying in the middle of the road at all times and making sure at least some drivers behind don't make it through before the next red. Also - see self driving bicycles.
Will they take criminal liability? or do an uber (Score:2)
Will they take criminal liability? or do an uber where that safety driver may face criminal changes even when they need to look off the road at the cars systems.
What could go wrong? (Score:1)
Toyota is handling the braking controls.
Ford is working on automatic rollover prevention.
GM is developing a new system to replace ignition controls.
What could go wrong?
Re:What could go wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
Toyota is handling the braking controls. Ford is working on automatic rollover prevention. GM is developing a new system to replace ignition controls. What could go wrong?
Also:
Re: (Score:2)
Put the customer in charge of the rules (Score:2)
That's not enough (Score:2)
It's a good start but we need communication protocols so cars can talk to one another and so traffic control devices can talk to them. We need uniform standards for road sensors, lane markers and broadcast obstruction warnings.
Maybe this is the incentive we need to finally fix our broken infrastructure.
Re:That's not enough (Score:5, Informative)
Tesla released its first Vehicle Safety Report after the third quarter of 2018. During that period, the electric car maker registered one accident or crash-like event for every 3.34 million miles driven with Autopilot active, and one accident or crash-like event for every 1.92 million miles driven with Autopilot disengaged
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Autopilot isn't self driving.
Re:That's not enough (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, no, we really don't, despite the old guard car companies' near-constant insistence that it is somehow critical. There's no plausible design for an inter-car communication protocol that can't be forged, and if you can't trust the data coming in, you can't really do much useful with it, so what's the point of even sending it? It's not as if the difference between the few milliseconds it takes for a computer to recognize what's happening visually and the few nanoseconds it takes to decode the signal electronically is going to make any real difference anyway, in practice.
Also, traffic control devices had better be visually obvious enough that humans can recognize them, or else they won't work, and if they are, then computers don't need any additional electronic communication. It just introduces more opportunities for bugs and hacking.
This, I agree with. Of course, making that happen around the world is about as likely as Tesla reaching level 5 autonomy in 2019. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they catch you.
No, because if you tried that, they would trace the signal back to you and put you in jail. If you want to cause self-driving carmageddon, attach a radio to a Raspberry Pi with four D cells, p
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to cause self-driving carmageddon, attach a radio to a Raspberry Pi with four D cells, program it to transmit a signal that says "Speed limit 90 MPH", and toss it out on the side of the road right before a hairpin turn. Good freaking luck catching the person who does something like that.
Where do you get the key to sign the message ?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to cause self-driving carmageddon, attach a radio to a Raspberry Pi with four D cells, program it to transmit a signal that says "Speed limit 90 MPH", and toss it out on the side of the road right before a hairpin turn. Good freaking luck catching the person who does something like that.
Where do you get the key to sign the message ?
It's hard to answer that without knowing what the architecture would be. For any given architecture, there's a different answer. The most likely answer, though, is that someone borrows a device from an existing speed limit sign and copies the key out of it.
If we assume a nice architecture with each device having its own key with proper key signing from a root cert, that then becomes a trivial revocation problem, but only after they discover that it has been stolen, which doesn't happen until after the fir
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that if traffic was all cars we'd have self-driving cars by now, for the simple reason that cars are bound by traffic rules. If it's an intersection and you're running a red light there's not much doubt who's at fault. If the rules are too ambiguous we can always make them clearer until say a lane merger is properly described and you can put a car's behavior into "at fault" or "not at fault". Right now we're trying to work backwards from "do not crash" into behavior that won't ever cause a c
Re: (Score:2)
If the rules are too ambiguous we can always make them clearer until say a lane merger is properly described and you can put a car's behavior into "at fault" or "not at fault".
Properly describing a lane merger is already impossible. If you put all the responsibility for safety on the merging car, it becomes impossible to merge in busy traffic. The only solution is to become more aggressive in merging, and force traffic to brake for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that if traffic was all cars we'd have self-driving cars by now, for the simple reason that cars are bound by traffic rules.
No. Those are laws and regulations, not rules. Rules are things like "don't crash" or "follow laws and regulations". The laws and regulations are complex in and of themselves, but actually following the rules of driving is orders of magnitude more complicated.
If traffic were all trains, we'd have self-driving transport by now. But since cars have to operate on tarmac (etc.) roads with pneumatic rubber tires, even if you had only passenger cars and they didn't have to mix with anything else, driving would st
Re: That's not enough (Score:2)
Talk to them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good start but we need communication protocols so cars can talk to one another
You mean like these [wikipedia.org]? Noob. You should at least give yourself a basic education in a subject before spouting.
and so traffic control devices can talk to them. We need uniform standards for road sensors, lane markers and broadcast obstruction warnings.
An AV which depends on V2X is untrustworthy. AVs have to work even when the communications network is completely down in order to be useful, because otherwise people will learn to depend on them in situations in which they are not dependable.
You have no idea what you are on about. Go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll go with the companies that don't sell flamethrowers on the side, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a way to make rules that will see that others are always at fault. The reason O think that us because it is two US and a japanese company.
It is telling if the company that gave up the patent for 3 ppint safety belts is not part of it.
Sounds like a health research group from the tobacco industry.
Actually it's more of a free ad for Toyota, GM and Ford.
The road rules (known as the Highway Code) here in the UK are very clear about what vehicles should be doing and when, when to go, when to stop, when to give way, what distance to maintain, when to indicate, how long to indicate for, so on and so forth up until who is at fault in a collision. Very little is ambiguous.
For self driving cars, the highway code simply needs to be turned into computer code. The problem is the highway code assumes the v
Re: (Score:2)
For self driving cars, the highway code simply needs to be turned into computer code.
That's far from simple, as you explain in your next sentence. A common set of safety standards would help to make sure they all do this correctly.
This is useless (Score:2)
AI models based on their adverts? (Score:1)
If so they're in for a bit of a surprise when they discover that their adverts ubiquitous portrayal of empty roads, driving wherever, at whatever speed and it's all just tickety-boo is one big lie that'd make even the Marlboro Man's death stick purveyors blush.
Seriously though, I think we're at a juncture were we need to understand very quickly what they're being lined up for with self-driving cars by the car/auto lobby. For while it's likely that the number of accidents will go down. It's also true, all el
Re: (Score:2)
while it's likely that the number of accidents will go down. It's also true, all else being equal, that the number of car journey will increase. Is there anyone outside of the auto lobby that thinks, yep, what we need is more car journeys. That'll help with the obesity crisis, pollution and global warming. Really?
This is why we need to promote rail. Here in the USA, Trump is attacking national rail, probably on behalf of the oil and car companies. It's happened before [wikipedia.org] that auto companies destroyed profitable public transportation lines to increase demand for their product (with the aid of oil and tire companies, who wanted the same for their products.)
The future of ride hailing is the use of a single app to manage an entire journey. A trip could involve an autonomous car showing up to take you to a train station, wh
Re: (Score:2)
Rail is very expensive. An autonomous bus in a dedicated lane would be a much cheaper alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Rail costs more, but it also carries much more, and costs less to maintain. It's also much more efficient to use steel wheels on smooth rails than to use pneumatic rubber tires even on smooth pavement, let alone the roads we actually wind up with. Trains are also more compatible with mobile charging. They just make more sense for long-distance travel, and often for medium-range trips. Cars are still better for short ones. Buses on tarmac are a problem because heavy axles put high PSI loads on pavement. Trai
Easy (Score:3)
A car may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A car must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A car must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.