Some key players suggest we should amplify human control, not remove it
As we’ve discussed in this column in the past, the advent of autonomous vehicles is inevitable. The only really big question is: how soon?
Some proponents, both within and outside the auto industry, have predicted, even promised, fully-autonomous Level 5 vehicles by 2020, if not before.
But, more and more, those optimistic projections are being challenged by reality. And some key players, whose futures will be thoroughly entwined with whatever the outcome may be, have suggested that there may be a better way.
Beyond just the quest for new technology, the potential to dramatically reduce, perhaps even eliminate fatal automobile crashes is the driving force behind the rush to autonomous vehicles.
Given that as many as 94 per cent of the world’s 1.4 million annual vehicular deaths can be attributed to human errors, based on NHTSA data, it would be easy to conclude that removing humans from the driving equation will dramatically reduce that number.
“It would also be wrong,” according to a white paper published by Veoneer, a spin-off from automotive supplier Autoliv, focused on Advanced Driving Assistance Systems (ADAS) and Automated Driving (AD).
That paper cites the aviation industry’s experience with adopting automation as a cautionary tale. As that experience has demonstrated, “shared control and collaboration” are key to making the transition from fully human to fully autonomous driving, it concludes.
Some might question that position because of Veoneer’s investment in developing and providing the transitional technologies. But it’s paralleled by recent statements from none other than Toyota.
Since it was established three years ago to explore advances in artificial intelligence, automated driving and robotics, the Toyota Research Institute (TRI) has pursued a two-track development approach to automated driving.
As with many other automakers’ approaches, its on-going Chauffeur development program is focused on full autonomy, where the human is essentially removed from the driving equation, either completely in all environments, or within a restricted operational design domain.
This blended envelope control is much more difficult to create in a car than in a fighter jet, Toyota says, because the control envelope for a car is defined not only by vehicle dynamics but also by the vehicle’s perception and prediction ability of everything in its immediate environment.
At the same time, what it calls Toyota Guardian technology is being developed to amplify human control of the vehicle, not replace it.
With that technology, the driver is meant to be in control of the car at all times, except in those cases where it anticipates or identifies a pending incident and employs a corrective response in coordination with driver input.
One of TRI’s most significant breakthroughs, the company says, is the creation of ”blended envelope control,” which combines and coordinates the skills and strengths of both the human and the machine.
The system was inspired and informed by the way modern fighter jets are flown, where the pilot controls the stick, but doesn’t actually fly the plane directly. Instead, his/her “intent” is translated by the low-level flight control system, thousands of times a second to stabilize the aircraft and stay within a specific safety envelope.
This blended envelope control is much more difficult to create in a car than in a fighter jet, Toyota says, because the control envelope for a car is defined not only by vehicle dynamics but also by the vehicle’s perception and prediction ability of everything in its immediate environment.
As with Veoneer’s approach, the key principle is that the control envelope is not defined just by a discrete on-off switch between the human and the autonomy: it’s a near-seamless blend of both, as the two work together to extract the best input from each.
Toyota Guardian is being developed as an automated safety system, capable of operating with either a human driver, or an autonomous driving system, provided by Toyota, or any other company. This is a key point.
Rather than an alternative to a fully autonomous system such as Toyota Chauffeur, Guardian provides a belt-and-suspender redundancy during the transitional period.
Speaking at the recent CES in Las Vegas, TRI’s CEO, Dr. Gill Pratt stressed the importance of not underestimating the difficulty in developing a fully autonomous Chauffeur system, both technologically and sociologically.
Technically, how do we train a machine about the social ballet required to navigate through an ever-changing environment, as well as, or better than, a human driver? Sociologically, public acceptance of the inevitable crashes, injuries, and deaths that will occur due to fully autonomous Chauffeur systems may take considerable time.
“In the meantime,” stated Pratt, “we have a moral obligation to apply automated vehicle technology to save as many lives as possible as soon as possible.” That is why TRI’s primary focus in the past year has been on making Toyota Guardian a smarter machine.
It’s the right approach, in our opinion.
