Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: Well said
Bert22306   4/2/2014 5:05:39 PM
NO RATINGS
Agreed, Larry. The idea that a human in control, behind the wheel, is inherently "safer" than having an algorithm do the driving is really odd. Not saying that truly autonomous cars are realistically possible right this minute, but surely, in principle, such automation can easily beat human intervention, when it comes to consistency, reliability, and consequent safety.

Perhaps the problem is that people think they are more in control of their own driving safety than they really are. Sure, I too think I'm the most expert driver on the road. My problem is all those other unpredictable half-wits around me.

Even in the simplest case, i.e. trains running on determinstic tracks, how many times have we seen recently in the news that the operator dozed off? This is safe?

TrishRobina
User Rank
Rookie
For our safety
TrishRobina   4/2/2014 12:37:37 PM
NO RATINGS
Aboe all concerns one thing that concerns me a lot is the safety of all people in here. - Feed the Children Reviews

LarryM99
User Rank
CEO
Re: Well said
LarryM99   4/2/2014 12:28:47 PM
NO RATINGS
There are risks in self-driving cars, but as another post in this area says humans are bad at assessing risk. They are also not that great at driving cars. A self-driving car fatality would make headlines, but the numerous daily fatalities from drivers on cell phones, falling asleep at the wheel, or otherwise just not paying attention rarely make it above the fold (obscure reference for those who still remember newspapers). This case illustrates a net lowering of the safety in the activity of driving a car, where there is real evidence that self-driving cars would raise the safety level.

john_e_k
User Rank
Rookie
Two ways of constructing SW...
john_e_k   4/2/2014 12:13:35 PM
NO RATINGS
We had the answer in 1980:

"There are two ways of constructing a software design.
One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies.
And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies."
-- C. A. R. Hoare, 1980 Turing award lecture

 

Some Guy
User Rank
Manager
Re: FMECA's, MTBF and other misguided statistics
Some Guy   4/2/2014 12:07:00 PM
While you may be able to skew the predictions and rationalize not doing a good job, you can't fool the field results. It's unfortunate that this had to take lawsuits to get in front of this, but given the analysis by the plaintifs experts, it's abundantly clear that they not only screwed up, but didn't even have the first clue on how to do real-time, let alone saftey-critical software.

Moreover, really Toyota has three HUGE problems they have to fix. In addition to the SW problem, they also lacked a proper design validation program that should have alerted them to the design flaw early, and they weren't tracking their field failures and getting to root cause in a day. Very uncharacteristic for a Japanese company, especially Toyota.

Finally, humans are notoriously bad at assessing risk. Even NASA, the world leaders in safety-critical systems blew it with Challenger and Columbia. At least they try (and got in trouble when they cut corners trying.) With Toyota's ignorance of how to even DO real-time safety-critical software, is it any surprise that they totally whiffed the risk ANALYSIS?

To me the takeaway as a consumer is not to avoid the benefits of new auto technology, but to make sure there is a hardwired physically-interrupting-the-power OFF switch (which Toyota also missed).

boblespam
User Rank
CEO
Re: FMECA's, MTBF and other misguided statistics
boblespam   4/2/2014 9:38:54 AM
There's one good Dilbert strip about this story... from 2004-01-27 !

http://dilbert.com/fast/2004-01-27/

John.Donovan
User Rank
Manager
Re: FMECA's, MTBF and other misguided statistics
John.Donovan   4/2/2014 7:58:02 AM
NHTSA doesn't have the budget to hire a crack team of software experts, and congress isn't about to give them more teeth to enforce standards. OTOH the EU could take the lead and demand that all automotive software confirm to ISO 26262 and that it be certified by an independent testing body such as Germany's TUV SUD. That would be a big step forward from having the public be the beta testers and the court the enforcers.

MWagner_MA
User Rank
Manager
FMECA's, MTBF and other misguided statistics
MWagner_MA   4/2/2014 7:35:54 AM
NO RATINGS
As anyone who has done a MTBF calculation to MIL-HDBK-217 knows, you can make the numbers say what you want.  Our current culture of "sqeeze every last dollar out" of a business means that safety reviews can easily be skewed by a "severity" or "probability" rating in a FMECA analysis.  I have witnessed a similar conclusion within my own company when such a safety analysis (although not as severe as a car crash) was discussed and discounted as not enough to warrant a redesign.  Tools will have to be worked on to verify designs better.

elctrnx_lyf
User Rank
Manager
Re: Well said
elctrnx_lyf   4/2/2014 2:04:55 AM
NO RATINGS
Yes, the self driven cars are too far from reality and safety is a major challenge. But the companies definitely want to invest in this to be in race and to make the business in the future. The real challenge lies in the hands of governments to make sure the automobiles are really safe and they are tested perfectly.

John.Donovan
User Rank
Manager
Well said
John.Donovan   4/1/2014 10:26:37 PM
An engaging keynote and an excellent article. After hearing Barr's presentation I don't plan to get within a country mile of a self-driving car!

<<   <   Page 2 / 2


Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Want to Present a Paper at ESC Boston 2015?
Max Maxfield
8 comments
I tell you, I need more hours in each day. If I was having any more fun, there would have to be two of me to handle it all. For example, I just heard that I'm going to be both a speaker ...

Martin Rowe

No 2014 Punkin Chunkin, What Will You Do?
Martin Rowe
Post a comment
American Thanksgiving is next week, and while some people watch (American) football all day, the real competition on TV has become Punkin Chunkin. But there will be no Punkin Chunkin on TV ...

Rich Quinnell

Making the Grade in Industrial Design
Rich Quinnell
12 comments
As every developer knows, there are the paper specifications for a product design, and then there are the real requirements. The paper specs are dry, bland, and rigidly numeric, making ...

Martin Rowe

Book Review: Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design, Third Edition, by Michel Mardiguian. Contributions by Donald L. Sweeney and Roger Swanberg. List price: $89.99 (e-book), $119 (hardcover).