
Toyota Lifts the Veil on Its Guardian Driver-Assist System - pross356
https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/ces-toyota-lifts-veil-from-driver-assist-system
======
AJRF
Bit of an aside, but; I recently was talking to a engineering lead at Rolls
Royce and asked why it seems like Silicon Valley is coming in and eating car
manufacturers lunch on autopilot/auto-assist/driver-assist and he said they
aren't really, none of them are very far along compared to the car companies.
It's to do with the car companies engineering with an eye to redundant systems
that all play harmoniously with each other rather than just tacking LIDAR onto
a car and using TensorFlow to do image recognition.

He pointed me to GeorgeHotz YouTube channel who developed in the open for
CommaAI (now shut down), this company got 8m in funding (small cheese to a VC,
but still showed there was interest in the project) and he was just googling
answers and training his model on one single video he downloaded of the
internet.

The 'play loose and fast' with the rules approach won't fly with self-driving
and the car companies are looking to build something that works in the field
with as close to imperceptible failures as can be realistically allowed.

The incumbents are building it right, but slow. And I would much prefer that
approach if it leads to increased safety

~~~
matthewdgreen
Waymo claims to have autonomously driven 8 million miles on public roads, and
5 billion miles in simulation. That doesn't seem "fast and loose". Has any
commercial automaker conducted anywhere near that amount of testing?

~~~
bischofs
And what is there go-to market strategy? Most cars that people can buy today
have active safety features as an option or in the case of Toyota, a standard
in all of their cars. How is google technology, which is so advanced,
mitigating crashes and fatalities today?

------
tejaswiy
> The driver might almost forget the help he’s getting, and attribute the
> success to his own powers

I really like this idea but I feel this is the key in getting it right.
Several video games achieve this feeling of seamlessness when translating raw
input from a controller to in-game actions. However this does occasionally go
wrong and can be a frustrating experience in video games (especially if you're
playing online competitively) but in the real world it can have much more
drastic consequences.

Also, given the complexity of the real world, it's somewhat scary to think of
a scenario where you're actually trying to take a drastic action on the road
but are prevented by the system from doing-so because it feels that the action
is unsafe.

~~~
jghn
The lane assist in my VW can get a little troublesome in areas of road
construction where lane markers have been painted over and such. At times the
car picks up the wrong lane area and encourages me to stay there instead of
the real lane. It’s more of an annoyance than anything but it’s still a
distraction when at highway speeds

~~~
chime
Next version should detect whether a site is under-construction (# of cones
per 100m, GPS-tagged construction zone from publicly available DB, sudden
speed change, unexpected traffic etc.) and turn on the soft-mode for lane-
assist where it says 'You might be driving through a construction zone, so
lane assist will not fight'.

~~~
matt-attack
I feel that until a car can ascertain that it’s in a construction zone using
only vision (like you and I do) we’ll never achieve what we need. Any
autonomous system that relies on (or even incorporates) stored databases of
any kind is implicitly worse than a teenage first time driver and should
therefore not be considered acceptable.

~~~
saiya-jin
Indeed, we don't get basic things like GPS signal 100% right 86400 seconds per
day. Relying on some remote DB which can crash, be hacked, cut off from
internet, down for maintenance etc will be a problem. Or car just losing data
connection (like it happens with phones).

Its nice to dream about ideal future, but if lives rely on reliability, it
either works 100%, or shouldn't.

~~~
bluGill
100% is stronger than we need - humans are not 100%. If we were there would be
no crashes. Even sudden mechanical failure could just affect the one car and
not cause others if humans were perfect. We just need to be better than
humans.

------
jedberg
I'm glad they called out the 737 crash that was attributed to automation
paradox. That's a real danger here, and I hope they do something about it.

~~~
nolemurs
I feel like this angle is massively overplayed in articles about autonomous
vehicles.

Is automation paradox a real issue? Absolutely. But at present, all the
evidence seems to indicate that the people automated cars will save far
outnumber the people they will kill.

Focusing on the dangers is alarmist and misleading. The 737 crash is a good
example really - I've never heard anyone with experience in the field suggest
anything other than that the automation makes planes safer. Focusing instead
on the fact that the automation isn't perfectly safe only makes sense if
you're a media company looking to scare people.

~~~
jedberg
I don't think it's overplayed at all. It gives people a false sense of a
security when they have automation that works 99% of the time. Look at all the
people who think that Teslas can drive themselves. Most of the time they are
fine, but then they are lulled into a false sense of security. Sure, they get
a ton of warnings, but you start to ignore the warnings when it keeps working
most of the time.

Heck, my car has adaptive cruise control, and I already find myself wandering
sometimes, assuming that it will slam on the brakes if someone gets in front
of me. And I'm well aware of the automation paradox and its dangers.

~~~
nolemurs
The issue I have is that when people talk about the dangers of automation they
never compare them to the dangers of non-automated driving. They always make
it sound as if automation is making things more dangerous.

The current evidence suggests that semi-autonomous cars are on balance _safer_
than purely human driven cars. The evidence isn't conclusive, but I've
literally seen no evidence presented to support the case that semi-autonomous
cars are more dangerous - at best I've seen people argue that we can't yet
trust the safety claims. Teslas have been on the road long enough now and in
large enough numbers that if they were really more dangerous than non-semi-
autonomous cars, I think we'd have seen some non-anecdotal evidence by now.

The reasonable presentation of the issue would be "semi-autonomous vehicles
likely make people safer, but there are still dangers and people should pay
attention."

Instead, the story you're telling is "Tesla drivers are dying, semi-autonomous
cars are dangerous, and you should be scared."

You must see how this is misleading at best, and likely downright
counterproductive from an overall safety point of view.

------
conroy
Here's the full Guardian press conference from CES today
[https://youtu.be/SbtfdrC6Cho?t=592](https://youtu.be/SbtfdrC6Cho?t=592)

------
ForHackernews
IMHO, Toyota's more cautious approach to AI-augmented driving is the correct
way to move towards autonomous vehicles. If we want humans to trust a computer
to drive, start off by having the computer only intervene to save humans from
situations where they would have crashed otherwise.

Tesla's so-called "autopilot" looks shockingly dangerous and reckless in
comparison, and may hinder acceptance of autonomous driving in the long-term.

------
908087
What happens when someone who learns to "drive" with a system like this ends
up in a rental car that doesn't have it? I've personally watched friends
almost side swipe cars after becoming too dependent on "blind spot detection"
telling them when it's safe to change lanes.

~~~
taneq
The same thing that happens when someone learns to "drive" with an automatic
transmission and then ends up in a rental car with a manual transmission: They
sheepishly admit they can't drive the vehicle, and ask for one with more
automation.

~~~
digianarchist
In the UK you aren’t permitted to drive a manual vehicle if you passed your
test in an automatic.

~~~
taneq
Same in Australia. Are you allowed to do so in the U.S.? I kind of meant to
imply there would be different licensing for "ADAS-only" drivers.

~~~
gambiting
Yes. You can pass your test in an automatic, then buy a manual and have zero
clue how to drive it and it's 100% legal. Just like you can pass your test in
a little 1000kg 2 seater and immediately after the test go and buy a 12-tonne
converted RV and drive that with no extra training or qualifications. US is
extremely lax with its driver training.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Sounds like other countries are over-regulated.

In all of those cases you're dangerous for maybe a day while you familiarize
yourself with the new vehicle and most people behave very, very conservatively
when driving something different than they're used to. Nobody is passing their
test in a Miata then renting a box truck and saying "yes, I can totally take
this hairpin just as fast as I would in a Miata". The biggest danger from
people switching from small to large vehicles seems to be bumping things in
tight spaces (parking lots) and with manual the danger is rolling back too
much on a hill start or stalling it when trying to pull into traffic. While
certainly expensive and inconvenient I don't think those sorts of accidents
are cause enough danger to the public or are common enough to prohibit people
from driving a manual or renting a box truck without a special license.

I think people being unfamiliar with what they're driving is an edge case a
lot like mechanical failure, everyone hand wrings over it, some jurisdictions
take steps to try and prevent it but in the real world it's just such a tiny
fraction of accidents (mostly minor single car accidents at that) compared to
people being stupid that trying to prevent these edge cases is a waste of time
and money. Resources are finite and they would be better spent elsewhere.

~~~
gambiting
So I personally disagree with what you are saying. If anything, most countries
are extremely under-regulated when it comes to driving - it just happens that
US probably leads the way in how under-regulated it is. In most western
countries it's far far far too easy to get a driving licence - I think it
should be extremely difficult and it should be testing a whole range of
different situations on the road, not just the operation of a vehicle + 30-60
minutes on the road. Mandatory 30-40 hours of training followed by a two
practical tests in different conditions sounds like a good start.

And no, driving a bigger(especially larger than 3.5 tonnes) vehicle is not
just about the vehicle being physically larger and harder to park. That's why
the European categories for driving such large vehicles(C and D categories)
have very different theoretical tests than a regular B category for driving
small(<3.5 tonne) cars. There's a whole host of laws saying where and when you
can drive such a vehicle, and speed limits are different for them, regardless
of what the speed limit signs say. Part of the test for C category includes
safe loading of a heavy vehicle - like in your example, if you rent a box
truck and put a 2 tonne pallet on one side, you're going to have a bad time.
That's why the training is important.

------
dougb
I'm reminded of this report from CMU on Toyota's Unintended Acceleration and
Software Saftey from a few years ago.
[https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_...](https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_slides.pdf)
If you haven't seen it before, its an interesting set of slides.

------
lostmsu
So what are the features of this system exactly?

~~~
netsharc
It won't let you drive into a ditch or into a wall (or into the back of a
truck), it seems.

Jet fighters (also passenger ones) nowadays are flown by computers, you push
the joystick to tell it where to go, and the computers control the flight
surfaces to follow your request but not beyond the point that it would fall
out of the sky. And TFA seems to suggest the system will prevent crashes, so
it would probably stop you if you e.g. tried to swerve into an oncoming truck.

~~~
samfriedman
Jet fighters also require computer control because their aerodynamic design is
such that they would not be stable without constant computer-commanded micro-
adjustments in the control surfaces.

~~~
WrtCdEvrydy
Jet fighters are inherently unstable so you can pull off combat manuevers.

Regular planes are inherently stable so they can fly closer to a glider.

------
tropo
It's getting harder to buy a car without crazy stuff.

I just want a car.

I got one that wants to take over steering, disturbing me as I drive. I
disabled that. It also wants to slam on the brakes whenever it gets confused.
That misfeature must be disabled every time I start the car. Then there is the
built-in cellular data and GPS and the microphone and at least 3 cameras. Yes,
they are tracking me, and if they don't do worse already then it's just an
involuntary software update away.

Some day this will be hacked, and millions will die. That will be a memorable
day.

~~~
muzika
I personally like those features in my Infinity Q50 and always keep them on.
As these features get better I suspect most people would prefer to keep them
enabled.

~~~
tropo
This is alien to me. Tell me more. Do you trust the software to not have
dangerous bugs? Do you drive while text messaging, commenting on Hacker News,
or watching video? Are you perfectly fine with your whereabouts and driving
style being known and sold, for example to insurance companies or toll
collectors or the police? Are you using the features to compensate for any
kind of disability? Would you be fine with a car like HAL 9000, saying "I'm
sorry _muzika_ , I'm afraid I can't do that" to you?

~~~
vesak
Well, as many futurologists say... a self-driving car (or drive-assisting)
doesn't have to be perfect. It merely needs to be better than a human driver.
Data seems to suggest that that hurdle isn't that high.

Then again, I do share your concern about hackability. Just a single grand
catastrophe would turn the scales over for a long time. And nothing suggests
that car software is of high quality currently.

>Do you drive while text messaging

Amazingly many people do, even _after_ being told that it's about as dangerous
as driving drunk.

~~~
siffland
I have said this before. Auto manufacturers are not the greatest at security.
Jeep was not exactly receptive to fixing its hacked vehicles until it was
exposed at blackhat. I agree, someone is going to do something simple like
hack whatever main system is talking to all the cars and do something simple
like tell all of them to accelerate and that is their last order.

Can we all trust the car companies to do their due diligence and have all
their software audited. Do we trust their proprietary algorithms?

At least when i am driving myself i know what is going on in my head. Yes it
might sound a little conceded, but who do you really trust.

Also as a side mark (to get me downvoted :) ), i can understand automatic
braking and some of the other things, but if you need the machine just to help
maintain your lane for you...you probably should not be driving (i seriously
work with someone who praises their car for helping them not drift out of
their lane).

~~~
wtallis
> but if you need the machine just to help maintain your lane for you...you
> probably should not be driving

This is not actually an argument against putting lane keeping assist
functionality into cars. Yes, distracted driving is bad. But there's no way to
completely prevent it, so the auto industry should do everything they can to
mitigate the harm.

~~~
siffland
A five point racing harness is more secure. And a roll cage will help in
rollovers. Not mandatory either, but would mitigate a lot of harm. There are a
lot of other things they can do as well.

If you hold peoples hands on stuff they start slacking, they become dependent
and cannot do something without assistance. My kid plays a FPS online on his
xbox one, he started off doing ok and getting better. He found out you can
turn on aim assist and got really good. If he turns off the aim assistance, he
is worse than he ever was.

I am not disagreeing with you that lane assist, now that is exists, might not
be useful. I just feel we are moving to a world like the people on the ship in
the movie Wall-e.

------
rbanffy
Quick, someone make a competitor named Colossus.

------
matte_black
This might be a good way to lock people into a brand if they become dependent
on systems like this to drive somewhat decently.

~~~
stickfigure
The press release says they will offer to license the technology to "all" auto
makers.

------
TimesOldRoman
This sounds very bad.

It should be all or nothing control, at least that way people will not become
marginally complacent, just out of practice (although most drivers can not
drive for a month and drive again no problem).

------
extesy
Has Toyota ever demonstrated any real-world success in autonomous driving or
they only have PR articles and marketing videos?

~~~
taneq
You're getting downvotes but I don't see any links to examples of real-world
Toyota autonomous driving.

Honestly I kind of feel like Toyota's still stuck in the 90s. They were ahead
of the game but all they seem to have done since then is endlessly fine-tune
and finesse the same vehicles.

~~~
dazc
'...but all they seem to have done since then is endlessly fine-tune and
finesse the same vehicles.'

If only the other mainstream manufacturers would follow suit?

~~~
lotsofpulp
I love the 1GR-FE/5VZ-FE/2UZ-FE engines, I would just keep buying the same car
with those. Except they last for hundreds of thousands of miles, so I might
only need one other in my lifetime.

~~~
taneq
I just want a low km 2JZ-GTE so that when my 7M-GTE blows up again I have
something better to replace it with. :)

------
Alex3917
99% of new cars sold within the U.S. are going to have basic self-driving
capability in less than three years. Not really seeing what's unique about
what Toyota is doing here.

~~~
nomel
From the last time I looked, none of the competitors have accident avoidance
beyond automatic emergency braking. Full motion planning to avoid an accident
seems like a huge step forward.

edit: Seeing your later comment, you seem to think this is emergency braking.
The video clearly shows this goes beyond emergency braking.

~~~
Alex3917
I get that it's not just emergency breaking. My point though is that by 2022,
all new cars are going to have both the sensors and the processing hardware
needed to do this. So most new cars will probably have this sort of
functionality, even if they're not required to by this specific industry
agreement. (Lots of cars already have this, including ones that aren't even
that expensive, e.g. pretty much any Subaru.)

~~~
nomel
The requirements for hardware and processing to achieve emergency braking is
drastically different than the 360 degree situational awareness and avoidance
that Toyota is showing here.

You can buy a 2017 Camry with emergency braking. It uses a laser and camera at
the front and looks like a Camry. Compare the module to the Guardian sensor
bank you see on the roof there. It's not for show. We will not see this sensor
bank or these capabilities on every new car in 2022 and the article you posted
doesn't remotely suggest that.

I think you're underestimating what Toyota is doing here.

~~~
Alex3917
How is that different than the active safety features on any other car? E.g.
most cars already have an optional package to detect other cars in your blind
spots, keep you centered in your lane, etc.

~~~
wtallis
Toyota demonstrated a test where the car determines that it cannot brake in
time to avoid hitting an obstacle, so it decides to swerve around it instead.
No combination of blind spot warnings and lane keeping assist can come
anywhere close to performing such a feat. I'm also not aware of any car
currently for sale that will accelerate to avoid being hit from behind.

There are quite a few vehicles that have at least some of the sensor
capability required for this kind of functionality, but the hard part is the
software/AI, not the cameras and LIDAR.

~~~
gambiting
>> I'm also not aware of any car currently for sale that will accelerate to
avoid being hit from behind

Mercedes cars do that. They also preemptively play grey noise over the
speakers if the collision is imminent, to protect your eardrums - that's
something I don't think any other manufacturer is doing.

