Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Autonomous Car Progress

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Wayve CEO shared this clip from their simulation to demonstrate their AI. The simulated Wayve car brakes to avoid hitting the green car that suddenly turned in front of it. He says it was safe. But I don't agree. It was a very close call. Also, you cannot assume the simulation accurately reflects what would have happened in the real world. A real human driver in the green car might not have behaved like in the sim. So I don't think we can trust this sim as proof that Wayve would handle it safely.

Obviously, to make an interesting demo you need to make something happen that needs to be explained. "I drove straight at constant speed" would be a boring video. The point is not the driving, but the AI explaining what just happened.

This would be hilarious on a Tesla. "I swerved around crazily and activated a turn signal when the turn lanes appeared, because I don't know how to drive." "I was in the middle of an intersection with cars coming, so I stopped."
 
  • Funny
Reactions: EVNow
Weird bug in Waymo. When it couldn’t change lane to turn left, Waymo creates its own turn lane and turns left ! Even FSD doesn’t do this.

22D12084-6AEA-4DEC-B6DA-AD6AC261F3CA.jpeg


See around 2:30.

 
Could you or someone else summarize? Sorry to be that person but my connection is terrible

It's only 4 pages. Here's a full text extract:

CPED Staff Proposal: New Autonomous Vehicle Program Data Reporting

1. AV Pilot Program Quarterly Reporting
Going forward, participants in the AV Pilot programs will be required to submit
quarterly data reports using the same templates as AV Deployment program
participants. AV Deployment quarterly reporting requirements are described in
D.20 -11-046 (as modified by D.21 -05-017); see Appendix A. The AV Deployment
quarterly reporting templates are available on the Commission’s website . This
requirement will go into effect immediately upon publishing of the updated data
reporting requirements.
2. Collision Reporting
Collision reporting in AV Deployment shall be modeled on DMV form OL -316.1
Reporting is required for any autonomous vehicle operating under a CPUC
Deployment authorization. If such a vehicle is involved in a collision resulting in
damage of property, bodily injury, or death, the AV carrier will report the
following within 10 days after the collision:
• Carrier information: Name, address, telephone number
• Collision information: Date, time, location (address or intersection)
• Vehicle information (AV): Vehicle year, make, model, license plate number
including state of registration, number of vehicle occupants (including
both public and carrier employees)
• Other party information:
o For other vehicles: Vehicle year, make, model, license plate number
including state of registration
o Pedestrians, bicyclists, or property involved, and information on
property damage, injuries, fatalities
o Injuries or fatalities of occupant(s) of involved vehicle(s)
• Collision conditions and circumstances, select one or more as applicable
for each party involved:
o Weather conditions (clear, cloudy, raining, snowing, fog/visibility,
wind, other)
o Lighting conditions (daylight, dusk/dawn, dark – street lights, dark
– no street lights, dark – street lights non -functioning)
o Roadway surface (dry, wet, snowy/icy, slippery)
o Roadway conditions (holes/deep rut, loose material on roadway,
obstruction on roadway, construction/repair zone, reduced
roadway width, flooded, other, no unusual conditions)
o Movement preceding collision (stopped, proceeding straight, ran off
road, making right turn, making left turn, making u turn, backing,
slowing/stopping, passing other vehicle, changing lanes, parking
maneuver, entering traffic, other unsafe turning, crossings into
opposing lane, parked, merging, traveling wrong way, other)
o Type of collision (head -on, side swipe, rear end, b roadside, hit
object, overturned, vehicle/pedestrian, other)
o Other associated factors (CVC sections violated/cited, vision
obscurement, inattention, stop and go traffic, entering/leaving
ramp, previous collision, unfamiliar road, defective equipment,
uninvolved vehicle, other, none apparent, runaway vehicle)
• Narrative description of collision, explaining the factors noted above as
necessary
The Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division will provide a fillable form
or spreadsheet for submission of this in formation.
Collision reports will be posted publicly on the Commission’s website, with any
personally identifying information (such as names, addresses, driver’s license
numbers, license plates) redacted.
3. Monthly Reporting
Participants in the AV program shall report the information below to CPED
monthly. Reports will be due on the 10th of each month for the preceding month.
• Operations summary
o Number of trips
▪ By zip code (origin and destination)
o Number of passengers carried
o Number of vehicles operating
▪ Number of unique vehicles that operated that month
▪ Maximum vehicles operating daily within the month
▪ Median vehicles operating daily within the month
o Vehicle miles traveled2
▪ Period 1
▪ Period 2
▪ Period 3
▪ Total
• For every instance where an AV achieved a minimal risk condition
(MRC)3, list:
o License plate, VIN, or other unique identifier for AV involved
o Date and time AV achieved minimal risk condition
o Location of MRC
▪ Latitude and longitude
▪ More than 18 inches from curb?
▪ Blocking or partially blocking a travel lane?
▪ Blocking or partially blocking a bike lane?
▪ Blocking or partially blocking a transit -only lane?
▪ Within 200 feet of the nearest rail of any rail grade crossing?
o Involvement of law enforcement or other first responders
▪ Law enforcement/first responders involved?
▪ Citation issued?
o Resolution of MRC: returned to automated operation remotely (by
remote operator), returned to automated operation manually (in -
person), returned to automated operation without manual or remote
operator intervention, manually driven away, towed, other
(describe)
o Response time
▪ For incidents requiring manual removal of vehicle or other in -
person manual intervention: time of dispatch, arrival at
vehicle, vehicle removed or returned to automated operation
▪ For incidents resolved remotely: time remote operator
connected to vehicle, time vehicle returned to automated
operation (or situation otherwise resolved; describe in
narrative)
▪ For incidents resolved without in -person or remote operator
engagement: time vehicle returned to automated operation
and moved from location of stop
o Number of passengers in vehicle, if applicable
▪ If passengers were present in the vehicle, how ride was
resolved – e.g., completed in same AV (autonomous mode),
completed in same AV (manual mode), completed in a
different vehicle, passenger ended ride early, etc.
o Narrative description of event, including:
▪ Factors that led to or caused fallback to MRC
▪ Impacts or risk to safety of passengers and other road users
▪ Remediation; steps taken to prevent future occurrences
• Count of passenger pickup and drop -off occurring more than 18 inches
from the curb and fraction of all pickups and drop -offs occurring more
than 18 inches from the curb
o By zip code
o By census tract
o By time of day (hour)
4. Data Sharing from Local Jurisdictions
Municipalities have unique access to data on what is occurring on the streets
within their jurisdictions. CPED invites parties to comment on 1) their interest in
voluntary reporting of relevant municipal data to CPED and 2) what data are
available, regularly reportable, and relevant to the monitoring and evaluation of
AV operations.
Examples might include 911 reports, citations by local police or parking officials,
and other data. Reports should be anonymized or otherwise redacted to prevent
disclosure of personally identifiable information.
 
Thanks...just txt helps. So what really is a Minimal risk condition (I ask as I lounge around waiting on my younger and better colleague to do some preventive maint).
A state a L4+ vehicles is supposed to reach if it encounters a situation it can't handle. The most common example is pulling to the side of the road. Under previous reporting requirements which only reported disengagement, this is not necessarily reported given there was no disengagement (car is still operating under L4 mode when it does that). SFMTA has argued that incidents that affect traffic have been underreported under the old reporting and this would definitely help address that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nativewolf
Weird bug in Waymo. When it couldn’t change lane to turn left, Waymo creates its own turn lane and turns left ! Even FSD doesn’t do this.

No, but FSD beta will move into the turn only lane when it needs to go straight. That is a bug.

I am not sure I would call this a bug per se. The Waymo knew it needed to move over to the turn lane. It tried to get in the turn lane and could not. I've actually seen the Waymo be very assertive in getting over to the turn lane in busy traffic like in this example so if it could not do so here, it is because there was really no way to cut in safely. Since it could not move over safely, I think the Waymo planner decided it had not other choice but to make the turn anyway from the straight lane. And the planner likely saw that the path was safe to make the turn. So I think this is more a case of did the planner make the right decision rather than a bug.

I think it's just a hand-coded way to try to get someone nice enough to let it into the lane.

Waymo does not do any hand-coded in their stack. It is all machine learning.
 
The safe thing would have been to just go through the intersection. Then make a left and get back into traffic and make a right. Waymo was lucky the vehicle didn't get hit. Some people may not yield next time and just run into the Waymo trying to cut them off.

Luck had nothing to do it. Waymo has good behavior prediction. It knows what other cars will do. The Waymo will plan a safe path to avoid getting hit.
 
Last edited:
I just got the 2023.12.10 today and took it out for a spin. My impressions:
Changing lanes to take off ramp. On a left turn the car made the shift from the right lane to the middle lane and then sat there even though the left was empty. It waited until someone pulled up along side and then was not able to finish moving over to take the ramp. On a right hand ramp it moved me over to the middle lane from the right and then waited too long to move to the right lane and again we missed the ramp
Car turning right in the lane next to me. The car most have thought the other car was in my lane because it quickly slowed down. When I pushed the accelerator the car did a sudden jerk to the left starting to move into the left lane. There wss a car there
Merging two lanes to one. The car hesitates too long to move over and again someone pulled up next to us (speeding) the car got lost and I had to hit my breaks and pull the wheel
Traveling on the freeway: the computer for some reason seems to like the inside lane even if my next turn is a right. Also in Texas, it is illegal to drive on the inside lane unless you are passing
While the Fsd has improved a lot since I bought my old model 3 (now a Y) there still a way to go
 
Changing lanes to take off ramp. On a left turn the car made the shift from the right lane to the middle lane and then sat there even though the left was empty. It waited until someone pulled up along side and then was not able to finish moving over to take the ramp. On a right hand ramp it moved me over to the middle lane from the right and then waited too long to move to the right lane and again we missed the ramp
11.4.1 is supposed to be much better at quick multiple lane changes and at lane selection to keep on route in general.