5 ms·

I think people are mis-conceiving L3 as "the car might yell 'grab the wheel at any moment.'" At least for L3 systems I've worked on, the model was - there will

I think people are mis-conceiving L3 as "the car might yell 'grab the wheel at any moment.'" At least for L3 systems I've worked on, the model was - there will be exception cases we don't know how to navigate, but we have a plan to safely transfer control to the driver in them. Examples would include: * a human construction worker or police officer is directing traffic, so safely slow to a halt or near halt and ask the driver to follow directions * the route takes the driver from a supported road (large, well-mapped) to an unsupported road - tell the driver they have to take the exit, and if they don't then you'll miss the exit and stay on the larger, supported road * broken traffic light - tell the user and prepare to treat as red light unless they override These are not sudden dangerous handoffs, but they do mean that a driver can't be drunk or asleep when behind the wheel.

jessriedel 6y ago
Is this formally quantified, e.g., in an amount of time the human must be able to take control within? If that amount of time is like 5 seconds or longer, and the system is empirically demonstrated to maintain safety so long as the human is always ready take over in 5 seconds, that would be very compelling.
ashleyn 6y ago
What also might go unsaid here is: the practical effect of Level 3's requirements vs. its capabilities is that it probably will not be able to engage often. If the car can't safely do it, it's not going to do it. So you'll invest all this money in a Level 3 car, only to find out that it only engages maybe once or twice a year, when the planets line up and it has all the info and environment it actually needs to work.
- horsawlarway 6y ago
  I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think any major manufacturer would release it if that's the case. I can't imagine the customer response to a self-driving system they can only turn on once a year would be good. Seems like an obvious PR/Marketing nightmare.
  - randmeerkat 6y ago
    To be fair, one would also think that releasing a self-driving system that drives into the back of a semi at speed would be a PR/Marketing nightmare, but it hasn’t slowed Tesla down. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/05/feds-autopilot-was-active-during-deadly-march-tesla-crash/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/05/feds-autopilot-was-acti...
    - horsawlarway 6y ago
      I don't actually agree with you here. Drivers get into accidents ALL the time. Having a self-driving crash is entirely expected. It's also a relatively rare occurance. Having the system not work in the majority of cases will make literally every buyer upset.
- mediaman 6y ago
  This is an unlikely outcome. Already, Toyota has released their third version of driving assistance, TSS2.5, which has reasonably decent ability to stay in lanes on highways. For anyone who does any highway driving, it's a competent system that a driver can use a good portion of highway driving. And it's likely less capable than Honda's system. OpenPilot is another example - pretty good at most roads on highways or large boulevards. Like others, not for use in city streets. At least for the American road system, you may be underestimating how much time people spend on large, well-defined highways that could use this system. Some other countries rely less on big highways and this could affect the portion of time available to use it.
  - gowld 6y ago
    These converations tend to be unproductive because self driving "levels" are only one dimension and don't consider terrain diversity. A car that works at L3 only a sunny day on low-density highway is useful to have.
bryanlarsen 6y ago
Thanks for the inside scoop! Not surprisingly the line between Level 3 and Level 4 is fuzzier than I had in my mental model. I view your first example as a Level 4 capability -- AFAICT, stopping to let a human take over is acceptable for Level 4 vehicles. The other two are interesting. Perhaps we would call the system you worked on "high level 3", and Tesla type systems where you have to be able to take over in milliseconds as "low level 3". Marketing departments would be tempted to call your system level 4.
- yokaze 6y ago
  If you have to be alert to take over at short notice, is level 2. Tesla "Autopilot" falls into that category, as far as I know. The categories are well defined (SAE J3016) and have legal implications. If the marketing department is tempted it'll have to go through the legal department.
- qznc 6y ago
  I find the commercial use case a reasonable distinction: A level 3 car, you buy for personal use. A level 4 car, you rent like a Taxi.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> there will be exception cases we don't know how to navigate, but we have a plan to safely transfer control to the driver in them I don't know how anyone can claim this. If someone steps out in front of the car with no notice and no stopping distance or room to drive around, how will you safely transfer control to the driver?
- WJW 6y ago
  In that case, why hand over control at all? It's not like the driver is going to be able to stop the car more efficiently than the control system or anything.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > In that case, why hand over control at all? Well that's my point. The car doesn't know how to navigate it. Neither will the driver. There are some cases where you can neither navigate nor safely hand over control. So 'there will be exception cases we don't know how to navigate, but we have a plan to safely transfer control to the driver in them' cannot be a true statement.
    - bryanlarsen 6y ago
      > Well that's my point. The car doesn't know how to navigate it. Neither will the driver. I certainly hope both know how to handle it. In your scenario there is no "good" option, but there definitely is a least-bad option. Likely it's to stand on the brakes and scrub off as much speed as you can before hitting the pedestrian. It might change the collision from a fatal one into "just" broken bones.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        I don't think ploughing into someone can really count as successfully 'navigating' a situation.
        6y ago
angelbar 6y ago
> These are not sudden dangerous handoffs, but they do mean that a driver can't be drunk or asleep when behind the wheel. Or that the driver dont know how to drive...

jessriedel 6y ago

Is this formally quantified, e.g., in an amount of time the human must be able to take control within? If that amount of time is like 5 seconds or longer, and the system is empirically demonstrated to maintain safety so long as the human is always ready take over in 5 seconds, that would be very compelling.

ashleyn 6y ago

What also might go unsaid here is: the practical effect of Level 3's requirements vs. its capabilities is that it probably will not be able to engage often. If the car can't safely do it, it's not going to do it. So you'll invest all this money in a Level 3 car, only to find out that it only engages maybe once or twice a year, when the planets line up and it has all the info and environment it actually needs to work.

horsawlarway 6y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think any major manufacturer would release it if that's the case. I can't imagine the customer response to a self-driving system they can only turn on once a year would be good. Seems like an obvious PR/Marketing nightmare.
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  To be fair, one would also think that releasing a self-driving system that drives into the back of a semi at speed would be a PR/Marketing nightmare, but it hasn’t slowed Tesla down. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/05/feds-autopilot-was-active-during-deadly-march-tesla-crash/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/05/feds-autopilot-was-acti...
  - horsawlarway 6y ago
    I don't actually agree with you here. Drivers get into accidents ALL the time. Having a self-driving crash is entirely expected. It's also a relatively rare occurance. Having the system not work in the majority of cases will make literally every buyer upset.
mediaman 6y ago
This is an unlikely outcome. Already, Toyota has released their third version of driving assistance, TSS2.5, which has reasonably decent ability to stay in lanes on highways. For anyone who does any highway driving, it's a competent system that a driver can use a good portion of highway driving. And it's likely less capable than Honda's system. OpenPilot is another example - pretty good at most roads on highways or large boulevards. Like others, not for use in city streets. At least for the American road system, you may be underestimating how much time people spend on large, well-defined highways that could use this system. Some other countries rely less on big highways and this could affect the portion of time available to use it.
- gowld 6y ago
  These converations tend to be unproductive because self driving "levels" are only one dimension and don't consider terrain diversity. A car that works at L3 only a sunny day on low-density highway is useful to have.

bryanlarsen 6y ago

Thanks for the inside scoop! Not surprisingly the line between Level 3 and Level 4 is fuzzier than I had in my mental model. I view your first example as a Level 4 capability -- AFAICT, stopping to let a human take over is acceptable for Level 4 vehicles. The other two are interesting. Perhaps we would call the system you worked on "high level 3", and Tesla type systems where you have to be able to take over in milliseconds as "low level 3". Marketing departments would be tempted to call your system level 4.

yokaze 6y ago
If you have to be alert to take over at short notice, is level 2. Tesla "Autopilot" falls into that category, as far as I know. The categories are well defined (SAE J3016) and have legal implications. If the marketing department is tempted it'll have to go through the legal department.
qznc 6y ago
I find the commercial use case a reasonable distinction: A level 3 car, you buy for personal use. A level 4 car, you rent like a Taxi.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> there will be exception cases we don't know how to navigate, but we have a plan to safely transfer control to the driver in them I don't know how anyone can claim this. If someone steps out in front of the car with no notice and no stopping distance or room to drive around, how will you safely transfer control to the driver?

WJW 6y ago
In that case, why hand over control at all? It's not like the driver is going to be able to stop the car more efficiently than the control system or anything.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > In that case, why hand over control at all? Well that's my point. The car doesn't know how to navigate it. Neither will the driver. There are some cases where you can neither navigate nor safely hand over control. So 'there will be exception cases we don't know how to navigate, but we have a plan to safely transfer control to the driver in them' cannot be a true statement.
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    > Well that's my point. The car doesn't know how to navigate it. Neither will the driver. I certainly hope both know how to handle it. In your scenario there is no "good" option, but there definitely is a least-bad option. Likely it's to stand on the brakes and scrub off as much speed as you can before hitting the pedestrian. It might change the collision from a fatal one into "just" broken bones.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      I don't think ploughing into someone can really count as successfully 'navigating' a situation.
      - 6y ago

angelbar 6y ago

> These are not sudden dangerous handoffs, but they do mean that a driver can't be drunk or asleep when behind the wheel. Or that the driver dont know how to drive...