SAE Driving Automation Levels Terminology

[stopcrazypp]

I think a bunch of discussions had people asking specifically for the full document with SAE's definitions for the different autonomy levels.

Previously we only had the summary document to go by:
https://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf

In a different discussion @Bladerskb posted a link to the full document (kudos for finding it), and I think it deserves its own thread given there are many discussions that would benefit from looking at the full document (since the summary document isn't detailed enough in some cases):
https://wiki.unece.org/download/att...ated to Driving Automation Systems.pdf?api=v2

 

[lunitiks]

Previously you had to register (for free) and download it (for free) through SAEs website. Finally J3016-SEP2016 is just one click away. It's really worth reading top to bottom.

I find the diagram on p25 (top) particularly informative. Gives a good sense of the state of affairs anno september 2016

 

[lunitiks]

@Caleb Elston and Mike's new episode revolves around this:

76 – Levels of Autonomy

Gotta say, while I really enjoyed the episode (and I absolutely LOVE the show), I don't think they did an extremely thorough research before this one in particular... Was just a couple of things: They talk about L3 as if it's immediate take-over. Which is not true. And they forget/oversee Elon's comments about AP2HW being Level 5 capable. The latter I think would be worth some more comments.

But aside from that, I think it was a very interesting and fun discussion.

Keep up the good work!

 

[EVNow]

Hate to be that guy, but there is no way we are getting level 3 or 4 within even a few years on current cars …

Levels ?

 

[Terminator857]

Levels ?

No difference between the levels? What a joke. Level 2 honda can't even take moderate turns on the freeway.

 

[EVNow]

No difference between the levels? What a joke. Level 2 honda can't even take moderate turns on the freeway.

Proves George’s point.

Levels are worthless as defined.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Proves George’s point.

Levels are worthless as defined.

In California only L4 and L5 vehicles are allowed to operate without a driver on public roads.
That seems like it’s worth something.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

In California only L4 and L5 vehicles are allowed to operate without a driver on public roads.
That seems like it’s worth something.

L5 is a fairytale
L3 is dangerous due to the hand off requirement
L2 or under is not autonomous driving at all

So I'd say there is either autonomous driving or not autonomous driving.

My expectation is once we have L4 cars then L3 "traffic assist" cars will disappear, and L2 will seem pretty silly.

FSD Beta is already making the whole L2 thing look rather ridiculous.

 

[EVNow]

L5 is a fairytale
L3 is dangerous due to the hand off requirement
L2 or under is not autonomous driving at all

So I'd say there is either autonomous driving or not autonomous driving.

My expectation is once we have L4 cars then L3 "traffic assist" cars will disappear, and L2 will seem pretty silly.

FSD Beta is already making the whole L2 thing look rather ridiculous.

The engineering reality doesn’t match with the levels. Levels have become obsolete.

All the ADAS systems from lowly lane departure warning in our Toyota van to Tesla FSD beta are all L2 ? But the keep lane TACC of MB below 37 mph in 60 mph roads in L3 !!

 

[Daniel in SD]

The engineering reality doesn’t match with the levels. Levels have become obsolete.

All the ADAS systems from lowly lane departure warning in our Toyota van to Tesla FSD beta are all L2 ? But the keep lane TACC of MB below 37 mph in 60 mph roads in L3 !!

They address this in the specification. I agree that they shouldn't have assigned numbers to the different types of automation, it is very confusing to many people.

8.3 Level assignments are nominal, rather than ordinal, and are never fractional.
While numbered sequentially 0 through 5, J3016 levels do not specify or imply hierarchy in terms of relative merit, technology sophistication, or order of deployment. Thus, J3016 does not specify or imply that, for example, level 4 is “better” than level 3 or level 2.

 

[Daniel in SD]

L3 is dangerous due to the hand off requirement

I'm glad we may finally get the answer to this question! My prediction is it will be fine.
I think it's far more likely that the systems won't be safe enough while operating and that will kill them in the near term.

 

[EVNow]

They address this in the specification. I agree that they shouldn't have assigned numbers to the different types of automation, it is very confusing to many people.

Wow - this is the weirdest thing in a pathetically incompetent standard.

Who the hell voted on this to pass ?

BTW, the way it explained, it always makes it feel like a hierarchy.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Wow - this is the weirdest thing in a pathetically incompetent standard.

Who the hell voted on this to pass ?

BTW, the way it explained, it always makes it feel like a hierarchy.

Maybe because you have a bias that a driverless vehicle is always "better". The best human drivers are far superior to the best machines so L0 is actually the highest level if you look at it hierarchically.

 

[EVNow]

Maybe because you have a bias that a driverless vehicle is always "better". The best human drivers are far superior to the best machines so L0 is actually the highest level if you look at it hierarchically.

Ofcourse I’m the reason the std is so bad. Makes a lot of sense

 

[Daniel in SD]

Ofcourse I’m the reason the std is so bad. Makes a lot of sense

No, you're the reason that you interpret it as a hierarchy (which seems to be your only real complaint about it).

 

[EVNow]

No, you're the reason that you interpret it as a hierarchy (which seems to be your only real complaint about it).

C’mmon every person interprets that way. See all the charts SAE puts out - ofcourse they look hierarchical.

 

[Daniel in SD]

C’mmon every person interprets that way. See all the charts SAE puts out - ofcourse they look hierarchical.

View attachment 750034

That's because you are interpreting machines as "better." Someone who thinks humans are "better" would have the opposite hierarchy. There's also the bias that technology that does not yet exist yet is "better".

 

[Daniel in SD]

Ofcourse it is “worth” something because business people created it - as Hotz says.

In engineering terms there are no levels. It’s just about errors per million miles.

The standard I’d like to see would have well defined ODD and error rates.

There are features required in L3 and L4 systems that are not applicable to L2 so that's a stretch.
I think who is responsible for monitoring the driving environment is important.

What you want is some sort of performance standard which is a completely different thing. Errors per million miles would be a silly metric since different errors have very different consequences.
How about:
L4.1 1 major city
L4.2 2 major cities
L4.2.1 2 major cities but also when it's raining
L4.3.2 3 major cities but also when it's snowing but not frozen rain

It seems like sub dividing the level by ODD would not really be useful.

 

[EVNow]

It seems like sub dividing the level by ODD would not really be useful.

Elevators : L5 in the small ODD they have.

 

[daktari]

I understand that it is of big importance for fans of a company/entrepreneur to change the narrative on this global standard, if said company/entrepreneur realizes they will not reach the capabilities set in the standard within reasonable or promised time. Also known as loosing the race.
Could I suggest minutes driven pr safety disengagement instead? Ops sorry, still doesn't look promising. Better subpress the standard and rewrite history.