Slashdot Mirror
Volvo Engineer Calls Out Tesla For Dangerous 'Wannabe' Autopilot System (jalopnik.com)
An anonymous reader shares an article on Jalopnik: Tesla's semi-autonomous Autopilot system has been impressing everyone from consumers to journalists, and even other industry experts and executives. But now a Volvo engineer has called Tesla's system out, claiming it's a dangerous "wannabe" autonomous technology. Trent Victor, senior technical leader of crash avoidance for Volvo, had quite a few choice words to say about Tesla's Autopilot system in a recent interview with The Verge, claiming the electric automaker was touting what is essentially a rudimentary semi-autonomous technology as being far more capable than it actually is. Victor fears that Autopilot "gives you the impression that it's doing more than it is." He went on to call Tesla's system an "unsupervised wannabe."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Which is the typical Slashdot way, let me summarize for you guys and have a real discussion.
Volvo consider's Tesla's system a Level 3 system, which they consider dangerous. The reason they consider this is not for technical reasons but for liability and user control protocol reasons. What he's saying Tesla's system does is that in the event of an emergency, the system relinquishes control of the car to the driver, meaning the driver is now responsible (and has associated liability) for any accident or damage caused from the emergency. However Tesla's promotional material about their system is not suggesting that; their promotions are all focused on technical ability but it's ignoring the fact that if you're in an emergency the system basically tosses control to you, so his argument is that Tesla's promotion of the technology gives drivers and users the wrong impression of what it's really doing. So what he's saying is that if you're driving down the road and you fall asleep at the wheel and start to drift, the system will not take over and park you safely, and if in this process you hit a pedestrian or another car, you are liable for the damage caused.
Volvo's system coming out this year is what they call a Level 4. What this means is that the car does not require the driver to be in control at any time, even during extreme conditions. If you fall asleep at the wheel and start to drift, the computer takes over, gets you back in your lane first, then finds a way to pull you to the side of the road and park the car safely. They are so confident in their system that Volvo itself is taking on the liability of their system; if it fails to get you to safety or causes damage, Volvo is responsible, not you. Tesla does not make that claim about their system.
So his argument that the Tesla system which will force control to the driver in extreme driving conditions is actually more dangerous, because the driver is under the mistaken impression that the autonomous system has control and will suddenly find himself thrown into a difficult situation with no autonomous supervision; that surprise will invariably find the driver unable to make rational decisions.
All you Tesla Fundamentalists should stop with your Musk-worship and brand loving and realize that one of the most experienced safety engineers in the world is making a technical and design process argument. Argue his technical merits or the arguments he makes about Tesla's system and it's design decisions; don't just drink the Elon-Aid and dismiss because of the Gee-Whiz factor.
The Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup so clearly Tesla is doing something customers appreciate more than Volvo. Makes it sound a lot like sour grapes on Volvo's part even if it really isn't.
Uhh... ok. So I get you're a Tesla fan, but a comment like "the Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup" is not an opinion, it's fact that can be checked and in this case is a lie; Volvo had 3 models that outsold the Model S and their total car sales was 10 times Tesla's sales.
Model S sales, 2015 - 50,580
Volvo sales, 2015:
XC60 - 159,617
V40 - 83,357
V60 - 51,333
Total Volvo Sales of all models for 2015: 503,127
It's fine if you're a Tesla fan-boy, but please get your facts right and stop spreading FUD. It makes you sound like you're sour-grapes about a real car brand providing a real critique of your fab-boyishness and doesn't help your argument.
Do you have a source for that AC? I follow Tesla news closely and that's the first I've heard.
Just some basic information about what they mean when they talk about level of vehicular autonomy:
NHTSA defines vehicle automation as having five levels:
No-Automation (Level 0): The driver is in complete and sole control of the primary vehicle controls â" brake, steering, throttle, and motive power â" at all times.
Function-specific Automation (Level 1): Automation at this level involves one or more specific control functions. Examples include electronic stability control or pre-charged brakes, where the vehicle automatically assists with braking to enable the driver to regain control of the vehicle or stop faster than possible by acting alone.
Combined Function Automation (Level 2): This level involves automation of at least two primary control functions designed to work in unison to relieve the driver of control of those functions. An example of combined functions enabling a Level 2 system is adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering.
Limited Self-Driving Automation (Level 3): Vehicles at this level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition time. The Google car is an example of limited self-driving automation.
Full Self-Driving Automation (Level 4): The vehicle is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles.
Musk says autopilot controlled vehicles have half the rate of crashes (where a crash is defined as an event that triggers the airbag) versus those under human control.
That sounds like a BS statistic. You wouldn't use Autopilot for all driving, only for certain highway driving. So a proper comparison would only be between Autopilot-driven miles versus human-driven miles in comparable conditions. And auto crashes on the highway are *already* much less frequent than on surface streets, for obvious reasons I hope.
So "half the rate of crashes" could actually be much worse than human piloting on the highway.