The Self-Driving Vehicles Thread

[Mussels]

Reduced accidents is a big selling point of autonomous cars and their lesser versions. If they are making drivers inattentive and not compensating for it then they need a rethink.

[Horse]

Reduced accidents is a big selling point of autonomous cars and their lesser versions. If they are making drivers inattentive and not compensating for it then they need a rethink.

Autonomous and automated are not the same.

[Cousin Jack]

Quite a lot of automotive stuff needs a re-think.

Brother has recently bought a new car, same model as before but updated. Old one had a rotary control for heater temperature, easy to find by touch and totally intuitive. New one has a clever touch screen, and heater controls are via screen, turning up the temperature now involves scrolling through menu, selecting Heating, then Temperature, then Up (and repeat for however many increments you want to go up). Try doing that by touch on a dark night when you feel a bit chilly going along a busy M'way.

Technology is wonderful when it is used to solve real problems, when done because you can, or because it looks cool, it is often a PITA

[Mussels]

Reduced accidents is a big selling point of autonomous cars and their lesser versions. If they are making drivers inattentive and not compensating for it then they need a rethink.

Autonomous and automated are not the same.

In the States Tesla is rated at autonomy level 2. To me that should count as an autonomous car.

[Horse]

Reduced accidents is a big selling point of autonomous cars and their lesser versions. If they are making drivers inattentive and not compensating for it then they need a rethink.

Autonomous and automated are not the same.

In the States Tesla is rated at autonomy level 2. To me that should count as an autonomous car.

https://www.aptiv.com/en/insights/artic ... ed-driving

Level 0: No Automation. The driver is completely responsible for controlling the vehicle, performing tasks like steering, braking, accelerating or slowing down. Level 0 vehicles can have safety features such as backup cameras, blind spot warnings and collision warnings. Even automatic emergency braking, which applies aggressive braking in the event of an imminent collision, is classified as Level 0 because it does not act over a sustained period.

Level 1: Driver Assistance. At this level, the automated systems start to take control of the vehicle in specific situations, but do not fully take over. An example of Level 1 automation is adaptive cruise control, which controls acceleration and braking, typically in highway driving. Depending on the functionality, drivers are able to take their feet off the pedals.

Level 2: Partial Automation. At this level, the vehicle can perform more complex functions that pair steering (lateral control) with acceleration and braking (longitudinal control), thanks to a greater awareness of its surroundings.

Level 2+: Advanced Partial Automation. While Level 2+ is not one of the officially recognized SAE levels, it represents an important category that delivers advanced performance at a price consumers can afford. Level 2+ includes functions where the vehicle systems are essentially driving, but the driver is still required to monitor the vehicle and be ready to step in if needed. (By contrast, Level 3 represents a significant technology leap, as it is the first level at which drivers can disengage from the act of driving — often referred to as “mind off.” At Level 3, the vehicle must be able to safely stop in the event of a failure, requiring much more advanced software and hardware.) Examples of Level 2+ include highway assistance or traffic jam assistance. The ability for drivers to take their hands off the wheel and glance away from the road ahead for a few moments makes for a much more relaxing and enjoyable experience, so there is strong consumer interest.

Level 3: Conditional Automation. At Level 3, drivers can disengage from the act of driving, but only in specific situations. Conditions could be limited to certain vehicle speeds, road types and weather conditions. But because drivers can apply their focus to some other task — such as looking at a phone or newspaper — this is generally considered the initial entry point into autonomous driving. Nevertheless, the driver is expected to take over when the system requests it. For example, features such as traffic jam pilot mean that drivers can sit back and relax while the system handles it all — acceleration, steering and braking. In stop-and-go traffic, the vehicle sends an alert to the driver to regain control when the vehicle gets through the traffic jam and vehicle speed increases. The vehicle must also monitor the driver’s state to ensure that the driver resumes control, and be able to come to a safe stop if the driver does not.

Level 4: High Automation. At this level, the vehicle’s autonomous driving system is fully capable of monitoring the driving environment and handling all driving functions for routine routes and conditions defined within its operational design domain (ODD). The vehicle may alert the driver that it is reaching its operational limits if there is, say, an environmental condition that requires a human in control, such as heavy snow. If the driver does not respond, it will secure the vehicle automatically.

Level 5: Full Automation. Level 5-capable vehicles are fully autonomous. No driver is required behind the wheel at all. In fact, Level 5 vehicles might not even have a steering wheel or gas/brake pedals. Level 5 vehicles could have “smart cabins” so that passengers can issue voice commands to choose a destination or set cabin conditions such as temperature or choice of media.

In April 2021, the SAE published an update to its taxonomy to clarify that Levels 0-2 are “driver support features” because the driver is still heavily involved with the vehicle operation, while Levels 3-5 are “automated driving features.”

Each level of automation requires additional layers of sensors, as the vehicles increasingly assume functions previously controlled by the driver. For example, a Level 1 vehicle might only have one radar and one camera. A Level 5 vehicle, which must be able to navigate any environment it encounters, will require full 360-degree sensing across multiple sensor types.

[slowsider]

Quite a lot of automotive stuff needs a re-think.

Brother has recently bought a new car, same model as before but updated. Old one had a rotary control for heater temperature, easy to find by touch and totally intuitive. New one has a clever touch screen, and heater controls are via screen, turning up the temperature now involves scrolling through menu, selecting Heating, then Temperature, then Up (and repeat for however many increments you want to go up). Try doing that by touch on a dark night when you feel a bit chilly going along a busy M'way.

Technology is wonderful when it is used to solve real problems, when done because you can, or because it looks cool, it is often a PITA

As far as i can see from marketing pics, the latest iteration of my car has reverted to rotary adjustment.

[Mussels]

Ok, I'll amend my post.

Reduced accidents is a big selling point of partially autonomous cars. If they are making drivers inattentive and not compensating for it then they need a rethink.

[Mussels]

Quite a lot of automotive stuff needs a re-think.

Brother has recently bought a new car, same model as before but updated. Old one had a rotary control for heater temperature, easy to find by touch and totally intuitive. New one has a clever touch screen, and heater controls are via screen, turning up the temperature now involves scrolling through menu, selecting Heating, then Temperature, then Up (and repeat for however many increments you want to go up). Try doing that by touch on a dark night when you feel a bit chilly going along a busy M'way.

Technology is wonderful when it is used to solve real problems, when done because you can, or because it looks cool, it is often a PITA

As far as i can see from marketing pics, the latest iteration of my car has reverted to rotary adjustment.

I hope that trend continues as I hate the touch screen in my car, it takes way too much attention to change the temperature controls. I don't have any scrolling but going through several menus is awkward.

[Horse]

As far as i can see from marketing pics, the latest iteration of my car has reverted to rotary adjustment.

I hope that trend continues as I hate the touch screen in my car, it takes way too much attention to change the temperature controls. I don't have any scrolling but going through several menus is awkward.

At least one major manufacturer has announced that they will not have important controls operated via screens.

[Horse]

Ok, I'll amend my post.

Reduced accidents is a big selling point of partially autonomous cars. If they are making drivers inattentive and not compensating for it then they need a rethink.

Do you want a return to cable brakes, no power steering and double declutch gearchanges? They'll all put concentration back into driving

Where's the cut-off between valuable and encouraging distraction?

[Mussels]

Ok, I'll amend my post.

Reduced accidents is a big selling point of partially autonomous cars. If they are making drivers inattentive and not compensating for it then they need a rethink.

Do you want a return to cable brakes, no power steering and double declutch gearchanges? They'll all put concentration back into driving

Where's the cut-off between valuable and encouraging distraction?

None of those make a car autonomous, my question is are autonomous (fully or partially) cars causing (directly or indirectly) more accidents than they prevent?
There is a similar argument about other safety aids but I'm interested in the autonomy part.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Technology is wonderful when it is used to solve real problems, when done because you can, or because it looks cool, it is often a PITA

I suspect most of the reason is cost actually. Touch screens are mega cheap now cause of phones etc. Physical knobs, usually made specially for your application, are waaaay more costly to develop reliably. Cheap physical switches which don't feel cheap are really hard to master. Screens on the other hand are a double whammy, nice and cheap but they seem expensive.

No coincidence that Tesla, the company focused on making cheaper EVs, have a really simple button free interior.

[Horse]

Ok, I'll amend my post.

Reduced accidents is a big selling point of partially autonomous cars. If they are making drivers inattentive and not compensating for it then they need a rethink.

Do you want a return to cable brakes, no power steering and double declutch gearchanges? They'll all put concentration back into driving

Where's the cut-off between valuable and encouraging distraction?

None of those make a car autonomous, my question is are autonomous (fully or partially) cars causing (directly or indirectly) more accidents than they prevent?
There is a similar argument about other safety aids but I'm interested in the autonomy part.

OK, then, ABS, ESC, traction control, EFI ... all taking control away from the driver, perhaps lulling the driver into an illusion of being in control (and, potentially, 'causing' crashes by lulling the driver into a false sense of stupidity).

If you're interested in autonomy, where do you see the separation? What's acceptable, what's not?

Ddit: you're persisting in using 'autonomous' rather than 'automated' for L2 etc.

[The Spin Doctor]

I very much doubt that it's due to Tesla.

From informal contact with people in the US, it's more likely to be what they call 'D drivers': drunk, drugged, drowsy and distracted.

With 41 fatal collisions (I haven't heard of a single collision with multiple fatalities), you have to wonder how many collisions occur.

NB

Every year, just on Highways England roads, 30 - 35 every year get clattered (some on the hard shoulder).

Just happened across this. Large vans, with beacons and roof-mounted light arrows. 26 that have been clattered, with 5 in 15 days.

Any data on how many of those were on smart motorways?

Check out highway hypnosis... it's not 'bad driving', it's a natural state we slip into when there's little stimulation. I think this trance-like state was first postulated as a cause of wartime losses during cross-Atlantic flights where the pilot simply flew into the sea.

It's why French autoroutes have signs every few miles pointing at landmarks or giving historical information, and the bridges are often decorated with unusual designs... it's all designed to bring us out of the hypnotic state.

[Horse]

Any data on how many of those were on smart motorways?

Do they have smart motorways?


That tweet is all I know (apart from French to English translation to get the numbers and timeline). Feel free to find out

FWIW the breakdown and recovery industry say that dual carriageways are highest risk for them.

[The Spin Doctor]

You wrote: "Every year, just on Highways England roads, 30 - 35 every year get clattered (some on the hard shoulder)."

That's what I was referring to, not the US data.

The quote got mangled

[Cousin Jack]

I suspect most of the reason is cost actually. Touch screens are mega cheap now cause of phones etc. Physical knobs, usually made specially for your application, are waaaay more costly to develop reliably. Cheap physical switches which don't feel cheap are really hard , to master. Screens on the other hand are a double whammy, nice and cheap but they seem expensive.

No coincidence that Tesla, the company focused on making cheaper EVs, have a really simple button free interior.

You are almost certainly right. Many years ago Ford had a superb light switch on the old Granada, that operated all the lights. It was close to hand, intuitive, and would NOT let you put any fog lights on unless your headlights were on too. Brilliant, but sadly disappeared to be replaced with the common or garden stalk which is now ubiquitous but far from standardised, and are far trickier to find extra lights when you need them. Probably at a fraction of the cost.

[Horse]

You wrote: "Every year, just on Highways England roads, 30 - 35 every year get clattered (some on the hard shoulder)."

That's what I was referring to, not the US data.

The quote got mangled

No worries. I thought you meant the French vans

Anywhere on the 'National Highways' network. Could have been live lane where there was a hard shoulder. IIRC the report gives some info.

[Horse]

Had a look in the report, data goes back waaaaaay before smart motorways became common. Also breaks down whether or not the crashes were on the SRN - strategic road network (smart motorways are a sub-set of all motorways, which are only on the SRN).

20210825_211128.jpg (99.86 KiB) Viewed 213 times

20210825_211148.jpg (130.07 KiB) Viewed 213 times

20210825_211211.jpg (114.55 KiB) Viewed 213 times

What the descriptions mean:

The terms used to describe the types of operational works conducted by IPVs are as follows:
▪ Mobile lane closure: this includes all mobile lane closure works on motorways and
high-speed dual carriageways. Works to be conducted at a constant low speed or
with repeated movement and periodic stops in which an IPV is used in the live
carriageway to provide protection to works vehicles and is supported by mobile
advanced warning signs.
▪ Temporary traffic management: this includes all standard and relaxed planned static
works on motorways and high-speed dual carriageways. Works to be conducted to
deploy and retrieve planned lane closures in which an IPV is used either in the live
carriageway or on the hard shoulder to provide protection to works vehicles and/or
operatives and is supported by static advanced warning signs.
▪ Impact protection: this includes works on motorways and high-speed dual
carriageways in which an IPV is used on the hard shoulder to provide protection to
works vehicles or operatives, works to be conducted at a constant low speed or with
repeated movement and periodic stops.
▪ Incident support and recovery: this includes works on motorways and high-speed
dual carriageways in which an IPV or ISU is used to provide protection either in the
live carriageway or on the hard shoulder for emergency traffic management or
vehicle recovery. Although vehicles used for incident support and recovery roles vary,
this study considered only those collisions involving vehicles fitted with LMCCs.
▪ Short term closure: this includes all short-term work activities of up to 45 minute
durations on motorways and high-speed dual carriageways. Works to be conducted
include small scale planned maintenance activities where live lane working would be
a method normally considered, in which an IPV is used in the live carriageway to
provide protection to works vehicles and/or operatives.

[iansoady]

Some years ago I took part in an academic study looking at (what was not called) highway hypnosis. It involved steering a pretend car made of dexion and random components with a projected journey on big screens in front. Not particularly realistic (well it was built by students at Aston Uni) but it seemed to work

Essentially I had to "drive" this thing for about 30 minutes along very boring roads until there as a sudden event and respond accordingly. I must get in touch with them to see what if any results were published.

Another version presented direction signs of varying complexity to see again how long it took for the subject to respond corrctly.