Autonomous Car Progress

[stopcrazypp]

I think tesla fan totally misunderstood how certification works for self driving permit.

1. In US because there is no federal laws in self driving. All of their permitting and granting of operating license is done at city/state level.

2. For Waymo to get into particular city- it has to agree with that city on where to do the sand box testing. Only when Waymo/cruise/Zoox demonstrate reliability in operating within that sand box. Then commercial operation permit will be awarded.

3. City chose the sandbox area not Waymo or cruise .

Waymo will launch more and more faster because its system is more robust and ML is actually way better trained from day one because it was trained on L4 data set with multiple object detection/ classification system. Hence you see LA launching soon not long after SF.

Not true at all. CPUC (the California state commission) grants the license for commercial operation. The permit is granted by the CA DMV (the state authority). Cities have almost no say. You can see the strong objections (still ongoing, and seemingly justified by multiple incidents since then) by SFMTA (SF's transportation authority) to the state issuing the license to Cruise. So far SFMTA is powerless to stop them from operating.

There are other states that are more lax too. For example Arizona, I'm pretty sure they can legally operate statewide if they wanted to. It's not a legal limitation.

 

[Krispykreme]

Not true at all. CPUC (the California state commission) grants the license for commercial operation. The permit is granted by the CA DMV (the state authority). Cities have almost no say. You can see the strong objections (still ongoing, and seemingly justified by multiple incidents since then) by SFMTA (SF's transportation authority) to the state issuing the license to Cruise. So far SFMTA is powerless to stop them from operating.

There are other states that are more lax too. For example Arizona, I'm pretty sure they can legally operate statewide if they wanted to. It's not a legal limitation.

I stand corrected on the authorizing agency.

But you misunderstood the legal requirement comment. Per SAE-J3616- geo fencing is required to gain certification of L4. CA adapted the same requirement of geo fencing/ sand box.

As of today- Waymo does not have state wide commercial operation for entire AZ

 

[stopcrazypp]

I stand corrected on the authorizing agency.

But you misunderstood the legal requirement comment. Per SAE-J3616- geo fencing is required to gain certification of L4. CA adapted the same requirement of geo fencing/ sand box.

No, it's not required to have geo fencing to be L4. SAE L4 simply describes the vehicle operating driverless only in limited conditions, it does not say geofencing is required. For example, if a system that is not geofenced, but can only operate in clear weather in the daytime (thus placing a limitation on its operation, is it doesn't qualify as L5), that is still L4 under SAE J3616. Also, SAE J3616 only lays out definitions, it does not lay out specific requirements in the law in the first place.

To be fair, I should add the CPUC does approve rollout plans (including proposed geographic area), but in the eyes of the city, they are just rubber-stamping whatever is proposed. For local operations (as opposed to operating on state highways), the state authorities are somewhat insulated from the consequences (Caltrans and CHP are not the ones that have to deal with the mess), while the locals are who have to deal with it (SFMTA and SFPD/SFFD).

To use an example, if every couple of weeks Cruise halted traffic on a state highway for 15 minutes to wait for personnel to come rescue them, CPUC probably would be singing a different tune.

If the city had a say, quite frankly they have made it clear they would not approve driverless operation for Cruise at all.

As of today- Waymo does not have state wide commercial operation for entire AZ

Right, and as it relates to your point, that's a commercial decision, not a legal one. To the OP, it's likely going to be the same thing, it would be a commercial decision whether to launch in his local area, not a legal one.

 

[Krispykreme]

No, it's not required to have geo fencing to be L4. SAE L4 simply describes the vehicle operating driverless only in limited conditions, it does not say geofencing is required. For example, if a system that is not geofenced, but can only operate in clear weather in the daytime (thus placing a limitation on its operation, is it doesn't qualify as L5), that is still L4 under SAE J3616. Also, SAE J3616 only lays out definitions, it does not lay out specific requirements in the law in the first place.

To be fair, I should add the CPUC does approve rollout plans (including proposed geographic area), but in the eyes of the city, they are just rubber-stamping whatever is proposed. For local operations (as opposed to operating on state highways), the state authorities are somewhat insulated from the consequences (Caltrans and CHP are not the ones that have to deal with the mess), while the locals are who have to deal with it (SFMTA and SFPD/SFFD).

To use an example, if every couple of weeks Cruise halted traffic on a state highway for 15 minutes to wait for personnel to come rescue them, CPUC probably would be singing a different tune.

If the city had a say, quite frankly they have made it clear they would not approve driverless operation for Cruise at all.


Right, and as it relates to your point, that's a commercial decision, not a legal one. To the OP, it's likely going to be the same thing, it would be a commercial decision whether to launch in his local area, not a legal one.

That ain’t true.

One of the level 4 requirement is automation can only occur in pre-determined condition (it’s specifically stated inside the SAE-J3016 document).

CA DMV also specifically mentioned that in its testing permit- 227.02.B.2 adapting SAE-J3016

 

[EVNow]

That ain’t true.

One of the level 4 requirement is automation can only occur in pre-determined condition (it’s specifically stated inside the SAE-J3016 document).

CA DMV also specifically mentioned that in its testing permit- 227.02.B.2 adapting SAE-J3016

Not necessarily geo-boundary, right ? For eg. you can say the ODD is limited to no-snow on the road.

 

[Bitdepth]

That ain’t true.

One of the level 4 requirement is automation can only occur in pre-determined condition (it’s specifically stated inside the SAE-J3016 document).

CA DMV also specifically mentioned that in its testing permit- 227.02.B.2 adapting SAE-J3016

Not a requirement. But a L4 feature can function under certain conditions as defined by the manufacturer. As such if you running a L4 service you have to state what conditions your service is operating under.

 

[diplomat33]

That ain’t true.

One of the level 4 requirement is automation can only occur in pre-determined condition (it’s specifically stated inside the SAE-J3016 document).

CA DMV also specifically mentioned that in its testing permit- 227.02.B.2 adapting SAE-J3016

L4 requires a limited ODD. But that limit does not have to be geofence, it can be some other limit. For example, you could limit your AV to just daytime or just highway and that would also be L4. So L4 does not have to be geofenced, it just needs some type of limit placed on the ODD. Geofence happens to be the most common limit we see on L4 today so people tend to associate geofence with L4. It has led to the misconception that geofence is required for L4.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That ain’t true.

One of the level 4 requirement is automation can only occur in pre-determined condition (it’s specifically stated inside the SAE-J3016 document).

CA DMV also specifically mentioned that in its testing permit- 227.02.B.2 adapting SAE-J3016

As others pointed out, that condition does not have to be a geofence, it can be other conditions (I pointed out daytime and weather, others pointed out road type, like systems that only operate on highways).
If you insist, feel free to point out which section of SAE J3016 that says a geofence is required to qualify as L4.

 

[diplomat33]

Road to Autonomy podcast with GM Executive Chief Engineer for AVs, Jason Fischer, on the development of the Cruise Origin.

Creating the Cruise Origin

Creating the Cruise OriginJason Fischer, Executive Chief Engineer, Autonomous Vehicles, GM joined Grayson Brulte on The Road to Autonomy Podcast to discuss the creation of the Cruise Orig

www.brulteco.com

 

[diplomat33]

Looks like Waymo has applied for their commercial permit with the CPUC to charge fares in SF:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1602714028383641601

 

[diplomat33]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1602750466537902080

 

[diplomat33]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1602766709806747648

 

[Dewg]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1602766709806747648

This is why we can't have nice things...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1602766709806747648

That was good reaction time this time. Similar response to an alert human. It looks like it initially assumed the human would just be on the edge of the street and plotted a course around. Then decided they were crossing and of course stopped.

I hope the people doing this are careful to identify vehicles without drivers!

Anyway this will become very common with autonomous vehicles and these are excellent tests, and glad they are occurring and being handled. I say this because similar occurrences can actually happen accidentally - all the time. That’s how accidents and pedestrian deaths sometimes occur.

Hopefully they keep on getting better and better at closing any potential corner cases.

 

[Dewg]

That was good reaction time this time. Similar response to an alert human. It looks like it initially assumed the human would just be on the edge of the street and plotted a course around. Then decided they were crossing and of course stopped.

I hope the people doing this are careful to identify vehicles without drivers!

Anyway this will become very common with autonomous vehicles and these are excellent tests, and glad they are occurring and being handled. I say this because similar occurrences can actually happen accidentally - all the time. That’s how accidents and pedestrian deaths sometimes occur.

Hopefully they keep on getting better and better at closing any potential corner cases.

So, adult males can throw themselves in front of AVs and it's a laugh on the Internet. But someone throws a kid in front of a Tesla to prove DoD wrong, and people start rending their clothes. I see how it is... </s>

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So, adult males can throw themselves in front of AVs and it's a laugh on the Internet. But someone throws a kid in front of a Tesla to prove DoD wrong, and people start rending their clothes. I see how it is... </s>

You can’t control what individuals do.
Everyone is very explicit that this sort of test is a bad idea.
It is however a very important test for AVs to pass with high success rate.

These are just a couple examples. Once we have hundreds of examples it will be interesting to see the success rate.

 

[Supcom]

You can’t control what individuals do.
Everyone is very explicit that this sort of test is a bad idea.
It is however a very important test for AVs to pass with high success rate.

These are just a couple examples. Once we have hundreds of examples it will be interesting to see the success rate.

It's only a matter of time before people start throwing other things in front of AVs just to tie up traffic.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

But someone throws a kid in front of a Tesla to prove DoD wrong, and people start rending their clothes.

DoD was also criticized for his testing on public roads.

 

[ThomasD]

Couldn't you take a large box of Tin Foil strips and dump them in the air in front of the AV and mess with the radar of the car?

 

[EVNow]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1602766709806747648

No one dare do that with Tesla - it may not stop