[SystemSafety] Autonomously Driven Car Kills Pedestrian

[Mario Gleirscher]

Thomas,

On 23.03.2018 10:41, Martyn Thomas wrote:
> On 23/03/2018 10:11, Peter Bishop wrote:
> 
>> There are lots more non-fatal accidents, and this may one way of getting
>> an earlier estimate of how well self-drive is doing - i.e. are the
>> non-fatal accident rates similar? Not sure what the human accident rate
>> is, but my guess would be 1 in 100000 miles, so you could get 95%
>> confidence for that rate with around a quarter of a million miles of
>> accident free self-drive.
> To compare like with like, you need reasonable confidence that the mix
> of hazardous situations is the same, and that the reporting and
> classification of "accidents" is the same, and that what you are
> measuring is a strong indicator for what you really care about.

Absolutely right, and I don't know of efforts to standardize driving
situations. I remember an interview with a senior safety engineer from
car industry telling me that driving scenario taxonomies are typically
even specific to the company's engineering sub-department they are used
in, although, what I understood from this persons statements, this is
except for some local details not necessary and could be very well
harmonized, be it only within an organization.

Knowledge about driving situations has to be open, it can not
intellectual property, by no means, ever.

Moreover, that's why I tried to point at the problem of looking behind
the curtains of the field test procedures and clarify questions across
car vendors: which driving scenarios where actually tested in which way
exactly, under which conditions, how often, how were test results
compared in e.g. "shadowing experiments", etc. etc. Surely, the
combinatorial space of such test suits would blast any company's budget
multiple times. Though, we as a society need to have the chance to take
part in the decision process on the sub-spaces of the whole test space.
And I am not only talking about "safe and ethical driving on open
streets for machines" like in upcoming IEEE standards.

> To illustrate the last point: it would be important to know if AVs had
> far fewer cosmetic accidents (scrapes) but more accidents that caused
> serious injuries.

My Friday afternoon 2p.

Have a nice weekend,
Mario


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5053 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20180323/a8a4da0e/attachment.bin>