Given the plethora of hype in the industry and the dwindling public confidence and support, maybe all the driverless vehicle makers should ask Consumer Reports to evaluate their systems the same way they just evaluated Tesla’s “autopilot” and “full self-driving”. (Taking in to account different Operational Design Domains — ODDs. In English-the geofences they are designed for.)
(Why did Tesla have to succumb to this and not the rest? Tesla uses production or customer purchased cars and their human Guinea pig owners, to do the development. So, the cars are fair game for Consumer Reports. The majority of the other self-driving vehicle makers uses company vehicles and their employees as test subjects.)
Here is a story on how well that went for Tesla — https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/tesla-full-self-driving-capability-review-falls-short-of-its-name/
As you can see Tesla failed benign or simple tests. Interesting given the videos and hype flying around on social sites and with far too many members of the press. Every driverless vehicle maker should ask Consumer Reports to validate what they believe works. All of the results should be provided to the public as well as all disengagement and root cause data. If these companies are not hyping, they should jump at something like this. The PAVE Campaign should as well. And if Consumer Reports won’t do it, I am sure a reputable third party can be. Heck, I will do it.
I bet no one signs up for the challenge.
More on my POV in the articles below
The Autonomous Vehicle Industry can be Saved by doing the Opposite of what is being done now
SAE Autonomous Vehicle Engineering Magazine — Simulation’s Next Generation (featuring Dactle)
Simulation can create a Complete Digital Twin of the Real World if DoD/Aerospace Technology is used
Simulation Photorealism is almost Irrelevant for Autonomous Vehicle Development and Testing
The Crash of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry
Proposal for Successfully Creating an Autonomous Ground or Air Vehicle
Autonomous Vehicles Need to Have Accidents to Develop this Technology
Using the Real World is better than Proper Simulation for AV Development — NONSENSE
- https://medium.com/@imispgh/using-the-real world-is-better-than-proper-simulation-for-autonomous-vehicle-development-nonsense-90cde4ccc0ce
The Hype of Geofencing for Autonomous Vehicles
My name is Michael DeKort — I am a former system engineer, engineering and program manager for Lockheed Martin. I worked in aircraft simulation, the software engineering manager for all of NORAD, the Aegis Weapon System, and on C4ISR for DHS.
Key Industry Participation
- Lead — SAE On-Road Autonomous Driving SAE Model and Simulation Task
- Member SAE ORAD Verification and Validation Task Force
- Member DIN/SAE International Alliance for Mobility Testing & Standardization (IAMTS) Sensor Simulation Specs
- Stakeholder for UL4600 — Creating AV Safety Guidelines
- Member of the IEEE Artificial Intelligence & Autonomous Systems Policy Committee (AI&ASPC)
- Presented the IEEE Barus Ethics Award for Post 9/11 Efforts
My company is Dactle
We are building an aerospace/DoD/FAA level D, full L4/5 simulation-based testing and AI system with an end-state scenario matrix to address several of the critical issues in the AV/OEM industry I mentioned in my articles below. This includes replacing 99.9% of public shadow and safety driving. As well as dealing with significant real-time, model fidelity and loading/scaling issues caused by using gaming engines and other architectures. (Issues Unity will confirm. We are now working together. We are also working with UAV companies). If not remedied these issues will lead to false confidence and performance differences between what the Plan believes will happen and what actually happens. If someone would like to see a demo or discuss this further please let me know.