-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Autonomous Car Progress
- Thread starter stopcrazypp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Autonomous Vehicles
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Yes. Geely will be the first cars to get Super Vision:
By the way, here is Mobileye's marketing page on Super Vision that gives details on how it works. IMO, it is very informative:
Mobileye SuperVision™ | The Bridge from ADAS to Consumer AVs
Mobileye SuperVision™ is our most advanced driver-assist system, providing eyes-on/hands-off automated operation of standard driving functions.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Is it just me or did it seem like the driver did not really have enough time to properly re-engage when the emergency vehicle zipped by at the 12:06 mark in the video? The car did properly flash red and give auditory alerts to take over but the driver only had about 4-5 seconds on my count before the emergency vehicle passed him. If the car had been in the other lane and had needed to move over quickly, 4-5 seconds is not a lot of time for the driver to re-engage. It could have been an issue IMO. I feel like this might be an example of why L3 does not always work because there could be cases where you can't give the driver the full 10 seconds to really re-engage properly.
rxlawdude
Active Member
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
I disagree. It should not be arbitrary. The driver needs to properly re-engage in the driving task after being completely disengaged like watching a movie or checking texts. And some situations may be more safety critical than others where it more important that the driver have enough time to re-engage. So it should depend on how time is enough for the driver to properly re-engage. That amount of time can be quantified. You can give the driver more time of course, but you can't give the driver less time.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
10 seconds is obviously too long to respond to a situation like that. Of course it didn't seem like any response is necessary. A bigger risk might be the driver taking over and making an unpredictable move (tapping the brakes, swerving slightly).
Will the system actually change lanes for emergency vehicles? It sounds like it does change its position within the lane to create an "emergency corridor."
We don't know that. Obviously there ways that 5 seconds is better and ways that 15 seconds is better. Hopefully they didn't just pick at random.
I hope they actually release this system.
rxlawdude
Active Member
My point is why "10 seconds?" Taking my mind or eyes off the road for 2-3 seconds still gives me the ability to pre-assess upcoming roadway and react accordingly if TACC/NoA freaks out.
Allowing up to 10 seconds for a driver to take over is the real recipe for disaster. "Oh, the car will catch it while I'm reading my newsfeed, and warn me in plenty of time." Till the case where all that pre-assessment (we, as humans should always be doing) is beyond the AV's ability, which is inevitable. This is why an L5 AV is going to be elusive, an L4 limited in scope, but something L2-3ish becoming the norm in driver assistance tools. That's really all I expect and would be happy with is competence similar to the NoA/FSD features on the highway for city. Still need to be paying attention, and still will be the driver.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
It is not just about taking your eyes off the road for 2-3 seconds. With L3, you might be more disengaged than that like checking your texts or watching a video. If you are deep into watching a movie, do you think 2-3 seconds would be enough to get back to focusing on the road? I doubt it.
rxlawdude
Active Member
You've just given a great reason why L3 probably won't be typical. If you think L3 systems will be able to predict a fault or condition 10 seconds ahead at a 100% accuracy rate, IMO you're dreaming. L4 (and IIRC, L5) systems, for exactly the same reason, must fallback to a safe shutdown without any driver intervention. Right?
I propose throwing L3 in the trash, and having decimal point extensions of what's clearly understood as L2.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Mercedes is liable for the operation of the vehicle during those 10 seconds. I'm sure they won't release it until they believe it can safely handle any situation for 10 seconds. I am also skeptical but it seems conceivable in the very limited set of circumstances they allow the system to be enabled.
rxlawdude
Active Member
Exactly. I would much prefer an imperfect generalist (Tesla's FSD) to an accomplished virtuoso who only plays in one concert hall.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Oh, I agree, L3 is not very useful IMO. That is why we see L3 in only very limited cases like traffic jams.
Yes, L4/L5 must handle a fallback to a safe shutdown without a human. So, L4/L5 avoids the L3 issue by simply removing the human from the equation entirely.
Except the SAE specifically forbids that. The SAE levels are not allowed to be decimals, only integers. Decimals don't make any sense with the SAE level taxonomy. A system either is L2 or it is not L2. There is no middle ground.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
They're not mutually exclusive. The same hardware can be used for both L2 and L3. It would be great if we could safely and legally take our eyes off the road when using Autopilot below 60kph.
I think that's reasonable and I'm surprised Tesla hasn't pushed for it like Honda and Mercedes have (albeit in different countries). I was stuck in a < 10 mph traffic jam on the highway the other day, and using autopilot I saw little reason to not be messing around on my phone while we were stuck. I didn't, because I didn't want to be "that guy", but I really feel like the technology is safe enough for those situations.
The wording confuses me. "You have up to ten seconds to take over." Does that mean that car will give you some amount of time that might be as long as ten seconds, or does it mean that the driver has a full ten seconds to take over? If the latter, then the wording should be "You have ten seconds to take over," not "You have up to ten seconds to take over." Either you have ten seconds, or you don't. "... up to" confuses me as to what they intend to say.
It would have been clear if they'd said "You have at least ten seconds before you have to take over." But your post suggests that the car didn't give a full ten seconds. Which is to say, it's not ready for real-world use yet.
The problem is, in real-world driving in the city, there are often situations where you don't have ten seconds to react. An L3 car needs to be able to react to all those situations itself. (Or at least as many as a human driver could. There will be situations that no human or computer could react in time. But the car cannot tell the driver: "Quick! You have three seconds to react!")
Reliable, safe Level 3 autonomy would be a tremendous advance over any L2 system. I think I'd pay a $20,000 premium for that, provided disengagements were rare.
ETA: And provided it operated at highway speeds and in the city.
Similar threads
- Article
