±Forensic Focus Partners

Become an advertising partner

±Your Account


Username
Password

Forgotten password/username?

Site Members:

New Today: 0 Overall: 33512
New Yesterday: 0 Visitors: 227

±Follow Forensic Focus

Forensic Focus Facebook PageForensic Focus on TwitterForensic Focus LinkedIn GroupForensic Focus YouTube Channel

RSS feeds: News Forums Articles

±Latest Articles

RSS Feed Widget

±Latest Webinars

Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Computer forensics discussion. Please ensure that your post is not better suited to one of the forums below (if it is, please post it there instead!)
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQSearchView unanswered posts
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:06 am

Implicit within AV will be to define the AV system installed and operated. The vehicle operator can still be the driver between L2+ onward. The key is to determine AV-integrated and AV-add-on. If AV is used on a consumer vehicle as an add-on (L2-L5) then the vehicle operator becomes responsible under "selection and choice" - foreseeability (the man on the Clapham. Omnibus). It is not clear at this stage whether an add-on manufacturer could produce an L4/L5 device.

Car forensics may not be relevant where the data is stored in the AV add-on device, but relevant to integrated systems. Car forensics would still be fully relevant for the Electronic Control Modules (ECM).

For law enforcement, like Ed Merritt, ascertain the knowledge about an integrated system would be priority in any accident. For instance, if LiDAR was integrated into vehicle wing mirrors and one or both mirror/s got damaged or knocked off the vehicle; what happens thereafter with respect to control of vehicle? What other technologies are deployed within the AV integrated system? How would that compare to a deployed add-on AV system/technologies?

In short, it is far too soon to be writing anything off....
_________________
Institute for Digital Forensics (IDF) - www.linkedin.com/groups/2436720
Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) - www.linkedin.com/groups/141739
Universal Network Investigations - www.linkedin.com/groups/13536130
Mobile Telephone Evidence & Forensics trewmte.blogspot.com 

trewmte
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:52 am

Actually the 10 seconds between car-lead and human-lead handover is legally unsecure. The car-lead until handover (variable action time of humans on same handling) responsability is clear. But the 'action-time if human not takesover' is problematic.

Look at the legal separation between 'control' and 'assist'. AEB e.g. clearly is an autonomous function if enabled. But look sharply that the moment of enabling (system time to enable unknown) brings confusion related to traffic environment.

As long as law is clear the driver is guilty. But whould you buy a new ADAS car after found guilty in a situation you trusted your oADAS-car?

The level on smog is bigger as visible. It really is like smog.

Remarks: In Switzerland a Tesla driver was declared guilty on a autonomous driving crash. His lack was that he could not proof to had both hands on the steering wheel. What if he could proof, he did?  

RolfGutmann
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:32 am

- RolfGutmann
Actually the 10 seconds between car-lead and human-lead handover is legally unsecure. The car-lead until handover (variable action time of humans on same handling) responsability is clear. But the 'action-time if human not takesover' is problematic.

Look at the legal separation between 'control' and 'assist'. AEB e.g. clearly is an autonomous function if enabled. But look sharply that the moment of enabling (system time to enable unknown) brings confusion related to traffic environment.

As long as law is clear the driver is guilty. But whould you buy a new ADAS car after found guilty in a situation you trusted your oADAS-car?

The level on smog is bigger as visible. It really is like smog.

Remarks: In Switzerland a Tesla driver was declared guilty on a autonomous driving crash. His lack was that he could not proof to had both hands on the steering wheel. What if he could proof, he did?


Which Level (L1-L5) are you referring to you for the above?
_________________
Institute for Digital Forensics (IDF) - www.linkedin.com/groups/2436720
Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) - www.linkedin.com/groups/141739
Universal Network Investigations - www.linkedin.com/groups/13536130
Mobile Telephone Evidence & Forensics trewmte.blogspot.com 

trewmte
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:53 am

L1 for assistant, L2 for control functions. AEB belongs to L2 but is often a user-open function (on/off). If AEB enabled the car keeps a sum of response time distance plus braking distance. If the driver or another car reduces the AEB-distance an LED sign flashes as the AEB assistant is 'violated' and cannot assure AEB. The car gives back the responsibility.

As traffic is sometimes so tight drivers emotionally suffer by getting the impression of 'losing' as the car reduces speed to extend distance for 'full' AEB. A fraction of a second later another car cuts in and the 'losing-process' restarts. Drivers dont like to lose. These are subjective observations of our team.

AEB Automatic Emergency Brakeing  

RolfGutmann
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:01 am

As AV's are developed and are released for public consumption, laws will have to be put into place prior. I know the State of Ohio starting in 2016 was already tasking members of their highway patrol to look at the possibilities and draft ideas for laws.

What I believe will happen is, AV's will require a licensed driver to be in the "driver's seat" to assume control in case of a system failure. That way if the human eye catches something the AV does not, the "driver" will be able to take corrective action. The "driver" will ultimately be held responsible for the accident. If there is a system failure that caused the accident, then there will be a lawsuit involving the company if basic maintenance that should have been done by the owner of the AV is not an issue. Not much is going to change as far as liability. The lawyers will see to that.

I do not see in the immediate AV future that people are going to be riding in vehicles totally oblivious to the traffic outside while drinking their grande soy non-fat frappuccino while Facetiming their BFF's. The lawyers and lobbyists will make sure there will be someone their to face the liability for the wreck before having to take on the corporate machine that created them. Look at how many wrecks occurred before the Ford and Firestone controversy became news leading to the TREAD Act in Congress.

If the government was smart, they would require AV's to have locally stored information (like a black box) that would document what was going on with the AV at the time of the wreck.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.  

kastajamah
Newbie
 
 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:47 am

- RolfGutmann
L1 for assistant, L2 for control functions. AEB belongs to L2 but is often a user-open function (on/off). If AEB enabled the car keeps a sum of response time distance plus braking distance. If the driver or another car reduces the AEB-distance an LED sign flashes as the AEB assistant is 'violated' and cannot assure AEB. The car gives back the responsibility.

As traffic is sometimes so tight drivers emotionally suffer by getting the impression of 'losing' as the car reduces speed to extend distance for 'full' AEB. A fraction of a second later another car cuts in and the 'losing-process' restarts. Drivers dont like to lose. These are subjective observations of our team.

AEB Automatic Emergency Brakeing


Research to date has shown AEBS available at Assisted Level 1.

So in this Tesla case you mentioned in Switzerland the vehicle was using AEBS as under Automated Level 2?
_________________
Institute for Digital Forensics (IDF) - www.linkedin.com/groups/2436720
Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) - www.linkedin.com/groups/141739
Universal Network Investigations - www.linkedin.com/groups/13536130
Mobile Telephone Evidence & Forensics trewmte.blogspot.com 

trewmte
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:43 pm

The Tesla S autopilot was classified between L2 and L3 in the mentioned case. Swiss traffic law says: Both hands on the steering wheel.

translate.google.ch/tr...edit-text=  

RolfGutmann
Senior Member
 
 

Page 2 of 4
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next