Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 5 / 11   >   >>
redlight
User Rank
Author
Re: Master throttle control
redlight   10/28/2013 7:08:59 PM
NO RATINGS
Bert22306   

Manual transmission on a steep hill. You need to transition from a stop to moving. Speed from brake to accel is too slow to keep from stalling. What do you do? Hit the brake and accelerator and the same time then transition from brake to accelerator. Why not use the parking brake? Some cars have foot actuated parking brakes and you already have a problem of not having enough feet. . .

Bert22306
User Rank
Author
I admit to a level of cynicism
Bert22306   10/28/2013 6:35:48 PM
NO RATINGS
Perhaps I've watched too many TV legal dramas. When expert witnesses start heaping up evidence on the plaintiff's side, sometimes it seems overdone.

In this case, the fact that a zillion potential issues with the throttle algorithm were uncovered, even though none of them was actually determined to be the cause, nor was their probability of occurence mentioned, and further that it was shown that the black box may also be lying at the same time, seems a bit like "stacking the deck."

I suppose the intent was to absolve the driver from any possible responsibility, because she evidently hadn't applied the brakes? Like I said, probably too many TV dramas.

Aside from that, it certainly makes sense to have the brake pedal take precedence over any throttle control signal. I can't imagine a proper autonomous vehicle NOT implementing that same logic. Any braking command automatically overrides any acceleration command. Simply because, in the majority of major system failure scenarios, cars are better off stopped (hopefully on the side of the road). It's the most resonable fail safe mode.

SSDWEM
User Rank
Author
Interesting reading
SSDWEM   10/28/2013 5:51:31 PM
NO RATINGS
I just went over to Michael Barr's blog site (embeddedgurus.com), it appears he recently blogged about the verdict:

http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2013/10/an-update-on-toyota-and-unintended-acceleration/

The post also provides a transcript of Michael's court testimony (PDF, over 200 pages).  Normally I find testimony to be dry and dull, but what I've read so far is, shall we say, interesting!

Too bad we can't get the experts' report.  Isn't the US court system supposed to be open & public?


Junko - any chance we can get a redacted version of the report?  I've never dealt with the court system before.  Seems like this is a public safety issue.


Wonder if anyone at NHTSA or NASA is aware of the verdict, testimony, expert report findings?

Les_Slater
User Rank
Author
Re: Toyota's culpability here is the tip of the iceberg for everyone
Les_Slater   10/28/2013 3:53:09 PM
NO RATINGS
JCreasey,

"Unless the Throttle, brakes, steering, and engine control have mechanical linkages, there is no reliable possibility of human as intervention or backup control for failures. You either automate or stay manual."

It looks like the trend is definitely going away from manual control and toward some sort of automation. The accelerator pedal cannot directly control anything. It HAS to see the right foot as just one of the parameters that go into control decisions. There are advantages to making other controls such as steering and brakes to be mostly suggestions as to intent. That doesn't mean that there can't be some looser driver control in the event of a degraded system. Certainly, as has been suggested, tapping the brake pedal should kill a runaway throttle.

I believe the Toyota problem is one of inadequate design and testing. I'm sure we will ultimately learn much from this. There are problems with technology but auto safety looks pretty good. There are a lot more factors than electronic control. If you go back 50 years to when there was only automated shifting you will realize that modern cars are much safer. Absolute perfection of control would nowhere near compensate for the poor state of tires, brakes, suspension, and body structure that we faced then. And... the best tires, brakes and suspension are made even more effective with the application of some sensors, processing power and various actuator mechanisms. There's no turning back.

I pretty much agree with your last paragraph but this must be seen as being able to operate in a heterogeneous environment, not just with vehicles that are pretty much at the command of the infrastructure.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Author
Re: Barr Group report availability
junko.yoshida   10/28/2013 3:29:26 PM
NO RATINGS
The 800 page report, in redacted form, was filed in U.S . District Court in Santa Ana, CA in St. John v Toyota on April 12, 2013. I don't have it; I am contacting the court if this is available. Meanwhile, unredacted is only in the code room and in a few lawyers' hands, according to those involved in the investigation.

redlight
User Rank
Author
Re: Manual "Master Stop"
redlight   10/28/2013 3:19:08 PM
NO RATINGS
This may be ok in an automated or warehouse situation. In general, humans are not in the machines being stopped by hitting the E-STOP switch or you have people stand clear before you do it (like when administering a shock from a difibrillator).

However, in a car, that is highly dangerous. Take a drive by wire car. What happens were you do hit an E-Stop button that disengages everything? Physics isn't bound by the E-STOP. That car will continue traveling in the direction it is moving (likely now skidding or sliding and if you're lucky that road compliance doesn't cause the steering to move around) with no way for the driver to control it's motion. You can't steer out of trouble, you can modulate the brake, if the doors are locked or windows closed, can you then open them?

Without manual controls that can control some of these things or ejector seats that activate when you hit the E-STOP, doing so in a car is very likely more dangerous than having the car attempt to recover (or continue to malfunction in a particular way).

JCreasey
User Rank
Author
Re: Toyota's culpability here is the tip of the iceberg for everyone
JCreasey   10/28/2013 2:25:01 PM
NO RATINGS
@Les...I think you are incorrect here:

"Even where the infrastructure mostly commands, or directs the vehicle, there will still be a need for someone, or something, to drive the car in case there is a communication failure."

This goes to the very root of Toyota's current problems.  It is very difficult to ensure that the firmware running the car is totally safe, and in a drive by wire system a breakdown in communications within the system may render it undrivable by a human. The computer(s) is in control, you may have no direct human control ability at all.

Unless the Throttle, brakes, steering, and engine control have mechanical linkages, there is no reliable possibility of human as intervention or backup control for failures. You either automate or stay manual.

In the case of failure in the V2I, an automated vehicle would slow down and stop using local sensors. The infrastructure knows it just lost communications with a client (hearbeat) and can move surrounding traffic out of the way (slow down and move aside). 

Les_Slater
User Rank
Author
Re: Toyota's culpability here is the tip of the iceberg for everyone
Les_Slater   10/28/2013 2:10:18 PM
NO RATINGS
JCreasey, this whole thing is complicated in that the cost of vehicle controls, infrastructure and public acceptance are all huge issues. It won't all happen at once. There will be a mix of vehicles with various capabilities and drivers with varying responsibilities, skills and alertness. However, I am confident that the more automation here, the safer the roads will be.

Even where the infrastructure mostly commands, or directs the vehicle, there will still be a need for someone, or something, to drive the car in case there is a communication failure.

Robotics Developer
User Rank
Author
Re: Black box?
Robotics Developer   10/28/2013 1:30:13 PM
NO RATINGS
Rich Pell, I agree fully with your assesment!  The likelyhood of a car vs driver mistake is widely different.  On both ends of the spectrum: very old and very young drivers can make mistakes.  I would like to see more cars with the collision avoidance electronics as a means of preventing some crashes.  I know that these cost money but I wonder if insurance company discounts would help offset the additional cost for these features?

Robotics Developer
User Rank
Author
Re: Who tested this thing?
Robotics Developer   10/28/2013 1:26:35 PM
NO RATINGS
Les Slater, I am not sure how an autonomous driven car makes the problem less difficult.  Given all the variables with roads (conditions, car state of operation, other vehicles, etc.) there is just so many complications to account for that I would be very surprised if they covered all the bases.  Given the huge task and the possible failures of systems/subsystems what is the fallback for the "passengers"?  How/when would they be able or know to take over?  It sort of bogles the mind - all the possibilities.  I have driven robots both with drive assist and with full manual - drive assist really helps but if there is a sensor fault it does not take long to get into trouble even at 15 ft/sec, I can't imagine what would happen at highway speeds.   I am sure that the technical challenges can be solved but would really want to see a lot more testing, standards, and safety features before I would "get behind the wheel" of an autonomous car.

 

But to the Toyota case I was troubled by the lack of driver control over the electronics given the systems set up as they were.  I would not want any system to override a desire to stop.  There should have been a means to prevent runaway situations if nothing else but to stop motion if there is a difference between gas and brake..  just a thought.. Intent is hard to know for sure I agree, but if the black box was able to robustly determine if the gas was pressed and/or the brake then maybe intent would have been easier to determine.

<<   <   Page 5 / 11   >   >>


Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST

What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.

Brought to you by:

Like Us on Facebook
Special Video Section
Wireless Power enables applications where it is difficult ...
07:41
LEDs are being used in current luxury model automotive ...
With design sizes expected to increase by 5X through 2020, ...
01:48
Linear Technology’s LT8330 and LT8331, two Low Quiescent ...
The quality and reliability of Mill-Max's two-piece ...
LED lighting is an important feature in today’s and future ...
05:27
The LT8602 has two high voltage buck regulators with an ...
05:18
Silego Technology’s highly versatile Mixed-signal GreenPAK ...
The quality and reliability of Mill-Max's two-piece ...
01:34
Why the multicopter? It has every thing in it. 58 of ...
Security is important in all parts of the IoT chain, ...
Infineon explains their philosophy and why the multicopter ...
The LTC4282 Hot SwapTM controller allows a board to be ...
This video highlights the Zynq® UltraScale+™ MPSoC, and sho...
Homeowners may soon be able to store the energy generated ...
The LTC®6363 is a low power, low noise, fully differential ...
See the Virtex® UltraScale+™ FPGA with 32.75G backplane ...
Vincent Ching, applications engineer at Avago Technologies, ...
The LT®6375 is a unity-gain difference amplifier which ...
The LTC®4015 is a complete synchronous buck controller/ ...
10:35