Primer on SAE Levels of Autonomy

[diplomat33]

 

[powertoold]

This guy gets the level 5 wrong as well. It's sad that even smart people don't understand what the levels mean.

He says level 5 has to "do it under all weather conditions that a human can safely do so." Nowhere in the definition does it talk about safety thresholds.

 

[Bladerskb]

This guy gets the level 5 wrong as well. It's sad that even smart people don't understand what the levels mean.

He says level 5 has to "do it under all weather conditions that a human can safely do so." Nowhere in the definition does it talk about safety thresholds.

He is not smart, he is top 10 biggest misinformation spreaders in TSLA community.
And his "FSD on Highway and FSDBeta on city streets is Level 3" is just par for course.

 

[Daniel in SD]

This guy gets the level 5 wrong as well. It's sad that even smart people don't understand what the levels mean.

He says level 5 has to "do it under all weather conditions that a human can safely do so." Nowhere in the definition does it talk about safety thresholds.

Sort of nit picking there. Level 5 is defined as being able to handle all "driver-manageable" conditions. If a human driver can't drive safely in a certain condition is it really "manageable? And if they can drive safely then the condition is manageable.
If he had said instead, "do it under all weather conditions that a human can manage", does that really change much? No matter how you phrase it safety is implied.

 

[diplomat33]

This guy gets the level 5 wrong as well. It's sad that even smart people don't understand what the levels mean.

He says level 5 has to "do it under all weather conditions that a human can safely do so." Nowhere in the definition does it talk about safety thresholds.

He also says that current NOA on the highway is L3 which is wrong.

 

[powertoold]

Sort of nit picking there. Level 5 is defined as being able to handle all "driver-manageable" conditions. If a human driver can't drive safely in a certain condition is it really "manageable? And if they can drive safely then the condition is manageable.
If he had said instead, "do it under all weather conditions that a human can manage", does that really change much? No matter how you phrase it safety is implied.

"manageable" only shows up ~5 times in the definition, so if you focus on only those portions, then you might be missing the big picture / intent. The definition also never defines what it means by "manageable," so we have to go with the terms it does explain in more detail.

The levels' purpose is to provide a clear-cut way to describe how autonomous the system is, without regard to actual safety or performance.

Level 5 is simply level 4 without any ODD. Even within its ODD, a level 4 feature can fail or not be able to safely complete its trip (like Waymo and the cone fiasco). Despite this, it's still level 4; same goes for level 5.

Within the scope and intent of the definitions, it's illogical to say that level 5 is as good as any human in every situation.

As for "manageable," I believe the definition is saying that level 5 needs to be able to drive in any weather condition that a human can. This just means that the level 5 feature can be enabled in these conditions (although the dispatcher may decide not to) and attempt to navigate to the destination.

 

[Daniel in SD]

"manageable" only shows up ~5 times in the definition, so if you focus on only those portions, then you might be missing the big picture / intent. The definition also never defines what it means by "manageable," so we have to go with the terms it does explain in more detail.

The levels' purpose is to provide a clear-cut way to describe how autonomous the system is, without regard to actual safety or performance.

I know. Read the quote again: "do it under all weather conditions that a human can safely do so." He's not making a claim about the safety of the L5 system.
The truly egregious error is saying that NoA is L3.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Sort of nit picking there. Level 5 is defined as being able to handle all "driver-manageable" conditions. If a human driver can't drive safely in a certain condition is it really "manageable? And if they can drive safely then the condition is manageable.
If he had said instead, "do it under all weather conditions that a human can manage", does that really change much? No matter how you phrase it safety is implied.

I think it is a bit nit picking because the definition itself is poor.

It lacks boundary conditions so we attempt to place boundaries on it. I've been pondering the idea of no longer even acknowledging it because its a fantasy that relies on things not yet invented.

Elon himself talks about it as if it needs to work without connectivity.

L3 is another thing where the definition of it makes no sense. So we see some drastic limitations on it that don't match what we really want out of an L3 system. It very much falls under the "careful what you wish for" category as we'd likely fall asleep while the car was going 70mph down the freeway.

L4 is where its at, and nothing else if worth discussing unless the point of the discussion is purely academic or entertainment.

 

[Daniel in SD]

L3 is another thing where the definition of it makes no sense. So we see some drastic limitations on it that don't match what we really want out of an L3 system. It very much falls under the "careful what you wish for" category as we'd likely fall asleep while the car was going 70mph down the freeway.

L4 is where its at, and nothing else if worth discussing unless the point of the discussion is purely academic or entertainment.

It seems like we'll find out if L3 systems work soon. I think they'll work fine for restricted speeds on limited access roads.
I bet if you took one of Waymo's or Cruise's vehicles and replaced the "remote assistance" with a driver that would also work fine as an L3 system.

I think you're right that L5 is not happening without a technological breakthrough.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

It seems like we'll find out if L3 systems work soon. I think they'll work fine for restricted speeds on limited access roads.
I bet if you took one of Waymo's or Cruise's vehicles and replaced the "remote assistance" with a driver that would also work fine as an L3 system.

I think you're right that L5 is not happening without a technological breakthrough.

I don't see L3 becoming anything more than a traffic assist function on the freeway.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I don't see L3 becoming anything more than a traffic assist function on the freeway.

Neither do I (I quibble with the word "assist" though, the car is driving itself not assisting the driver).
Though maybe they'll be able to improve the systems to the point where they can drive at highway speeds? Seems possible.

 

[powertoold]

I know. Read the quote again: "do it under all weather conditions that a human can safely do so." He's not making a claim about the safety of the L5 system.
The truly egregious error is saying that NoA is L3.

Isn't he saying that a level 5 feature is comparable to a human in some way? The definition doesn't compare the levels to human safety.

I missed the part about NoA L3. I've been mostly focused on misconceptions about level 5.

 

[diplomat33]

Isn't he saying that a level 5 feature is comparable to a human in some way? The definition doesn't compare the levels to human safety.

L5 is comparable to humans only in that they both have the same ODD. The SAE definition is basically saying that L5 should have the same ODD as human drivers. That's what "driver manageable" means. So L5 should operate in all roads and conditions that are drivable by humans. L5 is not expected to operate in conditions like say a whiteout blizzard that is undrivable by humans. Now, undrivable conditions like a whiteout blizzard are by definition unsafe for humans to drive in, so there is a safety aspect implied. But the SAE definition is not making any judgment on the safety of L5. It is simply saying that L5 should operate in the same ODD as humans.

The ODD is the only difference between L4 and L5. L4 can have restrictions on the ODD that humans don't have. For example, L4 can be geofenced or limited to say 45 mph, etc... These are restrictions that humans don't have. L5 cannot have any such restrictions. The only restrictions that L5 can have are the same ones that humans also have, like not driving in a whiteout blizzard or not driving on a road that is completely underwater.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Isn't he saying that a level 5 feature is comparable to a human in some way? The definition doesn't compare the levels to human safety.

I missed the part about NoA L3. I've been mostly focused on misconceptions about level 5.

I have no idea. It looks like a stupid video so I didn't watch it. I'm just reading the quote you posted which does not make any claims about the safety of the system.
However, I don't think it's a misconception that any deployed L3-5 system will be designed to be safer than humans. Obviously defining what that means is difficult.

 

[diplomat33]

However, I don't think it's a misconception that any deployed L3-5 system will be designed to be safer than humans. Obviously defining what that means is difficult.

Of course, any deployed L3-L5 system should be safer than humans. There is no advantage to deploying any autonomous driving system that is less safe than humans. It's just that the SAE J3016 document does not define what that safety should be because safety is outside the scope of the SAE levels.

 

[ThomasD]

Will the car be able to decide whether or not a road is drivable. Say a dirt road that becomes muddy or a road that has 3to 4 inches of water on it. Would it know not to follow more capable vehicles onto roads that would only be passible with say a high clearance vehicle.

 

[diplomat33]

Will the car be able to decide whether or not a road is drivable. Say a dirt road that becomes muddy or a road that has 3to 4 inches of water on it. Would it know not to follow more capable vehicles onto roads that would only be passible with say a high clearance vehicle.

L4 and L5 autonomous vehicles, yes, would need to recognize if it is drivable or not and pull over if they can't drive on it.

 

[jebinc]

L4 and L5 autonomous vehicles, yes, would need to recognize if it is drivable or not and pull over if they can't drive on it.

Reviving your thread!

 

[spacecoin]

SAE J3016 Simplified Logic Flow Diagram for Assigning Driving Automation Level to a Feature SAE INTERNATIONAL, SAE J3016™ JUN2018


Most people struggle to understand what the OEDR is:

OEDR: The Key Differentiator Between SAE Level 2 And Level 3 Automated Driving

A recent article unfortunately characterized ProPilot 2.0 as an SAE Level 3 system.

www.forbes.com

 

[diplomat33]

View attachment 950656
SAE J3016 Simplified Logic Flow Diagram for Assigning Driving Automation Level to a Feature SAE INTERNATIONAL, SAE J3016™ JUN2018

Most people struggle to understand what the OEDR is:

OEDR: The Key Differentiator Between SAE Level 2 And Level 3 Automated Driving

A recent article unfortunately characterized ProPilot 2.0 as an SAE Level 3 system.

www.forbes.com

Thanks for sharing this. OEDR is super important.

Here is a list of OEDR behavioral capabilities from NHTSA.

OEDR: Vehicles
•Detect and respond to encroaching, oncoming vehicles
•Vehicle following
•Detect and respond to relevant stopped vehicle, including in lane or on the side of the road
•Detect and respond to lane changes, including unexpected cut ins
•Detect and respond to cut-outs, including unexpected reveals
•Detect and respond to school buses
•Detect and respond to emergency vehicles, including at intersections
•Detect and respond to vehicle roadway entry
•Detect and respond to relevant adjacent vehicles
•Detect and respond to relevant vehicles when in forward and reverse

OEDR: Traffic Control Devices and Infrastructure
•Follow driving laws
•Detect and respond to speed limit changes or advisories
•Detect and respond to relevant access restrictions, including one-way streets, no-turn locations, bicycle lanes, transit lanes, and pedestrian ways (See MUTCD for more complete list))
•Detect and respond to relevant traffic control devices, including signalized intersections, stop signs, yield signs ,crosswalks, and lane markings (potentially including faded markings) (See MUTCD for more complete list)
•Detect and respond to infrastructure elements, including curves, roadway edges, and guard rails (See AASHTO Green Book for more complete list)

OEDR: Vulnerable Road Users, Objects, Animals
•Detect and respond to relevant static obstacles in lane
•Detect and respond to pedestrians, pedal cyclists, animals in lane or on side of road

Source: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.g...82-automateddrivingsystems_092618_v1a_tag.pdf