Kizashi Club

Your Kizashi Owners Club and Forum 

Non-Suzuki related topics. Anything can go here.
 #48993  by KuroNekko
 Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:44 am
Ronzuki wrote:My position absolutely NEVER assumed any such thing. My position IS that exhaustive testing with real world scenarios must be performed, and passed repeatedly, prior to giving it the old college try on public roads.


I am submitting that "real world scenarios" can only be created by actual public roads. I understand your concerns about this but it's rather self-evident to me and the engineers behind automated driving that they have to run these cars no other place but public roads for them to have any validity and merit in testing and data acquisition for development. While not near perfect by any means, they are not up against perfection either. In fact, as I have repeatedly stated in every engagement here, the human driver is far more flawed as a whole. You argued that automated systems are useless in inclement weather conditions where snow and ice can impair sensors, cameras, etc. I agree, however, what I also consider is that human drivers are also very bad at driving in snow and ice. In fact, simple rain causes accident rates to increase regardless of location. In essence, why have an expectation that automation must, "BE guaranteed to function correctly 100% of the time (short of failed componentry) UNDER NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS" when humans are nowhere near this standard either and that's just an accepted reality? In fact, humans cause so many accidents, insurance is a normalized industry and is required almost everywhere. Again, automation should have a high standard, but the expectation of perfection is odd when those demanding it seem to accept the pathetically low standards of the status quo.

Also consider, as I have stated many times, machines don't get tired, drunk, high, medicated, or angry. Humans do. You've put a lot of your personal and professional experience and insight with automation in this discussion which has been enlightening. However, let me also put mine in: I work in criminal law and have investigated cases ranging from vehicular homicides to DUIs. Let me tell you that there are many people driving on the road who shouldn't even be trusted with a skateboard on a sidewalk. There are literally millions of people who drive fatigued, drunk, high, or under the effect of medication that affects their ability to drive. In fact, many mix those conditions together. Believe it or not, there are some on the road with a BAC of over 0.2 who can't even talk properly but are driving. Keep in mind 0.08 is the legal limit for most places and a 0.2 is known to literally kill some people from alcohol poisoning. While anti-automation is a cautious sentiment among some, there are literally movements like MADD and judicial systems to deal with the ever-present flaws of human driving. This is the status quo.

So while it's unfortunate that an Uber with flawed automated driving tech "supervised" by an inattentive human ran over a jaywalker at night, human drivers kill way more people all the time and damn near choose to do it. This is what I've been saying all along. Hence, any legitimate comparative analysis must compare the status quo vs. the dangers of automated driving.

Another flaw that is often found with arguments against technological development and implementation is that they hold things at a constant as they are seen currently. There is the assumption that things will largely be the same in the future as it is now which makes no sense at all. For example, those against EVs often argue about the "environmental harm" of lithium ion batteries. Even if considering the extremely weak argument (in comparison to fossil fuel production), the assumption is that only Li-ion batteries can power EVs forever. Why think like that? Researchers are nearing breakthroughs in battery development and Li-ions will likely be replaced in the next 5 to 10 years, following improvements to extend capacity and life cycle. Unlike ICEs, EVs can be powered by electricity generated by a variety of ways and stored in different mediums. Within several years, more and more vehicles will have better, safer batteries than Li-ion charged by cleaner and more renewable sources of energy. It's not a pipe dream given even today, people like my former college roommate charges his Chevy Volt from solar panels on his home's roof.

The same argument applies to automated driving. The technology will not be limited to current means. As I have argued before, in the near future, automated vehicles will communicate directly with other cars around them, adjusting and reacting to each other. This will not only prevent accidents, it will significantly alleviate traffic as cars will literally be synced in movement. Research has already showed that human miscalculations in speed and braking are the cause of congestion on roadways such as freeways. Synced automated vehicles will have the ability to likely reduce, if not eliminate, traffic by removing the flaw of human miscalculations in the flow of traffic.

Lastly, I believe I have already argued this but maybe not: another danger to the resistance of automation development (as we have seen in places like AZ with the vandalism of automated vehicles) is that it will hamper development in certain areas and key markets. If companies cannot test in prime scenarios that reflect market space, they may be at risk to outside competition. To put it plainly, let's say Americans voted to ban automated vehicles from driving on public roads in the US. What will happen is that other countries like China will deliberately allow it and develop the technology there, pushing to capitalize and monopolize it as much as possible. Their companies will then dominate the market from experience and offer superior technology for a lower cost. This will then make US-based technology unlikely to compete given the handicap their people once voted for and the Chinese will dominate automated driving technology around the world. We've seen this sort of thing happen before so I'd hate to see shortsighted Americans deliberately trying to hamper American innovation and leadership of an inevitable future.

Ronzuki wrote:Speaking of death-by-uber...

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/05/ ... e-charges/


Good luck to the prosecution trying to prove that the human in that automated Uber was liable instead of Uber (which quickly settled out of court). I think this would be an easy case for a good defense attorney, especially given the facts of the case: the vehicle was automated and was supposed to be driving itself and the victim was jaywalking at night. No doubt that human was lousy, but criminally responsible? :roll:
 #48997  by Ronzuki
 Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:52 pm
[quote="KuroNekko] I am submitting that "real world scenarios" can only be created by actual public roads. I understand your concerns about this but it's rather self-evident to me and the engineers behind automated driving that they have to run these cars no other place but public roads for them to have any validity and merit in testing and data acquisition for development. [/quote]

No, I really don't think you truly grasp and understand my concerns, especially as an automation engineer for 30+ years.

https://www.businessinsider.com/self-dr ... ays-2019-3

The above is laughable, and again, an EPIC fail. In this day-n-age, one might even find it rather racist wouldn't you say :lol: :lol:

Finally, "the courts" finding someone guilty or not is again, a position and a concern. WHO EXACTLY is to blame? I've raised this factual concern in detail before? I believe I indicated it's going to be a great time to be a lawyer. Your unsupported opinion that autonomous cars are safer than humans is complete conjecture. What REAL WORLD data could you possibly have to support your position when they vehicle can not sense an object in front of it in clear weather?
 #49000  by KuroNekko
 Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:57 am
Ronzuki wrote:No, I really don't think you truly grasp and understand my concerns, especially as an automation engineer for 30+ years.


Then please enlighten me how autonomous vehicles are to be tested for valid real-world driving. Please offer a realistic alternative.

Ronzuki wrote:Your unsupported opinion that autonomous cars are safer than humans is complete conjecture. What REAL WORLD data could you possibly have to support your position when they vehicle can not sense an object in front of it in clear weather?


I'm not saying autonomous vehicles are currently superior to the average sober and attentive human driver. What I'm saying is that their dangers are over-hyped on the media given how many millions of miles they have cumulatively ran and continue to cover. They are also improving by the day as they gain more data from real-world testing. Also, Tesla and Uber are just two of over several different companies operating automated driving just in the US.

Also, as I've stated over and over, not all human drivers drive in a safe state as sober and attentive drivers . Let me know if you rather sit in the back seat of an autonomous Tesla or a car driven by a man with a BAC well over 0.08 or a teen on her phone the entire duration she is driving. The drunk and distracted number in the millions at any given moment yet I should worry about the dangers of an autonomous vehicle today? That would require me to completely reject reason. After all, E. Coli on lettuce has literally killed more people than autonomous vehicles last year.

I understand your concerns with automated driving (yes, it's far from wonderful and replacing human driving entirely) but your perspective only focuses on that with a near refusal of any consideration of the reality of the pathetic state of human drivers. It's as if you've accepted the status quo and also refuse to consider the reality that the technology is literally improving by the second.
 #49003  by Ronzuki
 Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:31 pm
Still not getting it are you? What makes you, or anyone else (elon the arrogant) think I want to share the road, day in and day out, with someone's unproven science project? What makes you or anyone else think I want to pay for all of this BS, be in the car I purchase or the ridiculous taxes I have to pay for public works that will be greatly affected by thoughtless and typical government oversight (waste)?
I already pay the highest gas taxes in the country and the roads are deplorable, the traffic is deplorable and there's no relief in sight. Again, government that can't maintain the road systems we have in a manner that would provide the basis for autonomous vehicles to even operate?

I live, eat, and breath how uncooperative these modern whiz-bang 'systems' (very loose term) and technology behave in the industrial environments which they are supposedly designed to operate in. Environments that are far more controlled and predictable (in theory), as you've noted earlier, than public roadways. Again, what makes you, someone who has never engineered anything from a blank piece of paper and blank application development screen, think that anyone could possibly automate a car and have it function under all normal operating conditions, affordably? No, you first, please, enlighten me. For me to explain to you the processes' required, and the utilization of the experience of what works, what doesn't and what is simply not a good idea to pursue, just because you can, would take months of writing. I've worked with vision systems any many, many different sensing technologies to attempt to automate some not so very repetitive processes, and they are never as reliable as the customers mistakenly believed they should be. I've explained this all before elsewhere. Rarely do they remain online long enough to garnish a ROI and ultimately are abandoned. Hence, waste of time and money. Public roadways are an even worse 'not so very repetative process'. Understand it takes years before a 'new academic engineer' is knowledgeable enough for us to allow said engineer to electrically design and program something that is functional, safe, reliable, cost effective and can be commissioned to provide years of 24/7 service w/o causing downtime and loos of profits. Otherwise, we're out of business in the blink of an eye. We're not talking about an iphone or some kiddie toys here either.

Cars communicating w/ one another and the multitude of traffic control systems out there (if they're even capable, mostly not). Nobel concept. Unfortunately, the U.S. can't seem to afford to make rail travel (closed operating course) safe enough to keep trains from colliding and killing. The technology is there, automation is available and implemented in a half-assed fashion as usual), congress has mandated, the 'devices' be installed, issued deadlines...that come and go...issued extensions, spent money....Why? everyone cries, why? is this still happening. I've explained this simple concept before as well, the automation to do so costs far too much and will take far too long to implement. Dollars and cents sonny, dollars and cents will ALWAYS trump safety. They'll keep dragging their feet and continue making the payouts to those affected by the crashes. It's simply cheaper to do so than implement the proper automation in a timely fashion.

How many heads of Romaine lettuce are harvested and consumed? How many AVs are running around. Numbers and percentages my friend. Manipulate them properly if you want to have those conversations.

Saw a program on TV about a shop in CA retro fitting old vehicles w/ electric motors and batteries...VW vans seem to be a thing for him. Guess where he gets the motors and batteries? From wrecked Teslas of course. He's got a backlog of projects, and apparently an ample supply of parts, to keep him busy for at least the next 6 years he claims. At least they're good for something. So the Tesla experimentation on public roads is going well it would seem. Hope they're 'learning' a lot.

I propose we skip controlled crash testing of vehicles, and just roll them out on the public roads and again, give it the ole college try and see how things pan out as is being done w/ AVs.
 #49005  by KuroNekko
 Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:05 am
Ronzuki wrote: Still not getting it are you? What makes you, or anyone else (elon the arrogant) think I want to share the road, day in and day out, with someone's unproven science project? What makes you or anyone else think I want to pay for all of this BS, be in the car I purchase or the ridiculous taxes I have to pay for public works that will be greatly affected by thoughtless and typical government oversight (waste)?
I already pay the highest gas taxes in the country and the roads are deplorable, the traffic is deplorable and there's no relief in sight. Again, government that can't maintain the road systems we have in a manner that would provide the basis for autonomous vehicles to even operate?


Oh, I get it. You seem to have trouble that I don't agree with your assessments. After all, you have yet, after numerous repeated inquires, made an opinion about a comparison of automated driving to the dangers of human driving. It's odd given you just complained about sharing the road with automated "experiments" yet neglect that hundreds of people die each day in just this country alone sharing the road with drunks and distracted drivers. This is what I mean by your steadfast acceptance of the status quo when they present a far greater risk today than the current state and especially, the future, of automation.

Also, as I already pointed out, you did choose to pay for automated technology in your new Mazda. I know you have your legitimate reasons but in the end, you chose a model and trim with automated technology over one that didn't. That's all that matters to the bean counters over at Mazda (or any manufacturer) about implementing and standardizing automation technology in the future. You didn't want it but you bought it over a cheaper model without it. You actually had a choice. Automated technology will gain in popularity much for the same reason the manual transmission is dying out; their offering from the manufacturer simply reflects sales figures. Companies offer more of what sells and less or none of what doesn't. To be fair though, they do seem to package cars for pushing their intended goal.

Ronzuki wrote:I live, eat, and breath how uncooperative these modern whiz-bang 'systems' (very loose term) and technology behave in the industrial environments which they are supposedly designed to operate in. Environments that are far more controlled and predictable (in theory), as you've noted earlier, than public roadways. Again, what makes you, someone who has never engineered anything from a blank piece of paper and blank application development screen, think that anyone could possibly automate a car and have it function under all normal operating conditions, affordably? No, you first, please, enlighten me. For me to explain to you the processes' required, and the utilization of the experience of what works, what doesn't and what is simply not a good idea to pursue, just because you can, would take months of writing. I've worked with vision systems any many, many different sensing technologies to attempt to automate some not so very repetitive processes, and they are never as reliable as the customers mistakenly believed they should be. I've explained this all before elsewhere. Rarely do they remain online long enough to garnish a ROI and ultimately are abandoned. Hence, waste of time and money. Public roadways are an even worse 'not so very repetative process'. Understand it takes years before a 'new academic engineer' is knowledgeable enough for us to allow said engineer to electrically design and program something that is functional, safe, reliable, cost effective and can be commissioned to provide years of 24/7 service w/o causing downtime and loos of profits. Otherwise, we're out of business in the blink of an eye. We're not talking about an iphone or some kiddie toys here either.


That's a hilarious response given you first start off telling me you're the expert, then tell me I'm not, and then avoid my question, and then state that I should answer my own question. Why did you avoid my question? You even tried to flip it on me despite you're the "expert" on automation here. Honestly, answer my question. How would you test for automated driving technology other than running them on public roads?
While there is no doubt you have expertise and experience in automation, I submit that they are not all the same. That's true of any field. You don't see an endocrinologist for spinal surgery. They may both be MDs and experts in medicine but their field of practice and specialization is different. As you even put it yourself, automation for a controlled environment like an assembly line is very different than a public road. Yet you always put your limited scope of view on it. Let's say you don't work for your company and you work for Tesla, Uber, Waymo, or Cruise. How would you then develop automated driving technology without real world testing?

Ronzuki wrote:How many heads of Romaine lettuce are harvested and consumed? How many AVs are running around. Numbers and percentages my friend. Manipulate them properly if you want to have those conversations.


Yes, but it's still a fact that lettuce has killed more people than automated cars last year. If your concern is public safety, then where's the rage against lettuce? Automated cars have cumulatively ran hundreds of millions of miles and their fatality rates for all cars combined internationally are in the single digits. While it's hard to compare them statistically to human drivers due to limited data for a fair comparison, I think it's reasonable to say we should be more fearful of other human drivers than automated vehicles on the road. Automated vehicles will get better and better as they collect more and more data. They will also have less deviance from the standard in operation among them. The drunk or distracted driver doesn't really improve given their negligence and, oh, there are millions of them at any given time. But hey, that's normal so whatever, right!?

Ronzuki wrote:Saw a program on TV about a shop in CA retro fitting old vehicles w/ electric motors and batteries...VW vans seem to be a thing for him. Guess where he gets the motors and batteries? From wrecked Teslas of course. He's got a backlog of projects, and apparently an ample supply of parts, to keep him busy for at least the next 6 years he claims. At least they're good for something. So the Tesla experimentation on public roads is going well it would seem. Hope they're 'learning' a lot.


Which company? I recall reading about one that did VW conversions too but wanted to use their own motors and package them with a full restoration so the products were $85K. Ridiculous. I figure this guy has a better business model. I also wonder if his supply is a reflection of Tesla's strong sales recently in CA, decimating the sales of cars including the Prius and BMW 3 Series. Also, that's pure speculation that he gets wrecked Teslas as a result of failed automation, especially given the fact that not all Teslas have Autopilot. Your line of reasoning is akin to saying that there are more Toyota Camrys available for parts in junkyards so they must be less safe than Chevy Aveos when talking about a guy who restores Toyotas with junkyard parts.
 #49006  by Ronzuki
 Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:37 am
How would I test for automated driving technology other than running them on public roads?
Really? You need this answered? Seriously? I shouldn't be surprised. That's the type of mis-guided thinking that put the unguided weapons on to the public roads in the first place. I was attempting to not be insulting or condescending, but, ok....

It's fairly simple...drive the stupid car (and it is truly stupid) down a straight closed course (they exist) that is a well marked and lit, smooth paved road, in fair, dry weather... at night, with nothing else around and have a volunteer (preferably one of the so called automotive automation engineers responsible for these POS's) walk across its path, out of nowhere pushing a bike, just like the dead woman in Arizona did. Pass that test repeatedly, exhaustively, under those conditions and we can move on to throwing in some made-made foul weather and see where it goes from there. How's that for simple starters? On a closed non-public course...which, did I mention exist? And if it doesn't, then create it. Oh, and one other, minor, little, caveat - the bean counters and financiers of this little pipe-dream science project have ZERO say in the testing schedule and when it is deemed the frigging thing reliable enough, and safe enough, to 'go public'.

:facepalm: You, my friend, still, are truly missing the point here: refer to thread title please.

Unlike law, I don't 'practice' my profession. There are no experts in anything either btw, that's a falsity. There are merely people with vast amounts of experience and knowledge in any given discipline and people without. I've been very fortunate to never have been drug in to a court room to defend myself because I was an idiot and got someone killed through my designs, decisions or programming. Although, I have a colleague/friend who was drug into court for a severe injury self-inflicted by an idiot. (that's how we refer to those who defeat the safeties put in place to prevent Darwinism from running its course) The lawyers seemed quite intent on finding fault, specifically, with his safe guarding design. After much badgering, he provided a very simple, clear, now funny response that we utilize in safety reviews and design discussions to this day still. That's a whole other story.

So, designs are expected to not cause: fires, electrical explosions, arc flashes, property damage, equipment damage, injured people or dead people. I suffered through only one costly shut-down of a production line while making live controller code changes whist in production. As a result of my error, my company at that time was on the hook for the 20 grand in lost production and product for the mistake, per contract. Didn't make a dime on that one and as I recall we may have lost money. Not a bad track record. Could be better, could be worse. Am I an expert? Hell no. No such thing. Do I have the common sense to know what works, what's viable, what's dangerous and what's not? Hell yes. No dead or injured people is always the first priority, for obvious reasons.

The Arizona woman's death was a result of pure failure, on every level, and many people (politicos included) should have been put trial and thrown in jail as a result. I would gladly volunteer to be on the jury, but of course, they're simply going to hang the minimum wage "attendant".

Don't forget to add pot to your list of bad things the greedy politicians are legalizing for 'recreational' use to further add to your dangers on the road argument. You really think autonomous vehicles are going to save us from ourselves? Think again. Besides, no one can afford it least of all the people you keep citing as the real bad guys on the road.
 #49021  by Ronzuki
 Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:56 am
Novel idea...maybe, just maybe, this is the first approach to testing that should have been implemented prior to unleashing half-baked prototypes on public roads mowing down pedestrians aye? As I said, arrogant (and likely, greedy).

https://www.oann.com/virtual-pedestrian ... less-cars/

Does the article help shed light on your 'how to test' (not on public roads) misconception? Seems like common sense no? It certainly is to me and any number of industrial automation professionals I've discussed AVs with. Am I supposed to trust these automotive 'professionals' (and politicians), now testing in the proper fashion after the fact, with my well being and safety by their half-assed attempts at practicing automation? I think not. These companies and the politicians that allowed the testing on public roads have proven to be incompetent in that their actions and the predictable results indicate severe lack of common sense.
 #49034  by Ronzuki
 Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:36 am
It has been opined that air travel is safe and that AVs will simply follow that 'trend'. That may have been true... in the past. Oh the times they are a changin'. The following was submitted to me via email by one of many automation colleagues with whom I discuss the engineering behind these half thought out AVs running around. He has been flying his entire life and is a licensed fixed wing and rotary aircraft pilot himself. His comments are added after each reported and published statement below from the article referenced at the end....

Gee – talk about untested and unpublished specifications in aviation automation… Boeing is toast – and they drive the Dow Jones stock market.

The safety analysis:

Federal Aviation Administration managers pushed its engineers to delegate wide responsibility for assessing the safety of the 737 MAX to Boeing itself , and to speedily approve the resulting analysis. But safety engineers familiar with the documents shared details that show the analysis included crucial flaws. What could go wrong with that, you ask?

Boeing understated the power of the new flight control system, which was designed to swivel the horizontal tail (elevator) to push the nose of the plane down to avert a stall. When the planes later entered service, MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) was capable of moving the tail more than four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis document. Cool cover-up, dude. Documentation? We don’t need no stinkin’ documentation. We just change the design on the fly and don’t mention that part to anyone.

Failed to account for how the system could reset itself each time a pilot responded, thereby missing the potential impact of the system repeatedly pushing the airplane’s nose downward. Cool design, dude. Oops, I forgot about that ‘reset’ part – my bad. But, it worked in simulation. You’re forum buddy is probably correct – the only testing we need is on the road or actually in the air with living people. Check.

Assessed a failure of the system as one level below “catastrophic.” But even that “hazardous” danger level should have precluded activation of the system based on input from a single sensor — and yet that’s how it was designed. Cool untested design, dude. Sure, a single sensor – so much for redundancy. Single sensor that could never fail? Check – it was designed that way.

The people who spoke to The Seattle Times and shared details of the safety analysis all spoke on condition of anonymity to protect their jobs at the FAA and other aviation organizations. Protect their jobs? Seriously? Cool CMA, dudes.

Both Boeing and the FAA were informed of the specifics of this story and were asked for responses 11 days ago, before the second crash of a 737 MAX last Sunday. But, the memo must have been in Spanish.

350+ people dead? Check. Cool code, dude. So much for having faith in the taxpayer funded 'authorities' supposedly responsible for public safety.

Full article:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... air-crash/

Due to all of this wonderful aircraft automation, my colleague and several commercial pilots he personally knows from his Navy days long ago no longer fly commercial aircraft...both as pilots and/or passengers. Some for more than 10 years now. Why you ask? People in the know...for the very reasons cited in this article..."they're tired of the planes trying to kill them and their passengers". But you won't hear too much about that for the same reasons cited in the article above. Real pilots, who are experienced at actually piloting the machine, can't fly the planes because they're too heavily reliant on the technology. New pilots who don't have the actual piloting experience of a real manually controlled aircraft experience are simply along for the ride as everyone else is sitting behind them.

While we're at it, think about the following article (again, published by those in the know) next time you get on a plane, and to help you understand the article, MRO stands for Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul, MX stands for ‘maintenance’ and A&P stands for Airframe and Power plant (technician/mechanic).

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... h-shortage

Now, does anyone notice any similarities between today's automated aircraft business and where automated vehicles are headed?
 #49037  by Woodie
 Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:35 am
Ronzuki wrote:Now, does anyone notice any similarities between today's automated aircraft business and where automated vehicles are headed?


Absolutely.

I was reading an article about the 737 MAX and MCAS the other day and thinking about this thread. It's the exact same thing, automation gone wrong. All in the name of safety, but it doesn't always work and it makes the pilots lackadaisical.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15