I don't expect any automated driving system to actually reach full level 5.

[JulienW]

There is little to no downside to L4 since the ODD can expand to near ∞ but with L5 you must have no ODD. So staying L4 seems completely reasonable and the best way forward for decades. L5 is such a high bar that most humans can't meet.

 

[JulienW]

....So don't fuss about them. Ideally, don't even use them. The later levels documents introduced something that matters much more, what they called the ODD. That's what matters. Where a car can drive without a human. It's not that it's not of interest how humans hand over and take back control in the early vehicles which need that sort of thing, it's just that's a temporary transitional function.

Law makers and regulators have always relied on SAE to make laws and regulations about motor vehicles based on their specs so it does matter. Laws can't be "fuzzy" as to what the capabilities of a cars' system has, especially something as critical as vehicle control or driver liability. It MUST be well defined and follow a minimum of specs. Car makers need to follow all local laws and regulations in order to be approved so they need to use the levels too. Take Tesla for example. To the public in general they now present as Full Self Driving Supervised but legally, industry wide and by definition it IS understood as a L2 system.

 

[enemji]

then taken over by SAE, which is engineers from the legacy auto industry.

Agreed, but somehow there are people on this forum who live by and would kill for the SAE definitions of Autonomous Driving.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Can I legally sleep in the backseat while the car drives me? Then it's self-driving.

SAE levels are not what makes the problem hard. They're completely innocuous so I'm not sure why people dislike them so much.

 

[enemji]

SAE levels are not what makes the problem hard. They're completely innocuous so I'm not sure why people dislike them so much.

People working on the next generation world do not like to be bound to definitions. There is a feeling of being restricted, governed and directed ie boxed in

 

[Daniel in SD]

People working on the next generation world do not like to be bound to definitions. There is a feeling of being restricted, governed and directed ie boxed in

Interesting. A common complaint around here is that the SAE levels are too broad. People complain that there should be sub levels that specify ODD. People also complain that they don’t specify any reliability metrics or requirements.
I view them as a good definition of terms that can be used to talk about driving automation.

 

[enemji]

L5 = infinity.

As with everything else in the scientific world, it will be tending to infinity. Always.

 

[enemji]

A common complaint around here is that the SAE levels are too broad. People complain that there should be sub levels that specify ODD.

A true developer wants unlimited freedom. That is why most if not all developers want & get a work computer with admin rights.

 

[diplomat33]

I get that the SAE levels might be flawed but I think it is helpful to have some sort of taxonomy to describe autonomous driving. There are many different automated driving systems that range from basic driver assist, to hands-free highway driving to driverless robotaxis. Also, the term "self-driving" is often thrown around to mean a lot of different things. Some people consider a system like AP or Super Cruise to be "self-driving" since the car is doing the steering and braking. Others only consider a driverless car to be "self-driving". You need clear definitions of terms. J3016 does that. People may not understand J3016 or may misinterpret it. But that is not J3106's fault, it does spell everything out clearly. And you need a way to communicate things like the role of the human, when and how are the human is asked to take over, can the AV perform the fallback and if so in what conditions, what is the ODD etc... Again, J3016 does that. So, I do think the SAE levels are useful as a starter. I also like Mobileye's "eyes on/hands-off" taxonomy and defining 6 key ODDs. The bottom line is that I think we need a way to classify different automated driving systems to help frame the discussion.

 

[Daniel in SD]

A true developer wants unlimited freedom. That is why most if not all developers want & get a work computer with admin rights.

Then I don’t know why a true developer would dislike the SAE levels. What do they prevent a developer from doing?

 

[enemji]

Then I don’t know why a true developer would dislike the SAE levels. What do they prevent a developer from doing?

It is a mental box for them. Kinda like you are going to throw the trash out yet your spouse reminds you that it is your job to do. In doing so she defines your work, which is what you are doing anyway

Or better yet, you are driving and yet she keeps reminding you of being safe all the time.

 

[Daniel in SD]

It is a mental box for them. Kinda like you are going to throw the trash out yet your spouse reminds you that it is your job to do. In doing so she defines your work, which is what you are doing anyway

Or better yet, you are driving and yet she keeps reminding you of being safe all the time.

Who knew the mental anguish caused by SAE levels is preventing us from having self-driving cars. It’s a good thing they haven’t added performance or ODD categories to them like so many here have suggested. That might have caused these developers to give up entirely.

 

[diplomat33]

It is a mental box for them. Kinda like you are going to throw the trash out yet your spouse reminds you that it is your job to do. In doing so she defines your work, which is what you are doing anyway

Or better yet, you are driving and yet she keeps reminding you of being safe all the time.

I am not sure how it is a mental box for AV developers. It's not like AV developers are going "I really wanted to make this type of autonomous driving but there is no SAE level that matches so I can't do it." The fact is that the SAE levels are pretty broad on purpose to cover every type of autonomous driving system. So it is not possible to design an autonomous driving system that is outside the SAE levels. And AV developers don't start with a SAE level and then try to make their system fit. AV developers focus on designing the system they want. The SAE levels are just a way of categorizing the system in engineering documents.

 

[JulienW]

Who knew the mental anguish caused by SAE levels is preventing us from having self-driving cars. It’s a good thing they haven’t added performance or ODD categories to them like so many here have suggested. That might have caused these developers to give up entirely.

SAE is KILLING all car development with the requirements and specifications starting with the tires and going all the way to the roof. Tire designers are quitting and refusing to design tires now. That is why you can't buy tires or any other car parts anymore.

 

[enemji]

It's not like AV developers are going "I really wanted to make this type of autonomous driving but there is no SAE level that matches so I can't do it."

It is quite the opposite. They don’t feel energized to work on something that has already been predefined by someone else, and that too who is not even doing the work. Their mindset is “free your mind. There is nothing to limit you. Even sky is not the limit.”

Limitless is how they would like to feel.

 

[Daniel in SD]

It is quite the opposite. They don’t feel energized to work on something that has already been predefined by someone else, and that too who is not even doing the work. Their mindset is “free your mind. There is nothing to limit you. Even sky is not the limit.”

Limitless is how they would like to feel.

Sounds like these engineers should be working on flying cars. That would also solve pretty much every problem that makes self-driving difficult.
Though I question your assertion that engineers don’t like problems that have been defined by someone else. That has not been my experience (as an engineer myself.)

 

[enemji]

Sounds like these engineers should be working on flying cars. That would also solve pretty much every problem that makes self-driving difficult.
Though I question your assertion that engineers don’t like problems that have been defined by someone else. That has not been my experience (as an engineer myself.)

I know. I have been there, and then also been leading and overseeing engineering teams. This is the new breed I have seen emerging, which by all means have been very successful but a real challenge to handle them.

 

[mborkow]

Level 5 automation is no steering wheel, accelerator, or brake pedal. All humans are passengers. It won’t be any time too soon…but “never” is a long time.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Level 5 automation is no steering wheel, accelerator, or brake pedal. All humans are passengers. It won’t be any time too soon…but “never” is a long time.

Waymo is going to use vehicles without human controls. They will still be L4 because they’re geofenced and don’t drive in all weather conditions that humans do.
Not sure why they didn’t do opposed seating like the Cruise and Zoox robotaxis.

Waymo’s new robotaxi is an all-electric people mover with no steering wheel

The new AV made its debut at the LA Auto Show.

www.theverge.com

 

[mborkow]

I see Waymos driving around all the time here…so strange with no one in the car. I’ve also been testing out the latest FSD supervised…it does well in some circumstances but any irregular striping (and there’s tons of that around here) seems to throw it off. I had to stop my car from driving right through a (very poorly designed and striped) median and the pole in its center. I don’t think our cars ever get beyond L2.