Defining Safe Enough for AVs

Edge cases will always need remote operators (Phil & Junko on AV Safety ep05)

This week Phil & Junko talk about what an edge case is, and why autonomous vehicles will need the help of remote human assistants to resolve edge case issues.As robotaxi operations have begun to scale, the public is seeing more incidents in which autonomous vehicles caught in edge cases struggle to get out of the bad situation. The conversation covers:- What is an edge case?- What humans perceive as edge cases can be different from what machines are struggling with.- Edge cases being rare doesn’t mean they don’t matter. The risk is not about frequency: it’s about frequency and severity.- Edge cases can also be a combination of ‘normal’ things with special meaning that autonomous vehicles have never seen or been trained before.- Robotaxi companies can get more data, but more data is never going to get rid of enough of the edge cases.- Just as edge cases won’t go away, remote assistants — who are there to handle the edge cases encountered by robotaxis —will not go away, either.- The AV industry is at a critical juncture, as it is being tested how well their autonomous vehicles are prepared to handle edge cases.

Defining Safe Enough for AVs

This week Phil & Junko talk about what it means for Autonomous Vehicle to be safe enough. At a high level, in addition to net statistical safety, acceptable safety also requires an absence of risk hot spots. It’s not about perfection; it’s about acceptably safe: * As safe as a human driver on a net statistical basis (accounting for which car, which driver, which road, etc.) * Avoiding reckless driving * Avoiding shifting risk onto vulnerable populations * Absence of unreasonable risk (AUR) * Standards conformance * Avoiding negative externalities (e.g., not blocking fire trucks) * Accountability for breaking road rules * Meeting all stakeholder safety requirements A single-metric approach does not work due to multiple stakeholder concerns. A multi-constraint satisfaction approach is the way to go. The bottom line: acceptable safety is meeting the threshold requirements of all your stakeholders. This episode is a follow-on to Phil’s written piece on How Safe Is Really “Safe Enough” for Autonomous Vehicles? [https://avsafety.substack.com/p/how-safe-is-really-safe-enough-for]

Level 2 Automation Safety with Kristin Poland

In this episode we talk with Kristin Poland, Deputy Director, Office of Highway Safety, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). We cover safety issues with Level 2 supervised automation vehicles in general. The NTSB’s recent findings on a pair of Ford BlueCruise crashes motivate a discussion that covers lidar, false alarms, performance limitations, alcohol impairment, telematics, automated emergency braking (AEB), driver monitoring, system integration issues, and the role that NTSB plays in improving transportation safety. This episode is a follow-on to Phil’s written piece on Level 2 Automated Vehicle Safety. [https://avsafety.substack.com/p/level-2-automated-vehicle-safety]

The Evolution of "Safety First" with Peter Norton (S1 ep02)

Mr. Otto Nobetter, meet Mr. Jay Walker Historian Peter Norton joins Phil & Junko in a discussion of the surprisingly rich history of the slogan "Safety First." We discuss the history of multiple cycles of adoption and repudiation of the concept of Safety First in industrial and automotive safety. We also cover cautionary tales from the history of safety regulations in other industries. Perhaps it is time for the autonomous vehicle industry to re-think its Safety First messaging. Substack episode info: https://open.substack.com/pub/avsafety/p/podcast-the-evolution-of-safety-first

Accountability of Remote Assistants

Phil & Junko on AV Safety / S1 ep01 Accountability of Remote Assistants