4 ms·

There are safety standards for automobile software: ISO 26262. Software for steering or braking systems is of high quality. It's not the same team that does th

There are safety standards for automobile software: ISO 26262. Software for steering or braking systems is of high quality. It's not the same team that does the infotainment.

stahtops 1y ago
How do you square this with the article? It states that consumer reports, (a for profit company providing independent reviews, and not a regulatory body) said the Model 3 stopping distance was not good. Allegedly due to a “bad ABS calibration”. Tesla released an OTA SW update. Why wasn’t the bad calibration and degraded performance caught by regulators testing automobile safety standards? The article also posits that this ability to make OTA updates expands the (IMO very very bad) SWE perspective that “it’s OK to ship unfinished and buggy products” into safety critical systems.
- HappyJoy 1y ago
  Consumer reports is a non-profit last I checked
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Ah interesting, I wonder if Tesla is an exception and if their systems do in fact follow ISO 26262. Standards are not necessarily legal requirements, and not necessarily checked by external people. It sounds like their ABS system wasn't designed as carefully as conventional systems if there was such poor braking performance. Reading around, it might have been related to the emergency brake assist functionality not being calibrated properly.
- AlotOfReading 1y ago
  The role of US regulators in the automotive industry is pretty different from what you seem to be expecting. They see their main goal is to set minimum, testable benchmarks for safety and give manufacturers freedom to achieve that in any reasonably justifiable way. The consequence of this is that almost nothing is required beyond meeting FMVSS and passing the tests it prescribes. ABS stopping distance is one of those tests, but a quick glance at the CR tests doesn't look like an FMVSS failure. The stopping distance simply wasn't up to industry norms. Another consequence is that ISO-26262 and most other standards are completely, 100% norm-based in the US. They're used because the industry expects them, not because there's a legal requirement. You can deviate all you want and the only consequence is that regulators might take a closer look at your paperwork in the event of issues because they look unusual.
ta1243 1y ago
My car randomly braked today because it thought a car on a side road was pulling out. Not just sound the alarm but actually apply the brakes. Fortunately I didn't have a tailgater behind me. I disable the "land assist" every time (which often tries to steer me into wildlife or other cars and was clearly not built for use on a single track country roads with hedges and random verges), but this was the first time in 3 years that the "front assist" caused problems. If that's "high quality", I dread to think what low quality would be.
- jim180 1y ago
  Same thing happened to my wife, while driving at about 110km/h…luckily no one was behind her.
  - lmm 1y ago
    Braking at any point is safe with a competent driver behind. There's a reason we know our stopping distances and don't follow excessively closely.
    - ta1243 1y ago
      Alas half of drivers are worse than average. I'm one of them. Yet I still haven't had a situation where "lane assist" or "front assist" has actually been a good thing.
    - raxxorraxor 1y ago
      That is unrealistic. If you expect the brake perhaps but the most competent thing to do in case of an emergency brake is doing nothing.
    - hedora 1y ago
      Not on a hard curve with oncoming traffic.
- izzydata 1y ago
  This happened to be on a highway when driving my friends car with all these assisted driving "features" while in cruise control. I was going up a small hill and for whatever reason there was a car stopped right at the top that I couldn't see. So the car slammed the breaks while I was in the middle of swerving out of the way. Which caused me to swerve more than I had intended. After I regained control it removed the breaks and attempted to return to the 80mph I was at previously which caused more problems because I wasn't ready for that. I am now of the opinion that a car should never under any circumstance drive for you. If a car has cruise control it should cruise control you into a wall. That I can at least anticipate.
timewizard 1y ago
> ISO 26262. That is a piece of paper. > Software for steering or braking systems is of high quality. There's literally no way for me to know that before I trust my life with it.
- signatoremo 1y ago
  You literally trust your life with medical devices full of software, those that conform to “piece of paper” standards, such as ISO 15708
  - timewizard 1y ago
    > You literally trust your life with medical devices full of software I do not. A more charitable way to phrase that is "We are all expected to." And yes, well spotted, this problem extends well beyond vehicles. Or are you suggesting that this is somehow indicative that there are no problems? How would we all know if there _was_ an error in a device? > those that conform to “piece of paper” standards, such as ISO 15708 That standard deals with non destructive testing and has no material that is related to the practice of medicine or the use of medical imaging scanners. It's not even the right piece of paper.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- vv_ 1y ago
  I don't understand the reasoning you are making here. Cars have had advanced safety features like emergency breaking for a long time now (e.g. Toyota Crown Majesta 2003). Furthermore, there are many safety features that are controlled by software (e.g. airbags and seatbelts) that exist in all cars manufactured today.
  - timewizard 1y ago
    Well.. just Google "unintentional airbag deployment."

There are safety standards for automobile software: ISO 26262. Software for steering or braking systems is of high quality. It's not the same team that does the infotainment.

stahtops 1y ago

How do you square this with the article? It states that consumer reports, (a for profit company providing independent reviews, and not a regulatory body) said the Model 3 stopping distance was not good. Allegedly due to a “bad ABS calibration”. Tesla released an OTA SW update. Why wasn’t the bad calibration and degraded performance caught by regulators testing automobile safety standards? The article also posits that this ability to make OTA updates expands the (IMO very very bad) SWE perspective that “it’s OK to ship unfinished and buggy products” into safety critical systems.

HappyJoy 1y ago
Consumer reports is a non-profit last I checked
HPsquared 1y ago
Ah interesting, I wonder if Tesla is an exception and if their systems do in fact follow ISO 26262. Standards are not necessarily legal requirements, and not necessarily checked by external people. It sounds like their ABS system wasn't designed as carefully as conventional systems if there was such poor braking performance. Reading around, it might have been related to the emergency brake assist functionality not being calibrated properly.
AlotOfReading 1y ago
The role of US regulators in the automotive industry is pretty different from what you seem to be expecting. They see their main goal is to set minimum, testable benchmarks for safety and give manufacturers freedom to achieve that in any reasonably justifiable way. The consequence of this is that almost nothing is required beyond meeting FMVSS and passing the tests it prescribes. ABS stopping distance is one of those tests, but a quick glance at the CR tests doesn't look like an FMVSS failure. The stopping distance simply wasn't up to industry norms. Another consequence is that ISO-26262 and most other standards are completely, 100% norm-based in the US. They're used because the industry expects them, not because there's a legal requirement. You can deviate all you want and the only consequence is that regulators might take a closer look at your paperwork in the event of issues because they look unusual.

ta1243 1y ago

My car randomly braked today because it thought a car on a side road was pulling out. Not just sound the alarm but actually apply the brakes. Fortunately I didn't have a tailgater behind me. I disable the "land assist" every time (which often tries to steer me into wildlife or other cars and was clearly not built for use on a single track country roads with hedges and random verges), but this was the first time in 3 years that the "front assist" caused problems. If that's "high quality", I dread to think what low quality would be.

jim180 1y ago
Same thing happened to my wife, while driving at about 110km/h…luckily no one was behind her.
- lmm 1y ago
  Braking at any point is safe with a competent driver behind. There's a reason we know our stopping distances and don't follow excessively closely.
  - ta1243 1y ago
    Alas half of drivers are worse than average. I'm one of them. Yet I still haven't had a situation where "lane assist" or "front assist" has actually been a good thing.
  - raxxorraxor 1y ago
    That is unrealistic. If you expect the brake perhaps but the most competent thing to do in case of an emergency brake is doing nothing.
  - hedora 1y ago
    Not on a hard curve with oncoming traffic.
izzydata 1y ago
This happened to be on a highway when driving my friends car with all these assisted driving "features" while in cruise control. I was going up a small hill and for whatever reason there was a car stopped right at the top that I couldn't see. So the car slammed the breaks while I was in the middle of swerving out of the way. Which caused me to swerve more than I had intended. After I regained control it removed the breaks and attempted to return to the 80mph I was at previously which caused more problems because I wasn't ready for that. I am now of the opinion that a car should never under any circumstance drive for you. If a car has cruise control it should cruise control you into a wall. That I can at least anticipate.

timewizard 1y ago

> ISO 26262. That is a piece of paper. > Software for steering or braking systems is of high quality. There's literally no way for me to know that before I trust my life with it.

signatoremo 1y ago
You literally trust your life with medical devices full of software, those that conform to “piece of paper” standards, such as ISO 15708
- timewizard 1y ago
  > You literally trust your life with medical devices full of software I do not. A more charitable way to phrase that is "We are all expected to." And yes, well spotted, this problem extends well beyond vehicles. Or are you suggesting that this is somehow indicative that there are no problems? How would we all know if there _was_ an error in a device? > those that conform to “piece of paper” standards, such as ISO 15708 That standard deals with non destructive testing and has no material that is related to the practice of medicine or the use of medical imaging scanners. It's not even the right piece of paper.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
vv_ 1y ago
I don't understand the reasoning you are making here. Cars have had advanced safety features like emergency breaking for a long time now (e.g. Toyota Crown Majesta 2003). Furthermore, there are many safety features that are controlled by software (e.g. airbags and seatbelts) that exist in all cars manufactured today.
- timewizard 1y ago
  Well.. just Google "unintentional airbag deployment."