In Wired, Alex Davies compares the self-driving approaches of Google and Ford, and finds them philosophically similar.
Davies compares the two companies’ approaches in light of the NHTSA definition of autonomous driving. The NHTSA definition is lengthy, but Wikipedia has a concise summary:
In the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has proposed a formal classification system:[9]
Level 0: The driver completely controls the vehicle at all times. Level 1: Individual vehicle controls are automated, such as electronic stability control or automatic braking. Level 2: At least two controls can be automated in unison, such as adaptive cruise control in combination with lane keeping. Level 3: The driver can fully cede control of all safety-critical functions in certain conditions. The car senses when conditions require the driver to retake control and provides a “sufficiently comfortable transition time” for the driver to do so. Level 4: The vehicle performs all safety-critical functions for the entire trip, with the driver not expected to control the vehicle at any time. As this vehicle would control all functions from start to stop, including all parking functions, it could include unoccupied cars.
According to Davies, Level 3 presents significant challenges not present at any other level. Those challenges relate to on-the-fly communication between the driver and the car. Plausibly enough, if the car reaches its limits and needs to pass control to the driver in an emergency, that can be pretty dicey.
Audi says its tests show it takes an average of 3 to 7 seconds, and as long as 10, for a driver to snap to attention and take control, even with flashing lights and verbal warnings.
A lot can happen in that time — a car traveling 60 mph covers 88 feet per second — and automakers have different ideas for solving this problem. Audi has an elegant, logical human machine interface. Volvo is creating its own HMI, and says it will accept full liability for its cars while in autonomous mode.
Google’s opting out of this dilemma. So is Ford.
Perhaps the incrementalist approach is not a winner, after all.
Originally published at www.davidincalifornia.com on November 10, 2015.
David Silver 