11 ms·

I have a really hard time of understanding what the differences are between level 2 and 3. The article is short of words relating to the distinction. It claim

I have a really hard time of understanding what the differences are between level 2 and 3. The article is short of words relating to the distinction. It claims Tesla isn't there, but Honda is, but they don't really say exactly why or how they were able to surpass Tesla. Is this really believable when they don't have a fleet of cars to test on like Tesla does?

cryptoz 6y ago
Whole article is confusing and self contradictory on several fronts. Level 3 is described as decision-making, which is not specific enough to differentiate from any other self driving initiatives in production, including Tesla, the supposed anti-example quoted.
teruakohatu 6y ago
Given that is is limited to Japan, I wonder if the Level 3 driving will be limited to highways and major cities that have been 3D mapped by Honda in advance. Self-driving without the kind of data TSLA has is doable if the solution is less generalized.
- liquidify 6y ago
  I've often wondered why we haven't been spending some effort developing optimized test areas which integrate helpful elements for self driving cars into the roads. Obviously, we wouldn't want a car that couldn't go everywhere, but it seems like at a national level, we could implement something into the highway system that would make it easy for interstate self driving vehicles.
cachvico 6y ago
As I understand it: level 1 = expect car to go into ditch if you're not careful level 2 = hands on steering wheel but it should be ok (Tesla) level 3 = hands off steering wheel, looking around, expect to have to take over control (Honda's beta test) level 4 = either taking over control rarely needed, or vehicle has limited ability (e.g. can't drive in snow) level 5 = you can sleep The confusion lies around whether we're allowed to watch TV - however I'm fairly sure no country or state has passed legislation allowing us to take our eyes off the road while driving.
- liquidify 6y ago
  Yeah that was an especially confusing part.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  On my understanding is that level 4 is full self driving, but not everywhere. It will refuse to drive where it can't, and will stop safely if conditions change. So you can safely sleep.
  - anticensor 6y ago
    If it refuses going there altogether, then it is level 5. If it goes anyway and waits for you to take over while parking safely, then it is a level 4.
kube-system 6y ago
Here's the official descriptions: https://www.sae.org/news/press-room/2018/12/sae-international-releases-updated-visual-chart-for-its-%E2%80%9Clevels-of-driving-automation%E2%80%9D-standard-for-self-driving-vehicles https://www.sae.org/news/press-room/2018/12/sae-internationa... TL;DR: In levels 0-2 you are driving the car and the electronics are helping to manipulate the controls. In levels 3-5, you are handing over the responsibility to drive to the car. You do not need to babysit the car to make sure it's not trying to do something stupid.
maxerickson 6y ago
Level 2: driver is expected to override mistakes made by vehicle. Level 3: driver is expected to take control, with brief notice, when vehicle cannot determine correct action. https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles-safety https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicl...
jowday 6y ago
The article is terrible at describing it - and really, the entire level scale is terrible - but there is a real important distinction between level 2 and level 3. Level 2 means that the car automates several different parts of the driving task, but that you must be ready to take over at a moments notice - you still have to keep your hands on the wheel and your attention focused on the driving task in case you need to intervene. This is what Autopilot, and the FSD beta is. You can turn them on but you have to keep your hands on the wheel and your attention focused. This also means you're legally liable for any accidents, since the onus is still on the driver to intervene. Level 3 basically means that, in certain situations, you can take your attention off driving completely and play on your phone, read a book, etc. The car might still need you to take over in certain situations, but it will warn you in advance and give you enough time to transition back to driving. Companies have largely shied away from pursuing level 3 system because it puts the legal burden on them - if the car gets in a crash when it's operating at 'level 3', the onus is on the company, since the driver was not told to be ready to intervene. WRT your point about how they could 'surpass' Tesla, two things: Level 3 can be pretty restrictive - I'm not sure on specifics, but they could offer this on, say, only the ten largest interstates in Japan, and it would still qualify as level 3 self driving. The 'levels' aren't really a strict progression in capabilities. A level 2, 3, and 4 solution is really three separate problems to solve, not succesively better versions of the same system. It's conceivable to me that a legacy automaker could focus on getting this working on a few major interstates and have a system they're confident in after a few years, since they don't have to worry about nearly as many edge cases as a general highway ADAS solution. Tesla's data/fleet advantage is overstated in their messaging. Most of the stuff presented in their autonomy day presentation doesn't actually exist (follow some Tesla reverse engineers for more info). Self-driving/ADAS is not, by and large, a data problem.
- gfodor 6y ago
  It’s kind of funny if what you wrote is the full description that we are going to gauge the capability of a self driving system by how willing the manufacturer is to put themselves on the line, instead of data-driven analysis of the systems involved.
  - 6y ago
numpad0 6y ago
NHTSA/SAE/UNECE refused to listen to Google and defined that the technology is to advance through their Level system that allow progressively slower response time for the driver/operator. Level 2 requires instantaneous takeover should the system fail, Level 3 system must tolerate ~30s delay, etc. in feature checkbox style. Automakers are fully committed to the Level system, but it does not agree with the reality that algorithms don’t fail gradually like a turbine engine would, so the reality do not agree with the Level system and Level 3 is just going nowhere. Your confusion around Level 3 comes from the fact that Level 3 do not exist. So no worries.
- jowday 6y ago
  +1 I'm not confident L3 actually exists. The only real levels are 2 and 4.
  - Sebb767 6y ago
    > I'm not confident L3 actually exists It's pretty "easy", actually, by making the take-over optional. I.e. you need the driver to take over within a few seconds if you can't navigate, but you'll fall back to a safe stop if the driver can't take over. So your auto-pilot doesn't need to handle all situations (well), but you can safely be inattentive; it might just cause a sub-optimal response.
qznc 6y ago
An accident happens in a traffic jam. A person gets injured. If it was a Tesla, the driver gets sued. If it was a Honda Legend, Honda gets sued. This changes the legal situation for car manufacturers dramatically and has technical implications. If the power in your car for the controlling device fails, normal cars have the driver as fallback to break. Honda needs to have some technical redundancy somehow.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Tesla has demonstrated that is not the case. Tesla acts as a third party. They leverage a tort system not designed to accommodate the type of telemetry they have to aggressively find fault with the drivers action.

cryptoz 6y ago

Whole article is confusing and self contradictory on several fronts. Level 3 is described as decision-making, which is not specific enough to differentiate from any other self driving initiatives in production, including Tesla, the supposed anti-example quoted.

teruakohatu 6y ago

Given that is is limited to Japan, I wonder if the Level 3 driving will be limited to highways and major cities that have been 3D mapped by Honda in advance. Self-driving without the kind of data TSLA has is doable if the solution is less generalized.

liquidify 6y ago
I've often wondered why we haven't been spending some effort developing optimized test areas which integrate helpful elements for self driving cars into the roads. Obviously, we wouldn't want a car that couldn't go everywhere, but it seems like at a national level, we could implement something into the highway system that would make it easy for interstate self driving vehicles.

cachvico 6y ago

As I understand it: level 1 = expect car to go into ditch if you're not careful level 2 = hands on steering wheel but it should be ok (Tesla) level 3 = hands off steering wheel, looking around, expect to have to take over control (Honda's beta test) level 4 = either taking over control rarely needed, or vehicle has limited ability (e.g. can't drive in snow) level 5 = you can sleep The confusion lies around whether we're allowed to watch TV - however I'm fairly sure no country or state has passed legislation allowing us to take our eyes off the road while driving.

liquidify 6y ago
Yeah that was an especially confusing part.
bryanlarsen 6y ago
On my understanding is that level 4 is full self driving, but not everywhere. It will refuse to drive where it can't, and will stop safely if conditions change. So you can safely sleep.
- anticensor 6y ago
  If it refuses going there altogether, then it is level 5. If it goes anyway and waits for you to take over while parking safely, then it is a level 4.

kube-system 6y ago

Here's the official descriptions: https://www.sae.org/news/press-room/2018/12/sae-international-releases-updated-visual-chart-for-its-%E2%80%9Clevels-of-driving-automation%E2%80%9D-standard-for-self-driving-vehicles https://www.sae.org/news/press-room/2018/12/sae-internationa... TL;DR: In levels 0-2 you are driving the car and the electronics are helping to manipulate the controls. In levels 3-5, you are handing over the responsibility to drive to the car. You do not need to babysit the car to make sure it's not trying to do something stupid.

maxerickson 6y ago

Level 2: driver is expected to override mistakes made by vehicle. Level 3: driver is expected to take control, with brief notice, when vehicle cannot determine correct action. https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles-safety https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicl...

jowday 6y ago

The article is terrible at describing it - and really, the entire level scale is terrible - but there is a real important distinction between level 2 and level 3. Level 2 means that the car automates several different parts of the driving task, but that you must be ready to take over at a moments notice - you still have to keep your hands on the wheel and your attention focused on the driving task in case you need to intervene. This is what Autopilot, and the FSD beta is. You can turn them on but you have to keep your hands on the wheel and your attention focused. This also means you're legally liable for any accidents, since the onus is still on the driver to intervene. Level 3 basically means that, in certain situations, you can take your attention off driving completely and play on your phone, read a book, etc. The car might still need you to take over in certain situations, but it will warn you in advance and give you enough time to transition back to driving. Companies have largely shied away from pursuing level 3 system because it puts the legal burden on them - if the car gets in a crash when it's operating at 'level 3', the onus is on the company, since the driver was not told to be ready to intervene. WRT your point about how they could 'surpass' Tesla, two things: Level 3 can be pretty restrictive - I'm not sure on specifics, but they could offer this on, say, only the ten largest interstates in Japan, and it would still qualify as level 3 self driving. The 'levels' aren't really a strict progression in capabilities. A level 2, 3, and 4 solution is really three separate problems to solve, not succesively better versions of the same system. It's conceivable to me that a legacy automaker could focus on getting this working on a few major interstates and have a system they're confident in after a few years, since they don't have to worry about nearly as many edge cases as a general highway ADAS solution. Tesla's data/fleet advantage is overstated in their messaging. Most of the stuff presented in their autonomy day presentation doesn't actually exist (follow some Tesla reverse engineers for more info). Self-driving/ADAS is not, by and large, a data problem.

gfodor 6y ago
It’s kind of funny if what you wrote is the full description that we are going to gauge the capability of a self driving system by how willing the manufacturer is to put themselves on the line, instead of data-driven analysis of the systems involved.
- 6y ago

numpad0 6y ago

NHTSA/SAE/UNECE refused to listen to Google and defined that the technology is to advance through their Level system that allow progressively slower response time for the driver/operator. Level 2 requires instantaneous takeover should the system fail, Level 3 system must tolerate ~30s delay, etc. in feature checkbox style. Automakers are fully committed to the Level system, but it does not agree with the reality that algorithms don’t fail gradually like a turbine engine would, so the reality do not agree with the Level system and Level 3 is just going nowhere. Your confusion around Level 3 comes from the fact that Level 3 do not exist. So no worries.

jowday 6y ago
+1 I'm not confident L3 actually exists. The only real levels are 2 and 4.
- Sebb767 6y ago
  > I'm not confident L3 actually exists It's pretty "easy", actually, by making the take-over optional. I.e. you need the driver to take over within a few seconds if you can't navigate, but you'll fall back to a safe stop if the driver can't take over. So your auto-pilot doesn't need to handle all situations (well), but you can safely be inattentive; it might just cause a sub-optimal response.

qznc 6y ago

An accident happens in a traffic jam. A person gets injured. If it was a Tesla, the driver gets sued. If it was a Honda Legend, Honda gets sued. This changes the legal situation for car manufacturers dramatically and has technical implications. If the power in your car for the controlling device fails, normal cars have the driver as fallback to break. Honda needs to have some technical redundancy somehow.

Spooky23 6y ago
Tesla has demonstrated that is not the case. Tesla acts as a third party. They leverage a tort system not designed to accommodate the type of telemetry they have to aggressively find fault with the drivers action.