BMW Says Self-Driving Car To Be Level 5 Capable In Five Years (reuters.com) 149
German carmaker BMW is on track to deliver a self-driving car by 2021, the company's senior vice president for Autonomous Driving, Elmar Frickenstein, said on Thursday. From a report: "We are on the way to deliver a car in 2021 with level 3, 4 and 5," Frickenstein told a panel discussion in Berlin, explaining the vehicle will have different levels of autonomy, depending on how and where it is used. A level 5 vehicle is capable of navigating roads without any driver input, while a level 3 car still needs a steering wheel and a driver who can take over if the car encounters a problem.
Five years? (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW: WTF is Level 5?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm an old-timer, so I can understand not RTFA, but you didn't even RTFS?
Re: (Score:2)
Cannot be first post if you RTFA or even RTFS :)
Re: (Score:2)
He's applying for a job as /. editor.
Re: (Score:2)
Level 5, is do not ever say or write or even imply anything deragatory against NATO or CIA or NSA or else they'll level 5 you right off a cliff. Level 5 software warranty is really going to be interesting.
Obviously the cars wont be running M$ because "Microsoft excludes all implied warranties and conditions, including those of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement." and "Except for any repair, replacement, or refund Microsoft may provide, you may not recover under this lim
blinker too? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be cool is future BMW have blinkers, because all the ones I see on the road do not!
Even better (Score:3)
LUDICROUS SPEED!
Re: (Score:2)
If a 'brake check' bothers you, you are tailgating.
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn. (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's autonomous except when it isn't.
Wake me when we have a car that's full-time Level 5.
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Insightful)
If it can drive 80% or more of a 200 mile trip, I'm buying one. I can handle the edge cases myself for a few more years.
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's only valid if the 80% or more of the trip that it CAN handle are known ahead of time. If the 20% of cases that it can't handle are "surprise, there's a deer on the road ahead!" or "surprise, the guy in front of you slammed on his brakes!", then you still have to sit there 100% of the time ready to react.
you need 100% confidence that the care is fully capable of handling EVERYTHING that comes up for the next XYZ minutes/hours/miles/whatever to be able to really have a useful Level 5.
Personally I'd rather be driving the car than sitting there prepared to take over just in case something goes wrong. Until I'm not needed at all for driving, I'll keep the control thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
At least far enough ahead of time to give you take a few minutes to wake up and figure out what's going on before you have to take control.
I mean I'm totally fine with "hey, there's snow/mudslides/migrating crabs covering the road, and I'm not sure what to do, so I'll pull over while I wake you up to decide what to do."
For the faulty, over-hyped present though there's far too much "I'm confused. Catch!" going on. Or worse, "I misunderstood what I thought I saw, goodbye." I'll keep control myself, thanks.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed on all points. +1 if I could.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reacting to stuff in the road in front of you like your 2 examples is the easy stuff where automation is already better than you are.
Re: (Score:2)
It's better except when it isn't, and when it isn't it's a lot worse.
I saw something on TV the other day - self driving car totally failed to notice a roadsweeping van with a huge fluorescent sign on the back doing 15mph in the fast lane of a motorway. Carbon unit took over just in time. Now it probably shouldn't have been there...
Re: (Score:3)
The automated car doesn't have to be better than humans for every single case. It just has to statistically have less collisions and less fatalities than when the cars are people are driving.
Re: (Score:1)
That would be the rational view. Humans are not rational. Autonomous cars will have to be much safer to be accepted by the public.
If a human driver runs over a child, the driver will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. That is acceptable to society.
If an autonomous vehicle kills a child, there is no-one who can charged with a criminal act. The public outcry will be enormous. The car manufacturer can only make it worse by telling the public that "statistically, our cars kill less children than human dr
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pilots train long and hard for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Flying is hours of boredom punctuated by seconds of pure terror.
OK, but this post is about driving not flying.
And nobody gets to fly a plane (with or without autopilot) without extensive training.
This is not the case with a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is even if you are paying attention to what's going on, by the time you realize "oh shit, it doesn't see that stalled car in my lane!!!" it may be too late. If I have to pay attention and constantly second-guess what the AI is doing, I'd rather just drive the car myself, possibly with an AI backup that can react if I fail to notice something.
Re: (Score:2)
'Edge case' will be anything except divided highways in clear weather.
Re: (Score:2)
If it can drive 80% or more of a 200 mile trip, I'm buying one. I can handle the edge cases myself for a few more years.
That's reasonable if it's 10 miles city driving, 80 miles on a clear highway and 10 miles of city driving at the end. And as long as absolutely nothing unexpected happens on the highway.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Informative)
So it's autonomous except when it isn't. Wake me when we have a car that's full-time Level 5.
Level 3: Within known, limited environments (such as freeways), the driver can safely turn their attention away from driving tasks, but must still be prepared to take control when needed.
When a level 3 car is driving, you're not. You will not be required to jump in and intercept or overrule the car. But it will be normal for the car to say "Your exit is coming up, please take over" or "The road markings are too unclear, please take over" or "There's road construction ahead, please take over" or "There's emergency services with sirens nearby, please take over" and so on and if you don't it'll pull over and refuse to drive. Unless you want clogged roads with pulled over SDCs, the driver has to be ready to take control within a reasonably short time. This is basically "I'll handle the best conditions", level 4 is "I'll handle all normal conditions" and level 5 "I'll handle all conditions". But they're all genuinely self-driving within those confines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. A lot of drivers are already at their phone, ready to take over if they spot something in their peripheral vision and they don't even have an autonomous driver in their car.
A level 3 car should be able to handle any panic situation that requires immediate braking or steering but it might not be able to drive legally in a construction zone or even roads that haven't been mapped up yet.
The time to hand over to a manual driver isn't shorter than the time a phone rings until you answer.
But all this
Doubtful (Score:3)
Level 5 takes full autonomy to "all driving modes." That means the car is fully capable of driving itself anywhere in any condition, from a snowy, moonlit road to an unmapped desert. It should be noted that, at this point, Level 5 is theoretical. One Audi representative went so far as to describe it as "mythical." It's unlikely we'll see Level 5 autonomous driving in our lifetimes.
http://mashable.com/2016/08/26... [mashable.com]
Level 4 is definitely obtainable though.
Re: (Score:1)
By that reasoning, humans can't handle level five either. How much less deadly does the new system have to be than the current system before delaying the change any further is tantamount to murder?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Healthcare works the same way by the way
That is a faulty comparison. There is no negligence involved when someone gets cancer. In a car accident, there is negligence, which may now be a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but as a human there are some roads I just won't drive on, or some conditions I where won't go out in. But if people do go out in those conditions (and aren't viewed as completely nuts), then the AI will have to handle them if you take away the controls.
Re: (Score:2)
Fatalities are on the order of one every 100,000,000 vehicle miles
I'm nowhere near even 1,000,000 miles so I should be safe for the rest of my life then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because your computer is 10000x faster than it was 10 years ago doesn't mean it will be 10000x faster 10 years from now.
I'd still bet on speed increases similar to past decades continuing for another.
Memory latencies alone could be increased by close to several orders of magnitude, and honestly that doesnt even require new technology... just current technology becoming cheaper and then applied to memory, which is inevitable.
Would like to see what different levels mean (Score:2)
TFA is rather skimpy on details.
I presume that Level 5 is possible on clear roads, no precipitation and minimal biologic (humans and animals) interference. Say interstates and major thoroughfares.
Level 4 would be city streets with a good opportunity for unexpected events where the driver has to take over following the event (ie an accident in front of the vehicle which necessitates high level decision (ie find alternate route, wait for road to clear, pull out shotgun to keep looters/zombies away).
Level 3 w
Re:Would like to see what different levels mean (Score:4, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you in a more original way (to get past the /. grammar police robots).
Re: (Score:1)
Arkham posted the SAE standard for the levels.
https://mashable.app.box.com/s... [box.com]
My understanding is that it's not valid to say "it can do level 5 in some conditions". Level 5 means no human interaction (think no steering wheel) under all situations that a human driver can currently handle.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
CIA etc might kill you... (Score:2)
I'm an advocate for:
* Electric
* Autonomous
* Shared (ie I don't own it)
vehicles. I like the potential for:
* Quiet roads /. :)
* Efficient travel (I'm a lead-foot)
* No fumes
* Shared rides even
* Time to browse
* TXT/IM/phone & drive legally
* Clear the parked cars of the streets (more lanes, even more efficient)
* Garage & driveway space freed up
I'm just a little worried about people tampering with the smarts and picking you off. I know of two incidents where people who were about to "talk" within days /
Re: (Score:2)
Here (Score:2)
Not likely (Score:2)
Just took a long trip using Waze/in car nav. In Nashville, Waze had no idea how to get to a starbucks I had programmed in. I found a parking lot, searched for starbucks near me, and it found one, in Atlanta! Overall both Waze and in car did a good job, missing probably 20% of the time. But 20% is completely unacceptable if they were steering. I had snow in DC area, which I am skeptical self-drive works acceptably. Numerous construction areas, again problematic. I got a feeling self drive is going to be like
Missing the point of Level 5 (Score:4, Insightful)
Weight and Cost (Score:1)
Weather (Score:3)
A self-driving BMW? (Score:2)
Hopefully it won't drive like a BMW driver.
Re:No one can afford german, not my generation (Score:4, Insightful)
So you can't afford a $17k VW Jetta, but you're confident that the $30k Tesla 3 will replace it in the market?
Are you Joe the Plumber?
Re: (Score:2)
Back in 2013, Google said their SDCs would be available in 3 years, which means that they were ready LAST YEAR. So BMW is way behind.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
wait, what lane do you want me to go in?
Randomly picks a lane, wait for yelling to commence if I guess wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my thought too. There's just way too many corner cases and unforeseen circumstances out there. We may eventually get there, but I'm guessing we'll be stuck at level 3 for quite a while, with vehicles that can really only be autonomous in limited, well-defined situations. Even with your ferry loading situation, even if an AI was capable of understanding what it needed to do, it may just be quicker and easier for a human to take control and just do it rather than having to figure out how to tell the
Re: (Score:1)
Even if the car never gets into an accident when driving autonomously, there will still be situations where the vehicle simply wont go when or where it should.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect you will see a pretty big shift in what makes a car desirable when self driving cars become the norm, its hard to say if ownership will even be as common as it is now, it seems unlikely that kids who grow up in a family that has a self driving car will ever learn to drive.
I suspect that more and more, in car entertainment, comfort, ride smoothness and fuel economy/range will be the primary things used to market cars in the future and not the ultimateness of the driving machine.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: So what? (Score:1)
OK, you excelled at the Luddite test. Well done.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because in Europe, all cars are manual and driver tests are much harder so there are only 25% of people driving.
No, people just learn how to drive. Sure, they are more skilled drivers than the average US driver, but they're also more prone to driving like crazy. Incompetent drivers have more frequent, but less serious accidents. See also men versus women statistics. (because yeah, like it or not, men tend to be more skilled in average compared to women when it comes to driving but also more dangerous)
Re: (Score:3)
As a counter example I put up my German Aunt. Took her more than two years and five figures to get her license, but she still can't drive for shit. She will stop in the middle of an intersection to argue about the route with her passenger.
John Taylor Gatto on "The Art of Driving" (Score:2)
http://schoolsucksproject.com/... [schoolsucksproject.com]
"Now come back to the present while I demonstrate that the identical trust placed in ordinary people two hundred years ago still survives where it suits managers of our economy to allow it. Consider the art of driving, which I learned at the age of eleven. Without everybody behind the wheel, our sort of economy would be impossible, so everybody is there, IQ notwithstanding. With less than thirty hours of combined training and experience, a hundred million people are allowed
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is needing to drive in the first place.
In places with good public transportation (e.g., Europe), you don't need to drive - you can get around pretty damn effectively with just public transportation. Hell, you can even get between cities taking the trains and planes and never needing to step in a car.
Problem is, then you go to places like North America, where the vast majority of cities are car-only. Walking only gets you from one big box store to another (assuming you can cross that 10 lane highway in-between them), and public transit is non-existent. There you less WANT to drive but instead NEED to drive.
Driving's a chore. It's something most drivers in North America don't want to do (as evidenced by their attention being held elsewhere, typically on small handheld devices). What needs to be done is eliminating the need to drive, so those who drive are those that want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Americans seem to think that. True if you are in a big city like Berlin or Paris... Anything else... not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
> In places with good public transportation (e.g., Europe)
What? Have you ever been to Europe? I live there, probably in one of the places with the best public transport and it's STILL a disaster. Sure, I can get to work with public transport but it'll take me 3 times as long and I'll be stuck in a cramped space with people I don't want to be stuck with.
I'll just take the car, thank you, like most people around here who can afford one.
Re: (Score:3)
Better yet, if we can get your sorry ass off the road and replace you with a self-driving vehicle, we won't have to pay your salary and all the shit you peddle will be cheaper. You'll be fine because you've saved your money and have a comfy retirement, so we all win. Or you'll die penniless having spent your money and had your job eliminated due to automation, in which case we win. Either way, it's a win for most of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Much better than the Italians.
Hot Rod magazine has been mocking Ferrari for decades now (e.g. proving the Pontiac GTO was faster than the Ferrari GTO, around Monza. etc etc). They fixed the Enzo that what's his name (comic) 'totaled' and reported on the costs.
Price of a red anodized aluminum washer used to retain the headlight on an Enzo? $5000. They have created a new definition for Chutzpah.
Re: Yeah, no... (Score:1)
Jeeesuuuzzzz,
Totally BS. Tests have already shown a level 3 (.5) vehicle outperformed a human every time in snow and ice
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen far too many idiots behind the wheel that are even worse than the current error-prone "autonomous" systems. They're a low bar to clear, but they're allowed on the road, so that's the reality to measure against. And autonomous systems are improving rapidly, I would not be at all surprised in with another 5-10 years they're significantly safer than even the average driver. Probably not in "weird" scenarios, but weird scenarios are by their nature uncommon.
If an autonomous car can avoid 95% of nor
Re: (Score:2)
the single biggest thing that could be done to improve autonomous vehicle safety would be to get better at detecting impending weirdness
The problem is that, even assuming your AI was able to realise something weird was coming up, most drivers don't have the reflexes of a fighter pilot or F1 driver, so being given a split second warning to get your hands on the controls and do something won't be enough.
Most accidents happen very quickly indeed.
The scenario of "there is a massive snowstorm coming up in five minutes time, please take manual control" is totally different.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be clear - by "weirdness" I'm not talking about an imminent accident. Collision avoidance is a comparatively simple thing, at least in theory, and autonomous cars are mostly *really* good at it, far better than a human. Except when they misunderstand what they're seeing.
What I'm discussing is that last part - and it covers pretty much all the autonomous vehicle accidents we've seen so far - not noticing there was a semi crossing the road, driving into lane-squeezing road work barriers at high speed
Re: (Score:2)
Except you don't need to figure out consciousness to make autonomous cars safer than humans - you just have to program them to deal with a sufficiently large amount of the more common weirdness it might encounter.
Option A: You're a passenger in a car with an average human driver, who can probably figure their way through pretty much any weirdness they encounter, but through carelessness or distraction will sometimes get in accidents even in normal circumstances - odds of death, currently about 10 per billi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But that's not relevant to the question.
The question is: Will such accidents, regardless of cause, be more common with an autonomous car than with your average idiot driver at the wheel?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And why would it need to be "definitively proven a human would have made the same mistake in the same circumstance", when with a human driver it is not necessary to definitively prove that a *different* human would have made the same mistake. And even if it is decided to be a tragic unavoidable accident, odds are your insurance will still have to pay out, you just won't end up going to prison for it.
And as far as financial liability is concerned, Tesla and many others have already indicated they expect to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that would be a problem - but it's a problem already being addressed by the manufactures themselves saying that full liability should fall on them. A completely reasonable position, since any avoidable autonomous accident clearly reflects a product defect.
If the eventual reality fails to reflect that, then yes, we'll have a problem. But I suspect they have a major vested interest in making sure it does - they want to sell expensive new autonomous cars, and customers are going to be a lot more conf
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>There will be several deaths due to various situations possibly warranting settlements into the billions.
Well, I have no doubt people will *try* for that, but I see no reason why courts would be any more inclined to award such a penalty than they would with a human driver at the wheel.
Now, if there's systematic flaws warranting a class-action lawsuit - maybe. But so long as the manufacturers can point to a track record proving that their vehicles are substantially safer than those with a human driver,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't have to, that falls under "I have no doubt people will *try*"
The question is whether they can convince a judge and jury to inflict such an outrageous penalty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it really isn't. You're arguing that anything short of perfection should invoke penalties, by which standard no business could ever afford to produce *anything*. So long as my kid is provably safer in an autonomous vehicle than with me at the wheel, and there's no actual attempt to cover up known flaws rather than trying to improve them, I have no case.
Also, your invocation of the McDonalds hot coffee suit is way off base - look it up, it's nothing like you probably imagine - that's the result of a m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
full liability
When death is involved, it goes beyond liability [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I see no reason why...
You sound very young and inexperienced in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
>They don't make front end loaders that can explode and kill the driver
Of course they do. They do their best to make it not happen, but just the wrong combination of bad luck, poor maintenance, etc and it can still happen.
Re: Not a chance in hell I'd ride in one of those (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there are no nominal conditions while driving, unlike flying an aircraft, rocket or spacecraft. Nothing is going to be in your way to steer around, your path was charted down to the last meter months in advance, every move that you could possibly make was built into the design years in advance. Automobiles operate under an almost entirely differ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a poor example because not a lot of effort has gone into creating a device to sort and fold laundry. Dump a hundred million dollars into the problem and it will likely be solved in not to long of time.
I'm pretty sure there was an article here a few months ago about a laundry folding machine. It was very slow, extremely expensive and had already killed two users (joking).
Re: (Score:2)
Protip: if you won't ride in one, don't walk (Score:2)
If you don't trust an AI while seated in an energy absorbing cage with 3 point restraints and inflatable body protection, you sure as shit shouldn't trust that same AI when you're walking around with nothing to protect you from it at all.
Personally, I'll take an AI over someone driving a 6000lb vehicle while talking on the phone and/or texting and/or posting to Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat any day.
Re: (Score:2)
I own a 6000lb vehicle. It's a 1960. Not many survived as they were very popular demolition derby cars until they were banned (they were tanks).
6000lbs is an F-350.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the level where the car can take me home, legally and safely, when I'm drunk, and then go find itself a parking spot?
That's called the cold fusion level.