在日前于日本東京舉行的年度智能運輸系統(tǒng)世界大會(ITS World Congress)上，幾乎所有的目光焦點都聚焦于自動駕駛車輛，來自全球各地的汽車制造商、政府主管機關(guān)、技術(shù)供貨商齊聚一堂，討論議題并未多著墨于花俏的自動駕駛車輛本身，而是包括人機接口、安全性、可靠性，社會對自動駕駛車輛的接受度，以及整體所需新法規(guī)的訂定等等。
0gfesmc
不過在一場題目為“自動駕駛車輛實現(xiàn)之道(Autonomous Vehicles -- the Path to Implementation)”的座談會上，與會專家巧妙地回避了一個很重要的議題：當(dāng)自動駕駛車輛遭遇了計算機程序無法處理的危險，該如何將控制權(quán)交回給駕駛?cè)耍?
這應(yīng)該是最近常關(guān)注EETimes網(wǎng)站一系列自動駕駛車輛報導(dǎo)的讀者們都很想知道的；在先前的一篇讀者留言(編按：EETimes美國版網(wǎng)站)中，一位讀者以飛機的自動駕駛與自動駕駛車輛來比較，分享了他擔(dān)任飛機駕駛員的兄弟的經(jīng)驗，寫道：
“飛機機師必須定期通過模擬機與教官的獨立駕駛測試，以不同臨場狀況做為訓(xùn)練，例如觀察他們在零失誤(no error )飛行中的注意力，在一段高壓力航程中的疲勞程度；或是觀察惡劣天候飛行、艱困降落情況下飛行員的反應(yīng)時間與控制精準(zhǔn)度。以上這些都必須被評估?！?
而像是 Google Car這樣的自動駕駛車輛將如何處理一些“例外狀況”，汽車廠商又預(yù)期駕駛?cè)藢⑷绾卧谝恍┨囟ㄇ闆r下收回方向盤控制權(quán)？EETime美國版有另外一位讀者的看法是：
“可 以確定的是，無論是汽車駕駛?cè)嘶蚴秋w機機師都需要準(zhǔn)備好應(yīng)付例外狀況，那些狀況可能是計算機系統(tǒng)永遠(yuǎn)無法處理的。若透過計算機操作是不方便的，對于駕駛車輛來 說就可能是致命危機──試想當(dāng)車輛在時速60英里 (約96公里)的行駛狀態(tài)，若計算機出現(xiàn)當(dāng)機，恐怕不太可能出現(xiàn)什么好結(jié)局?！?
本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載
第2頁：飛機自動駕駛跟自動駕駛車輛不能相比？
第3頁：車子看見前方物體，越過駕駛?cè)瞬壬奋嚕€是讓駕駛?cè)俗约壕駬瘢?/b>
相關(guān)閱讀：
• 蘋果預(yù)計明年將推出"車載iOS系統(tǒng)"
• Google Car總監(jiān)：別妄想100%有效的汽車安全技術(shù)！
• 汽車電子缺陷釀車禍？豐田在美惹官司0gfesmc
{pagination}
Google 的自動駕駛車輛安全技術(shù)總監(jiān)Ron Medford 在會后接受EETimes美國版編輯訪問時，針對自動駕駛車輛如何處理例外狀況的問題有些答非所問：“對于駕駛?cè)巳绾卧谄讨g接手自動駕駛車輛控制權(quán)的 問題，產(chǎn)業(yè)界還未深入了解?！彼赋?，目前有一些相關(guān)研究正在進行中，不只是Google等廠商，包括政府主管機關(guān)也很想知道研究結(jié)果。
飛機自動駕駛跟自動駕駛車輛不能相比？
Medford 原本是美國國家高速公路交通安全局(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration，NHTSA)的副局長，在今年初轉(zhuǎn)任Google；他先前曾任職于美國消費者產(chǎn)品安全委員會(Consumer Product Safety Commission)，2003年進入NHTSA，2009坐上該單位的第二把交椅。
對于自動駕駛車輛與駕駛?cè)藢囕v控制權(quán)交手的議題，Medford顯然曾經(jīng)思考過，但他僅小心翼翼地表示，Google期望在某一天，該公司的自動駕駛車輛技術(shù)足以先進到能做出與人類相同的判斷。但他也坦承，那將會是很遠(yuǎn)的未來。
面對同樣的疑問，汽車電子供應(yīng)大廠Continental Automotive日本分公司總裁暨首席執(zhí)行官Christoph Hagedorn的回答則是：“你怎么能將利用自動駕駛系統(tǒng)開飛機的機師，跟自動駕駛車輛駕駛?cè)水嬌系忍?？?
Hagedorn 目前也是Continental汽車底盤與安全系統(tǒng)(Chassis and Safety)部門董事會成員，該業(yè)務(wù)總部位于德國，是關(guān)鍵的汽車技術(shù)供貨商；他停頓了幾秒又表示：“也許你可以將兩種技術(shù)畫上等號──飛機的自動駕駛與 自動駕駛車輛的自動駕駛模式，但兩種交通工具的駕駛(飛行員與汽車駕駛?cè)?則不行。”
換句話說：“你不能預(yù)期汽車駕駛?cè)藶榱俗詣玉{駛車輛接受額外訓(xùn)練；”Hagedorn表示：“我認(rèn)為自動駕駛車輛的終極目標(biāo)是為駕駛?cè)颂峁孢m’?！比糇詣玉{駛車輛的駕駛?cè)吮灰蠼邮芴厥庥?xùn)練、并必須在方向盤后時時保持警覺，那就失去了其意義。
Hagedorn指出，德國的法令規(guī)定，汽車與駕駛?cè)丝刂茩?quán)的交接時間必須在10秒之內(nèi)，10秒也許是足夠的，但更實際的是打造出在特定狀況下──例如將駛離高速公路──能自動提醒車輛關(guān)閉自動駕駛模式的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。
本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載
第3頁：車子看見前方物體，越過駕駛?cè)瞬壬奋?，還是讓駕駛?cè)俗约壕駬瘢?/b>
相關(guān)閱讀：
• 蘋果預(yù)計明年將推出"車載iOS系統(tǒng)"
• Google Car總監(jiān)：別妄想100%有效的汽車安全技術(shù)！
• 汽車電子缺陷釀車禍？豐田在美惹官司0gfesmc
{pagination}
嵌入式視覺聯(lián)盟(Embedded Vision Alliance)的創(chuàng)始人Jeff Bier最近接受EETims美國版訪問時表示，光是一輛配備先進駕駛?cè)溯o助系統(tǒng)(ADAS)的汽車，行駛在一般道路上可能遭遇的挑戰(zhàn)就很多，更別說是自動駕駛車輛。
他在一年前從售后市場買了一套ADAS系統(tǒng)，在高速公路上行駛非常穩(wěn)，但一下高速公路，車子只要在不同的天候下遇到隨機物體──電線桿、行人、路標(biāo)──就會發(fā)出刺耳的誤判警報。ADAS就可能面臨無數(shù)種狀況需要處理，自動駕駛車輛所遭遇的狀況恐怕更復(fù)雜。
Continental的Hagedorn坦承，“故障安全(Fail safe)”這個名詞，對自動駕駛車輛的意義大于字面解釋。汽車制造商必須對系統(tǒng)重復(fù)進行測試，并且在公開道路上做廣泛的評估。
如日本汽車研究所智能運輸系統(tǒng)中心研究總監(jiān)Keiji Aoki所言，除非自動駕駛車輛的可靠性議題能獲得解決，其他非技術(shù)性議題都不會有結(jié)果；后者包括包括駕駛?cè)伺c自動化系統(tǒng)所負(fù)擔(dān)的責(zé)任，對自動駕駛車輛駕駛?cè)肆x務(wù)的定義，以及其他相關(guān)法令規(guī)章。
對 打算為車輛提供ADAS的汽車制造商來說，如何針對做出煞車、轉(zhuǎn)向決策的理想瞬間進行妥善設(shè)計，是一個典型的議題；這對自動駕駛車輛來說也是一大關(guān)鍵。舉例來說，當(dāng)一輛Volvo看見前方物體，是該主動越過駕駛?cè)瞬壬奋?，還是該讓駕駛?cè)俗约壕駬?？Hagedorn表示，這種精確的分工通常都是由車廠自己決 定。
到底什么是實現(xiàn)自動駕駛車輛的最大問題？Hagedorn指出，最艱困的挑戰(zhàn)會是讓該類車輛通過主管機關(guān)核準(zhǔn)：“不同的駕駛狀況可能有上百萬種，這需要花上幾年的時間進行驗證，該如何讓符合安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的車輛獲得批準(zhǔn)？產(chǎn)業(yè)界需要針對此議題做出因應(yīng)。”
最后，也許自動駕駛車輛的駕駛?cè)诉€是得好好思考一個重要問題：“要是你的車在路上發(fā)“神經(jīng)”，你準(zhǔn)備好要怎么處理了嗎？”
本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載
編譯：Judith Cheng
參考英文原文：Are You Ready When Your Google Car Freaks Out?，by Junko Yoshida
相關(guān)閱讀：
• 蘋果預(yù)計明年將推出"車載iOS系統(tǒng)"
• Google Car總監(jiān)：別妄想100%有效的汽車安全技術(shù)！
• 汽車電子缺陷釀車禍？豐田在美惹官司0gfesmc
{pagination}
Are You Ready When Your Google Car Freaks Out?
Junko Yoshida
TOKYO — All eyes have been fixed on the autonomous car at the ITS World Congress here this week. For carmakers, regulators, and technology suppliers who have gathered here from all over the world, the big concern is not so much the bells and whistles of self-driving cars, but more about deployment strategies for them.
Debates here covered everything from human-machine interface, safety, and reliability to societal acceptance and a whole new legal landscape.
One issue, however, was artfully dodged by panelists on a Tuesday, Oct. 15, executive session called "Autonomous Vehicles -- the Path to Implementation."
Put simply, how does a self-driving car, when faced with a crisis beyond its program, hand control back over to the (human) driver?
This issue is near and dear to the hearts of EE Times readers, as shown by the reader discussion at What’s Going Through This Driver’s Head? The debate was ignited when an EE Times reader compared a pilot flying a plane on autopilot and a driver in a self-driving car. Referencing his brother, a pilot for a major airline, the reader wrote:
Pilots must be tested in simulators and by instructors riding along periodically, make these scenarios part of that training. Give them a no error flight and watch the attention span. Give them a stressful flight and watch for fatigue. Give them a bad weather flight with a tough landing; watch the reaction times and the precision of control. All these factors must be evaluated.
At issue here is how well a self-driving car like Google Car can handle "exceptions" and how carmakers expect a driver to take over the control of the self-driving car in a critical situation. Another EE Times reader pointed out:
This confirms the idea that drivers and pilots need to be prepared to handle the exception situations, which are exactly the type of things that computer systems will never be able to handle. It is inconvenient when using a computer, it could be fatal driving a car. Picture that "blue screen" at 60MPH, and you can realize that there would not be any good possible ending available.
Asked by EE Times, after the ITS session, about how self-driving cars are designed to handle exceptions, Ron Medford, Google's director of safety for self-driving cars, deflected the question. He said, "Readiness of drivers to take over the control [of a self-driving car at the moment's notice] is simply not understood yet."
Citing a number of studies now underway, Medford explained that, not only companies like Google, but also a lot of government officials and regulators are all eager for the results.
Autopilot and the self-driving car: not the same thing?
Medford, former deputy director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, took a position at Google earlier this year. He held down the No. 2 spot at NHTSA since 2009, originally joining the organization in 2003 after a career at the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Medford, clearly, had thought about the issue. But he was careful in stating only that Google hopes for a day when Google's autonomous cars are advanced enough to take the human judgment out of the equation. But, as he acknowledged, that is still in far future.
Continental's Christoph Hagedorn with a microphone (left) and Google's Ron Medford at ITS executive session entitled "Autonomous Vehicles -- the Path to Implementation."
EE Times posed the same question to Christoph Hagedorn, president and CEO of Continental Automotive Corporation Japan: "Can you draw a parallel between a pilot flying an airplane on autopilot and a driver in a self-driving car?"
Hagedorn, who also serves as a Divisional Board Member, Chassis and Safety, at Continental, one of the key automotive technology suppliers based in Germany, paused a few seconds and responded: "I think you can draw a parallel on the technology -- airplane on autopilot and autonomous car in self-driving mode, but not on the driver" (airplane pilot vs. consumer driver).
In other words, "You can't expect drivers to do extra training for driving autonomous cars," Hagedorn said. "I think self-driving cars are ultimately about drivers achieving 'comfort.' "
Drivers being asked to take more driver education courses and stay alert all the time behind the wheel inside a self-driving car, in a way, defeats the whole purpose of autonomous cars.
Hagedorn noted that in Germany, rules require 10 seconds to hand over control from car to driver. A 10-second transition might seem adequate, but more realistic is the development of an infrastructure that automatically cautions and turns off the self-driving mode when a car is, say, getting off a highway, Hagedorn explained.
Driving a car with an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), let alone a self-driving car, on a regular surface road poses the greatest challenge. Jeff Bier, founder of the Embedded Vision Alliance, recently told EE Times that an after-market ADAS system he bought a year ago "runs rock solid on highways." But off the highway, his car sees random objects -- utility poles, pedestrians, and road signs -- under a variety of weather conditions and "tends to sound off shrill false alarms... There is just an infinite variety of conditions ADAS needs to deal with." With the self-driving car, more and worse complications are likely to crop up.
"Fail safe" is a loaded word for self-driving cars, acknowledged Continental's Hagedorn.
Carmakers must test their systems again and again, and do extensive evaluation on public roads. As Keiji Aoki, research director of the ITS Center at the Japan Automotive Research Institute, noted during the session that unless reliability issues are settled, other non-technical issues will not get resolved. Such thorny issues include the liability of the driver and automated systems, a definition of the human driver's obligations, and other regulatory worm-cans.
How best to design the ideal moment for braking and steering decisions are typical issues for carmakers applying ADAS to their cars. The question of how to define and where to set the point of brake and steer is also critical to autonomous cars.
Will a Volvo, seeing an object, override the driver and hit the brakes, or leave it up to driver's choice? Such refinement, said Hagedorn is "usually left up to a decision by individual carmakers."
During the session, asked about problems keeping autonomous cars out of the real world, Hagedorn said the toughest challenge is the approval of a vehicle. "When there are millions of different driving scenarios, which will take years of validation, how do you approve a vehicle that's safe to put on a road? The industry needs to plan for that."
But in the end, it is left up to an individual driver to ask himself the following question: "Will you be ready when your Google car freaks out on the road?"
責(zé)編：Quentin
