Ford Pro Exec Says Level 3 ADAS Is Right Around The Corner

[rmc523]

Ford Pro Exec Says Level 3 ADAS Is Right Around The Corner

 

Just over one year ago, Ford CEO Jim Farley revealed that the automaker was “getting really close” to achieving Level 3 autonomy, and now, those comments are being echoed by Ford Pro CFO Navin Kumar.

“And building a customer install base with BlueCruise is really important to build trust in the brand and the solutions. And this is a precursor to Level 3 autonomy, which is right around the corner,” the Ford Pro executive said during his appearance at the Deutsche Bank Global Auto Industry Conference. “And with Level 3, it’s eyes-off on-highway driving, and that’s really game-changing. We’re developing those solutions in-house with our Latitude team. And that consists of – many of the people were at Argo and transitioned to Ford a few years ago. And we believe our Level 2 and our future Level 3 solutions will be among the best in the industry in execution.”

[fordmantpw]

I don't know if I'll ever be able to "drive" "eyes-off."  We have BlueCruise in the Mach-E, and while it won't let you take your eyes off the road for more than a few seconds, I tried it.  I tried closing my eyes (with my wife in the passenger seat watching, no traffic around, straight road) long enough for the "eyes on the road" warning to come on and I just couldn't do it.  I just can't do it.

[Schpark]

If you want to ride eyes off take the bus, train, plane, uber, taxi, lyft etc.

[akirby]

Tesla already proved it’s not safe.

[morgan20]

1 hour ago, Schpark said:

If you want to ride eyes off take the bus, train, plane, uber, taxi, lyft etc.

 

14 minutes ago, akirby said:

Tesla already proved it’s not safe.

 

Yea, exactly. Also, what's the point of Level 3 anyway? The big shot Kumar is technically correct when he says "it’s eyes-off on-highway driving", but Level 3 still requires human override (the human driver must remain alert and ready to take control at any time).

 

Hey Kumar and Farley, are you aware that Honda and Audi already tested Level 3 systems and gave up on them because they don't function well in the real world? Not to mention all the legal crap the automakers would have to deal with? What makes Ford's Level 3 systems "game changing"? I ain't buyin' it.

 

Level 3 is an odd middle-ground in the race towards cars with full, reliable autonomy. Current vehicles with Level 2 systems still require constant driver input, functioning as assists versus true autonomous driving. Level 4 turns control over to the vehicle in nearly all situations, though a driver can still drive at any point. Level 3 becomes the all-in-one solution that doesn't do anything particularly well, and this recent drive in Japan [with Honda] seems to support that conclusion. Buyers in Japan could be unconvinced as well. Production on Legends with the Level 3 Honda Sensing Elite system is capped at 100, but approximately 80 have been sold so far.

 

Audi is giving up on its most advanced driver-assist system. The German automaker will no longer add its Traffic Jam Pilot system to the A8 sedan in Europe or anywhere else in the world. Level 3 has been discussed as a stepping stone to self-driving cars, but it does not enable autonomous driving. 

 

 

[Bob Rosadini]

Bad enough that they want to expand this to PV's.  I assume the Ford Pro guy is speaking to his responsibilities with commercial vehicles, even worse.

My biggest fear, accident avoidance is not a black and white situation.  

I think I mentioned previously...a couple of people on the curb and a fire hydrant 5' away.  Vehicle headed for me..avoidance says to me pick the hydrant as best I can.  What does the automated vehicle select???

[fordmantpw]

58 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Bad enough that they want to expand this to PV's.  I assume the Ford Pro guy is speaking to his responsibilities with commercial vehicles, even worse.

My biggest fear, accident avoidance is not a black and white situation.  

I think I mentioned previously...a couple of people on the curb and a fire hydrant 5' away.  Vehicle headed for me..avoidance says to me pick the hydrant as best I can.  What does the automated vehicle select???

 

Whatever is not the person, or the fewest number of people.  I'm not worried about that scenario for several reasons:

 

1) Most people can't think that fast anyway.  They think they can, but when in that position, they just can't.  Period.

2) It's easy to distinguish a person with today's technology.  Heck, my Ring cameras can determine when there's a person in my yard.  It's not hard.

3) Machines are 1000x of times faster at making those decisions than people are.  And they'll make them more reliably.

4) I don't trust 99% of drivers out there today to make a good decision in that position.  They're probably staring at their phone anyway.

5) An autonomous car would likely pick the method to hurt the fewest number of people 99 times out of 100.  An average human drivers is probably closer to 5-10 out of 100.

 

It's the normal, everyday stuff where I worry about autonomous tech.  Road construction, fog, new paved road with no lines, etc.

[morgan20]

1 hour ago, fordmantpw said:

 

3) Machines are 1000x of times faster at making those decisions than people are.  And they'll make them more reliably.

4) I don't trust 99% of drivers out there today to make a good decision in that position.  They're probably staring at their phone anyway.

5) An autonomous car would likely pick the method to hurt the fewest number of people 99 times out of 100.  An average human drivers is probably closer to 5-10 out of 100.

 

 

Yea, that's why I don't understand why the big shots at Ford are makin' such a big deal about Level 3. "When the feature requests, you must drive" is how Level 3 systems work. Whenever these systems cede control to the human driver, which can be at any time, it ain't much different from Level 2. 

 

What's so special about Ford's future Level 3 solutions?

 

[Bob Rosadini]

6 hours ago, fordmantpw said:

 

Whatever is not the person, or the fewest number of people.  I'm not worried about that scenario for several reasons:

Thanks for your views, I still say, accident avoidance is NOT a black and white issue

1) Most people can't think that fast anyway.  They think they can, but when in that position, they just can't.  Period.  Goes back to the Smith Sytem of driving that has been taught to commercial drivers for probably 60 years, keep your eyes moving and get the big picture at all times

2) It's easy to distinguish a person with today's technology.  Heck, my Ring cameras can determine when there's a person in my yard.  It's not hard. Education please-can it distinguish between a human and a large animal?

3) Machines are 1000x of times faster at making those decisions than people are.  And they'll make them more reliably. Okay, I'll simplify my example..there is one person on the curb-large adult or a six year old and one object, be it a fire hydrant, a Post office box, a trash can.  Those are readily recognized by me as alternatives - the automated system will pick the correct option ?

4) I don't trust 99% of drivers out there today to make a good decision in that position.  They're probably staring at their phone anyway. True,and they will not react in any case until impact 🤔

5) An autonomous car would likely pick the method to hurt the fewest number of people 99 times out of 100.  An average human drivers is probably closer to 5-10 out of 100. I guess I can't argue with those stats-and they are based on ? Probability?

 

It's the normal, everyday stuff where I worry about autonomous tech.  Road construction, fog, new paved road with no lines, etc. For sure-and add "fog lines" that are well past there useful life. And I will add, my F-150 does have some good systems such as I'm on an Interstate and with no traffic around me  I think it is safe to take my jacket off-not a good move but... right away it starts chirping telling me to "take a break".

 

[7Mary3]

There are a lot of completely driverless (as in no one in the car at all) Waymo cars driving around Los Angeles, right in heavy traffic.  They drive better than a lot of humans do. 

[akirby]

7 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

There are a lot of completely driverless (as in no one in the car at all) Waymo cars driving around Los Angeles, right in heavy traffic.  They drive better than a lot of humans do. 

Until they get stuck in a parking lot.

 

 

[fordmantpw]

10 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Whatever is not the person, or the fewest number of people.  I'm not worried about that scenario for several reasons:

Thanks for your views, I still say, accident avoidance is NOT a black and white issue

1) Most people can't think that fast anyway.  They think they can, but when in that position, they just can't.  Period.  Goes back to the Smith Sytem of driving that has been taught to commercial drivers for probably 60 years, keep your eyes moving and get the big picture at all times

 

Right, but 99% of people don't have that training.  They just take a test, get their license, and off they go!

 

10 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

2) It's easy to distinguish a person with today's technology.  Heck, my Ring cameras can determine when there's a person in my yard.  It's not hard. Education please-can it distinguish between a human and a large animal?

 

Yes.  Pretty easily, actually.

 

10 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

3) Machines are 1000x of times faster at making those decisions than people are.  And they'll make them more reliably. Okay, I'll simplify my example..there is one person on the curb-large adult or a six year old and one object, be it a fire hydrant, a Post office box, a trash can.  Those are readily recognized by me as alternatives - the automated system will pick the correct option ?

 

I'm not a car automation programmer, but in my assumption, they're going to program the system to miss the person if at all possible.  Again, it'll be able to determine the best course of action much better than the human mind can see, process, think, and react.

 

10 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

4) I don't trust 99% of drivers out there today to make a good decision in that position.  They're probably staring at their phone anyway. True,and they will not react in any case until impact 🤔

5) An autonomous car would likely pick the method to hurt the fewest number of people 99 times out of 100.  An average human drivers is probably closer to 5-10 out of 100. I guess I can't argue with those stats-and they are based on ? Probability?

 

Those numbers are theoretical numbers I made up to make a point, just knowing how computers and humans work and react.

[Motorpsychology]

What goes around comes around...

[ZanatWork]

I just don't have the internal wiring to celebrate this direction of automotive technology. Every time I saw the GMC ads with people grinning as they released their steering wheels at highway speeds, I was convinced that human kind had fully become lemmings.

Hey, I get it...long day at work, car picks you up at the curb, you mumble "home", and can ignore everything while your chariot whisks you away. That said, I think we're further away from it being a true reality than some realize. Right now, it does seem like we're pushing towards LESS attentive driving, which is guaranteed to be tragic.

[Flying68]

22 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

 

Also, what's the point of Level 3 anyway? The big shot Kumar is technically correct when he says "it’s eyes-off on-highway driving", but Level 3 still requires human override (the human driver must remain alert and ready to take control at any time).

I don't know if you have a lot of seat time with blue cruise, but I have done several multi-hour trips with it in our Nautilus and I will tell you the eyes on the road sensor is a pain in the ass.  Almost to the point that the system is unusable.  You can't drink from a water bottle or cup without block the sensor for a few seconds, which trips the warning.  You can't perform a normal scan of your surroundings without tripping a warning.  Hell, when making a lane change, if you look in the sideview mirror for a fraction of second too long, it barks at you.  The purpose of Level 3 (which I would guess would be in limited areas) would be to eliminate the annoyances of the current level 2 implementation.  It wouldn't mean you can sleep or watch a movie, but perhaps you would be able to carry on a normal conversation, play with the navigation or search for something on the radio without the system yelling at you.  Tesla's problem with level 2 is that they make their customers believe it is level 3 and refuse to use systems other than optical.  The human eye is much better at adjusting to different conditions than optical sensors are, which is why every other company incorporates multi-sensor technology.

[rmc523]

39 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

I don't know if you have a lot of seat time with blue cruise, but I have done several multi-hour trips with it in our Nautilus and I will tell you the eyes on the road sensor is a pain in the ass.  Almost to the point that the system is unusable.  You can't drink from a water bottle or cup without block the sensor for a few seconds, which trips the warning.  You can't perform a normal scan of your surroundings without tripping a warning.  Hell, when making a lane change, if you look in the sideview mirror for a fraction of second too long, it barks at you.  The purpose of Level 3 (which I would guess would be in limited areas) would be to eliminate the annoyances of the current level 2 implementation.  It wouldn't mean you can sleep or watch a movie, but perhaps you would be able to carry on a normal conversation, play with the navigation or search for something on the radio without the system yelling at you.  Tesla's problem with level 2 is that they make their customers believe it is level 3 and refuse to use systems other than optical.  The human eye is much better at adjusting to different conditions than optical sensors are, which is why every other company incorporates multi-sensor technology.

 

Sounds like they need to make the sensor slightly less sensitive.

 

Similar to the lane departure thing - mine chirps all the time that my hands need to be on the steering wheel, when they are lol.  It's not my fault the vehicle tracks so well I don't need to make constant inputs.

[Motorpsychology]

I let my Blue Cruise trial on my Explorer lapse at the end of the trial period, having used it twice. As @Flying68 says, it is almost unusable, and I can't justify the $49.95/mo for it. On top of that, when you have the settings set for normal cruise control, it displays, "Normal Cruise Control is on. Adaptive braking is off," along with three chimes. Every frickin' time you engage it.😡

 

edit: To clarify, it messages/chimes each time it is initially turned on, not when resuming a preset speed.

Edited July 11 by Motorpsychology

[fordmantpw]

22 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Sounds like they need to make the sensor slightly less sensitive.

 

Similar to the lane departure thing - mine chirps all the time that my hands need to be on the steering wheel, when they are lol.  It's not my fault the vehicle tracks so well I don't need to make constant inputs.

 

Our Bronco does that to me ALL THE TIME!  I drive with one hand, left arm resting on the door, with just fingertip pressure on the wheel.  Like you mention, it tracks so well that I rarely have to give any input if it's on a straight stretch.  It doesn't do that to my wife, but she drives with two hands, so I'm sure she is constantly applying a tiny bit of torque to the wheel in one direction or another.

 

The Mach-E rarely tells me that, and I drive the same way.  Weird.  If I drive with my hand on top of the wheel in the Mach-E, it'll complain to keep my eyes on the road like @Flying68 mentioned.

[morgan20]

1 hour ago, Flying68 said:

I don't know if you have a lot of seat time with blue cruise, but I have done several multi-hour trips with it in our Nautilus and I will tell you the eyes on the road sensor is a pain in the ass.  Almost to the point that the system is unusable.  You can't drink from a water bottle or cup without block the sensor for a few seconds, which trips the warning.

 

39 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

The Mach-E rarely tells me that, and I drive the same way.  Weird.  If I drive with my hand on top of the wheel in the Mach-E, it'll complain to keep my eyes on the road like @Flying68 mentioned.

 

Thanks my friends, that's a good explanation. My wife and I used BlueCruise on the new MME GT on trips along I-69, I-65, I-70, I-74, and I-465 in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Illinois. We like it overall but have also found the driver monitoring to be quite aggressive.

 

Still not convinced that Level 3 is a game changer like Kumar claims. Ford could tone down the driving monitoring sensor behavior for BlueCruise and design other refinements to make it a Level 2 Plus or Level 2.5 system. Or figure out how to get a Level 4 system to better handle situations like what's shown in Waymo robotaxi video akirby shared. 

 

 

[akirby]

4 hours ago, fordmantpw said:

 

 

 

I'm not a car automation programmer, but in my assumption, they're going to program the system to miss the person if at all possible.  Again, it'll be able to determine the best course of action much better than the human mind can see, process, think, and react.

Actually the system will detect the obstacle and brake without hitting anything, unless the obstacle appears suddenly.

[fordmantpw]

7 minutes ago, akirby said:

Actually the system will detect the obstacle and brake without hitting anything, unless the obstacle appears suddenly.

 

Good point.  I was assuming obstacles suddenly appears such as walking out into the street.

[7Mary3]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

Until they get stuck in a parking lot.

 

 

I have seen one incident were a Waymo car couldn't figure out a malfunctioning traffic signal, and there was an instance in my area where one got stuck in a fast food resturant parking lot.  But fact is these driverless cars are are getting better all the time and for the most part have a better safety record than human drivers.  Sure there will be accidents but one day I think driverless vehicles will be the norm.    

[morgan20]

8 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

But fact is these driverless cars are are getting better all the time and for the most part have a better safety record than human drivers.  Sure there will be accidents but one day I think driverless vehicles will be the norm.    

 

Didn't Ford test driverless vehicles (not Level 3) a few years ago somewhere in Florida or Texas? What happened to those?

 

Edited July 11 by morgan20

[rmc523]

4 hours ago, fordmantpw said:

 

Our Bronco does that to me ALL THE TIME!  I drive with one hand, left arm resting on the door, with just fingertip pressure on the wheel.  Like you mention, it tracks so well that I rarely have to give any input if it's on a straight stretch.  It doesn't do that to my wife, but she drives with two hands, so I'm sure she is constantly applying a tiny bit of torque to the wheel in one direction or another.

 

The Mach-E rarely tells me that, and I drive the same way.  Weird.  If I drive with my hand on top of the wheel in the Mach-E, it'll complain to keep my eyes on the road like @Flying68 mentioned.

 

Yeah, it was so annoying, I've wound up not even using the lane departure anymore, since it just bounces you back and forth anyway (not Lane Centering, which I still find annoying Bronco doesn't have since most of the rest of the lineup does).

 

It'll even do that warning when driving regularly too.

[akirby]

19 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Yeah, it was so annoying, I've wound up not even using the lane departure anymore, since it just bounces you back and forth anyway (not Lane Centering, which I still find annoying Bronco doesn't have since most of the rest of the lineup does).

 

It'll even do that warning when driving regularly too.

Lane departure works fine for me and so does lane centering most of the time, but sometimes lane centering draws me right into the center line for no reason.  So I rarely use it.