Shift Magazine - July 22, 2019 - 19

research that never comes to fruition? It's
questionable."

'PUSHES THE BOUNDARIES'

Part of the problem is the delineation of
responsibility.
With Tesla's Autopilot and General
Motors' Super Cruise, both Level 2 systems
in the market today, that's clear. Regardless
of functionality, humans remain responsible
for all driving operations. In Level 4 self-driving systems, responsibility is also clear:
Human occupants have zero role.
Consider Level 3 a middle ground,
where responsibility can be exchanged
between human and machine. When
systems are in control, humans are still
required in case the system encounters a
situation it cannot handle.
Those handoffs, and the notion of a
human backup, bring forth a series of
questions and challenges:
While a system drives, can a human
backup check email or watch a video? How
do manufacturers ensure there's no mode
confusion? What series of audio, visual
and haptic cues should be used to alert a
human driver they need to retake control?
How long should they be given to do so?
How should vehicles monitor the readiness
of humans to accept a handoff? What happens if they do not accept that exchange?
"Level 3 pushes the boundaries on
what you expect the human to do, and
it makes it difficult to discern 'Am I driving or riding?' on a moment-to-moment
basis," says Bryan Reimer, research scientist at the Center for Transportation and
Logistics at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. "If I am a human driver,
how do I learn to be a fallback?"
An early experiment provided unsettling answers.
In the earliest days of its self-driving car
project, Google experimented with systems that involved a handoff. Test drivers
immediately over-trusted the technology to
the point where, in some cases, they fell
asleep behind the wheel. Those findings
alarmed engineers, making apparent the
hurdles of any systems in which humans
remained in the loop. For Google, the implications were clear: It was easier to build
a self-driving system from scratch than

consider keeping human drivers involved.
Among traditional automakers, Ford
and Volvo came to similar conclusions and
have not pursued development of Level 3
systems. Others see conditional automation as valuable, particularly for traditional
car owners who might pay for convenience features, such as Traffic Jam Pilot,
that relieve their workload behind the
wheel. Honda and Mercedes-Benz plan
deployments of Level 3 systems in 2020.
Implementing Level 3 will necessitate
a rethinking of user interfaces already
developed for driver-assist systems and
a more collaborative approach to sharing
the driving task, says Artur Seidel, vice
president of the Americas at Elektrobit,
a supplier of software products and
human-machine interface technology.
An example: If it starts raining while a
Level 3 system is engaged, the system
could alert its human backup that conditions are becoming more demanding.
"Then it starts to rain a little harder,
and the car says, 'I think you should take
over soon,' and then the next stage is
the takeover," Seidel said. "It's a gradual
transition, and the more we can make the
system predictable without overloading
the driver, it serves as a training effect."

HANDOVER IS COMPLEX

He underscored the extent of that
complexity.
"Because of the liability involved in that
handover," Seidel says, "there's quite a
bit more work to do on Level 3 systems.
You end up in a situation where you have
to - under all circumstances - handle a
safe stop. We're not necessarily there."
Driver-monitoring
systems
have
emerged as a crucial component of any
system involving human drivers. By monitoring hand position on a steering wheel
or tracking eye movements with in-cabin
cameras, systems can ensure a human is
paying attention. But they have limitations.
"It's one thing to say you're looking out
the windshield and another to say your
head is in the game," says Chris Van Dan
Elzen, vice president of product planning
at Veoneer, a software and hardware

ON THE LEVEL
Not all automated vehicles are created
equal. The industry has adopted these
6 levels of driving automation, as
outlined by SAE International.

NO DRIVING AUTOMATION

The human drives. The vehicle
may have features such as
automatic emergency braking
or blind-spot warning, but the
human remains in control of
the dynamic driving task.

DRIVER ASSISTANCE

The human drives. The vehicle
provides steering or brake/
acceleration support, such as
lane centering or adaptive
cruise control.

PARTIAL DRIVING
AUTOMATION

The human is responsible for
vehicle operations. The vehicle
provides both steering and
brake/acceleration support.

CONDITIONAL
AUTOMATION

The human and robot can
exchange responsibility for
the driving task. The vehicle
can drive itself under limited
conditions, but the human
must take over on request.

HIGH DRIVING
AUTOMATION

The robot does all the driving,
but with certain restrictions, such
as robotaxis that are limited to
operating in a geofenced area.

FULL DRIVING
AUTOMATION

The robot does all the driving,
everywhere, and in all conditions.

see LEVEL 3, p. 20
july 2019 * shift

Shift Magazine - July 22, 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Shift Magazine - July 22, 2019