ACSF – Automated Driving Systems Taxonomy and Definitions - SAE J3016 Jean-Michel Roy Transport Canada.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN EARLY EDUCATION AND CARE SETTINGS EEC Board Meeting – November 8, 2011.
Advertisements

“Automated driving – What comes first: cars or standards?”
OICA/CLEPA Homework Part I HMI, Driver in/out of the Loop Submitted by the experts of OICA/CLEPA Tokyo, June 2015 Informal Document ACSF
Comparison between TOR of IG-ITS/AD and SAE Levels*1
Proposal of Automated Driving from Ad- hoc group on LKAS/RCP Submitted by the Chair of the Special Interest Group on Lane Keeping Assist Systems (LKAS)
ACSF Informal Group Industry proposals 1 st Meeting of ACSF informal group April 29 and 30, 2015 in Bonn 1 Informal Document ACSF
1 Development of California Regulations for the Testing and Operation of Automated Vehicles on Public Roads Steven E. Shladover, Sc.D.Ching-Yao Chan, Ph.D.
Legal issues addressed in the EU funded AdaptIVe project
Definition for Levels of Automation
United States Rulemaking on Electronic Stability Control (ESC) for Light Vehicles 138 WP.29 March, 2006 Informal document No. WP (138th WP.29,
Autonomous Vehicles in California Stephanie Dougherty Chief, Enterprise Planning & Performance California Department of Motor Vehicles July 22, 2015.
Outline of Definition of Automated Driving Technology Document No. ITS/AD (5th ITS/AD, 24 June 2015, agenda item 3-2) Submitted by Japan.
Presentation for Document ACSF-03-03_rev1 Oliver Kloeckner September rd meeting of the IG ASCF Munich, Airport Informal Document.
Human Factors Concerns for Design & Performance of Warnings J.L.Harbluk & P.C. Burns Ergonomics & Crash Avoidance, Transport Canada Human Factors Forum.
1 ACSF Test Procedure Draft proposal – For discussion OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June Informal Document ACSF
Protective Braking for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration An Overview of NHTSAs Vehicle Safety Research Priorities Nathaniel Beuse Associate Administrator, Vehicle.
Common Understanding on Major Horizontal Issues and Legal Obstacles Excerpts from the relevant sections of the ToR: II. Working items to be covered (details.
1 6th ACSF meeting Tokyo, April 2016 Requirements for “Sensor view” & Environment monitoring version 1.0 Transmitted by the Experts of OICA and CLEPA.
Transmitted by the Experts of TRL (EC)
Human Computer Interaction Lecture 21 User Support
Making the Connection ISO Master Class An Overview.
Informal document GRRF-84-32
Suggestion for Summarizing Process of the Principles
Human Computer Interaction Lecture 21,22 User Support
Common Understanding on Major Horizontal Issues and Legal Obstacles
Submitted by the expert form Japan Document No. ITS/AD-09-12
Industry proposal Driver availability recognition system
Overview of the WTO SPS Agreement and the role of
Informal Document: ACSF Rev.1
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
Automatic Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS)
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
Communication technologies for autonomous vehicles
Radar Watchkeeping: Have you monitored your Communication department’s radar to avoid collisions with the new Regulation? 43rd EDPS-DPO meeting, 31 May.
Automated vehicles Horizontal regulation Preliminary considerations
SAE J3016 Revisions & SAE Ads/adas Standards
Informal document GRRF-86-36
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
Nathan Obr, Jack Creasey Microsoft Corporation
ACSF-19, September 03-05, 2018, Paris
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
DATA STORAGE SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATED DRIVING (DSSAD)
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS
Road Infrastructure for Road Vehicles Automation
AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input
ACSF B1+C functional description
Reason for performance difference between LVW and GVW
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
DATA STORAGE SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATED DRIVING (DSSAD)
Hands-off detection warning time for B1-systems
Communication technologies for autonomous vehicles
Informal Document: ACSF-10-08
Safety considerations on Emergency Manoeuver
ACSF B1+C functional description
Emergency Steering Function
ACSF-17 – Industry Preparation
ACSF B2 SAE Level 2 and/or Level 3
CLEPA comments on OBD II GTR 18 Draft
ACSF B2 and C2 Industry expectations from ACSF IG Tokyo meeting
Proposed Definition of the Pause Function
6th ACSF meeting Tokyo, April 2016
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Regulation ECE R79-03 ACSF C 2-Step HMI
Automated Lane Keeping Systems
Presentation transcript:

ACSF – Automated Driving Systems Taxonomy and Definitions - SAE J3016 Jean-Michel Roy Transport Canada

Purpose Ensure alignment with international conventions for taxonomy and definitions related to Automated Driving Systems (ADS) SAE J3016 (Jun 2018) ISO 22736 (In joint development with SAE)

SAE J3016 Freely available via SAE website Convention, not specification Levels of Automation are widely cited (Level 0 to Level 5) Contains definitions and explanations for a variety of terms It is expected that ISO 22736 will be aligned with SAE J3016 “After SAE J3016 was published in January 2014, the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d’Automobiles, a.k.a., OICA) adopted the BASt levels and aligned them (in English) with SAE J3016, including adding a sixth level to represent “full driving automation.” “

ACSF Draft regulations In some cases we have different definitions or different terminology Would be easier to align with SAE J3016 at this stage then later in the process

(Non) Use of Autonomous “in jurisprudence, autonomy refers to the capacity for self-governance. In this sense, also, “autonomous” is a misnomer as applied to automated driving technology, because even the most advanced ADSs are not “self-governing.” Rather, ADSs operate based on algorithms and otherwise obey the commands of users. “ Should exclusively use “automated” to avoid legal/interpretation issues

In current ACSF text this procedure is named “Transition Demand” Request to Intervene The situation where a system can no longer perform the Dynamic Driving Tasks (DDT), SAE J3016 indicates the system should issue a “request to intervene” – Notification by an ADS to a fallback-ready user indicating that s/he should promptly perform the DDT fallback, which may entail resuming manual operation of the vehicle (i.e., becoming a driver again), or achieving a minimal risk condition if the vehicle is not drivable. In current ACSF text this procedure is named “Transition Demand” Note that “Take over request” is widely used in human factors studies - may be a better alternative?

Request to Intervene - Example “A level 3 ADS experiences a DDT performance-relevant system failure in one of its radar sensors, which prevents it from reliably detecting objects in the vehicle’s pathway. The ADS responds by issuing a request to intervene to the DDT fallback-ready user. The ADS continues to perform the DDT, while reducing vehicle speed, for several seconds to allow time for the DDT fallback-ready user to resume operation of the vehicle in an orderly manner.”

Minimal Risk Condition vs Failure Mitigation MRC: “A condition to which a user or an ADS may bring a vehicle after performing the DDT fallback in order to reduce the risk of a crash when a given trip cannot or should not be completed.” FM: “strategy designed to bring the vehicle to a controlled stop wherever the vehicle happens to be, if the driver fails to supervise the feature’s performance (level 2), or if the fallback-ready user fails to perform the fallback when prompted (level 3).”

Minimal Risk Condition vs Failure Mitigation - Continued Graphic taken from SAE J3016

Minimal Risk Condition vs Failure Mitigation - Continued Propose that the regulation require a Failure mitigation component (“level 3” system) After “transition period” stop in lane, or if equipped move to shoulder and stop. Would also allow a minimal risk manoeuver (“Level 3” or “level 4” systems) Use appropriate manoeuver to achieve minimal risk condition Based on situation: pull over to a certain location, stop on shoulder, next rest stop, etc. Stopping in-lane would not be an acceptable “minimal risk condition” unless catastrophic situation

Interesting notes on Level 3 we could consider May perform fallback to Minimal risk condition in some cases (not only level 4) “A level 3 ADS’s DDT fallback-ready user is also expected to be receptive to evident DDT performance-relevant system failures in vehicle systems that do not necessarily trigger an ADS-issued request to intervene, such as a broken body or a suspension component. “ “In the event of a DDT performance-relevant system failure in a level 3 ADS or in the event that the ADS will soon exit its ODD, the ADS will issue a request to intervene within sufficient time for a typical person to respond appropriately to the driving situation at hand. “

Thank you for your attention Questions?