[SystemSafety] NHTSA on the Tesla crash

[Peter Bernard Ladkin]

On 2017-01-20 13:47 , Martyn Thomas wrote:
> All true, but if you sell it as an autopilot ...

It seems to me that there is already a chance to have things straighter for customers. NHTSA has
autodriving function classifications. There is a function called Automatic Emergency Braking, AEB.
"Automatic Emergency Braking includes the following crash avoidance technologies: Forward Collision
Warning (FCW), Dynamic Brake Support (DBS), and Crash Imminent Braking (CIB)" (Section 2, p1, of the
Tesla-crash report).

From 2007 to 2011 there was a NHTSA-sponsored project undertaken by the "Crash Avoidance Metrics
Partnership" to evaluate CIB. "The final report from this project, released in September 2011,
validated the effectiveness of radar, camera and radar/camera fusion systems as rear-end collision
mitigation or avoidance technologies. The report also identified several crash modes that were not
validated by the project, including straight crossing path (SCP) and left turn across path (LTAP)
collisions."

The Tesla crash was an SCP scenario, as far as I understand it. "Not validated" in 2011. "Validated"
in 2016? Who knows? There is an opportunity. There is a partnership, a classification of scenarios,
and a historical attempt at evaluation. Why not introduce that vocabulary and start on standardised
tests with a requirement to advertise your autodriving functions in terms of test results? It won't
be perfect. But a manufacturer could say "our AEB scored X/Y on CIB in SCP". Purchasers would be
introduced to the difference between avoiding a collision during a merger, avoiding an Auffahr
collision, and avoiding an SCP collision.

Compare with the situation with emissions and fuel efficiency. Manufacturers can't just say what
they like in advertising. There is a standard set of tests, and they can use those results. The
tests can be and were gamed, as we know. But gaming manifestly has its costs. Because of the tests,
the public is regaled with details about NOx and carbon and particles and can chat about it over a
beer at the pub.

One can imagine something similar for autodriving functions. Teenagers awaiting their licence and
lusting after "performance" could chat about FCW, DBS and CIB performance on SCPs and LTAPs. Just as
today there are different licensing and age requirements for mopeds, low-power motorcycles and
general motorcycles, one could imagine they could be different classes of licence for four-wheeled
vehicles with different speed and CIB performance. You could get a licence at 15 to operate a
vehicle with validated CIB/LTAP and CIB/SCP and ..... Young Joe Smith could boast at 17 that he has
just passed his CIB/LTAP and CIB/SCP exemption test.

PBL

Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
MoreInCommon
Je suis Charlie
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de






-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20170123/a6f5f235/attachment-0001.pgp>