[SystemSafety] How Many Miles of Driving Would It Take to Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle Reliability?

[Les Chambers]

... more on Tesla. These videos are self explanatory. 
http://bgr.com/2015/10/22/tesla-autpilot-failure-viral-videos/

-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety
[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of
Les Chambers
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 9:58 AM
To: 'Peter Bernard Ladkin'; systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] How Many Miles of Driving Would It Take to
Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle Reliability?

... And furthermore 

I like to point out an immutable fact that, if an item of equipment depends
on software to deliver safety functions, changing one line of code negates
any previous claim of safety integrity proven in use. 
The Tesla model S can receive upgrades in your garage overnight. You wake up
in the morning and hay presto, a new cool feature is available. From the
Tesla site:
"Model S regularly receives over-the-air software updates that add new
features and functionality. When an update is available, you'll be notified
on the center display with an option to install immediately, or schedule the
installation for a later time. The average software update takes 45 minutes
to complete. Connect your Model S to your home's Wi-Fi network for the
fastest possible download time."

How cool is that? The latest cool is delivered in upgrade 7.1. It's worth
quoting from Tesla's website:
"Last Fall, Tesla Version 7.0 software introduced a range of new Autopilot
active safety and convenience features to give you more confidence behind
the wheel, increase your safety on the road, and make highway driving more
enjoyable. The release of Tesla Version 7.1 software continues our
improvements to self-driving technology. This release expands Autopilot
functionality and introduces the first iteration of Summon ..."

In Tesla's case, from a safety perspective, every time you receive an
upgrade you have a new vehicle that has not been driven an inch and whose
safety integrity cannot be claimed through a proven in use argument.

Any claim of proven in use is therefore transparently fraudulent. Any claim
that your safety has been enhanced is highly questionable because it has not
been validated in use. I'm not generally in favour of the Nanny State but I
do believe we should actively oppose and legislate against such grossness,
the claim I mean, not the vehicle.

In general I'm stoic about this development. It reminds me of my time
working on strike jets. The best story I can offer is actually from the book
Bogies and Bandits. This is the story of a US Navy training Squadron
teaching new recruits to fly the FA 18 - ultimately from an aircraft
carrier. The guy at the top of the class took off one day and noticed
anomalous behaviour during take off. He radioed the tower and the technical
people advised him to take it up to 20,000 feet and hit the reset button,
which he did. The anomaly went away. No amount of testing or investigation
could reproduce or uncover the cause of the behaviour. They put it down to
experience and moved on. 
There was another guy on the team who had a wife beside herself in fear that
her husband would be killed. After all, this is the most dangerous job in
the world. Near the end of the training the Squadron had a family day where
families were invited to come to the airbase to watch their husbands and
fathers do their stuff. This lady parked her car and was walking across the
car park as the pre-anomalous jet was coming into land. The anomaly
re-manifested. The aircraft inverted and crashed into the ground literally
in front of her killing the pilot.  She survived. Then a strange thing
happened. She was transformed by this experience and ceased to fear her
husband's demise. Psychologists knock themselves out analysing this, my
simple theory is that she had a very strong dose of "what is". That is, a
realisation, an insight into the true nature of a situation that lies before
you. It is often associated not with facts but with conflicting truths.
Something we engineers find difficult to deal with. Yes, flying aircraft off
a carrier is a dangerous job but also she loved this man and could not leave
him. There was no solution but to endure, now at least she understood the
problem and could live with it.
Elon Musk hails from the "cool" school of silicon valley. If cool is the
dark side of his nature and safety integrity the light, one can only wonder
at the struggle that must go on. This gives rise to 2 conflicting truths:
1. Tesla will probably continue to provide world beating functionality in
the driving experience.
2. The public, knowingly or unknowingly will accept a higher risk of
dangerous vehicle failure to experience it.

I should point out though that the wonderfully brave fast movers driving the
strike jets have signed up to risk their lives for their country. You have
to ask yourself, in buying a Tesla am I signing up to risk my life for a
dump from one of Musk's black boxes?  (alas poor PBL ... we knew him)
Personally I'm okay with this at least PBL would have died choking on his
own "cool" blood. 

This is the "what is" of new motor vehicle industry. So suck it up.

Cheers
Les

-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety
[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of
Peter Bernard Ladkin
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:43 AM
To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] How Many Miles of Driving Would It Take to
Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle Reliability?



On 2016-04-18 17:34 , Derek M Jones wrote:
> This philosophical stuff is all very interesting.  But...

Philosophy, my hat!

Consider: you are an ambulance-chasing lawyer, and Joe Blow has been killed
by an autonomous road vehicle which implemented the above algorithm
according to the regulations (which are law).
Everyone's going after everyone else in court. You're so good that they've
all asked for you to represent them, the Government (the regulator), Joe
Blow's family, the car manufacturer, the insurance companies representing
all those, and probably more.

Who do you pick as client and why?

PBL

Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld,
33594 Bielefeld, Germany Je suis Charlie
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de







_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE