Slate CEO talks accessories, third party parts, Slate Marketplace (TechCrunch interview)

[KevinRS]

The test of these systems is do they prevent more accidents and deaths than they cause. In most cases they have, with the possible exception of people who have gone full hands free and inattentive in cases where they shouldn't have, likely in violation of how a system is supposed to be used, for example defeating the detection of hands on the wheel or eyes forward.
The Slate is designed to have Automatic emergency braking, Pedestrian Identification, and Forward Collision warning. Those have been listed on the specs page from the beginning. At least part of those will within a few years be required to be standard on new vehicles anyway.
The cameras and sensors required for those should make the version of cruise control where traffic in front of you slowing down gently adjusts your speed down not much more than software.
Lane keeping assist would probably require more sensors.

 

[atx_ev]

i want self driving but in a van type vehicle that I can take the family on road trips. When Im driving around town I dont need self driving as the trips are short. My ideal road trip car is a minivan style car with tesla self driving and EREV.

Until then I want the cheapest EV truck possible.

 

[E90400K]

That's an interesting perspective, I suppose I just see it differently.

The only reason I inferred that you would know the limits of the technology and its intended use environments was because you said "I'm no stranger to automation software development and systems that work with such software. I worked for nearly 30 years in systems integration engineering in a business management roll. Safety of life systems and in the transportation sector for the last 15 years of my career." I assumed from this that you would have a robust understanding of the limits of the technology and its intended use environments.

"Am I supposed to read the entire operator's manual before I drive the car when I have deadlines to get to my office as soon as I can?" When driving a motor vehicle on public roads, you are responsible for being able to safely operate that vehicle and avoid putting others in danger, regardless of if you are in a rush to get somewhere. If you need to read the entire operator's manual before driving the vehicle in order to safely operate it, then so be it.

As far as the technology being "immature" because it has known limitations, that would mean that every single part of a car is “immature”. Anti-lock brakes (ABS) have known limitations and cannot instantaneously stop a moving vehicle. The technology is “immature”. The traction control system (TCS) has known limitations and does not guarantee you to gain traction every time you use it. The technology is “immature”. The Vehicle Stability Control (VSC) has known limitations and does not guarantee the car will follow your intended path of steering. The technology is “immature”. I think you get my point that this line of thinking could apply to everything.

If the choice is to not include any of these systems because they are not “infallible”, or to include them with instructions on how to use them and the ability to disable them if desired, then I would choose the latter. I think we fundamentally disagree on this choice, and I see no benefit to arguing further on what is ultimately a matter of individual preference, so I will simply rest my case here.

At the end of the day, it’s nice that we both appreciate what the Slate truck brings to the table, and I’m sure it’ll serve us both well.

[edit]
Additional responses. To address your ABS, TCS, and VSC. As a group of technologies they all work off of the brake system and engine throttle mapping controlled by a control module (computer). Yes, the group of technologies have limitations due mainly to tire grip and driver behavior. If the driver brakes too late or drives too fast for the conditions, such as snow or rain, the systems can't overcome the laws of physics. That's not technology immaturity. These three technologies via computer control operate the brake system and throttle system and differential operation in ways that are not available to the driver. The driver cannot operate all four wheel brakes independently nor can he modulate the brakes at threshold braking as effectively as the ABS module can because the ABS module has four channels of hydraulic operation. Nor can the driver direct the differential where and when to apply power to a specific wheel. There are no physical controls available to the driver to operate the vehicle in such a manner.

The lane keeping technology and crash avoidance alert systems I specifically addressed are different technologies intended to take over driving responsibility from the operator. Both are intended to address driver (un)alertness. In the case of the BMW, the car changed its direction AGAINST my intentions. It made a mistake because it did not know what my intention was and misinterpreted the conditions its sensors detected. The driving environment the incident occurred in was exactly what you believe the technology is best operated in, a well marked (albeit dirty) well-defined roadway.

The Bronco crash avoidance alert system also made an error based on its interpretation of the data from its sensors (camera and radar). It falsley alerted me of an impending collision because the topography of the road combined with parked cars on the shoulder of the road between the unmarked pavement and woodline the software was not designed to correctly assess the situation. That is technology immaturity.

 

[Bayfire2441]

[edit]
Additional responses. To address your ABS, TCS, and VSC. As a group of technologies they all work off of the brake system and engine throttle mapping controlled by a control module (computer). Yes, the group of technologies have limitations due mainly to tire grip and driver behavior. If the driver brakes too late or drives too fast for the conditions, such as snow or rain, the systems can't overcome the laws of physics. That's not technology immaturity. These three technologies via computer control operate the brake system and throttle system and differential operation in ways that are not available to the driver. The driver cannot operate all four wheel brakes independently nor can he modulate the brakes at threshold braking as effectively as the ABS module can because the ABS module has four channels of hydraulic operation. Nor can the driver direct the differential where and when to apply power to a specific wheel. There are no physical controls available to the driver to operate the vehicle in such a manner.

The lane keeping technology and crash avoidance alert systems I specifically addressed are different technologies intended to take over driving responsibility from the operator. Both are intended to address driver (un)alertness. In the case of the BMW, the car changed its direction AGAINST my intentions. It made a mistake because it did not know what my intention was and misinterpreted the conditions its sensors detected. The driving environment the incident occurred in was exactly what you believe the technology is best operated in, a well marked (albeit dirty) well-defined roadway.

The Bronco crash avoidance alert system also made an error based on its interpretation of the data from its sensors (camera and radar). It falsley alerted me of an impending collision because the topography of the road combined with parked cars on the shoulder of the road between the unmarked pavement and woodline the software was not designed to correctly assess the situation. That is technology immaturity.

I feel like this is a brand issue rather than a technology issue. LKA and ACC should be assist rather than relied upon. Not much to say about the emergency braking you described but that also sounds like thats on Ford.

 

[Dorbiman]

The same argument could be made the other way too. For every time that LKA or AEB has been used and avoided a collision or incident, the human is the immature technology. But if you only consider the times that it didn't work, it paints a different picture.