Slashdot Mirror
Ford, GM and Toyota Collaborate For Self-Driving Safety Rules (detroitnews.com)
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.
Will have full self-driving by the end of the year.
It's never to early to think about security.
Each car can electronically compare purchase price with each other, most expensive car gets right of way, least expensive car gets the ditch.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Fuck them. Pedestrians and cyclists MUST be full partipants in these policy deliberations.
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.
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?
The right to repair guarantees that it's the *customer* who is the backstop of ethical behaviour of their vehicle, which is exactly where it should be. I do not want the decision of who my car is going to kill going to be made by some company that owes it's existence on sucking on the government bailout tit.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
It will be a long way before the bicycle manufacturers come up with self-driving bicycles so they are not invited to the party. And concerning pedestrians, they are in the category 'humans' which are in general considered to be too incapable doing anything beynd posting messages on social media.
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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Ford, GM and Toyota do not have any major successful self driving car efforts, so this is simply a way for them to try to attack/slow development for the majors, Google and Tesla and Volvo, so they can catch up.
They don't have expertise in this field, they are the losers, and as such they don't have standing to negotiate safety standards. That should be done between Google/Tesla/Volvo and the motoring safety inspection companies. You don't negotiate car safety rules with buggy manufacturers, because they just insists that someone walks ahead of cars carrying a flag to warn horses!
This crappy attempt for the failed companies to inject themselves into the self driving regulations dialogue should be seen as what it is.
Volvo is owned by the Chinese, and if you want to lead in self driving cars, you need to not pander to Ford and GM.
I don't know ANYONE who wants this shit.
Look at how well automation turns out when it's part of an Airbus or a Boeing.
Do you REALLY believe it will turn out better in cars that are built to a price rather than a standard of quality ? If you do believe this, you should
be neutered for the sake of the rest of the world, because you should not be permitted to breed.
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.
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
OK, I do not have experience with automotive safety standards, but they tend to be pretty much the same regardless of field.
Assuming that the responsibility is handled the same way for ISO 26262 as for industrial systems it works this way:
The standard tells you the procedure you use to develop hardware/software and what documentation you need to produce.
If the procedure wasn't followed then the engineer is criminally liable when accidents happen and there are cases of them going to jail.
If the procedure was followed you have two possible cases:
1) The user intentionally bypassed all safety mechanism to cause an "accident". In that case the user i liable.
2) The standard is flawed and needs to be updated. (Doesn't really happen, it is pretty waterproof.)
When developing a safe system you can't just throw in a transistor without the documentation showing why it won't cause any safety issue if the transistor breaks in any of the possible cases.
Integrated circuits like processors are typically too complex to make it feasible to document every transistor failure so instead you use redundancy. Ideally two different solutions that uses different components together with a failsafe system that makes sure they both behave the same way.
If you use pointers you need to explain why it is necessary in every case and that they can't possibly point to something else than desired.
Want to use dynamically allocated memory? Show that it doesn't cause any safety issues when the allocation fails.
There is a reason MISRA-C is popular in this field. It makes it so much easier.
I wouldn't want to try to bring a high level language through certification.
If you wonder about image recognition software or AI: The only way to use any of them is to show that they aren't involved in the safety critical part.
So far the automotive developers have gotten around it by brakes being the safety critical component and they require that a human monitors the situation and applies the brakes as necessary.
The only way I see fully autonomous cars being able to comply with existing safety standards is to specify that braking is the real safety critical part. (This is compliant with traffic laws. If you need to swerve you are driving too fast and if you are at a standstill you are not the one who caused the collision.)
You need both ultrasound and LIDAR to be able to trigger the brakes and they shouldn't go through anything more complex.
Once you have that, all that other stuff with lane following and smooth deceleration and other things that makes traveling feasible could be added on as non-safe parts.
If they fail the braking mechanism will prevent you from causing accidents. (However, then oncoming traffic in the lane your car went to when lane following failed might very well be driving too fast to be unable to stop.)
I think you haven't been to a dealer lately. It's more like $1000 labor plus $500 for a 250GB drive.
China will start selling dangerous self-driving cars and the whole thing will collapse.
E Proelio Veritas.
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 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?
So obviously, given the likely outcome of their endeavours what do we think these companies are going to do about it. Is it going to be a) Create policies that attempt to humanise their technology, reduce environmental damage and generally make life better for everyone including non-car owners/users. Or b), keep making vast amounts of money at whatever the cost to society and the planet? How well do we think our legislatures are prepared for this?
I think thats only for the iCar.
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.
Note the the corporations that invested the most in self driving cars are Google, Uber and Tesla. Funny that. Neither GM, nor Ford, nor Toyota have track record that would let me trust any of them with safety regulation related rules. Sounds too much like Boing rubber stamping the flight certification of the 737 MAX 8...
Is they still expect the meatbag to pedal.
How else do you expect them to run the guidance system, never mind propelling themselves around.
And remember the most important aspect of self-driving bicycles: Automatic braking is optional :)