Consumer Reports: Tesla Autopilot a “distant second” to GM Super Cruise

[PACEMD]

You guys are missing the point...Tesla Autopilot was clearly deemed the best system in this CR review.

Right, the Tesla system is the Cadillac of systems.

 

[diplomat33]

You could make the exact same argument for a vehicle that has no driver assist — L0 — and you would come to the same conclusion that there should be some system in place to be sure the driver is performing 100% of the duties required.

Sure, L0 could have a driver monitoring system too. In fact, Subaru has this to help combat drowsy driving.

But the main reason why L0 does not have driver monitoring is because there is already a strong mechanism for making sure the driver is paying attention. With L0, the driver has to keep their hands on the wheel in order to drive. The problem with L2, is that since the car is controlling steering, the driver actually does not need to hold the wheel anymore. So L2 does not have the same built-in mechanism for ensuring the driver is paying attention. Since there is no default mechanism for making sure the driver is paying attention, the system needs to add a new mechanism.

 

[PACEMD]

You could make the exact same argument for a vehicle that has no driver assist — L0 — and you would come to the same conclusion that there should be some system in place to be sure the driver is performing 100% of the duties required.

Right, I think some type of cerebral implants with electric shock capabilities and monitoring by drone operators should do the trick nicely...........

 

[PACEMD]

I was being sarcastic. I'm sorry. Sometimes I slip back into British mode where we assume people have a sense of humor and intelligence.

You lost me at assuming people have any sense............

 

[PACEMD]

What!? Are you saying nobody ever gets distracted or falls asleep while driving their car? LOL.

And CR did not weight driver attention systems in cars with no automatic steering because the driver is in control of steering. The driver might get distracted or fall asleep but it is while the driver was in control of the car.

With automatic steering, it's different. The car is now controlling the steering, so the driver does not need to control the car anymore. So you do need to make sure the driver is paying attention.

I'm sorry, what was that? I wasn't paying attention...........

 

[PACEMD]

Right, I think some type of cerebral implants with electric shock capabilities and monitoring by drone operators should do the trick nicely...........

In fact, I think it's better if we just replace drivers and passengers with some kind of robot thingies. Keep humans out of cars altogether. Humans clearly can't be trusted to stay awake and pay attention. Not even sure we need humans any longer.........

 

[rhumbliner]

With L0, the driver has to keep their hands on the wheel in order to drive.

I grew up in the Midwest and I was always amazed at the number of crosses with flowers that were placed along flat, straight stretches of highway. I guess what you’re implying is that the L0 system works by removing inattentive drivers (and other innocent drivers) from the highway in short order.

 

[PACEMD]

We had the same problem with driver-assist with the wagon/coach. Horses are pretty good at navigating on their own but still need human supervision. Easy to fall asleep at the wheel when a horse team did most of the work and did it well. Coach and wagon accidents were a common thing in the day, especially in crowded cities. The trick is, when in a moving vehicle, to pay attention. Can you guarantee humans will always do that? No. No, you cannot. How far do you go to attempt to assure that? We could easily do breathalyzers and drug testing before driving. Having a camera monitor eyes is a piss poor way of monitoring all but the obvious.........what else........constant cognitive and alertness testing...........

 

[drtimhill]

In a L2 and L3 system, yes. That's because the systems cannot work properly if the driver is not paying attention. The systems are dependent on the driver paying attention.

But I think all your arguments apply equally to all car driving .. manual or automated. After all, if we are worried about driver inattention with L2/L3, then what about "L0" (when the driver is driving manually)? And shouldn't we mandate that smartphones have a way to detect and disable themselves when the driver is driving? What about the car radio? Should they be allowed to broadcast content that distracts the driver? And should we add microphones to make sure no other person in the car is talking, which might distract the driver? And lets ban road-side advertising while we are at it.

The point is, why is L2/L3 bring singled out here? I think there is an assumption that somehow this is more dangerous than other distractions. Is there any data to support this? In fact, given a certain level of driver distraction, isnt it better that the car is driving rather than the driver? If the driver decides to tinker with the radio, then would you rather have the car veer into oncoming traffic (as it will with manual driving), or stay in lane (as it will with self-driving)?

I'm not against driver attention tech per se, but if you are going to advocate it, I think it should be advocated for all driving, and I don't see any argument you could make against this.

 

[diplomat33]

Ford will offer hands-free highway driving on the Mach-E, similar to Super Cruise:

"Available Active Drive Assist builds upon available Intelligent Adaptive Cruise Control with Stop-and-Go Lane Centering and Speed Sign Recognition. It allows you to operate your vehicle hands-free while the driver is monitored by a driver-facing camera to make sure you’re keeping your eyes on the road, with the potential for more enhancements in the future. This feature is available on prequalified sections of divided highways called Hands-Free Zones that make up over 100,000 miles of North American roads."

Ford releases more details about Mustang Mach-E's level 3 hands-free autonomous driving capability - Electrek

 

[Aadfisher]

Super Cruise's driver facing camera can tell if the driver is dead drunk and safely disengage. That's the whole point of a driver facing camera. It can do that. The wheel move nag system cannot detect if the driver is dead drunk. That's why the driver facing camera is a better system.

So you’d prefer that I don’t use FSD or autopilot while I’m drunk driving?

 

[diplomat33]

But I think all your arguments apply equally to all car driving .. manual or automated. After all, if we are worried about driver inattention with L2/L3, then what about "L0" (when the driver is driving manually)? And shouldn't we mandate that smartphones have a way to detect and disable themselves when the driver is driving? What about the car radio? Should they be allowed to broadcast content that distracts the driver? And should we add microphones to make sure no other person in the car is talking, which might distract the driver? And lets ban road-side advertising while we are at it.

The point is, why is L2/L3 bring singled out here? I think there is an assumption that somehow this is more dangerous than other distractions. Is there any data to support this? In fact, given a certain level of driver distraction, isnt it better that the car is driving rather than the driver? If the driver decides to tinker with the radio, then would you rather have the car veer into oncoming traffic (as it will with manual driving), or stay in lane (as it will with self-driving)?

I'm not against driver attention tech per se, but if you are going to advocate it, I think it should be advocated for all driving, and I don't see any argument you could make against this.

Yes, driver monitoring can apply to all driving.

The reason L2 and L3 are singled out is because L2 and L3 are "pseudo FSD". They can give the driver a false sense of security. With L2 and L3, the driver can think that the car is completely driving for them when it actually isn't since it can't respond to many problems that might come up. So the driver still needs to pay attention even though they might think they don't. With manual driving, the driver needs to actively steer and brake. The car is not doing any driving. So it is more obvious that the driver needs to pay attention.

 

[PACEMD]

So I have patients every day in emergency with altered mental states, intoxicated with this or that, organically altered, or blah blah blah, who have eyes open and are alert, looking around, seem attentive, but no way in hell I would let them drive a moving vehicle. Having open eyes and looking around tells you very little about attention and driving abilities...........If you just want to monitor when someone falls asleep or otherwise closes their eyes, well that's all you're doing..........and fair argument that should then be required in all vehicles.

 

[PACEMD]

Yes, driver monitoring can apply to all driving.

The reason L2 and L3 are singled out is because L2 and L3 are "pseudo FSD". They can give the driver a false sense of security. With L2 and L3, the driver can think that the car is completely driving for them when it actually isn't since it can't respond to many problems that might come up. So the driver still needs to pay attention even though they might think they don't. With manual driving, the driver needs to actively steer and brake. The car is not doing any driving. So it is more obvious that the driver needs to pay attention.

So a driver not understanding what they are doing will be corrected by a camera monitoring if their eyes are open? Not sure I understand the logic. Open eyes, attention, driving knowledge and skills are very different things. Hands on the wheel is a better argument, although with noted flaws.

 

[diplomat33]

So a driver not understanding what they are doing will be corrected by a camera monitoring if their eyes are open? Not sure I understand the logic. Open eyes and attention are very different things.

if you watch the video I posted, the GM engineer explains that the camera does more than just check if the eyes are open. It checks the direction of the face, direction of the eyes and other things to gauge if the driver is attentive or not. So the system checks what you are looking at, where your eyes are looking, to gauge if you are paying attention to the road or not. If it detects that the driver does not have their eyes on the road ahead for more than x seconds, it alerts the driver, with an ever increasing cascade of visual, auditory and haptic alerts to get the driver to put their eyes back on the road. And if all fails, the car will then slowly come to a stop and alert OnStar.

 

[Eno Deb]

Yes, driver monitoring can apply to all driving.

The reason L2 and L3 are singled out is because L2 and L3 are "pseudo FSD". They can give the driver a false sense of security. With L2 and L3, the driver can think that the car is completely driving for them when it actually isn't since it can't respond to many problems that might come up. So the driver still needs to pay attention even though they might think they don't. With manual driving, the driver needs to actively steer and brake. The car is not doing any driving. So it is more obvious that the driver needs to pay attention.

There is a substantial difference between L2 and L3 in this regard. L3 doesn't require the driver to constantly pay attention in some situations. They just have to be ready to take over once the car alerts them.

BTW, the Electrek article you mentioned above is wrong. The Ford system is not L3 (because it requires the driver to pay attention at all times). Hands-free is not the same as L3.

 

[diplomat33]

There is a substantial difference between L2 and L3 in this regard. L3 doesn't require the driver to constantly pay attention in some situations. They just have to be ready to take over once the car alerts them.

Correct.

BTW, the Electrek article you mentioned above is wrong. The Ford system is not L3 (because it requires the driver to pay attention at all times). Hands-free is not the same as L3.

Yes, the elektrek article confuses hands-free with L3. Note that I did not say that the system was L3. I only mentioned it would be hands-free.

 

[PACEMD]

Suuuuuuuure..........an algorithm to monitor effective attention. That will be either a tough standard to define or way too lax. How much attention should a good driver pay to what's behind them, to the sides, creatures running through the fields? The road 1/2 a mile ahead or behind. The weather. Or just monitor that the eyes are open and mostly somehow staring ahead. This all misses the point that a driver has to understand their vehicle and take responsibility. Assuming a driver has no idea what the car is capable of and that monitoring eye movement will fix that is an odd assumption. When you negate that responsibility how far down that road do you go? Still no good argument for limiting such a system to various levels of drivers assist.

 

[drtimhill]

They can give the driver a false sense of security. With L2 and L3, the driver can think that the car is completely driving for them when it actually isn't since it can't respond to many problems that might come up

As I have already noted .. where is the data to back this assertion? "can give" and "can think" are just your opinion. You may be right, but how does this compare to driver attention in other circumstances?

As an example, continuously monitoring something is very fatiguing to humans .. no matter how important. Tell someone that if they take their eyes off the road and they will be shot, and see how long it takes before they are shot. One might argue that it's better to relax your attention for a moment or two (for example, while on a clear, quiet, section of freeway) to refresh yourself. In such a case, an attention nag system might well contribute to fatigue and accidents. I'm not saying this is the case, but until we have some clear unbiased studies I dont think a blanket assertion about eye monitoring being necessary/good is justified.

 

[PACEMD]

I like the idea of a system that shoots you if not paying attention. But I already have a flak jacket so I'm not worried..........