Autonomous cars? Suddenly, I’m not so skeptical

Guest post from Emil Dautovic, European automotive business development manager for QNX Software Systems

As a driving enthusiast, I have always felt a bit skeptical about the notion of autonomous cars. The reason is simple: I actually enjoy driving and don’t want someone else to do it for me, in this case the car itself.

Recently, however, my skepticism has begun to soften. I am fascinated, for example, by the SARTRE road train project, where a lead vehicle takes responsibility for a platoon of semi-autonomous cars. Also, recent research from the U.S. Highway Loss Data Institute suggests that, when it comes to some driving tasks, ADAS systems can already put many human drivers to shame.

Autonomous drive will become especially important when today’s “always on” generation starts to buy cars in earnest. They will, no doubt, want to consume multimedia and interact through social media even while on the road, and automakers will need to accommodate them.

HMIs with more (and less) distraction
What would this mean for car makers? Among other things, the infotainment system in a self-driving car could offer an HMI mode that gives the driver more freedom to pay attention to non-driving activities. When the car subsequently needs a human driver (for instance, it becomes disconnected from a road train), the infotainment system could disable these features and immediately go back to a less distracting user interface.

Also, driver assist systems — such as those for detecting animals and pedestrians — would need to be integrated with the road train system to decide how to react when, say, a rabbit runs in front of the car. For instance, should the car brake and warn other cars of the fact, or would it be safer to simply keep driving? It will be interesting to follow this initiative and see how the technical and business aspects evolve, and how, for example, the owner of the lead vehicle will be paid.

For another interesting example of research into autonomous drive, check out the BRAiVE project led by the VisLab team at the University of Parma. The BRAiVE project uses a variety of sensors, with a focus on low-cost alternatives that could realistically integrated into in production cars.

Bells and whistles
So what kind of impact could all this have on a company providing automotive software platforms?

There will, I believe, be an increased demand for a platform that could run all of these applications, enabling the advanced use cases while ensuring that critical functions always have enough processor power. And, of course, the platform will have to be reliable. If this same platform could offer all the bells and whistles available in consumer electronics and demanded by younger drivers, the self-driving future might prove to be a bit closer than we think.

By the way, if you’re unfamiliar with the SARTRE road train project, check out this video:

---

More about Emil
Emil Dautovic is an automotive business development manager at QNX Software Systems, where he is responsible for the European automotive market. Prior to joining QNX, he worked as a business area manager for The Astonishing Tribe (TAT), where he built TAT's automotive business from scratch and helped transform the company into an important player in the automotive HMI field with leading automotive OEMs and tier ones. He has also worked at AU-System (later Teleca and Obigo), where he served as a consultant on GSM base station development and as a sales representative serving mobile phone OEMs and ODMs worldwide. Emil holds an M.Sc. in Electronic Engineering from Lunds Tekniska Högskola.

The ISO 26262 functional safety standard: No way but up?

I was scanning some Google alerts the other day when my eyes stopped at an announcement from Freescale. The headline didn’t mince words: the Freescale Qorivva MPC5643L microcontroller, a 32-bit part based on the Power architecture, has become the first automotive MCU to receive ISO 26262 functional safety certification.

Did you notice? Freescale didn’t say only; they said first. Which suggests they see ISO 26262 as a growing trend in automotive. If so, I think they see right.

If you’re unfamiliar with ISO 26262, let me provide the Reader’s Digest version. First and foremost, it applies to automotive electronic or electrical systems that could pose a hazard (i.e. hurt people) if they malfunction. Examples include anti-lock brakes, traction control systems, adaptive cruise control systems, engine control units, and digital instrument clusters.

Will more automotive
components soon come
with stickers like this?

The standard isn’t concerned with how well such systems perform. Rather, it’s about reducing the risk, and mitigating the effects, of any malfunction that may cause injury or death. So even if something bad unexpectedly happens in a 26262-certified system — and the assumption is that bad things will happen, no matter how well the system is designed and tested — the system will minimize potential harm. For instance, consider the scenario where a high-priority software process enters an infinite loop and starts to gobble up CPU cycles. Obviously, it’s important to prevent this error from happening in the first place. But even if it does happen, the system should prevent the rogue process from starving other critical processes of CPU time. It should also achieve a graceful recovery from the failure state.

ISO 26262 applies to production passenger vehicles with a gross mass up to 3500 kilograms (7716 pounds). Anything else is out of scope. But while the scope is limited, the standard itself is comprehensive. It covers functional safety aspects of the entire development process, from requirements specification to product decommissioning. And in case you were wondering, it’s closely related to IEC 61508, the international safety standard with a very long history and which many other safety standards reference.

So why do I think that 26262 is on the ascent? For starters, the first edition of the standard was published less than a year ago, yet a silicon vendor has already spent the considerable effort to get an MCU certified. Achieving certification to a standard like ISO 26262 doesn’t come easy, so I assume Freescale did it only because they anticipate market demand. (Disclaimer: This statement isn’t based on any special knowledge of Freescale’s business, but is simply my opinion. Interpret it as such.)

TÜV Rheinland:
Also in the game

It doesn’t stop at Freescale. TÜV Rheinland, a global provider of technical services for safety-critical systems, now offers 26262 services (training, consulting, testing, certification, you name it) for a wide variety of automotive components in multiple geographies. And if TUV has gotten in the game, it’s a good signal that the 26262 standard has legs.

Meanwhile, the LinkedIn group dedicated to 26262 has more than 3600 members and grew by more than 50 members last week alone. If you visit the group, you’ll find engineers from automotive OEMs and tier ones looking for guidance on satisfying 26262 requirements — a sure sign that support for the standard is gearing up.

From what I can tell, things haven’t gotten to the point where a company has been mandated to have its automotive systems certified to ISO 26262. But it will happen. And chances are, it will snowball: the more companies that adopt the standard, the more others will feel the pressure and follow suit. Which means it’s only a matter of time before more ISO 26262 product announcements show up in my Google alerts.

Will adaptive cruise control spell the end of traffic jams?

Did you know that rear-end collisions account for about 30% of car crashes? For that reason alone, widespread adoption of adaptive cruise control (ACC) can’t come too soon. ACC helps prevent such collisions in two ways: 1) by maintaining a safe, preset distance from the car ahead; and 2) by applying the brakes quickly if that car comes to a sudden stop — more quickly, in fact, than most humans.

Good news is, ACC may soon become pervasive. The folks at Global Industry Analysts crunched some numbers and determined that annual installations of ACC systems will reach 6.9 million units by 2017.

Mind you, ACC isn’t just about safety; it’s also about traffic flow. For instance, a study by Suzuki and Nakatsuji (2003) suggests that travel times shrink significantly when at least 20% of vehicles on the road use ACC. And a study by Kesting et al. (2008) suggests that, in some scenarios, traffic congestion simply disappears when 25% of vehicles use ACC.

Example of adaptive cruise control
Source: Volvo

The picture isn’t all rosy, however. ACC may improve traffic flow, but not in every situation, such as merging from an on-ramp onto a freeway. That said, a study by L. C. Davis (2010) suggests that a technique called cooperative merging can significantly the improve the performance of ACC in this scenario. Meanwhile, a study by Jerath and Brennan (2010) suggests that the benefits associated with ACC may come at a possible cost — “self-organized” traffic jams. This effect, caused mostly by human behavior, may occur in a traffic system where most, but not all, cars use ACC.

Caveats aside, ACC systems continue to evolve. Some drivers tend to slam their brakes and use heavy throttle in traffic, creating congestive shockwaves that ripple down the highway. According to J.C. Power, newer versions of ACC help alleviate this problem by smoothly modulating brakes and throttle in stop-and-go traffic.

And now, a look at ACC from 1939…
If you think the concept of ACC is relatively new, think again. Over 70 years ago, GM created a “Futurama” exhibit for the 1939 World's Fair that showcased a scale-model highway in which cars automatically maintain a safe, efficient distance from one another.

GM predicted this technology would be in place by 1960. They got the timing wrong, but the idea right. Click the video to see a surprisingly prescient look at the car of the future — I’ve already bookmarked the spot for you:



What about you? Have you had much experience with ACC? And if so, has it helped or hindered your driving experience?

Drivers want ADAS, but not so sure about autonomous cars: study

In May, market researcher Penn Schoen Berland canvassed 2,506 American drivers about their driving habits. The findings, presented last week at a Ford press conference, are sobering:

• 76% of respondents admitted to eating or to drinking non-alcoholic drinks while behind the wheel
• 53% admitted to talking on a handheld phone
• 33% admitted to fiddling with their mobile gadgets
• 55% admitted to driving beyond the speed limit
• 37% admitted to driving when too tired

And here’s the kicker: 99% of respondents claimed they were safe drivers.

I know, it's a major disconnect. But here's what I find interesting: most respondents also expressed interest in driver assistance systems. In other words, even self-proclaimed safe drivers tacitly admitted they could use help now and then. For instance:

• 8 out of 10 respondents expressed interest in technologies that would help them stay in their lane
• 9 out of 10 expressed interest in technologies that could detect an impending collision and slow the car down

Respondents also expressed interest in systems that could detect a car in their blind-spot, provide voice-activated phone dialing, or park the car automatically. That said, only 39% said they’d feel comfortable riding an autonomous car.

My take? That number will grow significantly once more people drive cars equipped with adaptive cruise control, automatic parallel park, and other driver-assist systems. The more people become accustomed to such systems, the more they'll accept a car that does most of the driving for them.

For media coverage of this study, visit Forbes, Scientific American, and the Wall Street Journal.

Autonomous cars by 1976?

By Paul Leroux

When you hear "Firebird," what image comes to mind? Chances are, it looks something like this:



Or this:



But did you know that the Firebird brand dates back to the 1950s? In those days, the Firebird looked like this:



Clearly, this wasn't a production car. Rather, GM designed it to promote a variety of forward-looking technologies, including a rear-view camera, a CRT-based instrument panel, and, yes, autonomous drive.

Speaking of which, here's a video from 1956 that shows how an "electronic control strip" embedded in the road allowed the Firebird II to drive itself. Jump to the :37 mark to catch the action:



My favorite part? The closing comment, "This may well be part of the American scene in 1976." The prediction was on the optimistic side, to say the least. But it does reflect our long-standing fascination with self-driving cars. In fact, it goes beyond that. The Firebird II also embodies a persistent belief that such cars are inherently safer than cars driven by humans.

Here, for example, is an excerpt from the Firebird II brochure, which extols the benefits of putting technology in the driver's seat:

Not only do you relax and enjoy your journey, but you are as safe as modern science can make you. For, while human beings err in judgment, the electronic brain is completely foolproof.

Does that sound familiar? It does to me. A few weeks ago, I wrote about an article published in 1958 that claimed:

Driving will one day be foolproof, and accidents unknown, when science finally installs the Electronic Highway of the Future.

Part of me laughs at the sheer naïvety of these statements. But you know what? They aren't all that far from the truth. I'd like to think I'm better than any "electronic brain" at driving safely, but the evidence is starting to suggest otherwise. According to data gathered by the Highway Loss Data Institute, automatic crash-avoidance systems in cars are, in fact, better than humans at responding to a variety of dangerous situations.

So, in some small way, I'm threatened by these statements. After all, who wants think of themselves as Captain Dunsel? :-)

Will autonomous car tech save your life?

"But if we can prevent crashes altogether, that's even better." This statement comes at the end of a new video from the Highway Loss Data Institute, which explores how some crash avoidance systems are, in fact, reducing crashes.

Before we watch the video — and it really is worth watching — allow me to digress. The notion of achieving 100% crash prevention is, to my mind, a non-starter. It's like saying that kids can play sports without ever getting hurt, or that you can live with other people without ever catching a cold. Yes, you should do what you can to keep such outcomes to an absolute minimum, but life doesn't come with 100% guarantees, aside from those that apply to death and taxes. In fact, the only way to ensure a system is 100% safe is to ensure it does absolutely nothing.

Fortunately, the crash-avoidance systems in question are doing something, and in some cases, the something is good. The findings reported by the HLDI are fascinating, since they suggest that systems which take action on behalf of the driver are sometimes more effective than systems which provide warnings only. In other words, fewer crashes occur when the car, rather than the driver, takes control in a dangerous situation. Feeling like Captain Dunsel yet? :-)

The future of the self-driving car ain't what it used to be

Some people think self-driving cars are cool, others think they're very cool, and still others can barely contain themselves. Here, for instance, is an excerpt from an article I stumbled on a few days ago:

"Some day in the future when you drive onto a superhighway, you’ll reach over to your dashboard and push the button marked “Electronic Drive.” Selecting your lane, you’ll settle back to enjoy the ride as your car adjusts itself to the prescribed speed. You may prefer to read or carry on a conversation with your passengers—or even to catch up on your office work. It makes no difference for the next several hundred miles as far as the driving is concerned."

Bring it on, I say. Especially since the technical challenges are far from insurmountable, or so the author claims. I quote again from the same article, which reviewed a study of driver assistance systems conducted on a public highway in Nebraska:

The demonstration made two major points. First: the various elements of the system can be used immediately in conjunction with roadside and intersection lights to increase driving safety under present conditions... Second: the system as a whole can be developed without major technical complications into a fully automatic highway traffic control system. [emphasis mine]

Told you: This will be easy!

But here's the thing. This article dates from 1958, when it was published in a journal called Electronic Age. Here's a facsimile of the article's opening page, courtesy of the folks at the Modern Mechanix blog:



As you can see, the caption writer is even more optimistic, claiming that "electronic highways" (and, by extension, electronic drive) will eliminate accidents and make driving "foolproof".

Well, if the self-driving car is so easy, why haven't we seen it yet?

The short answer: we have. But it's a work in progress.

Giving up control
It all started 80 years ago, when GM introduced the first automatic transmissions. For the first time, the car started to make some driving decisions — namely, when to shift gears — on behalf of the driver.

Fast-forward to the early 1970s, when the first computerized anti-lock brakes came off the assembly line. These, too, do some "thinking" on behalf of the driver. When you slam your foot on the brake pedal of a car with anti-lock brakes, you're not really in control. You're just asking the braking system to make a series of decisions for you.

Fast-forward again to 2003, when Toyota introduced automatic parallel parking. With this technology, the car becomes even more autonomous, to the point of steering itself. More to the point, it does a better job at parallel parking than many humans — including yours truly.

Kicking out the jams
Other driver assistance systems also come to mind, including adaptive cruise control and collision avoidance technology. When you add them all up, it becomes obvious that the self-driving car is coming along nicely, thank you. Moreover, it's moving downmarket.

For instance, Ford recently announced Traffic Jam Assist, a combination of active cruise control and lane-position technology already available on the Focus, Escape, and Fusion. Using cameras and radar sensors, the new system will help the car stay in its lane and keep pace with other vehicles.

The Ford system signals an important trend. In a recent article, Doug Newcomb quoted Ian Riches of Strategy Analytics as saying. “In 2009, over 70 percent of ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) technology was fitted to premium vehicles. By 2019, we’re forecasting only around 40 percent of ADAS will be on these premium vehicles..."

It don't come easy
Don't get me wrong. I realize that building a fully (or mostly) autonomous car is an immense challenge. Making it affordable is an even bigger challenge. But clearly, things are moving along. And, as my colleague Andy Gryc has pointed out, the sheer difficulty of achieving autonomy is precisely what will motivate some extremely intelligent people to pony up to the challenge.

Personally, I don't know what fascinates me more: the engineering behind these advances or that people are becoming accustomed to letting go — of their steering wheels, of their gas pedals, of being in control. It's an interesting socialization process.

Either way, one thing is for sure: the self-driving future really ain't what it used to be. Because, this time, it's real.

Moving pictures
Enough talk. Here's a video of Ford's proposed Traffic Jam Assist system, which can take of steering, braking, and acceleration in stop/start traffic: