Because they are real assist systems that one drive together with the car, not wannabe level 4 like autopilot and FSD that still is only level 2 capable.
-
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
Doggydogworld
Active Member
Mass market lidars have improved a lot from your example. But that's beside the point. Lidar can help even without identifying the lane. Consider the example below. I'm pretty convinced Tesla's vision NN mistook the vertical glare off the headlights for two lane lines and steered in between them. Lidar would have identified the large, solid object in this misidentified "lane". Lidar localizing on an HD map would have told the supervisory code that the misidentified lane was in the wrong place. This is all very valuable information, and separate from lidar itself identifying the actual lane lines.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Stellantis announced plans for L3 on some vehicles by 2024:
That last part is interesting. I was not aware Stellantis had plans to partner with Waymo to deploy L4/L5. Could this be how Waymo plans to deploy their autonomous driving on consumer cars?
Obviously, these are all just plans at the moment. But I still think it is interesting.
www.teslarati.com
That last part is interesting. I was not aware Stellantis had plans to partner with Waymo to deploy L4/L5. Could this be how Waymo plans to deploy their autonomous driving on consumer cars?
Obviously, these are all just plans at the moment. But I still think it is interesting.
Stellantis aims to generate $23 billion in revenue with vehicle software by 2030
Stellantis seems to be fully aware of the opportunities presented by the emerging vehicle software market. While announcing its new software strategy, Stellantis revealed that it is looking to generate about $23 billion in extra revenue from vehicle software by 2030. The announcement, which was...
www.teslarati.com
EVNow
Well-Known Member
That looks extremely unlikely - i’ve had 2+ years of driving exactly in these kinds of conditions. So have thousands of others. If this was not one in a billion occurance we would have seen examples like this before.
That whole accident has a lot of unanswered questions - I’d not bet on anything at this point. If and when we know all the facts of the case, it will probably look pretty different from what was stated in that one post.
I highly doubt your take. If you look at any FSD Beta videos, you will see the path planner would happily plan a path through an oncoming lane even though the visualization shows the lane lines correctly. The lane detection is irrelevant and is not the issue here. Same thing with the examples with Blue Cruise. Given the videos shows simple cases in good weather, and we know what the Mobileye chip is capable of, it's extremely unlikely the reason why it can't stay in the lane in curves (something continually demonstrated in multiple tests, not just rare examples) is it can't detect the lanes.
Last edited:
But this whole Lidar bit is irrelevant, because the Mobileye chip Ford is using is perfectly capable of accurately telling where the lane is in the curves show in the video. If you look at the Munro video, the type of curves it has problems making with is the type you travel on AP commonly (the ones that you can easily handle doing well over the speed limit). Basically even a mild curve can be a problem.
Again, Teslas have navigated curves like in the videos using AP1 on Mobileye EyeQ3 easily (and have navigated even sharper curves than that). But BlueCruise seems to not be able to do that.
Here's a direct example, I picked the least sharp curve that the MachE failed at (at 4:41):
You can see in the exact same curve (at 3:47), the Model Y can take it at almost full speed (just slowed a tiny bit from 45 mph to 44 mph).
There are plenty more examples in those videos, of the Tesla successfully navigating even sharper curves than that, but MachE fails.
Last edited:
Of the examples you put coming, only the Luminar and Innovusion appear to have the resolution that gets closer to a low resolution camera in terms of identifying lanes. The Innoviz one you can't see the lane lines at all in the middle of the road, even up close (only can see the curbs which doesn't help you in the situations described above). The Livox might be a limitation of the visualization, but by the 30-40 meter mark (100-150 feet) you can only make them out barely intermittently.
Edit: I dug a bit more, and the list you put is highly misleading. XPeng is using Livox HAP (their mass produced sensor), which has a 25 degree VFOV and 0.2 degree vertical angular resolution, working out to only 125 lines of resolution. No way they reliably detect lanes with that low a resolution (I'm willing to bet they will still be relying on the cameras to do that).
Empowering Xpeng P5: Livox Officially Releases HAP Lidar
HAP
The demo video you linked was of the Horizon, which claims 25.1 degree and 0.05 precision (500 lines), but the demo seems to be saying it is achieving that higher resolution by using non-repetitive scanning, which may explain why the output seems so intermittent. This is still not comparable to an actual high resolution lidar, which would be giving steady consistent output.
Horizon lidar sensor - Livox
The Huawei Lidar is detailed here. It's only a 96 lines (25 degree VFOV, 0.26 degree resolution), so not a high resolution lidar.
"ARCFOX Alpha S Huawei HI is the first model equipped with Huawei's three 96-channel LiDARs on the center and both sides of the front. Released in December 2020, the LiDAR has the maximum detection distance of 150m (@10% reflectivity), the field of view of 120 x 25, and the resolution of 0.25 x 0.26."
Global and China Automotive LiDAR Industry Report 2021: Application Fields, Technology and Trends, Companies and Products
Not going to continue going down the list, but clearly you would need to list the actual sensor they are using, not just the company name, as many are still obviously using low resolution lidar.
From the fact that's the only one that's been massed produced at this point, and if the Mach E (which as been released a year already) was going to have it, it would likely be another Scala. And as shown above, the automakers are still using low resolution versions even from companies that have higher resolution versions available.
Valeo just came out with their gen 3 and still doesn't have the resolution to detect lane lines from the sample outputs they provide.
Valeo introduces its third-generation LiDAR
I guess we'll see who is right about the Lidar contribution to the curve problem, by seeing if it will make the cars listed above magically better around curves than a Tesla. (Edit: presuming they actually select a high resolution one when the time comes, not cheap out as shown above).
Last edited:
Mercedes says they will release the L3 Drive Pilot system for the 2022 S-Class in Germany in the first half of next year (it's a traffic jam system like the failed Audi system). If they do so, they would be the first to have L3 for sale (Honda beat them to it for first for consumers, although it was lease only and only 100 vehicles).
Mercedes Is First To Sell A Level 3 Autonomous Vehicle In 2022
As relevant to other discussion about Lidar, it uses a gen 2 Scala which has 16 lines of resolution (10 degrees VFOV, 0.6 degree vertical angular resolution):
In a world-first, Valeo’s second-generation LiDAR will equip the new Mercedes-Benz S-Class, allowing it to reach level 3 automation
Valeo SCALA 3D Laser Scanner (Gen 2)
If even Mercedes in a $100k+ S-Class is only using a gen 2 Scala when it comes out next year, this is even more evidence that if Ford opted for it, that's likely the one they would have chosen (not a more expensive higher res one).
Mercedes Is First To Sell A Level 3 Autonomous Vehicle In 2022
As relevant to other discussion about Lidar, it uses a gen 2 Scala which has 16 lines of resolution (10 degrees VFOV, 0.6 degree vertical angular resolution):
In a world-first, Valeo’s second-generation LiDAR will equip the new Mercedes-Benz S-Class, allowing it to reach level 3 automation
Valeo SCALA 3D Laser Scanner (Gen 2)
If even Mercedes in a $100k+ S-Class is only using a gen 2 Scala when it comes out next year, this is even more evidence that if Ford opted for it, that's likely the one they would have chosen (not a more expensive higher res one).
Last edited:
Yup. We had that incident in Texas where the Sheriff's department blamed autopilot. Any Tesla owner knew that was impossible.
I have 18+ months of AP/FSd experience (only a few months of FSdbeta with lots of night driving) and nothing like this has happened.
I have 18+ months of AP/FSd experience (only a few months of FSdbeta with lots of night driving) and nothing like this has happened.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Tesla AP has not failed a bend/curve yet for me in 2+ years. No - I've not tried going up real mountains - but we have a lot of those curves & bends in Seattle metro (esp. on the east side in the foothills of the Cascade Range).
Innoviz detects lane lines quite clearly and is one of the features of their perception software:
You should dig a bit deeper. The HAP is NOT inferior to HORIZON. Its superior in every way.
First of all that 0.05 for Horizon is angular precision not angular resolution, they are not the same thing.
Horizon
64 lines at 10 hertz (10fps)
90 m @ 10% reflectivity
81.7° (Horizontal) ×25.1° (Vertical)
240,000 pts/s
Not Automotive Grade
HAP
144 lines at 10 hertz (10fps)
150 m @ 10% reflectivity
120° (Horizontal) x 25° (Vertical)
450,000 pts/s
Automotive Grade
96 lines IS high resolution lidar... Remember SDC used to use Velodyne 64 line high resolution lidar and that was all they used. Google used only one 64 line lidar for a very long time. Infact today alot still do. Most of cruise prototypes were made up of 32 lines velodyne lidars. I could keep going. To call 96 line low resolution is misinformation.
This is wrong, both livox HAP (Xpeng P5) and huawei lidars (Arcfox As and other chinese models) are being mass produced today and there are several more like innoviz that are waiting on BMW IX. But you keep changing the goal post rather than admitting you were wrong.
This isn't what you said, nor implied, you said it would "no doubt would be the type Ford would use if they opted for it".
You keep moving the goal post, why not just admit you were wrong?
no they are not. when 10-15 automakers are doing one thing, focus on the one that isn't and claim THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE IS DOING.
Typical tesla fan.
For the record i don't believe nor is it true that the lack of lidar is the reason for the curve problem nor the solution.
So a future 2022 Mercedes is now the deciding factor of what Lidar automakers will use? You tesla fans never fail to amaze me.
So the $30-50k cars with 3,4,5 and 6 high resolution lidar don't matter.
The 10-15 automakers using High resolution lidars don't matter.
But if a 100k mercedes uses a low res lidar then thats what the automakers are still using.
The logic of a tesla fan in full display. The funny part is, there will be more Livox HAP lidars sold through xpeng p5 this year than the mytical mercedes L3 all next year and probably the year after that.
Infact there will be more lidars sold by each individual lidar companies: luminar on volvo cars and other chinese cars, innovusion on ET7 and other NIO models, Huawei, and Livox than the Scala 2 through mercedes.
But that wont stop you from pushing your false narratives that automakers are still using low resolution lidars, just like it doesn't stop tesla fans from portraying blue cruise as "the competition".
Last edited:
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
FWIW there's a weird sharp local-road curve on my normal drive between home and highway and public-release AP has never been able to handle correctly (and where, of course, the system is not officially intended to work anyway since it's a 2-way road). FSDBeta does handle it, though it feels slightly awkward when doing it.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Thats debatable. Even though they have not changed the documentation, they have released a lot of city driving specific features on AP (I'm using AP here more like EAP than current basic AP) like stop signs.
Terminator857
Active Member
Pony.ai backed by Toyota gets its driverless license in California suspended for hitting a divider.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/GPKLIQST6JLZZGJ4RPQPJTJKVM.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Quote:
On Oct. 28, a Pony.ai vehicle operating in autonomous mode hit a road center divider and a traffic sign in Fremont after turning right, showed the technology firm’s accident report filed with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
“There were no injuries and no other vehicles involved,” the company, backed by Japan’s Toyota Motor Corp, said in the report.
... It was unclear what aspect of this incident prompted the suspension.
“On Nov. 19, the DMV notified Pony.ai that the department is suspending its driverless testing permit, effective immediately, following a reported solo collision in Fremont, California, on Oct. 28,” the DMV said in a statement.
The regulator said Pony.ai has 10 Hyundai Motor Co Kona electric vehicles registered under its driverless testing permit, and that the suspension does not impact Pony.ai’s permit for testing with a safety driver.
The suspension comes only six months after Pony.ai became the eighth company to receive a driverless testing permit in California, joining the likes of Alphabet Inc unit Waymo as well as Cruise, backed by General Motors Co.
California halts Pony.ai's driverless testing permit after accident
A California regulator on Monday said it has suspended a driverless testing permit for startup technology firm Pony.ai following an accident - the first time it has issued such a suspension.
www.reuters.com
On Oct. 28, a Pony.ai vehicle operating in autonomous mode hit a road center divider and a traffic sign in Fremont after turning right, showed the technology firm’s accident report filed with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
“There were no injuries and no other vehicles involved,” the company, backed by Japan’s Toyota Motor Corp, said in the report.
... It was unclear what aspect of this incident prompted the suspension.
“On Nov. 19, the DMV notified Pony.ai that the department is suspending its driverless testing permit, effective immediately, following a reported solo collision in Fremont, California, on Oct. 28,” the DMV said in a statement.
The regulator said Pony.ai has 10 Hyundai Motor Co Kona electric vehicles registered under its driverless testing permit, and that the suspension does not impact Pony.ai’s permit for testing with a safety driver.
The suspension comes only six months after Pony.ai became the eighth company to receive a driverless testing permit in California, joining the likes of Alphabet Inc unit Waymo as well as Cruise, backed by General Motors Co.
Tam
Well-Known Member
It sounds like when the accident, there was no human safety backup driver present.
If there were a competent human, this accident could have been prevented. Thus, it's the aspect of lacking a human backup driver that is the issue.
Companies were able to get their driverless testing permit with the assumption that it's so good to the point that there's no need for a human safety driver anymore. Thus, I think this suspension is reasonable until the technological cause is identified that it's fixed so that won't happen again.
Doggydogworld
Active Member
Yes, though I think they often have a "safety passenger". The accident was odd, it ran onto a median and hit a sign on a curved section of road. It's almost as if it tried to go in a straight line from one waypoint to another and cut across the curve. Or maybe it tried to lane change into a non-existent lane. It doesn't seem any other cars were involved, just a basic perception/localization error. Not something you'd expect from a system approved for driverless testing.
Tam
Well-Known Member
There are two separate permits:
1) The car alone with no human (driverless)
and
2) the car with a required human safety driver.
I am not sure how DMV gave a driverless permit to a company:
These are samples of 2 records:
2019 (with human safety driver):
Pony traveled 174,845.29 miles while Waymo traveled 1,454,137.32 (hundreds of thousands vs million)
Pony Disengagements were 27 while Waymo Disengagements were 109
Pony Miles per Disengagements were 6,475.75 while Waymo Miles per Disengagements were 13,340.71 (Waymo traveled twice longer before a disengagement.
2020 (with human safety driver):
Pony traveled 225,496 miles while Waymo traveled 628,838.50
Pony Disengagements were 21 while Waymo Disengagements were the same 21
Pony Miles per Disengagements were 10,737.90 while Waymo Miles per Disengagements were 29,944.69 (Waymo traveled almost 3 times longer before a disengagement).
Let's review their disengagement:
2019 Pony 27 disengagements:
Planning, system detected poor planning decision and sent take over alert
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a vehicle ahead
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to adjacent vehicle making a sharp turn
Driver precautionarily intervened for a reckless neighboring vehicle swerving into the vehicle's lane
Driver precautionarily intervened for a reckless neighboring vehicle cutting in
Driver precautionarily intervened for a reckless lead vehicle ahead driving in reverse
Mapping issue, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a vehicle
Control, driver precautionarily intervened for poor vehicle braking control
Perception, driver precautionarily intervened for slow detection of a vehicle ahead
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a vehicle during unprotected left turn
Perception, driver precautionarily intervened for poor detection of an oncoming vehicle
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a neighboring truck cutting in
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient nuding for a stopped vehicle
Driver precautionarily intervened for a reckless neighboring vehicle drifting into the vehicle's lane
Driver precautionarily intervened for a reckless vehicle coming out of a driveway
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a vehicle during lane change
Driver precautionarily intervened for an oncoming reckless vehicle making left turn
Driver precautionarily intervened for a reckless neighboring vehicle cutting into vehicle's lane
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient nudging to an adjacent vehicle at intersection
Mapping issue, driver precautionarily intervened for poor maneuver during a left turn
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient nudging to a large truck making a wide turn
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a vehicle behind
Prediction, driver precautionarily intervened for slow prediction of neighboring vehicle cutting into vehicle's lane
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient nudging to neighboring vehicle making a left turn
Driver precautionarily intervened for late yielding to the reckless vehicle behind going straight in the right turn only lane
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a neighboring vehicle cutting into vehicle's lane
Perception, driver precautionarily intervened for slow detection of a vehicle ahead
2020 Pony 21 disengagements:
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for a reckless neighbor vehicle cuts in our lane
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for a reckless left vehicle makes a right turn from a go straight lane
Prediction, driver precautionarily intervened for a cyclist in bike lane before ADV enters zigzag(Single lane to two lanes split)
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for a vehicle cuts in ADV's lane suddenly
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for a bus drives crossing its lane boundary
Mapping, driver precautionarily intervened before vehicle runs to curb
Mapping,Driver precautionarily intervened for mis detected leading vehicle due to incorrect map information
Mapping,Driver precautionarily intervened for mis detected leading vehicle due to incorrect map information
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for a cyclist proceeding to us in high speed
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a vehicle going straight
Mapping, unable to detect oncoming vehicle due to missing roadgraph
Prediction, driver precautionarily intervened for a vehicle lane change without looking
driver precautionarily intervened for a reckless cutting in vehicle
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a vehicle going straight
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a vehicle going straight
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a vehicle going straight
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for reckless behind vehicle rushing to enter zigzag(Single lane to two lanes split)
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for reckless behind vehicle rushing to enter zigzag(Single lane to two lanes split)
Perception, driver took over to avoid hitting a gate which is accidently closed by a community safety guard
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a vehicle going straight
Planning, driver precautionarily intervened for insufficient yielding to a vehicle going straight
2019 Waymo101 disengagements:
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user |
| Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user |
| Disengage for a hardware discrepancy for which our vehicle's diagnostics received a message indicating a potential performance issue with a hardware component of the self-driving system or a component of the base vehicle |
| Disengage for a hardware discrepancy for which our vehicle's diagnostics received a message indicating a potential performance issue with a hardware component of the self-driving system or a component of the base vehicle |
| Disengage for incorrect behavior prediction of other traffic participants |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a hardware discrepancy for which our vehicle's diagnostics received a message indicating a potential performance issue with a hardware component of the self-driving system or a component of the base vehicle |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for incorrect behavior prediction of other traffic participants |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for incorrect behavior prediction of other traffic participants |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for incorrect behavior prediction of other traffic participants |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for incorrect behavior prediction of other traffic participants |
| Disengage for incorrect behavior prediction of other traffic participants |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user |
| Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user |
| Disengage for a hardware discrepancy for which our vehicle's diagnostics received a message indicating a potential performance issue with a hardware component of the self-driving system or a component of the base vehicle |
| Disengage for a hardware discrepancy for which our vehicle's diagnostics received a message indicating a potential performance issue with a hardware component of the self-driving system or a component of the base vehicle |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a hardware discrepancy for which our vehicle's diagnostics received a message indicating a potential performance issue with a hardware component of the self-driving system or a component of the base vehicle |
| Disengage for a hardware discrepancy for which our vehicle's diagnostics received a message indicating a potential performance issue with a hardware component of the self-driving system or a component of the base vehicle |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user |
| Disengage for a hardware discrepancy for which our vehicle's diagnostics received a message indicating a potential performance issue with a hardware component of the self-driving system or a component of the base vehicle |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for incorrect behavior prediction of other traffic participants |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle?s perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for adverse weather conditions experienced during testing |
2020 Waymo 21 disengagements:
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user |
| Disengage for adverse weather conditions experienced during testing |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for incorrect behavior prediction of other traffic participants |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle's perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for adverse weather conditions experienced during testing |
| Disengage for adverse weather conditions experienced during testing |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle's perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle's perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle's perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle's perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle's perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle's perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for a perception discrepancy for which a component of the vehicle's perception system failed to detect an object correctly |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
| Disengage for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle that was undesirable under the circumstances |
So what I understand is Pony drove less than Waymo did. In 2019, both Pony and Waymo got problems with basic driving like Planning, Perceptions, and Pony's mappings. Waymo improves in 2020 but Pony still has mapping issues.
It says clearly in 2020 Pony report: "Mapping, driver precautionarily intervened before vehicle runs to curb", "Mapping,Driver precautionarily intervened for mis detected leading vehicle due to incorrect map information", "Mapping, unable to detect oncoming vehicle due to missing roadgraph",
Thus, it's understandable that in 2021, if Pony has not fixed its mapping issue, no wonder that it collides with a center median and traffic sign while turning right in this thread.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Lidar doesn't remove the possibility of this happening.
What it does do is reduce the possibility that it's a sensor detection issue.
It doesn't eliminate the possibility that logic downstream won't have mistakes.
That's what people are saying above in response to the whole discussion about curves, that lidar does not solve the problem.
Similar threads
- Article
