[SystemSafety] a public beta phase ???

[Thomas Netter]

Les:

This is more or less what's called a FLARM. It's used on gliders all 
over the world and on trucks operating in many mines, including in 
Australia.
http://flarm.com/
http://www.aeroshop.eu/en/butterfly-powerflarm-portable.html

Best,

-Thomas


On 2016-07-21 01:44, Les Chambers wrote:
> Ok, so I've posted my brilliant idea (below) on a Tesla Forum for the 
> Model
> S.
> See: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/forums/model-s.73/
> search the page for: Saving Joshua Brown
> 
> It got 4 views in the first 10 seconds after posting. Let's see how 
> much
> interest it generates.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: systemsafety
> [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf 
> Of
> Les Chambers
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 9:01 AM
> To: 'Andreoli, Kevin (UK)'; systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] a public beta phase ???
> 
> Kevin
> Let's workshop this problem.
> There is a fantastic product opportunity here. I wouldn't be surprised 
> if
> someone has either already done it or has it in the works. It would be 
> a
> natural extension to the product line of tom-tom or Garman or Apple or
> Samsung. That is: a simple device that you throw into your glovebox 
> pretty
> much like a mobile phone that calculates your vehicle's current GPS
> coordinates, speed and heading and transmits it on a wireless net to 
> the
> surrounding vehicles. A simple calculation would then be able to 
> predict a
> collision. The cheap model would just sound an alarm. The more 
> expensive
> model would be integrated into the vehicles braking system. This would 
> have
> saved the life of Joshua Brown. If that truck was carrying such a 
> device
> even if it wasn't connected to the truck's brakes the Tesla vehicle 
> would
> have been able to "see" that truck and apply its brakes. So this is the
> answer to your question. If this warning device cost less than 100 
> dollars
> it would be an affordable and really cool thing to have in your car to 
> make
> sure all these driverless vehicles avoided you. You could even throw in 
> a
> chat function (supported by a cell phone app) so the kids in the back 
> seat
> could talk to the kids in the surrounding cars. The mind boggles at the
> possibilities. You could even have an IFF-like squawk transmitting your
> philosophy of life: "MGB fast mover - death or glory - outa-my-way I 
> waste
> nerds" ... This would immediately cause your Tesla control system two 
> double
> the following distance.
> 
> I just bought some Netgear to extend my wireless net. It extends the 
> two and
> five gigahertz bands, has four ethernet LAN ports and one USB 3.0 port. 
> It
> cost AUD124.00. Most insurance companies would probably be overjoyed to
> discount you this much on your car insurance policy if your vehicle 
> carries
> one of these devices. Alternatively Elon Musk should manufacture 
> something
> like this and give it away. That would silence all his critics 
> including me.
> Does anyone on this list know him? How can we patch this idea through?
> 
> It may even be possible to integrate such a function into a mass-market
> cellphone as an extension of the Wi-Fi hotspot/Bluetooth functionality.
> Though I suspect wireless net range may be a problem.
> 
> Oh and this reminds me ... someone mentioned that this AI stuff is all 
> new
> and we don't know what to do. Not so. Back in the seventies I was 
> working on
> systems fitted with what we called "abort programming". The modern tech
> speech is "the kill switch"
> (
> the thing Elon Musk wants to invent for out-of-control AI - remember 
> the
> famous line from 2001 a Space Odyssey?
> Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
> HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
> )
> 
> Well, the standard solution is: as a completely separate exercise, you 
> task
> a team to figure out unsafe states of the object under control and 
> develop a
> simple device that can disable ("kill") the complex automation system 
> if it
> starts doing dangerous things. The key is that this device must be 
> simple
> and therefore less prone to failure. This is a proven architectural 
> solution
> so we DO know what to do. In fact the device I have described above 
> could
> perform this function. It would also use diverse technology which is 
> another
> very well established solution.
> 
> I could see the bumper stickers now, "Relax. My car is 
> kill-switch-safe"
> 
> There is also a role for government here. Government could legislate to 
> make
> carrying a kill switch compulsory.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> Les
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: systemsafety
> [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf 
> Of
> Andreoli, Kevin (UK)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 6:07 PM
> To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] a public beta phase ???
> 
> I have been engrossed in this discussion but it seems to me that one 
> point
> has yet to be discussed.  It came to me again this morning on the drive 
> to
> work.  An MGB GT from the 70's pulled in front of me just before we 
> joined a
> queue of traffic at some traffic lights.   I noticed that he left twice 
> as
> much room between himself and the car in front than anyone else in the 
> queue
> and I realised that this was probably due to the specification of his
> brakes.  MGB GTs did not have ABS.  (Earlier models did not have servo
> assist!)
> 
> I recall when ABS was being introduced there was much discussion on the
> likelihood of an increase in accidents due to the new cars with ABS 
> being
> able to stop quicker than older cars.
> ("Like the moment when the brakes lock
>  And you slide towards the big truck"  - Pink Floyd)
> 
> With the introduction of self-braking, self-steering, self-... vehicles 
> and
> their much quicker reactions than the human behind the wheel of older
> vehicles, are we likely to see an increase in accidents between the new 
> and
> the conventional?  Obviously the unit cost of all the automation will 
> reduce
> as more and more of the models available have the driver assist 
> functions,
> but, whilst governments can legislate to force introduction of such 
> systems,
> older vehicles will continue to be on the roads for long after such
> legislation takes effect.   (I doubt the MGB GT driver will wish to 
> scrap it
> anytime soon - it will be worth much more now than when it was new)
> 
> There is also the situation that the older vehicles on the road tend to 
> be
> driven by the younger and more impetuous drivers.
> 
> Don't we live in interesting times!
> 
> Kevin
> --
> Usual disclaimer
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: systemsafety
> [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf 
> Of
> Peter Bernard Ladkin
> Sent: 19 July 2016 07:18
> To: Les Chambers; 'Mike Ellims'; 
> systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] a public beta phase ???
> 
> On 2016-07-19 04:50 , Les Chambers wrote:
>> ... That's what this journalist has done.
> 
> John Naughton is primarily a systems engineer and academic. I sent him 
> the
> link to the List archives.
> 
>> He says it's okay 33,000 people are killed every year.
> 
> I read the following
> 
> [begin quote]
>  Even a decade means a further 330,000 avoidable deaths in the US and
> corresponding numbers in other countries. ..... do not the potential
> benefits [of road-vehicle automation, RVA] outweigh the costs of the 
> current
> carnage on our roads?
> [end quote]
> 
> as saying, very clearly, that he's not OK with those figures. I wonder 
> how
> you can have missed that?
> 
> What I am missing from your notes, Les, is any suggestion of criteria 
> which
> would make RVA of various sorts acceptable for you. I take it that some 
> RVA
> is acceptable, because I don't (yet) see you arguing against ABS or 
> ESP.
> 
> And there is a lot of RVA around. Phil made the point that 
> sophisticated RVA
> is now routinely available in road vehicles of all sorts, not just 
> Tesla
> cars.
> 
> Martyn and Michael have made the point that there are sophisticated 
> moral
> questions of agency involved in some RVA features. Some of them are 
> already
> known and have been well discussed for half a century, in the branch of
> moral philosophy known as trolleyology. There are other features such 
> as ABS
> which apparently don't worry us (I have seen no discussion here 
> expressing
> reservations about the value of a correctly-functioning ABS). I think 
> it's
> time to say what is worrisome and what not.
> Here's a classification which might help.
> 
> [begin classification]
> 
> 1. There is the question as to whether the kit does what the 
> manufacturer
> wants it to do. Think Toyota unintended acceleration, the "kitchen 
> sink"
> task and Michael Barr's demonstration via fault injection that the task
> doesn't always do what Toyota claimed.
> 
> 2. There is the question whether what the manufacturer wants the kit to 
> do
> is appropriate. ABS is apparently OK. ESP is apparently also OK. 
> Automated
> full control with driver supervisory control is apparently not.
> 
> 2a. There has been a criterion around for some time in RVA that
> driver-assistance is OK, but automated driving is not. So, cruise 
> control
> whereby the vehicle maintains a set speed is OK.
> Systems to recover traction in a wheel which has lost it during braking 
> or
> cornering are OK.
> 
> 2b. Then there are functions which interpret driver intent to some 
> extent.
> ESP helps with some kinds of manoeuvres in which it is presumed general
> driver intent is clear, but it does perform uncommanded actions in the
> vehicle control chain (braking a wheel where no brake command has been
> issued by the driver).
> 
> 2c. Then there are functions which perform uncommanded actions for 
> which no
> driver intent has been indicated. Such as systems which maintain 
> separation
> from other vehicles, in particular which will apply brakes when 
> separation
> to the same-direction preceding vehicle reduces quickly, even when the
> driver has indicated no intent to brake. Or, systems which maintain the
> vehicle within a specific lane on a highway; which will steer to hold 
> the
> lane even when the driver has not indicated a steering action.
> 
> 2d. Then there are more sophisticated functions, all the way to 
> automated
> driving, such as exhibited by Google self-driving cars at low speed, 
> and
> Tesla cars at higher speeds.
> 
> [end classification]
> 
> The notion of "driver intent" is malleable. The Ford Max-S presumably
> interprets "driver intent" as wishing to stay within the posted speed
> limits. A driver driving such a vehicle could well put pedal to the 
> metal at
> a traffic light in town in a 30kph zone and should not thereby register 
> an
> intent to accelerate to 160kph, although in other vehicles that would 
> be an
> appropriate interpretation of the action. Similarly, a failure to 
> command
> braking when traffic ahead slows down should not necessarily be 
> interpreted
> as a desire to perpetrate an auffahr accident; and, even were a driver 
> to
> have such intent, there are very good general grounds for inhibiting 
> its
> execution (the health of the people in front, for example).
> 
> Some functions are more important for road safety than others. There 
> are a
> couple of fatal or near-fatal accidents per week on the A2 motorway as 
> it
> passes by Bielefeld (on the way from Rotterdam to Moscow). A 
> significant
> proportion of these are caused when truck drivers fail to slow when 
> traffic
> in the lane ahead slows or stops, and ram the end of the line (an 
> auffahr
> accident). An automatic same-lane separation-maintenance function 
> installed
> on all trucks travelling on German motorways, even if not perfectly
> implemented, would avoid most of these accidents. There is talk of 
> mandating
> it for trucks, in a similar manner to which truck performance recorders 
> and
> toll-registration devices are mandated. I think the argument for it is 
> good.
> 
> Let me mention again some experiences bicycling in Bielefeld.
> 
> In over 60 years of cycling I have had four collisions with cars. All 
> have
> been in Bielefeld; all have been when I have been on a marked cycle 
> path or
> lane and cars have violated that lane.
> 
> We drive on the right. On one occasion this year, I was almost killed 
> by a
> driver overtaking me on the left as I was performing a left turn (he
> subsequently went around the wrong side of a traffic island). Last 
> Saturday,
> in town in a 30kph zone, I signalled and manoeuvred to perform a left 
> turn
> while travelling at 28-30 kph, and the following car tried to overtake 
> me on
> the left (and then decided not to).
> 
> All six of these dangerous manoeuvres would have been inhibited by 
> simple
> lane-following functions, and the last two also by speed-inhibiting
> functions.
> 
> According to the police, a significant proportion of serious road 
> accidents
> involve violation of posted speed limits. There is a prima facie safety 
> case
> for such a function to be mandated on all vehicles.
> 
> PBL
> 
> Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany MoreInCommon Je suis 
> Charlie
> Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE