Home News Driven to Distraction — The future of car safety

Driven to Distraction — The future of car safety

202
0

Driven to Distraction – The Potential for car safety

If you harbor ’t gotten a brand new car in a while you may not have discovered the future of the dashboard looks like this:

That’s it. A single screen replacing all of the dashboard gauges, switches and knobs. However, behind that screen is a growing level of automation that hides a lot of sophistication.

At times all you will need is on the screen with a glance. At other times you must page through menus and poke at the screen while driving. And while driving at 70mph, attempt to know if you or your automated driving method is in charge of your car. All while figuring out how to utilize any of those newest features, menus or rearranged user interface which may have been upgraded overnight.

At the beginning of any technology revolution the tech gets ahead of those institutions made to quantify and regulate security and criteria. Both the car ’s designers and labs will gradually catch up, but in the meantime we’re about the steep portion of a learning curve – portion of a million-person beta evaluation  – about exactly what ’s the perfect driver-to-vehicle interface.

We went with planes. And we’re reliving that transition in automobiles. Things will break, but in a couple of decades we’ll come out out the opposite side, return and wonder how people ever drove any other way.

Here’s how we got here, what’s ’will cost usand where we now ’ll end up.

Automobiles, Computers and Safety

Two massive changes are occurring in automobiles: 1) the transition from internal combustion engines to electrical , and 2) the introduction of automated driving.

However, a third equally important shift that’s underway is the (r)development of car dashboards from dials and switches to computer displays. For the first 100 years automobiles were basically a mechanical platform – a internal combustion engine and transmission with seats – controlled by mechanical steering, accelerator and brakes. Instrumentation to track the car was composed of dials and gauges; a speedometer, tachometer, and gas, battery and water gauges.

By the 1970’s driving became easier as automatic transmissions replaced manual gear changing and hydraulically assisted brakes and steering became standard. Comfort attributes evolved as well: climate management  – initial heat, later air-conditioning; and amusement  – AM radio, FM radio, 8-track tape, CD’s, and today streaming websites. In the previous decade GPS-driven navigation programs started to appear.

SafetyAt the identical time automobiles were advancing, auto companies fought security improvements tooth and nail. By the 1970’s automobile deaths in the U.S averaged 50,000 a year. More than 3.7 million people have died in cars in the U.S. because they seemed  – over all U.S. war deaths united. (This places automobile companies in the rarified category of companies – along with tobacco firms  – who have murdered millions of their customers.) Car firms argued that talking security would scare customers off, or the additional cost of security features would put them in an aggressive price disadvantage. However, in reality, style was appreciated over security.

Security systems in automobiles have gone through 3 generations – passive systems along with 2 generations of busy systems. Now we’re going to put in a fourth production  – autonomous methods.

Passive security systems are attributes that protect the occupants after a crash has happened. They started appearing in automobiles in the 1930’s. Safety glass in windshields appeared in the 1930’so in reaction to horrible disfiguring crashes. Padded dashboards were inserted in the 1950’s however, it required Ralph Nader’s book, Unsafe at Any Speed, to spur federally mandated passive security characteristics in the U.S. start in the 1960’s: seat belts, crumple zones, collapsible steering brakes, caked flashers and even better windshields. The Department of Transportation was created in 1966 nevertheless it wasn’t until 1979 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) started crash-testing automobiles (the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety started their testing in 1995). In 1984 New York State mandated seat belt use (currently required in 49 of the 50 states.)

These passive security features started to pay off in the mid-1970’s as overall automobile deaths in the U.S. started to decline.

Active security systems attempt to prevent crashes before they happen. These depended upon the creation of low-cost, automotive-grade detectors and computers. For example, accelerometers-on-a-chip left airbags possible as they were able to discover a crash in progress. These started to appear in automobiles in the late 1980’s/1990’s and have been required in 1998. From the 1990’s computers capable of real-time evaluation of wheel sensors (place and slip) created ABS (anti-lock braking systems) possible. This feature was finally required in 2013.

Since 2005 a second generation of active security features have emerged. They run in the background and constantly monitor the car and distance around it for potential hazards. They include: Electronic Stability Control, Blind Spot Detection, Forward Collision Warning, Lane Departure Warning, Rearview Video Systems, Automatic Emergency Braking, Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking, Rear Automatic Emergency Braking, Rear Cross Traffic Alert and Lane Centering Assist.

Autonomous CarsToday, a fourth wave of security features is emerging as Autonomous/Self-Driving attributes. Included in these are Lane Centering/Auto Steer, Adaptive cruise control, Traffic jam assist, Self-parking, full self-driving. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has adopted the six-level SAE benchmark to explain such vehicle automation attributes:

Getting above Level 2 is a really hard technical problem and is discussed ad infinitum in different places. However, what hasn’t obtained much attention will be how drivers interact with those systems as the amount of automation increases, and also since the driving function shifts from the driver into the motor vehicle. Nowadays, we don’t understand whether there are instances these attributes make cars less secure rather than more.

For example, Tesla along with other automobiles have Level 2 and some Level 3 auto-driving attributes. Under Level 2 automation, both motorists should track the automated driving because the machine can hand back control of their automobile for you with little or no warning. In Level 3 automation motorists aren’t expected to track the surroundings, but again they are expected to be ready to take charge of the vehicle in any respect times, this time with note.

Research suggests that motorists, when they aren’t actively controlling the car, might be studying their telephone, eating, taking a look at the scenery, etc.. We really don’t understand how motorists will do in Level 3 and 2 automation. Drivers can lose situational awareness when theyrsquo;re stunned by the behavior of the automation – asking: What exactly is it doing now? Why would it do that? Or, what’s it really going to do ? There are open questions regarding whether drivers may attain/sustain enough attention to take control before they hit something. (Trust me, in the highway speeds having a “take over immediately” emblem pop up while you are gazing in the scene increases your blood pressure, and your response time)

If such technical challenges weren’t sufficient for motorists to handle, these sovereign driving attributes are appearing at the exact identical time that car dashboards are becoming monitor displays.

We had automobiles that worked like this. Not only will consumers have to be utilized to dashboards that are computer screens, but they will have know the subtle differences between both automated and semi-automated attributes and do so as automobile manufacturers are developing and constantly updating them. They may not have much help mastering the changes. Most consumers don’t read the manual, and, in some cars, the manuals aren’t even keeping up with the newest features.

However, while we had automobiles that worked like thiswe have planes which do.

Let’s find out what we’ve learned in 100 decades of designing automation and controls for aircraft cockpits and pilots, and also what it may mean for automobiles.

Aircraft Cockpits

Airplanes have gone through multiple generations of aircraft and cockpit automation. But unlike automobiles that are just first viewing automated methods, automation was introduced in airplanes throughout the 1920s and 1930s.

For their initial 35 years plane cockpits, similar to early car dashboards, were straightforward  – a few mechanical tools for speed, altitude, comparative moving and gas. By the late 1930’so called British Royal Air Force (RAF) standardized to some flight instruments. During the next decade that this evolved into the “Basic T” instrument design  – the de facto standard of the aircraft flight tools have been laid out.

Engine tools were inserted to assess the health of the aircraft engines – gas and petroleum volume, stress, and temperature and motor speed.

Next, as planes became larger, and the aerodynamic forces raised, it became hard to manually transfer the control surfaces so pneumatic or hydraulic motors have been added to raise the pilots’ bodily force. Mechanical apparatus like yaw dampers along with Mach trim compensators corrected the behavior of the plane.

Over time, navigation tools have been inserted into cockpits. At firstthey were simple autopilots to keep the plane straight and flat and on a compass course. The next addition was a wireless receiver to pick up signals from navigation channels. This was so pilots could set the desired bearing into the ground station to some class deviation screen, along with the autopilot would soar the displayed course.

From the 1960s, electrical systems began to replace the mechanical components:

Electrical gyroscopes (INS) and autopilots with VOR (Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range) radio beacons to follow a monitor auto-throttle – to handle engine power so as to maintain a chosen rate flight manager displays – to show pilots how to fly the aircraft to reach a preselected speed and flight pathweather radars – to watch and avoid stormsInstrument Landing Systems – to assist automate landings by providing the aircraft horizontal and vertical guidance.

By 1960 a contemporary jet cockpit (the Boeing 707) seemed just like that:

Although it might look complicated, every one of those aircraft tools displayed just one piece of information. Switches and knobs were all electromechanical.

Input the Glass Cockpit and Autonomous Flying

Fast forward to now and the next generation of aircraft automation. Today’s aircraft may seem like the outside but on the interior four items are radically different:

The clutter of tools in the cockpit has been substituted with colour displays producing a “glass cockpit”The planes engines obtained their own dedicated computer programs  – FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) – to properly control the enginesThe motors themselves are the order of magnitude longer reliableNavigation systems have turned into full-blown autonomous flight management methods

So now a modern plane cockpit (an Airbus 320) resembles that:

Today, plane navigation is a real-world instance of autonomous driving – in the skies.

Two additional approaches, both the Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (TAWS) and also Traffic Condition Avoidance System (TCAS) gave pilots a view of exactly what rsquo;s under and around them dramatically raising pilots’ position awareness and flight safety. (Autonomy in the atmosphere is technically a much simpler problem because in the cruise portion of flight there are a whole lot less things to be concerned about in the atmosphere than in a car.)

Navigation in planes has turned into sovereign “flight administration. ” Instead of a class deviation dial, navigation information is currently presented as a “shifting map” onto a screen showing the position of navigation waypoints, by latitude and longitude. The job of the plane no more uses ground radio channels, but rather is dependent on Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites or autonomous inertial reference units. The route of flight will be either pre-programmed by the pilot (or uploaded automatically) and the pilot may connect the autopilot to fly the displayed route. Pilots enter navigation information in the Flight Management System, with a keyboard. The flight management system simplifies lateral and vertical navigation, fuel and balance optimisation, throttle settings, critical speed calculation and implementation of take-offs and landings.

Automating the plane cockpit relieved pilots from repetitive tasks and enabled less skilled pilots to fly safely. Commercial airline security dramatically improved as the commercial jet airline fleet quadrupled in size from 5,000 in 1980 to over 20,000 today. (Most passengers now are amazed to learn how much of the flight was flown with the autopilot versus the pilot)

Why Cars Are Like Airplanes

And here is the link between what’s happened to planes with what’s going to happen to automobiles.

The drawback of glass cockpits along with cockpit automation means pilots no more actively working the aircraft but rather track it. And humans are especially bad at tracking for extended periods. Pilots have lost basic manual and cognitive flying skills due to a lack of feel and practice for the aircraft. Moreover, the requirement to ldquo;handle ” the automation, especially when between data entry or retrieval through a key-pad, increased rather than decreased the pilot’s workload. When systems fail, poorly designed user interfaces reduce a pilot’s hierarchical consciousness and can create cognitive overload.

Now, pilot errors – not mechanical failures– cause at least 70–80% of commercial plane accidents. The FAA and NTSB are analyzing crashes and have been writing widely on the way flight deck automation is now affecting pilots. (Crashes like Asiana 214 happened when pilots selected the wrong manner on a monitor.) The FAA has composed the authoritative record how individuals and automated methods ought to socialize.

Meanwhile the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has discovered that 94% of car crashes are due to human error – bad choices drivers make such as inattention, distraction, driving too fast, inadequate judgment/performance, drunk driving, and lack of sleep.

NHTSA has started to explore how individuals will interact with the two automation and displays in automobiles. Theyrsquo;re starting to find out:

— What’s the right way to design a driver-to-vehicle interface onto a screen to show:

Vehicle status indicators and knobs (speedometer, fuel/range, time, climate control)Navigation maps and controlsMedia/entertainment systems

— How do you look for scenario awareness?

What’s & rsquo;s the very best driver-to-vehicle interface to show the condition of vehicle automation and Autonomous/Self-Driving features?How would you handle the information available to understand what’s currently happening and project what’s going to happen next?

— What’s the perfect degree of cognitive loading when designing ports for choices that have to be manufactured in milliseconds?

Exactly what ’s exactly the diversion level from cellular devices? By way of example, how can your car deal with your mobile phone? Can it be integrated into the machine or do you have to fumble to use it?

— How do you design a user interface for millions of consumers whose age can span from 16–90; with different vision, reaction time, and ability to learn new screen layouts and attributes?

Some of their findings have been in the record Human-centric design advice for driver-vehicle ports . However, what’s most striking is that very little of the NHSTA files reference the years of expensive courses the aircraft industry has learned. Glass cockpits and aircraft freedom have traveled this road before. Though aviation security courses must be tuned to the various response times necessary in automobiles (planes fly 10 times faster, nevertheless pilots often have seconds or minutes to respond to problems, while in a car the decisions often have to be manufactured in milliseconds) there’s a lot they can learn together. Aviation has gone 9 years in the U.S. with just one fatality, nevertheless in 2017 37,000 individuals died in car crashes in the U.S.

There Are No Safety Ratings On Your Car As You Drive

From the U.S. aircraft security was proactive. Since 1927 new types aircraft (and every sub-assembly) are required to get a type approval in the FAA before it can be marketed and be issued by an Airworthiness Certificate.

Unlike aircraft, car security in the U.S. has already been responsive. New versions don’t need a sort acceptance, rather each car company self-certifies their car meets national security standards. NHTSA waits until a defect has emerged and can subject a remember .

If you would like to understand how secure your version of car will probably be during a crash, you are able to examine the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) crash-tests, or the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) security ratings. Both ascertain how well the active and passive security systems will perform in frontal, side, and rollover crashes. But now, there are no equivalent ratings for how secure automobiles are while you’re driving them. What’s considered a fantastic vs. bad user interface and how also do they have different collision prices? Is it true that the transition from Level 1, 2 and 3 freedom confuse drivers into the point of causing crashes? How do you quantify and test these systems? What’s the function of authorities in doing so?

Given the NHTSA along with the FAA are in the Department of Transportation (DoT), It makes you wonder whether such government agencies actively speak to and collaborate with one another and have integrated programs and common practices. And whether they’ve extracted best practices in the NTSB. And in the early efforts of Tesla, Audi, Volvo, BMW, etc., it’s clear that they ’t looked in the plane lessons .

It seems like the logical point for NHTSA to perform during that autonomous transition is just 1 ) start defining “best clinics ” in both U/I and automation security ports and two ) to test Level 2–4 cars for security as you drive (like the crash tests except also for situational awareness, cognitive loading, etc. ) in a set of driving scenarios. (There are great university applications doing that research.)

However, the DoT’s Automated Vehicles 3.0 plan moves the agency further from owning the part of “best clinics ” in U/I and automation security ports. It assumes that car companies will perform a fantastic job self-certifying these new technology. And has no plans for security testing and rating these brand new Level 2–4 autonomous features.

(Keep in mind that publishing best practices and testing for autonomous security features is not the same as imposing regulations to slow down creation )

It appears like it might require an independent agency like the SAE to propose several best practices and ratings. (Or the slender probability that the automobile industry comes together and set defacto criteria )

The Chaotic Transition

It took 30 decades, from 1900 to 1930, to transition from horses and buggies in city roads to automobiles controlling visitors. During that period former buggy drivers had to learn a completely new set of principles to restrain their automobiles. And the roads in those 30 years were a mix of traffic – it was disorderly.

At New York City the tipping point was 1908 when the number of automobiles passed the number of horses. The final horse-drawn trolley abandoned the roads of New York in 1917. (It took another two or three to displace the horse from farms, public transportation and wagon delivery methods.) Now we’re going to undergo the identical transition.

Automobiles are on the road for full freedom, but we’re seeing two different approaches on how best to achieve Level 4 and 5 “hands off” driverless automobiles. Existing car makers, locked into the existing car designs, are coming that step-wise – adding additional levels of freedom over time – with new versions or upgrades; while fresh car startups (Waymo, Zoox, Cruise, etc.) are all trying to go right to Level 4 and 5.

We’re likely to have 20 or so years together with the roads full of a mix of millions of cars – some being manually driven, some with Level 3 and 2 motorist support attributes, along with many others autonomous vehicles together “hands-off” Level 4 and 5 freedom. It might take a minimum of 20 years ahead of autonomous vehicles act as the leading platforms. Meanwhile, this mix of traffic will be chaotic. (Some suggest that during that transition we require autonomous vehicles to have evidence in their back window, like pupil drivers, but this time saying, “Caution AI on board. ”)

As there will not be a government best practices for U/I or scores for freedom security, learning and discovery will be happening on the street. That makes the ability for auto companies to possess over-the-air upgrades for both the dashboard user interface along with the automated driving attributes essential. Incremental and iterative updates will add new attributes, while adjusting bad ones. Engaging clients to make them recognize that they rsquo;re a part of their travel will finally make this a successful experimentation.

My wager is similar to when planes moved into glass cockpits with progressively automated methods, we’ll produce new ways motorists wreck their cars, while finally raising overall vehicle safety.

However, in the next decade or two, together with the government telling car companies “roll up your own”it’s going to be one heck of a holiday.

Lessons Learned

— There’s (r)development as auto dashboards transfer from dials and switches to computer screens along with the introduction of automated driving

Computer displays and freedom will create new problems such as driversThere are no criteria to Gauge the Protection of these systemsThere are no criteria for how information is presented

— Aircraft cockpits are 10 to 20 Decades ahead of car companies in analyzing and solving this problem

Car and aircraft carriers need to share their learningsCar Businesses can reduce crashes and deaths if they seem to aircraft cockpit layout for Auto user interface courses

— The Department of Transportation has eliminated barriers to the quick adoption of autonomous vehicles

Car companies “self-certify” whether their U/I and freedom are safeThere are no equivalents of collision Security scores for driving security with autonomous Capabilities

— Over-the-air upgrades for Auto software will become crucial

However, the downside is that they could dramatically change the U/I without warning

— On the road for full independence we’ll have three generations of automobiles on the road

The transition will be busy, so hang on it’s going to become a bumpy ride, but the destination – security for everybody on the street  – will probably be worth itLearned a thing? Click on the 👏 to say “thanks! ” and also help others find this article.

This article was first published on steveblank.com

Driven to Distraction – The potential for car security was originally published in ThinkGrowth.org on Medium, in which people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and reacting to the narrative.

Buy Tickets for every event – Sports, Concerts, Festivals and more buytickets.com