Autonomous Vehicle makers should take the Consumer Reports Challenge

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 —

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

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.

Systems Engineer, Engineering/Program Management -- DoD/Aerospace/IT - Autonomous Systems Air & Ground, FAA Simulation, UAM, V2X, C4ISR, Cybersecurity