5 ms·

What a great idea. Disengagements in 2016: Google: 124 GM: 149 Tesla: 72 (on all of 550 miles) The others I checked didn't get any amount of useful mileage.

What a great idea. Disengagements in 2016: Google: 124 GM: 149 Tesla: 72 (on all of 550 miles) The others I checked didn't get any amount of useful mileage. Why expand the testing when most can't even demonstrate capabilities under the current regime?

jfoster 10y ago
Just because the law says they can put a car on the road without a driver doesn't mean they will. Companies have nothing to gain from not having a human in the car during testing. They face a huge amount of liability if they jump the gun. This change gets the law ready for when the cars are ready.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lern_too_spel 10y ago
That's one disengagement every 5000 miles on average last year. It sounds like California is right on time.
- revelation 10y ago
  Except there is no graceful failure mode here.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Of course there is. 99.9% the safe behavior to do is to slam on the breaks and pull off to the side/avoid obstacles. And humans can't even do this simple behavior. "oh, stale2000, but what about highways!", and I'd respond by pointing out that highway driving is the easiest thing for a self driving car to do. Also, it is STILL probably safest to slam the breaks if you are about to hit a car pileup.
    - mannykannot 10y ago
      Pulling off to the side and avoiding obstacles is continued engagement. What we need here is more information, specifically about how many of the disengagements would have presented a risk (and the severity of the risk) without a driver to handle them. The second paragraph is a straw man argument.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - lern_too_spel 10y ago
        Disengagements requiring immediate manual control are also in the disengagement report. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/946b3502-c959-4e3b-b119-91319c27788f/GoogleAutoWaymo_disengage_report_2016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/946b3502-c959-4e3b... One every 14000 miles in 2016, an improvement from one every 1500 miles in 2015. Waymo has already indicated that it wants to run a mobility service by the end of the year. This regulation is right on time.
        mannykannot 10y ago
        That is a valid point, but the report also says this: "Safety is our highest priority and Waymo test drivers are trained to take manual control in a multitude of situations, not only when safe operation "requires " that they do so. Our drivers err on the side of caution and take manual control if they have any doubt about the safety of continuing in autonomous mode (for example, due to the behavior of the SOC or any other vehicle, pedestrian, or cyclist nearby), or in situations where other concerns may warrant manual control, such as improving ride comfort or smoothing traffic flow." This appears to throw doubt on the relevance of the statistics to driverless vehicles because drivers have been instructed to preemptively disengage where problems may be anticipated.
        lern_too_spel 10y ago
        All of those disengagements, which have erred on the side of caution, have been reported, so why does it throw doubt on the statistics? The rate of disengagements has gone down so much that Waymo has announced a mobility service by the end of the year, which seems aggressive to me, but within two years seems perfectly reasonable. After all, they can limit service to the environments that they know they'll have no problems with.
CardenB 10y ago
You can have teleop disengagements that don't require a driver in the vehicle.
- euyyn 10y ago
  I don't reckon you can with the current technology, and I don't think it's a worthy investment.
  - CardenB 10y ago
    Really? Because every single SDV company has a teleop team (except maybe tesla).
    - euyyn 10y ago
      Source?
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    Nissan disagrees that remote operation is not feasible with current tech https://www.wired.com/2017/01/nissans-self-driving-teleoperation/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/nissans-self-driving-teleopera... But it doesn't sound like anyone is planning on emergency disengagements with remote operators...
    - euyyn 10y ago
      Emphasis mine: > Nissan’s cubicle-based drivers aren’t emergency backups. If the car hits black ice, it’s in charge of staying on the road. There’s no feasible way to get the human into the loop in time to act. That was the first of my concerns. > But they can help out when the car encounters conditions it’s unsure how to handle. If a Nissan happened upon the construction scene from Sierhuis’ photo, it would stop and ping its control center. A human operator would look around using the car’s cameras and other sensors and issue new instructions — direct control would pose latency issues. That was the second. So it's only for "I'm not sure what to do here but it's safe for me to stop and wait" situations. And the operators would just solve the "A.I. question" given to them, not control the wheels and pedals. Thanks for the article!
stale2002 10y ago
A disengagement doesn't mean unsafe. Quite the opposite, a disengagement is demonstrating safe behavior. And if you are going to her statistics, please use statistics that are applicable to both humans and machines, like "crashes" or something so we can compare them.
thebiglebrewski 10y ago
What are these "disengagement" figures? I drive a Tesla and disengage Autopilot several times in a single drive. Unless it's just because I'm in NYC?

jfoster 10y ago

Just because the law says they can put a car on the road without a driver doesn't mean they will. Companies have nothing to gain from not having a human in the car during testing. They face a huge amount of liability if they jump the gun. This change gets the law ready for when the cars are ready.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

lern_too_spel 10y ago

That's one disengagement every 5000 miles on average last year. It sounds like California is right on time.

revelation 10y ago
Except there is no graceful failure mode here.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Of course there is. 99.9% the safe behavior to do is to slam on the breaks and pull off to the side/avoid obstacles. And humans can't even do this simple behavior. "oh, stale2000, but what about highways!", and I'd respond by pointing out that highway driving is the easiest thing for a self driving car to do. Also, it is STILL probably safest to slam the breaks if you are about to hit a car pileup.
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    Pulling off to the side and avoiding obstacles is continued engagement. What we need here is more information, specifically about how many of the disengagements would have presented a risk (and the severity of the risk) without a driver to handle them. The second paragraph is a straw man argument.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - lern_too_spel 10y ago
      Disengagements requiring immediate manual control are also in the disengagement report. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/946b3502-c959-4e3b-b119-91319c27788f/GoogleAutoWaymo_disengage_report_2016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/946b3502-c959-4e3b... One every 14000 miles in 2016, an improvement from one every 1500 miles in 2015. Waymo has already indicated that it wants to run a mobility service by the end of the year. This regulation is right on time.
      - mannykannot 10y ago
        That is a valid point, but the report also says this: "Safety is our highest priority and Waymo test drivers are trained to take manual control in a multitude of situations, not only when safe operation "requires " that they do so. Our drivers err on the side of caution and take manual control if they have any doubt about the safety of continuing in autonomous mode (for example, due to the behavior of the SOC or any other vehicle, pedestrian, or cyclist nearby), or in situations where other concerns may warrant manual control, such as improving ride comfort or smoothing traffic flow." This appears to throw doubt on the relevance of the statistics to driverless vehicles because drivers have been instructed to preemptively disengage where problems may be anticipated.
        lern_too_spel 10y ago
        All of those disengagements, which have erred on the side of caution, have been reported, so why does it throw doubt on the statistics? The rate of disengagements has gone down so much that Waymo has announced a mobility service by the end of the year, which seems aggressive to me, but within two years seems perfectly reasonable. After all, they can limit service to the environments that they know they'll have no problems with.

CardenB 10y ago

You can have teleop disengagements that don't require a driver in the vehicle.

euyyn 10y ago
I don't reckon you can with the current technology, and I don't think it's a worthy investment.
- CardenB 10y ago
  Really? Because every single SDV company has a teleop team (except maybe tesla).
  - euyyn 10y ago
    Source?
- kalleboo 10y ago
  Nissan disagrees that remote operation is not feasible with current tech https://www.wired.com/2017/01/nissans-self-driving-teleoperation/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/nissans-self-driving-teleopera... But it doesn't sound like anyone is planning on emergency disengagements with remote operators...
  - euyyn 10y ago
    Emphasis mine: > Nissan’s cubicle-based drivers aren’t emergency backups. If the car hits black ice, it’s in charge of staying on the road. There’s no feasible way to get the human into the loop in time to act. That was the first of my concerns. > But they can help out when the car encounters conditions it’s unsure how to handle. If a Nissan happened upon the construction scene from Sierhuis’ photo, it would stop and ping its control center. A human operator would look around using the car’s cameras and other sensors and issue new instructions — direct control would pose latency issues. That was the second. So it's only for "I'm not sure what to do here but it's safe for me to stop and wait" situations. And the operators would just solve the "A.I. question" given to them, not control the wheels and pedals. Thanks for the article!

stale2002 10y ago

A disengagement doesn't mean unsafe. Quite the opposite, a disengagement is demonstrating safe behavior. And if you are going to her statistics, please use statistics that are applicable to both humans and machines, like "crashes" or something so we can compare them.

thebiglebrewski 10y ago

What are these "disengagement" figures? I drive a Tesla and disengage Autopilot several times in a single drive. Unless it's just because I'm in NYC?