Which ADAS is Really Driving? It’s Mobileye!

[risingphoenix]

What about all the lives being put at risk due to inferior systems and people being encouraged not to pay attention to them. Do we just ignore those in hopes that eventually ADAS is better than humans. Also you contradicted yourself by first saying that it's worse than humans in some cases but is safer than humans.

First off, prove it's safer than humans. Please show me a NTSB or other certifying body study showing that ADAS is safer than humans. Second, what YOU are discounting is the laziness of people. Give them a system that works well 85% of the time, and they will stop paying attention 100% of the time. Now, easily avoidable accidents are created due to the false sense of security that these systems can encourage.

I don't consent to being a test dummy for some vehicle manufacturers' little pet projects. That's my issue with these systems, especially the more permissive ones. I don't want to be on the road with them anymore than I do with drunks or people eating cereal while driving.

Lol. I linked to a study already in Nature. Let me know if you'd like to see it again. Second, these systems have disengagement built it with driver inattentiveness. Hell, these things should be in every car and stop the car if the driver's not paying attention regardless if they're engaged or not. Show me a study that shows they are less safe than humans (to use your own arguments). If you can't understand that a system can be OVERALL safer than a human while having isolated use cases where it is LESS safe than humans then we all understand the problems with your arguments.

You should never drive again Donald. 40,000 people die a year due to human error, including being drunk and texting. If you think you are LESS safe because of the presence of an ADAS system then you are tilting at windmills. The solution to saving some of those 40,000 lives is not to eliminate ADAS, it's to perfect it. So get back on your horse and ride out of here, because the horseless carriage is coming whether you like it or not (thank god).

Sponsored

 

[Donald Stanfield]

"Because what are you responding to 1/2 mile ahead?"

If you can't understand why you should be observing traffic 1/4 to 1/2 mile ahead, there's no explaining it to you.

I'm not overconfident in my abilities, I am just very confident in my abilities, based on having learned from professional driving instructors on track and years of autocross racing experience where my eyes and mind are 3 or 4 turns ahead of where my car is. I translate those skills to the highway, and I'm certain there are others here who do the same.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s obvious from ADAS driving that it isn’t up to par in an overall sense of traffic awareness. It doesn’t look as far ahead as I do and it isn’t as aware of the traffic around me. It’s not hard to pay attention and basic driver’s ed teaches scanning your environment.

I’ve also taken defensive driving classes as I drove a company vehicle and they were mandated. That’s how I know ADAS isn’t ready.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Lol. I linked to a study already in Nature. Let me know if you'd like to see it again. Second, these systems have disengagement built it with driver inattentiveness. Hell, these things should be in every car and stop the car if the driver's not paying attention regardless if they're engaged or not. Show me a study that shows they are less safe than humans (to use your own arguments). If you can't understand that a system can be OVERALL safer than a human while having isolated use cases where it is LESS safe than humans then we all understand the problems with your arguments.

You should never drive again Donald. 40,000 people die a year due to human error, including being drunk and texting. If you think you are LESS safe because of the presence of an ADAS system then you are tilting at windmills. The solution to saving some of those 40,000 lives is not to eliminate ADAS, it's to perfect it. So get back on your horse and ride out of here, because the horseless carriage is coming whether you like it or not (thank god).

I don’t need to show you a study where they are less safe than humans because computers don’t have a right to drive and therefore need to be PROVEN to be as good or better in order to operate on roads putting human lives in danger. I had to take a class and pass a test to be able to drive, what government agency tests and certifies ADAS systems again?

 

[JM.]

what government agency tests and certifies ADAS systems again?

The same ones that test and certify everything else in cars.

You're hilarious dude. GIVE ME EVIDENCE

<Evidence presented>

I DON'T AGREE

 

[Donald Stanfield]

The same ones that test and certify everything else in cars.

You're hilarious dude. GIVE ME EVIDENCE

<Evidence presented>

I DON'T AGREE

No, self driving systems aren't tested or approved by any government agency. Yet another lie.

 

[JM.]

No, self driving systems aren't tested or approved by any government agency. Yet another lie.

So you agree that it's the same ones that do that for everything else in your car?

 

[Donald Stanfield]

So you agree that it's the same ones that do that for everything else in your car?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

 

[Zoidz]

The same ones that test and certify everything else in cars.

You're hilarious dude. GIVE ME EVIDENCE

<Evidence presented>

I DON'T AGREE

In the US, Government agencies don't "test and certify everything else in cars." The Government Agencies do research and set safety and related performance standards that vehicle manufacturers must follow, and have the legal power to force recalls if these standards are not met. It's an honor system - the government assumes manufacturers will comply and takes action only if there is evidence brought to light that something is not in compliance. The manufacturers design and test on their own to ensure they meet the government standards. The US government does not "test and certify". Manufacturers can voluntarily submit test results to the government agencies.

This document provides a very detailed summary of what each government agency in the US is doing or responsible for. Note the wording that frequently includes "voluntary", "non-binding", etc. but you won't find the words "Certify" or "Certification" anywhere in the document.

"• NHTSA’s mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce the economic costs of road traffic crashes through education, research, safety standards, and enforcement activity. NHTSA sets and enforces safety performance standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, identifying safety defects, and through the development and delivery of effective highway safety programs for State and local jurisdictions.
• FMCSA’s mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. FMCSA partners with industry, safety advocates, and State and local governments to keep the Nation’s roads safe and improve CMV safety through regulation, education, enforcement, research, and technology."

"NHTSA has published non-binding guidance to support the automotive industry and other key stakeholders as they consider and design best practices for the testing and safe integration of Automated Driving Systems, along with technical assistance to States and Best Practices for Legislatures."

Note that nowhere does it say testing or certification is a key component:
"Three key components of NHTSA’s authority are its ability to develop and establish safety standards, to enforce the prohibition against covered parties making inoperative aspects of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment installed in compliance with a safety standard, and to take action to protect the public against noncompliance and defects that pose unreasonable risks to motor vehicle safety."

Voluntary:
"Department of Health and Human Services In other voluntary standards-setting efforts, NIOSH served on the subcommittee convened by the American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) and National Safety Council,"

"National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST supports the development and use of measurement science in voluntary consensus standards, conformity assessment, and related tools."

No Compliance or enforcement, not subject to Federal Approval
"Department of Transportation
In 2017, NHTSA provided voluntary guidance through Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety (ADS 2.0). ADS 2.084 revised and streamlined to emphasize the voluntary nature of the guidelines–no compliance requirement or enforcement mechanism. ADS 2.0 focuses on the New Operating Guidance on SAE Level 3 and above Automated Driving Systems. Additionally, ADS 2.0 clarifies that assessments are not subject to Federal approval and that there is no waiting period or delay to begin testing or deployment."

 

[JM.]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

LOL, you've failed to understand most every question I've asked you. Did you ever find the thing where I'll owe you $100, or was that made up also?

 

[JM.]

In the US, Government agencies don't "test and certify everything else in cars."

Exactly my point, but some people don't understand nuance, nor gentle leading towards an answer.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

LOL, you've failed to understand most every question I've asked you. Did you ever find the thing where I'll owe you $100, or was that made up also?

That's cute, considering you haven't asked any questions worth answering. Way to dodge mine, though. It is crystal clear you haven't a clue what I'm saying.

 

[JM.]

considering you haven't asked any questions worth answering.

Good way to dodge them. You've completely failed to grasp the ideas and thought process given to you by many people here, and have not yet defined your claim. So...well, it's been fun.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Good way to dodge them. You've completely failed to grasp the ideas and thought process given to you by many people here, and have not yet defined your claim. So...well, it's been fun.

Oh I grasp them, I don't respect them as valid. There's a difference. You, OTOH, don't seem to be able to comprehend what I said as your response doesn't make sense. It's real cute that you're playing "I know you are but what am I" now too. Can't even come up with your own responses you just have to paraphrase mine. Good job!

 

[mpshizzle]

@Donald Stanfield
@JM.

Can you please take this to DMs, rather than clogging up my notification feed

 

[JM.]

Oh I grasp them, I don't respect them as valid.

Exactly, I see what you're asking, and my responses are too complex and nuanced for you. I get it. English is a difficult language. You are right, I am using your language in an attempt to communicate and it's funny that still doesn't land.

@Donald Stanfield
@JM.

Can you please take this to DMs, rather than clogging up my notification feed

Probably not.

Back to the actual topic; in shopping cars I'm trying to figure out whether there's a believable, concrete promise of Gen 2 actually getting useful ADAS. Because it seems like buying a gen 1, saving money, and buying a Comma 3X makes more sense.

Sponsored