TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

251 pointsby etendueover 8 years ago

19 comments

Animatsover 8 years ago
From the regulations: <i>&quot;Fall back strategies should take into account that—despite laws and regulations to the contrary—human drivers may be inattentive, under the influence of alcohol or other substances, drowsy, or physically impaired in some other manner.&quot;</i><p>NHTSA, which, after all, studies crashes, is being very realistic.<p>Here&#x27;s the &quot;we&#x27;re looking at you, Tesla&quot; moment:<p><i>&quot;Guidance for Lower Levels of Automated Vehicle Systems&quot;</i><p><i>&quot;Furthermore, manufacturers and other entities should place significant emphasis on assessing the risk of driver complacency and misuse of Level 2 systems, and develop effective countermeasures to assist drivers in properly using the system as the manufacturer expects. Complacency has been defined as, “... [when an operator] over- relies on and excessively trusts the automation, and subsequently fails to exercise his or her vigilance and&#x2F;or supervisory duties” (Parasuraman, 1997). SAE Level 2 systems differ from HAV systems in that the driver is expected to remain continuously involved in the driving task, primarily to monitor appropriate operation of the system and to take over immediate control when necessary, with or without warning from the system. However, like HAV systems, SAE Level 2 systems perform sustained longitudinal and lateral control simultaneously within their intended design domain. Manufacturers and other entities should assume that the technical distinction between the levels of automation (e.g., between Level 2 and Level 3) may not be clear to all users or to the general public. And, systems’ expectations of drivers and those drivers’ actual understanding of the critical importance of their “supervisory” role may be materially different.&quot;</i><p>There&#x27;s more clarity here on levels of automation. For NHTSA Level 1 (typically auto-brake only) and 2 (auto-brake and lane keeping) vehicles, the driver is responsible, and the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for keeping the driver actively involved. For NHTSA Level 3 (Google&#x27;s current state), 4 (auto driving under almost all conditions) and 5 (no manual controls at all), the vehicle manufacturer is responsible and the driver is not required to pay constant attention. NHTSA is making a big distinction between 1-2 and 3-5.<p>This is a major policy decision. Automatic driving will not be reached incrementally. Either the vehicle enforces hands-on-wheel and paying attention, or the automation has to be good enough that the driver doesn&#x27;t have to pay attention at all. There&#x27;s a bright line now between manual and automatic. NHTSA gets it.
评论 #12543732 未加载
评论 #12544077 未加载
评论 #12543250 未加载
评论 #12546383 未加载
评论 #12542471 未加载
评论 #12543871 未加载
评论 #12543682 未加载
评论 #12544478 未加载
owynover 8 years ago
It wasn&#x27;t mentioned in the bloomberg article, but the 15 areas covered are:<p><pre><code> • Data Recording and Sharing • Privacy • System Safety • Vehicle Cybersecurity • Human Machine Interface • Crashworthiness • Consumer Education and Training • Registration and Certi cation • Post-Crash Behavior • Federal, State and Local Laws • Ethical Considerations • Operational Design Domain (operating in rain, etc) • Object and Event Detection and Response • Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition) • Validation Methods </code></pre> Not sure if they&#x27;re specifically ordered, but it seems positive that Data recording and Privacy are up at the top.
评论 #12541027 未加载
评论 #12541044 未加载
评论 #12541137 未加载
评论 #12547601 未加载
评论 #12541079 未加载
dhagzover 8 years ago
I&#x27;m astounded that it seems like these regulations are going to be sensible and promote the technology. It&#x27;s a good thing that these are going into place, since autonomous vehicles should definitely not be legislated on a state-by-state basis.
评论 #12539538 未加载
评论 #12540789 未加载
评论 #12539553 未加载
评论 #12540911 未加载
评论 #12539846 未加载
throwaway729over 8 years ago
Pages 14 - 30+ of the embedded report (pages 16 - of the PDF) are particularly interesting and promising, especially the portions about transparency around privacy and ethics issues.<p>The report recommends that &quot;Manufacturers and other entities should develop tests <i>and verification methods</i>...&quot;. Does anyone know whether verification here means software verification, or does it mean something else in this context?<p>Edit: Just noticed that I got to the PDF via elicash&#x27;s comment and not via the linked article. Here&#x27;s a link to the PDF: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.transportation.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;dot.gov&#x2F;files&#x2F;docs&#x2F;AV%20policy%20guidance%20PDF.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.transportation.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;dot.gov&#x2F;files&#x2F;docs&#x2F;AV%2...</a>
评论 #12539661 未加载
elicashover 8 years ago
Info here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.transportation.gov&#x2F;AV" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.transportation.gov&#x2F;AV</a> (including noon Eastern livestream)
hughperkinsover 8 years ago
This is excellent news! Guidelines to follow implies that if the manufacturers can meet these guidelines then they could plausibly have a somewhat legal basis for putting self driving cars on the roads.
etendueover 8 years ago
N.B., this policy is mainly concerned with Highly Automated Vehicles (HAVs), which are defined as SAE Level 3 (&quot;capable of monitoring the driving environment&quot;) and above.<p>edit: as to SAE Level 2, it has this (and more) to say:<p>&gt; Furthermore, manufacturers and other entities should place significant emphasis on assessing the risk of driver complacency and misuse of Level 2 systems, and develop effective countermeasures to assist drivers in properly using the system as the manufacturer expects. Complacency has been defined as, “... [when an operator] over-relies on and excessively trusts the automation, and subsequently fails to exercise his or her vigilance and&#x2F;or supervisory duties” (Parasuraman, 1997).<p>also,<p>&gt; Manufacturers and other entities should assume that the technical distinction between the levels of automation (e.g., between Level 2 and Level 3) may not be clear to all users or to the general public.
euroclydonover 8 years ago
I&#x27;m surprised that self-driving technology is focusing on replacing the driver as an autonomous actor, processing visual and radar&#x2F;lidar signals in order to know about its surroundings. I&#x27;ve always thought we&#x27;d get further faster by having automobiles also talk to other vehicles nearby, and design roads to support the computer driven vehicles.<p>Two examples are:<p>1) If the vehicle is talking to the cars in front of it, it can know they are braking before it senses that visually. Also, the vehicles can speed up in a gridlock scenario more in unison, like a train.<p>2) On the interstate, markers in the pavement can be specifically designed for computer sensors rather than human eyeballs. Also, cars can draft together to save fuel.
评论 #12540468 未加载
评论 #12540217 未加载
评论 #12542676 未加载
评论 #12540180 未加载
评论 #12540409 未加载
评论 #12541218 未加载
评论 #12540303 未加载
评论 #12540123 未加载
评论 #12540302 未加载
评论 #12541026 未加载
yoav_hollanderover 8 years ago
Live streaming just started here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.transportation.gov&#x2F;AV" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.transportation.gov&#x2F;AV</a>
评论 #12541504 未加载
nojvekover 8 years ago
I&#x27;m really excited by US govt outlining what it would take to make a legal self driving car.<p>I&#x27;m also hoping that one of the options is to upgrade an old car to a self driving car with an open source kit that you can buy and install it via a certified mechanic.<p>I think that would be an interesting future I&#x27;d like to be part of.
kragenover 8 years ago
Brad Templeton, who&#x27;s been working on self-driving cars for a few years now, analyzed this in <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ideas.4brad.com&#x2F;critique-nhtsas-newly-released-recommendations-states-and-regulations" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ideas.4brad.com&#x2F;critique-nhtsas-newly-released-recomm...</a>. He says, &quot;Broadly, this is very much the wrong direction... the progress of robocar development in the USA may be seriously negatively affected.&quot;<p>This is a big deal.
评论 #12544471 未加载
yoav_hollanderover 8 years ago
Finally posted my initial comments on the verification implications of all this here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.foretellix.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;09&#x2F;21&#x2F;verification-implications-of-the-new-us-av-policy&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.foretellix.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;09&#x2F;21&#x2F;verification-implicat...</a>
KKKKkkkk1over 8 years ago
It&#x27;s nice that these regulations sound sensitive and not heavy handed. I&#x27;m wondering whether they are needed at all though. They&#x27;ve been formulated in heavy collaboration with the market leaders Uber, Google etc. Is there a risk they will help shut out upstarts, similarly to how the FDA makes drug development astronomically expensive?
plandisover 8 years ago
I&#x27;m cynically imagining that since it&#x27;s a collection of big automakers, it is pretty easy for them to affect policy.<p>It looks like consumers and automakers are both wanting driverless cars so putting any enevitable regulations quickly benefit both parties.
nitin_flankerover 8 years ago
I am commenting here as a token of appreciation for Etendue and also so that I can bookmark this awesome share by him. Thanks.
mrfusionover 8 years ago
So what are the 15 bench marks?
pmyjavecover 8 years ago
What is it about self-driving cars that has HN readers so incredibly excited? Sorry if it&#x27;s a little off-topic.<p>The reason I ask is there are plenty of other countries in the world where cars just aren&#x27;t that important, let&#x27;s take Netherlands for example. If you have automatic cars, society here is not just going to be that excited AFAIK. Public transport here is great and most people cycle everywhere, because it&#x27;s fun, easy and good exercise. Not to mention a lot of people are employed as drivers.<p>Same for many Asian countries where population density is high, people just don&#x27;t have the money&#x2F;room for cars. Scooters are the way to go because of traffic congestion.<p>Besides, don&#x27;t people enjoy driving? I don&#x27;t own a car but when I get behind the wheel, it&#x27;s a lot of fun. Will people really be able to handle the car doing the speed limit?<p>I understand technologically it&#x27;s pretty interesting, but we&#x27;ve had commercial airliners that fly themselves (mostly) for a long time, same for ships and drones and we don&#x27;t marvel over those things all the time, though I agree they are great innovations.<p>So apart from the tech what is the actual excitement about?<p>- Concern for those who will lose their jobs.<p>- Concern for others safety.<p>- Privacy concerns.<p>- Excitement about the safety benefits.<p>- Economic opportunity.<p>- Fundraising hype.<p>- All of the above?<p>As a Silicon Valley outsider sometimes I read HN and it feels like some context is missing. Sure it&#x27;s going to change industries, but is this really good progress, necessary progress, or just the next <i>thing we&#x27;re told we need</i>? I mean can a self-driving car really replace a delivery person yet, a person who can do things like leave packages with a neighbor and build relationships, trust etc?<p>Sorry if this is a little off-topic, but I&#x27;m genuinely curious because it&#x27;s hard to understand, to me as an outsider, it really looks like some kind of ride-sharing turf war hype battle more than anything else?<p>I dare to say it, but it&#x27;s the same for machine learning, a lot of it is fascinating, interesting, exiting tech, but how many product recommendations does one need? How good do my <i>friend recommendations</i> have to be? How smart does Siri need to be? Will a patient really feel better without being treated by a human? Are we really going to trust these things handling nuclear warheads?<p>Maybe I live a strange life and have unusual views, but I just don&#x27;t really see the need most of these things when so many problems could be solved using other means. Using this stuff to help people is great, but how much of this effort is actually being put towards that end?<p>If I&#x27;m a little naive, apologies. I&#x27;m not having a go but these are just honest questions I often find myself asking when reading HN lately. Agreed this might not be the place to ask but I&#x27;m prepared to wear the down votes :)
评论 #12543598 未加载
评论 #12563120 未加载
评论 #12543665 未加载
megablastover 8 years ago
Woohoo, lets get the lawyers involved!
mtgxover 8 years ago
The only regulation that really matters is making car manufacturers liable for accidents and they would have to pay a fine from $100,000 for the smallest accident (per car) up to $10 million per accident.<p>When the manufacturers &quot;can&#x27;t explain&quot; how the accident happened (after an audit was performed), they should be fined the maximum $10 million amount.<p>Why? Because for one assuming it&#x27;s just a glitch and &quot;they don&#x27;t know&quot; about it, then they should pay for incompetence. And two, if the car was hacked by a nation state, then their security sucks, and they should again pay the maximum amount so they have the maximum incentive to ensure digital security of self-driving cars.<p>Where third-party self-driving systems are involved (MobilEye, etc), the liability&#x2F;fine should be split 50-50 between the car maker and the system vendor.<p>Give car makers these &quot;incentives&quot; and the other regulations are more or less pointless (other than establishing common V2V and V2I standards and whatnot). Then you&#x27;ll see just how hard they scramble to make their systems safe.<p>EDIT: And here we go. Remote hack of Tesla Model S.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.kaspersky.com&#x2F;tesla-remote-hack&#x2F;13027&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.kaspersky.com&#x2F;tesla-remote-hack&#x2F;13027&#x2F;</a><p>We&#x27;re only at the very beginning of self-driving cars. What happens when there are 100 million self-driving cars on the road? Will their security be as terrible as it is on our PCs?<p>People should get scared a lot faster about this stuff, before all car makers start writing their software and then refuse to write it from scratch again and just tack on to the poorly written systems new security features in the future as a response to such hacking.
评论 #12539648 未加载
评论 #12539545 未加载
评论 #12539561 未加载
评论 #12539668 未加载
评论 #12539815 未加载