Truths and Myths about Automated Vehicle Safety
According to Philip Koopman, what fundamentally distinguishes "testing" automation from "supervised automation" in terms of the human's role?
I'm glad the presentation was thought-provoking and appreciate your thoughts.
I have done quite a lot of work on liability with a lawyer. We have a detailed proposal suitable for use by state legislators to amend liability law a bit by defining a "computer driver" (with manufacturer responsible) that has the same duty of care to other road users as a human driver would have in any particular situation. That will put more pressure on developers to deploy at a responsible pace without requiring detailed technical regulations. More here: https://safeautonomy.blogspot.com/2023/05/a-liability-approach-for-automated.html
Remote monitoring is tough because if you have a person remotely watching for issues you end up with automation complacency, and the situation doesn't scale (one person for 4 cars will provide worse supervision for example). Having a remote driver drop in to help can make sense to help a car get unstuck, but the get up to speed time will be too long for any dangerous situation while the care is moving. And yes, communication latency and drop-outs will be an issue. If we want robotaxis the vehicles will need to ensure safety while moving entirely on their own, even if they get remote help once in a while.
An entirely different way to go is make vehicles better at supporting human drivers who actually drive. That is already paying safety dividends, but it's not a robotaxi...
Thanks for the links.
In regard to remote person supervision. I didn't mean exactly that. I thought about one more layer of traffic control above the self-driving vehicle. The autonomous traffic supervisor, if you please. Maybe it even be considered as a part of the "smart city" concept.
Being located above the streets (on a tall building or a mast), it "sees" multiple vehicles at the same time, knows their speed and direction, definitely knows where the roadway and sidewalk are. So, in theory, it could assist the "robotaxis" in fulfilling their duties. For instance, by broadcasting messages like "Be careful, there are multiple small objects near the edge of the sidewalk behind that parked truck, probably children".
It will be quite expensive, on the one hand. But on the other hand, there are already a plethora of cameras deployed in each city, and such service may be shared by police or ambulance. Like "Ambulance #3 avoid the route X, there is a traffic jam there".
Of course, it is just my humble imagination. :-)
Hello! Thank you for sharing your thoughts in this session. :-)
Never thought there are so many ethic problems/concerns pertaining to the self-driving vehicles. But if one thinks a little, that's true. Probably the biggest issue will be the absence of the person to blame. There is an accident, there is a fatality, but there is no person in charge of that. Just a soulless piece of metal and silicon. For many it will be hard to accept, because someone must be punished. And what about the law? It should be accommodated for this new reality too.
Quite sure a certain groups of people will emerge claiming ban of those "devil machines". And rise of "Choose a human" taxi services for those willing to have a small talk while riding to the destination. :-D
Anyway, how do you think, aren't the developers too "biased" squeezing in all possible features into the mere vehicle? Won't it be better to "lend a hand" to the autopilot from the outside? In the cities there are plenty of high points where the sets of equipment can be mounted. Those may be quite handy in preventing catastrophic events. Just because they see things normally hidden from the "eyes" of the car. Like a small kid suddenly running out of the parked car. And because they have a less volatile environment (tracking the same piece of street/crossroads for years). That, of course, requires a real-time communication channel with the vehicle.
What do you think? Or it is just one more failure point?