Philip Koopman’s Post

View profile for Philip Koopman, graphic

Autonomous Vehicle Safety, Embedded Software, UL 4600, Consulting, (He/him.) Personal account; likes/shares are interest and not endorsements; silence does not imply agreement.

IIHS, who has been instrumental in pushing for vehicle automation assessment, weighs in on the state of safety of the industry. It's not great. Please read the entire article. But a few selected quotes: - "Unfortunately, nobody knows whether either of these technologies — the partial automation available to consumers or the driverless vehicle fleets deployed on a more limited basis — are safe." - "Automation has the potential to reduce or eliminate human mistakes and enhance safety, but we have yet to find consistent evidence that existing automated systems make driving safer. " - "Nobody should be surprised that drivers are misusing these systems." - "The issue is further complicated when automated vehicle companies are not transparent or truthful." - "Beyond this weak reporting requirement, NHTSA has yet to issue any regulations to ensure driving automation systems are safe. Instead, it has limited itself to what the senators called “after-the-fact responses” — investigating defects and recalling vehicles that already have a safety problem." I'm glad to hear such an influential organization calling the industry and regulators out on their need to get more serious about safety for automated driving features (automated lane centering and beyond). At this point it seems we'll need a US Congressional mandate to give NHTSA the political air cover and impetus they need push beyond the current situation, with the recent letter from six senators just being the opening salvo. David Kidd, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety / Highway Loss Data Institute

On vehicle automation, federal regulators have some catching up to do

On vehicle automation, federal regulators have some catching up to do

iihs.org

Phil Koopman do you think it is possible that the auto insurance industry may refuse to insure vehicles equipped with vehicle automation systems including fully autonomous technology unless and until the manufacturers become more cooperative and transparent?

Matthias Beer

Director Hardware Imaging Sensor Products bei Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG

1mo

Well there are activities going on in this regard, in the US, in EU as well as AP. So far a shortage of suitable test equipement was from my point of view one of the main blocking points. However, I guess we have addressed this point and gained field experience over the last three years. I believe, to. guarantee safety of ADAS/AD featured vehicles, they need to be tested on a regular base from an independant organization. In Germany for instance, these PTIs are carried out to DEKRA, TUEV, KUESS etc. https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/de/loesungen/test-and-measurement/automotive/automotive-radar/adas-testing-during-periodic-technical-inspection_257204.html

Mica Endsley

President at SA Technologies,Inc

1mo

I highly agree. Also see the detailed recommendations of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society on developing AVs in light of what is known about how they affect human performance. https://www.hfes.org/Portals/0/HFES%20AV%20Policy%20Statement-V2_0%202-2022_1.pdf

Eric Dauster

Technologist, FSD (Tesla Self-Driving) Analyst, Editor, Artist, and Documentarian. Extensive experience engineering Tech Ops excellence during transitions integrating old and new technologies.

1mo

The letter from the senators is politically motivated and should be ignored by NHTSA. Changing regulatory processes to punish one automaker is not fhe American way, especially when that automaker is so far ahead of the unionized competition based in an important presidential swing state. I’m appalled but not surprised.

Like
Reply

Repost for reach.

Like
Reply
Lama mylenejoy

Business Owner at Office of the Governor- Illinois

1mo

Thanks for sharing

Like
Reply
See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics