A matter of urgency: preparing for ISO 26262 certification

Yoshiki Chubachi

Guest post by Yoshiki Chubachi, automotive business development manager for QNX Software Systems, Japan

Two weeks ago in Tokyo, QNX Software Systems sponsored an ISO 26262 seminar hosted by IT Media MONOist, a Japanese information portal for engineers. This was the fourth MONOist seminar to focus on the ISO 26262 functional safety standard, and the theme of the event conveyed an unmistakable sense of urgency: “You can’t to afford to wait any longer: how you should prepare for ISO 26262 certification”.

In his opening remarks, Mr. Pak, a representative of MONOist, noted that the number of attendees for this event increases every year. And, as the theme suggests, many engineers in the automotive community feel a strong need to get ready for ISO26262. In fact, registration filled up just three days after the event was announced.

The event opened with a keynote speech by Mr. Koyata of the Japan Automobile Research Institute (JARI), who spoke on functional safety as a core competency for engineers. A former engineer at Panasonic, Mr. Koyata now works as an ISO 26262 consultant at JARI. In his speech, he argued that every automotive developer should embrace knowledge of ISO 26262 and that automakers and Tier 1 suppliers should adopt a functional "safety culture." Interestingly, his argument aligns with what Chris Hobbs and Yi Zheng of QNX advocate in their paper, “10 truths about building safe embedded software systems.” My Koyata also discussed the difference between safety and ‘Hinshitu (Quality)” which is a strong point of Japan industry.

Next up were presentations by the co-sponsor DNV Business Assurance Japan. The talks focused on safety concepts and architecture as well as on metrics for hardware safety design for ISO 26262.

I had the opportunity to present on software architecture and functional safety, describing how the QNX microkernel architecture can provide an ideal system foundation for automotive systems with functional safety requirements. I spoke to a number of attendees after the seminar, and they all recognized the need to build an ISO 26262 process, but didn’t know how to start. The need, and opportunity, for education is great.

Yoshiki presenting at the MONOist ISO 26262 seminar. Source: MONOist

The event ended with a speech by Mr. Shiraishi of Keio University. He has worked on space satellite systems and offered some interesting comparisons between the functional safety of space satellites and automotive systems.

Safety and reliability go hand in hand. “Made in Japan” is a brand widely known for its reliability. Although Japan is somewhat behind when it comes to awareness for ISO 26262 certification, I see a great potential for it to be the leader in automotive safety. Japanese engineers take pride in the reliability of products they build, and this mindset can be extended to the new generation of functional safety systems in automotive.

---

Additional reading

QNX Unveils New OS for Automotive Safety
Architectures for ISO 26262 systems with multiple ASIL requirements (whitepaper)
Protecting Software Components from Interference in an ISO 26262 System (whitepaper)
Ten Truths about Building Safe Embedded Software Systems (whitepaper)

Autonomous, not driverless

Paul Leroux

I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to the era of self-driving cars. After all, why spend countless hours negotiating rush-hour traffic when the car could do all the work? Just think of all the things you could do instead: read a novel, Facebook with friends, or even watch Babylon 5 re-runs.

Unlike Babylon 5, this scenario is no longer a page out of science fiction. It’s coming soon, faster than many imagine. That said, the story of the self-driving car still has a few unfinished chapters — chapters in which the human driver still has an important role to play. Yes, that means you.

As I’ve discussed in previous posts, the fully autonomous car is a work in progress. In fact, some of the technologies that will enable cars to drive themselves (adaptive cruise control, forward collision avoidance, etc.) are already in place. Moreover, research suggests that these technologies can, among other things, improve traffic flow and reduce accidents. But does that mean you will soon be able to sit back, close your eyes, and let the car do everything? Not quite.

Evolution, not revolution
If you ask me, Thilo Koslowski of Gartner hit the bull's eye when he said that self-driving cars will go through three evolutionary phases: from automated to autonomous to unmanned. Until we reach the endpoint, we should pay heed to the words of Toyota's Jim Pisz: autonomous does not mean driverless.

If planes can do it…

Some folks hear this and are disappointed. They point to auto-pilot technology in planes and ask why we can’t have driverless cars sooner than later. The argument goes something like this: "It's much harder to fly a plane, yet we have no problem with a computer handling such a complex task. So why not let a computer drive your car?”

If only life were so simple. For one thing, automakers will have to make autonomous cars affordable — doable but not easy. They’ll also have to negotiate a variety of legal hurdles. And in any case, driving and flying have less in common than you might think.

When you drive, you must remain alert on a continuous basis. Lose your attention for a second, and you stand a good chance of hitting something or somebody. The same doesn't always hold true in flight. When a plane is cruising at 30,000 feet along a proscribed flight path, the pilot can avert his or her attention for 5 seconds and incur little chance of hitting anything. In comparison, a driver who becomes distracted for 5 seconds is hell on wheels.

And, of course, auto-pilot doesn’t mean pilot-less. As Ricky Hudi of Audi points out, pilots may rely on autopilot, but they still retain full responsibility for flying the plane. So just because your car is on auto-pilot doesn’t mean you can watch YouTube on your tablet. Bummer, I know.

An alarming solution

Source: Modern Mechanix blog (and yes, that should 
read Frankfurt)

All of which to say, the driver of an autonomous car will have to remain alert most or all of the time — until, of course, autonomous vehicles become better than humans at handling every potential scenario. Now that could happen, but it will take a while.

It seems that someone anticipated this problem in the early 50s when they invented “alarming glasses” — take a gander at the accompanying photo from the August 1951 issue of Modern Mechanix.

Scoff if you will, but a kinder and gentler form of this technology is exactly what autonomous cars need. No, I'm not suggesting that scientists find a better way to glue wires to eyelids. But I am saying that, until cars become fully and safely autonomous, drivers will need to pay attention — after all, it’s tempting to drift off when the car is doing all the work. And, indeed, technologies to keep drivers alert are already being developed.

Pre-warned means prepared
Mind you, it isn’t enough to keep the driver alert; the car may also need to issue “pre-warnings” for when the driver needs to take over. For instance, let’s say driving conditions become too challenging for the car’s autonomous mode to handle — these could heavy rain, a street filled with pedestrians, or an area where lane markers are obscured by snow. In that case, the car can’t wait until it can no longer drive itself before alerting the driver, for the simple reason that the driver may simply take too long to assess the situation. The car will need to provide ample warning ahead of time.

The more, the better
That cars will become autonomous is inevitable. In fact, the more autonomous, the better, as far I'm concerned. Research already suggests that technologies for enabling autonomous driving can, in many cases, do a better job of avoiding accidents and improving traffic flow than human drivers. They also seem to do better at things like parallel parking — a task that has caused more than one student driver to fail a driving test.

But does this all mean that, as a driver, I can stop paying attention? Not in the near future. But someday.

Look ma, no driver!

Some of us talk about autonomous cars, some of us dream of owning one, and some of us actually get to ride in one. Andy Gryc is one of the latter. Head over to his blog to see a video he took while being chauffeured in a self-driving vehicle developed at the University of Parma — think of it as the ultimate in hands-free systems.

Would this be an awesome way to tour Italy, or what?

AUTOMOBILE What if…

Imagine if your car could help you become more connected to friends and family — and to the road ahead. Enter a new video that peers into the not-so-distant future.

It blows my mind, but some people still see connectivity in the car as the enemy. They think that, the more connected the car, the more distracting and dangerous it will be. But you know what? Responding to their concerns is easy. I simply ask them what if.

For instance, what if connectivity helped you drive with greater situational awareness? What if it helped you sidestep traffic jams and axle-busting pot holes? What if it helped you detect a stop sign hidden behind a tree? And what if it helped you become more connected to the people important to you, as well as to the road and the cars around you?

When we talk connectivity at QNX, that’s the kind of connectivity we envision. It isn’t just about Bluetooth or Wi-Fi or LTE — that’s only the plumbing. Rather, it’s about keeping you in tune and in sync with your car, your environment, your business, your friends. Your life.

New to 26262? Have I got a primer for you

Driver error is the #1 problem on our roads — and has been since 1869. In August of that year, a scientist named Mary Ward became the first person to die in an automobile accident, after being thrown from a steam-powered car. Driver error was a factor in Mary’s death and, 145 years later, it remains a problem, contributing to roughly 90% of motor vehicle crashes.

Can ADAS systems mitigate driver error and reduce traffic deaths? The evidence suggests that, yes, they help prevent accidents. That said, ADAS systems can themselves cause harm, if they malfunction. Imagine, for example, an adaptive cruise control system that underestimates the distance of a car up ahead. Which raises the question: how can you trust the safety claims for an ADAS system? And how do you establish that the evidence for those claims is sufficient?

Enter ISO 26262. This standard, introduced in 2015, provides a comprehensive framework for validating the functional safety claims of ADAS systems, digital instrument clusters, and other electrical or electronic systems in production passenger vehicles.

ISO 26262 isn’t for the faint of heart. It’s a rigorous, 10-part standard that recommends tools, techniques, and methodologies for the entire development cycle, from specification to decommissioning. In fact, to develop a deep understanding of 26262 you must first become versed in another standard, IEC 61508, which forms the basis of 26262.

ISO 26262 starts from the premise that no system is 100% safe. Consequently, the system designer must perform a hazard and risk analysis to identify the safety requirements and residual risks of the system being developed. The outcome of that analysis determines the Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) of the system, as defined by 26262. ASILs range from A to D, where A represents the lowest degree of hazard and D, the highest. The higher the ASIL, the greater the degree of rigor that must be applied to assure the system avoids residual risk.

Having determined the risks (and the ASIL) , the system designer selects an appropriate architecture. The designer must also validate that architecture, using tools and techniques that 26262 either recommends or highly recommends. If the designer believes that a recommended tool or technique isn’t appropriate to the project, he or she must provide a solid rationale for the decision, and must justify why the technique actually used is as good or better than that recommended by 26262.

The designer must also prepare a safety case. True to its name, this document presents the case that the system is sufficiently safe for its intended application and environment. It comprises three main components: 1) a clear statement of what is claimed about the system, 2) the argument that the claim has been met, and 3) the evidence that supports the argument. The safety case should convince not only the 26262 auditor, but also the entire development team, the company’s executives, and, of course, the customer. Of course, no system is safe unless it is deployed and used correctly, so the system designer must also produce a safety manual that sets the constraints within which the product must be deployed.

Achieving 26262 compliance is a major undertaking. That said, any conscientious team working on a safety-critical project would probably apply most of the recommended techniques. The standard was created to ensure that safety isn’t treated as an afterthought during final testing, but as a matter of due diligence in every stage of development.

If you’re a system designer or implementer, where do you start? I would suggest “A Developer’s View of ISO 26262”, an article recently authored by my colleague Chris Hobbs and published in EE Times Automotive Europe. The article provides an introduction to the standard, based on experience of certifying software to ISO 26262, and covers key topics such as ASILs, recommended verification tools and techniques, the safety case, and confidence from use.

I also have two whitepapers that may prove useful: Architectures for ISO 26262 systems with multiple ASIL requirements, written by my colleague Yi Zheng, and Protecting software components from interference in an ISO 26262 system, written by Chris Hobbs and Yi Zheng.

AUTOMOBILE Keeping it fresh for 35 years

By Megan Alink, Director of Marketing Communications for Automotive

Recently, my colleagues Paul Leroux and Matt Young showed off a shiny new infographic that enlightens readers to the many ways they encounter QNX-based systems in daily life (here and here). After three-and-a-half decades in business we’ve certainly been around the block a time or two, and you might think things are getting a bit stale. As the infographic shows, that couldn’t be further from the truth here at QNX. From up in the stars to down on the roads; in planes, trains, and automobiles (and boats too); whether you’re mailing a letter or crafting a BBM on your BlackBerry smartphone, the number and breadth of applications in which our customers deploy QNX technology is simply astounding.

For those who like some sound with their pictures, we also made a video to drive home the point that, wherever you are and whatever you do, chances are you’ll encounter a little QNX. Check it out:

(My latest) top 12 articles on robot cars

Human error accounts for 9 out of 10 vehicle accidents. That alone is a compelling argument for building more autonomy into cars. After all, a robot car won't get moody or distracted, but will remain alert at all times. Moreover, it will respond quickly and consistently to dangerous situations, if programmed correctly. The problem, of course, is that it will respond, and you may not always be happy with the decisions it makes.

For instance, what happens if 5 children playing tag suddenly run in front of your robot car — should it opt for the greater good and avoid them, even if that puts you in mortal danger? Or should it hand over control and let you decide? Some would argue that such questions are moot, for the simple reason that autonomous cars may significantly reduce accidents overall. Nonetheless, these questions go the heart of how we see ourselves in relation to the machines we use every day. They demand discussion.

Speaking of discussion, I'd love to hear your thoughts on any of these articles. I don't agree with everything they say, but they certainly got me thinking. I think they'll do the same for you.

• The Psychology Of Anthropomorphic Robots (Fast Company) — Convincing people to trust a self-driving car is surprisingly easy: just give it a cute face and a warm voice.
   
• The Robot Car of Tomorrow May Just Be Programmed to Hit You (WIRED) — In a situation where a robot car must hit either of two vehicles, should it hit the vehicle with the better crash rating? If so, wouldn't that penalize people for buying safer cars? A look at why examining edge cases is important in evaluating crash-avoidance algorithms.
   
• The Ethics of Autonomous Cars (The Atlantic) — Will your robot car know when to follow the law — and when to break it? And who gets to decide how your car will decide?
   
• IEET Readers Divided on Robot Cars That Sacrifice Drivers’ Lives (IEET) — In response to the above story, the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies asked its readers whether a robot car should sacrifice the driver's life to save the lives of others. Not everyone was convinced.
   
• How to Make Driverless Cars Behave (TIME) — Did you know that Stanford’s CARS group has already developed tools to help automakers code morality into their cars? Yeah, I didn’t either. On the other hand, if driverless cars lead to far fewer accidents overall, will they even need embedded morality?
   
• When 'Driver' Goes the Way of 'Computer' (The Atlantic) — Many of us imagine that autonomous vehicles will look and feel a lot like today’s cars. But guess what: once the human driver is out of the picture, long-standing assumptions about how cars are designed go out the proverbial window.
   
• The end of driving (as we know it) (Fortune) — In Los Angeles, people drive 300 million miles every day. Now imagine if they could spend some or all of that time doing something else.
   
• A Path Towards More Sustainable Personal Mobility (Stanford Energy Club) — If you find the Los Angeles statistic startling, consider this: every year in the US, light duty vehicles travel three trillion passenger miles — that’s 3x10¹². Autonomous vehicles could serve as one element in a multi-pronged approach to reduce this number and help the environment.
   
• How Shared Vehicles Are Changing the Way We Get Around (StreetsBlog USA) — If access is more important than ownership, will fleets of sharable autonomous cars translate into fewer cars on the road? The answer is yes, according to some research.
   
• Driving revenues: Autonomous cars (EDN) — According to Lux Research, software accounts for a large fraction of the revenue opportunity in autonomous cars. Moreover, the car OS could be a differentiating factor for auto manufacturers.
   
• Autonomous Vehicles Will Bring the Rise of 'Spam Cars' (Motherboard) — Though it would be a long, long time before this ever happened, the idea isn’t as goofy as you might think.
   

You can find my previous top 12 robo-car articles here.

Autonomous cars? Suddenly, I’m not so skeptical

Guest post from Emil Dautovic, European automotive business development manager for QNX Software Systems

As a driving enthusiast, I have always felt a bit skeptical about the notion of autonomous cars. The reason is simple: I actually enjoy driving and don’t want someone else to do it for me, in this case the car itself.

Recently, however, my skepticism has begun to soften. I am fascinated, for example, by the SARTRE road train project, where a lead vehicle takes responsibility for a platoon of semi-autonomous cars. Also, recent research from the U.S. Highway Loss Data Institute suggests that, when it comes to some driving tasks, ADAS systems can already put many human drivers to shame.

Autonomous drive will become especially important when today’s “always on” generation starts to buy cars in earnest. They will, no doubt, want to consume multimedia and interact through social media even while on the road, and automakers will need to accommodate them.

HMIs with more (and less) distraction
What would this mean for car makers? Among other things, the infotainment system in a self-driving car could offer an HMI mode that gives the driver more freedom to pay attention to non-driving activities. When the car subsequently needs a human driver (for instance, it becomes disconnected from a road train), the infotainment system could disable these features and immediately go back to a less distracting user interface.

Also, driver assist systems — such as those for detecting animals and pedestrians — would need to be integrated with the road train system to decide how to react when, say, a rabbit runs in front of the car. For instance, should the car brake and warn other cars of the fact, or would it be safer to simply keep driving? It will be interesting to follow this initiative and see how the technical and business aspects evolve, and how, for example, the owner of the lead vehicle will be paid.

For another interesting example of research into autonomous drive, check out the BRAiVE project led by the VisLab team at the University of Parma. The BRAiVE project uses a variety of sensors, with a focus on low-cost alternatives that could realistically integrated into in production cars.

Bells and whistles
So what kind of impact could all this have on a company providing automotive software platforms?

There will, I believe, be an increased demand for a platform that could run all of these applications, enabling the advanced use cases while ensuring that critical functions always have enough processor power. And, of course, the platform will have to be reliable. If this same platform could offer all the bells and whistles available in consumer electronics and demanded by younger drivers, the self-driving future might prove to be a bit closer than we think.

By the way, if you’re unfamiliar with the SARTRE road train project, check out this video:

---

More about Emil
Emil Dautovic is an automotive business development manager at QNX Software Systems, where he is responsible for the European automotive market. Prior to joining QNX, he worked as a business area manager for The Astonishing Tribe (TAT), where he built TAT's automotive business from scratch and helped transform the company into an important player in the automotive HMI field with leading automotive OEMs and tier ones. He has also worked at AU-System (later Teleca and Obigo), where he served as a consultant on GSM base station development and as a sales representative serving mobile phone OEMs and ODMs worldwide. Emil holds an M.Sc. in Electronic Engineering from Lunds Tekniska Högskola.

#QNXLive Twitter Sessions Return!

Ask us your questions about self-driving cars and the secrets of the QNX Garage

Paul Leroux

We’re back for more of your questions. Back in December, we held our first #QNXLive Twitter sessions leading up to CES 2015; next week, we’re revving up for Telematics Detroit (June 5-6) with not one, but two #QNXLive sessions with experts from the QNX auto team.

Autonomous cars continue to captivate the popular imagination and are quickly becoming a reality. On Tuesday, May 28 at 4pm ET, Justin Moon, global technical evangelist,will give a preview of his Telematics Detroit panel, “The Autonomous Car: The Road to Driverless Driving” in his first #QNXLive session. Justin will share his thoughts on the latest developments in autonomous and assisted driving, how the industry defines “autonomous”, how your car is already autonomous in certain respects, and how self-driving cars will change your driving experience.

On Thursday, May 30 at 1pm ET, Alex James, concept development team software engineer, will take you Behind the scenes at the QNX Garage in his #QNXLive session. Have you ever wondered what a day looks like in the QNX garage for the concept design team? What does the team enjoy most about working in the garage? Alex will give you a behind-the-scenes look at the birthplace of the QNX technology concept car based on a Bentley Continental GT and the reference vehicle based on a Jeep Wrangler Sahara — both will be at Telematics Detroit.

You can submit your questions now or on the day of the Twitter sessions by tweeting @QNX_Auto with the hashtag #QNXLive. As usual, we’ll be sure to call you out if you asked a question that we selected.

Be sure to follow @QNX_Auto for next week’s live Twitter sessions – and the latest from Telematics Detroit. I’m looking forward to being your host for #QNXLive.

In the meantime, check out our recent posts on autonomous cars and the following videos:

Meet Justin Moon, product manager turned concept designer (Justin is nothing if not versatile: he's since taken on the role of global technical evangelist.)

Meet the QNX concept team: Alex James, software engineer

QNX technology concept car - Bentley Continental

Top 10 challenges facing the ADAS industry

Tina Jeffrey

It didn’t take long. Just months after the release of the ISO 26262 automotive functional safety standard in 2015, the auto industry began to grasp its importance and adopt it in a big way. Safety certification is gaining traction in the industry as automakers introduce advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), digital instrument clusters, heads-up displays, and other new technologies in their vehicles.

Governments around the world, in particular those of the United States and the European Union, are calling for the standardization of ADAS features. Meanwhile, consumers are demonstrating a readiness to adopt these systems to make their driving experience safer. In fact, vehicle safety rating systems are becoming a vital ‘go to’ information resource for new car buyers. Take, for example, the European New Car Assessment Programme Advanced (Euro NCAP Advanced). This organization publishes safety ratings on cars that employ technologies with scientifically proven safety benefits for drivers. The emergence of these ratings encourages automakers to exceed minimum statutory requirements for new cars.

Sizing the ADAS market
ABI Research claims that the global ADAS market, estimated at US$16.6 billion at the end of 2015, will grow to more than US$260 billion by the end of 2020, representing a CAGR of 41%. Which means that cars will ship with more of the following types of safety-certified systems:



The 10 challenges
So what are the challenges that ADAS suppliers face when bringing systems to market? Here, in my opinion, are the top 10:

1. Safety must be embedded in the culture of every organization in the supply chain. ADAS suppliers can't treat safety as an afterthought that is tacked on at the end of development; rather, they must embed it into their development practices, processes, and corporate culture. To comply with ISO 26262, an ADAS supplier must establish procedures associated with safety standards, such as design guidelines, coding standards and reviews, and impact analysis procedures. It must also implement processes to assure accountability and traceability for decisions. These processes provide appropriate checks and balances and allow for safety and quality issues to be addressed as early as possible in the development cycle.
    
2. ADAS systems are a collaborative effort. Most ADAS systems must integrate intellectual properties from a number of technology partners; they are too complex to be developed in isolation by a single supplier. Also, in a safety-certified ADAS system, every component must be certified — from the underlying hardware (be it a multi-core processor, GPU, FPGA, or DSP) to the OS, middleware, algorithms, and application code. As for the application code, it must be certified to the appropriate automotive safety integrity level; the level for the ADAS applications listed above is typically ASIL D, the highest level of ISO 26262 certification.
    
3. Systems may need to comply with multiple industry guidelines or specifications. Besides ISO 26262, ADAS systems may need to comply with additional criteria, as dictated by the tier one supplier or automaker. On the software side, these criteria may include AUTOSAR or MISRA. On the hardware side, they will include AEC-Q100 qualification, which involves reliability testing of auto-grade ICs at various temperature grades. ICs must function reliably over temperature ranges that span -40 degrees C to 150 degrees C, depending on the system.
    
4. ADAS development costs are high. These systems are expensive to build. To achieve economies of scale, they must be targeted at mid- and low-end vehicle segments. Prices will then decline as volume grows and development costs are amortized, enabling more widespread adoption.
    
5. The industry lacks interoperability specifications for radar, laser, and video data in the car network. For audio-video data alone, automakers use multiple data communication standards, including MOST (media-oriented system transport), Ethernet AVB, and LVDS. As such, systems must support a multitude of interfaces to ensure adoption across a broad spectrum of possible interfaces. Also, systems may need additional interfaces to support radar or lidar data.
    
6. The industry lacks standards for embedded vision-processing algorithms. Ask 5 different developers to develop a lane departure warning system and you’ll get 5 different solutions. Each solution will likely start with a Matlab implementation that is ported to run on the selected hardware. If the developer is fortunate, the silicon will support image processing primitives (a library of functions designed for use with the hardware) to accelerate development. TI, for instance, has a set of image and video processing libraries (IMGLIB and VLIB) optimized for their silicon. These libraries serve as building blocks for embedded vision processing applications. For instance, IMGLIB has edge detection functions that could be used in a lane departure warning application.
    
7. Data acquisition and data processing for vision-based systems is high-bandwidth and computationally intensive. Vision-based ADAS systems present their own set of technical challenges. Different systems require different image sensors operating at different resolutions, frame rates, and lighting conditions. A system that performs high-speed forward-facing driver assistance functions such as road sign detection, lane departure warning, and autonomous emergency breaking must support a higher frame rate and resolution than a rear-view camera that performs obstacle detection. (A rear-view camera typically operates at low speeds, and obstacles in the field of view are in close proximity to the vehicle.) Compared to the rear-view camera, an LDW, AEB, or RSD system must acquire and process more incoming data at a faster incoming frame rate, before signaling the driver of an unintentional lane drift or warning the driver that the vehicle is exceeding the posted speed limit.
    
8. ADAS cannot add to driver distraction. There is an increase in the complexity of in-vehicle tasks and displays that can result in driver information overload. Systems are becoming more integrated and are presenting more data to the driver. Information overload could result in high cognitive workload, reducing situational awareness and countering the efficacy of ADAS. Systems must therefore be easy to use and should make use of the most appropriate modalities (visual, manual, tactile, sound, haptic, etc.) and be designed to encourage driver adoption. Development teams must establish a clear specification of the driver-vehicle interface early on in development to ensure user and system requirements are aligned.
    
9. Environmental factors affect ADAS. ADAS systems must function under a variety of weather and lighting conditions. Ideally, vision-based systems should be smart enough to understand when they are operating in poor visibility scenarios such as heavy fog or snow, or when direct sunlight shines into the lens. If the system detects that the lens is occluded or that the lighting conditions are unfavorable, it can disable itself and warn the driver that it is non-operational. Another example is an ultrasonic parking sensor that becomes prone to false positives when encrusted with mud. Combining the results of different sensors or different sensor technologies (sensor fusion) can often provide a more effective solution than using a single technology in isolation.
    
10. Testing and validating is an enormous undertaking. Arguably, testing and validation is the most challenging aspect of ADAS development, especially when it comes to vision systems. Prior to deploying a commercial vision system, an ADAS development team must amass hundreds if not thousands of hours of video clips in a regression test database, in an effort to test all scenarios. The ultimate goal is to achieve 100% accuracy and zero false positives under all possible conditions: traffic, weather, number of obstacles or pedestrians in the scene, etc. But how can the team be sure that the test database comprises all test cases? The reality is that they cannot — which is why suppliers spend years testing and validating systems, and performing extensive real-world field-trials in various geographies, prior to commercial deployment.
     

There are many hurdles to bringing ADAS to mainstream vehicles, but clearly, they are surmountable. ADAS systems are commercially available today, consumer demand is high, and the path towards widespread adoption is paved. If consumer acceptance of ADAS provides any indication of societal acceptance of autonomous drive, we’re well on our way.

Will autonomous car tech save your life?

"But if we can prevent crashes altogether, that's even better." This statement comes at the end of a new video from the Highway Loss Data Institute, which explores how some crash avoidance systems are, in fact, reducing crashes.

Before we watch the video — and it really is worth watching — allow me to digress. The notion of achieving 100% crash prevention is, to my mind, a non-starter. It's like saying that kids can play sports without ever getting hurt, or that you can live with other people without ever catching a cold. Yes, you should do what you can to keep such outcomes to an absolute minimum, but life doesn't come with 100% guarantees, aside from those that apply to death and taxes. In fact, the only way to ensure a system is 100% safe is to ensure it does absolutely nothing.

Fortunately, the crash-avoidance systems in question are doing something, and in some cases, the something is good. The findings reported by the HLDI are fascinating, since they suggest that systems which take action on behalf of the driver are sometimes more effective than systems which provide warnings only. In other words, fewer crashes occur when the car, rather than the driver, takes control in a dangerous situation. Feeling like Captain Dunsel yet? :-)

Cisco study: people want a safer, more personalized driving experience

And they're willing to give up some of their privacy to get it.

Paul Leroux

Call me old-fashioned, but my hackles go up every time a web site or business asks me for personal information. My reaction is at once emotional and rational. Emotional because I'm a private person by nature; sharing details about myself simply goes against the grain. Rational because I know that people want this information more for their own benefit than for mine.

Does that mean I never share personal information? Of course not. Even if someone wants it primarily for their benefit, I may still enjoy some benefit in return. That said, I weigh the pro's and con's carefully. And I ask questions. For instance, who will have access to the information? And what will they do with it?

In effect, personal information becomes a form of tender — something I barter in exchange for a perceived benefit. And it seems I'm not alone.

Recently, Cisco published the results of a study on what car drivers would be willing to give up in exchange for a variety of benefits. For instance, 60% would provide DNA samples or other biometric information in return for personalized security or car security. And a whopping 74% would let their driving habits be monitored in return for lower insurance or service maintenance costs. Cisco sums it up in this infographic:


In autonomous we trust
The study also found that people are willing to embrace autonomous cars — but the enthusiasm varies significantly by geography. For instance, Canada trails the U.S. by 8 percentage points, but both countries are miles behind India or Brazil.


The study surveyed more than 1,500 consumers across 10 countries. That's only about 150 people per country, so I wouldn't put too much credence into this geographic breakdown. That said, the differences are dramatic enough to suggest that self-driving cars will see faster adoption in some countries than others.

For more on these and other findings, visit the Cisco website.

Autonomous cars by 1976?

By Paul Leroux

When you hear "Firebird," what image comes to mind? Chances are, it looks something like this:



Or this:



But did you know that the Firebird brand dates back to the 1950s? In those days, the Firebird looked like this:



Clearly, this wasn't a production car. Rather, GM designed it to promote a variety of forward-looking technologies, including a rear-view camera, a CRT-based instrument panel, and, yes, autonomous drive.

Speaking of which, here's a video from 1956 that shows how an "electronic control strip" embedded in the road allowed the Firebird II to drive itself. Jump to the :37 mark to catch the action:



My favorite part? The closing comment, "This may well be part of the American scene in 1976." The prediction was on the optimistic side, to say the least. But it does reflect our long-standing fascination with self-driving cars. In fact, it goes beyond that. The Firebird II also embodies a persistent belief that such cars are inherently safer than cars driven by humans.

Here, for example, is an excerpt from the Firebird II brochure, which extols the benefits of putting technology in the driver's seat:

Not only do you relax and enjoy your journey, but you are as safe as modern science can make you. For, while human beings err in judgment, the electronic brain is completely foolproof.

Does that sound familiar? It does to me. A few weeks ago, I wrote about an article published in 1958 that claimed:

Driving will one day be foolproof, and accidents unknown, when science finally installs the Electronic Highway of the Future.

Part of me laughs at the sheer naïvety of these statements. But you know what? They aren't all that far from the truth. I'd like to think I'm better than any "electronic brain" at driving safely, but the evidence is starting to suggest otherwise. According to data gathered by the Highway Loss Data Institute, automatic crash-avoidance systems in cars are, in fact, better than humans at responding to a variety of dangerous situations.

So, in some small way, I'm threatened by these statements. After all, who wants think of themselves as Captain Dunsel? :-)

Autonomous cars? Surely, you're joking

No, I'm not. And stop calling me Shirley.

Five years ago, I would have called someone nuts if they said cars would soon be driving themselves. But next week, I'm going to say just that. On Monday I'm headed to Detroit for the 2015 SAE World Congress, and the rise of driver-less cars is one of the points I'm going to make as part of a panel on the future of telematics.

Saying that cars could or should drive themselves might get some people up in arms.  Am I advocating taking away the driver's rights? What happened to The Ultimate Driving Experience? What about Fahrvergnügen?

I enjoy driving as much as anyone. And yes, generally, I want to be in control of my car. But I see the writing on the wall, and it comes from three things:

Elderly boomers
My grandfather told me once a couple years before his death that drivers today were so rude

—they were always giving him the finger. I sympathized, until I took a ride with him. I white-knuckled it the whole way as he drove 40 mph in a 70 zone, straddling two lanes of traffic and getting plenty of hand gestures all the way. He didn't drive for much longer after that, fortunately for him and everyone else on the roadway.

My dad is still a good driver, but slowly and surely, my parents are getting there. What happens when all the boomers lose their ability to drive safely? Especially in North America, where distances are so long and independence is a given?

Gen AO
Otherwise called Generation Always On, this group includes anyone who picks their car based on their phone, rather than the other way around. There's a whole generation of people whose need to connect and socialize is far stronger than their need to drive. I'd argue this narrow generational definition could be extended to almost all of us at one time or another.

How many of us (not asking for hands) have been guilty of glancing at their phone while driving? Okay, now how many of us have seen other drivers drift a little too far out of their lane (looking at their phones, presumably) and then all of a sudden snap back to their lane? Right, me too.

Google
It's not just Google; it's also a bunch of very smart and driven (pun intended) people at lots of universities and high-tech companies. Google has motive: it can generate a lot more ad revenue if people are searching, and people can search a lot more if they're not driving. University researchers also have motive: Driver-less cars pose a very challenging problem that would be prestigious to solve. What's more, Google's proven it can be done—on real roads—with their driverless car. Enough that they convinced Nevada to pass a law allowing autonomous cars, with other states soon to follow.

Add those three things together, and what do you get? Yep—driverless cars, sooner than you might think. If I get to the point where I'm endangering others, I'll willingly let my car drive, rather than give up mobility. And wouldn't we all be a little safer if cars came with a cruise-control-like automatic pilot? Yes, I'm sure we would. This is the one thing that could permanently solve any form of distracted driving: a human not driving. I was never was much for Knight Rider, but KITT? Bring it on.
 

Driving simulators at CES

CES was just 15 minutes from closing when I managed to slip away from the very busy QNX booth to try out an F1 simulator. Three screens, 6 degrees of freedom, and surround sound came together for the most exciting simulated driving experience I have ever had. I was literally shaking when they dragged me out of the driver’s seat (I didn’t want to stop :-). Mind you, at around $80K for the system, it seems unlikely I will ever own one.

The experience got me thinking about the types of vehicles currently in simulation or in the lab that I fully expect to drive in my lifetime: cars that are virtually impossible to crash, cars that make it painless to travel long distances, and, ultimately, cars that worry about traffic jams so I can read a book.

Re-incarnated: The QNX reference
vehicle.

QNX Software Systems had a very popular simulator of its own at CES this year. You may have seen some details on it already but to recap, it is a new incarnation of our trusty QNX reference vehicle, extended to demonstrate ADAS capabilities. We parked it in front of a 12 foot display and used video footage captured on California’s fabled Highway 1 to provide the closest thing to real-world driving we could create.

The resulting virtual drive showcased the capabilities not only of QNX technology, but of our ecosystem as well. Using the video footage, we provided camera inputs to Itseez’ computer vision algorithms to demonstrate a working example of lane departure warning and traffic sign recognition. By capturing GPS data synchronized with the video footage, and feeding the result through Elektrobit’s Electronic Horizon Solution, we were able to generate curve speed warnings. All this was running on automotive-grade Jacinto 6 silicon from Texas Instruments. LiDAR technology from Phantom Intelligence rounded out the offering by providing collision feedback to the driver.

The lane departure and curve speed warnings in action. Screen-grab from video by Embedded Computing Design.

Meeting the challenge
While at CES, I also had the opportunity to meet with companies that are working to make advanced ADAS systems commercially viable. Phantom Intelligence is one example but I was also introduced to companies that can provide thermal imaging systems and near-infrared cameras at a fraction of what these technologies cost today.

These are all examples of how the industry is rising up to meet the challenge of safer, more autonomous vehicles at a price point that allows for widespread adoption in the foreseeable future. Amazing stuff, really — we are finally entering the era of the Jetsons.

By the way, I can’t remember what booth I was in when I drove the simulator. But I’m willing to bet that the people who experienced the Jeep at CES will remember they were in the QNX booth, seeing technology from QNX and its key partners in this exciting new world.

One day I’ll be Luke Skywalker

Cyril Clocher

What happens when you blend ADAS with infotainment? Guest post by Cyril Clocher, business manager for automotive processors at Texas Instruments

As we all begin preparing for our trek to Vegas for CES 2015, I would like my young friends (born in the 70s, of course) to reflect on their impressions of the first episode of Lucas’s trilogy back in 1977. On my side, I perfectly remember thinking one day I would be Luke Skywalker.

The eyes of young boys and girls were literally amazed by this epic space opera and particularly by technologies used by our heroes to fight the Galactic Empire. You have to remember it was an era where we still used rotary phones and GPS was in its infancy. So you can imagine how impactful it was for us to see our favorite characters using wireless electronic gadgets with revolutionary HMIs such as natural voice recognition, gesture controls or touch screens; droids speaking and enhancing human intelligence; and autonomous vehicles traveling the galaxy safely while playing chess with a Wookiee. Now you’re with me…

But instead of becoming Luke Skywalker a lot of us realized that we would have a bigger impact by inventing or engineering these technologies and by transforming early concepts into real products we all use today. As a result, smartphones and wireless connectivity are now in our everyday lives; the Internet of Things (IoT) is getting more popular in applications such as activity trackers that monitor personal metrics; and our kids are more used to touch screens than mice or keyboards, and cannot think of on-line gaming without gesture control. In fact, I just used voice recognition to upgrade the Wi-Fi plan from my Telco provider.

But the journey is not over yet. Our generation has still to deliver an autonomous vehicle that is green, safe, and fun to control – I think the word “drive” will be obsolete for such a vehicle.

The automotive industry has taken several steps to achieve this exciting goal, including integration of advanced and connected in-car infotainment systems in more models as well as a number of technologies categorized under Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) that can create a safer and unique driving experience. From more than a decade, Texas Instruments has invested in infotainment and ADAS: “Jacinto” and TDAx automotive processors as well as the many analog companion chips supporting these trends.

"Jacinto 6 EP" and "Jacinto 6 Ex"
infotainment processors

A unique approach of TI is our capability to leverage best of both worlds for non-safety critical features, and to provide a seamless integration of informational ADAS functions into existing infotainment systems so the vehicle better informs and warns the driver. We announced that capability at SAE Convergence in Detroit in October 2015 with the “Jacinto 6 Ex” processor (DRA756), which contains powerful CPU, graphics multimedia, and radio cores with differentiated vision co-processors, called embedded vision engines (EVE), and additional DSPs that perform the complex ADAS processing.

For the TI’s automotive team, the CES 2015 show is even more exciting than in previous years, as we’ve taken our concept of informational ADAS to the next step. With joint efforts and hard work from both TI and QNX teams, we’ve together implemented a real informational ADAS system running the QNX CAR™ Platform for Infotainment on a “Jacinto 6 Ex” processor.

I could try describing this system in detail, but just like the Star Wars movies, it’s best to experience our “Jacinto 6 Ex” and QNX CAR Platform-based system in person. Contact your TI or QNX representative today and schedule a meeting to visit our private suite at CES at the TI Village (N115-N119) or to immerse yourself in a combined IVI, cluster, megapixel surround view, and DLP® based HUD display with augmented reality running on a single “Jacinto 6 Ex” SoC demonstration. And don't forget to visit the QNX booth (2231), where you can see the QNX reference vehicle running a variety of ADAS and infotainment applications on “Jacinto 6” processors.

Integrated cockpit featuring DLP powered HUD and QNX CAR Platform running on a single “Jacinto 6 Ex” SoC.

One day I’ll experience Skywalker’s life as I will no doubt have the opportunity to control an intelligent and autonomous vehicle with my biometrics, voice, and gestures while riding with my family to the movie theater playing chess with my grandkids, not yet a Wookiee.

AUTOMOBILE Talking safety in Novi

Grant Courville

Last week, I had the pleasure of participating in a panel at Telematics Update's Advanced Automotive Safety Conference in Novi, Michigan. A key theme of the panel was — you guessed it — safety.

The two-day event brought together automakers, suppliers, government representatives, research groups, integrators, analysts, and educational institutions to discuss the latest standards and innovations in automotive safety and V2X. The show covered all aspects of vehicle connectivity, as well as the relationship of big data and cloud connectivity to automotive security.

The themes of reliability, security, and safety were front and center in my panel, “Automated Vehicles: The Stepping Stone to Autonomous Driving.” The panel was chaired by IHS Automotive and included experts from DENSO, Ricardo Inc., and the National Advanced Driving Simulator. Everyone on the panel agreed that interoperability and standardization are critical to accelerating innovation, and that ADAS systems are paving the path to autonomous driving.

All in all, the show was an informative event that helped identify the next steps in automotive safety — a topic near and dear to the QNX auto team.

---

Grant Courville is director of product management at QNX Software Systems.

Are you ready to stop micromanaging your car?

I will get to the above question. Honest. But before I do, allow me to pose another one: When autonomous cars go mainstream, will anyone even notice?

The answer to this question depends on how you define the term. If you mean completely and absolutely autonomous, with no need for a steering wheel, gas pedal, or brake pedal, then yes, most people will notice. But long before these devices stop being built into cars, another phenomenon will occur: people will stop using them.

Allow me to rewind. Last week, Tesla announced that its Model S will soon be able to “steer to stay within a lane, change lanes with the simple tap of a turn signal, and manage speed by reading road signs and using traffic-aware cruise control.” I say soon because these functions won't be activated until owners download a software update in the coming weeks. But man, what an update.

Tesla may now be at the front of the ADAS wave, but the wave was already forming — and growing. Increasingly, cars are taking over mundane or hard-to-perform tasks, and they will only become better at them as time goes on. Whether it’s autonomous braking, automatic parking, hill-descent control, adaptive cruise control, or, in the case of the Tesla S, intelligent speed adaptation, cars will do more of the driving and, in so doing, socialize us into trusting them with even more driving tasks.

Tesla Model S: soon with autopilot

In other words, the next car you buy will prepare you for not having to drive the car after that.

You know what’s funny? At some point, the computers in cars will probably become safer drivers than humans. The humans will know it, but they will still clamor for steering wheels, brake pedals, and all the other traditional accoutrements of driving. Because people like control. Or, at the very least, the feeling that control is there if you want it.

It’s like cameras. I would never think of buying a camera that didn’t have full manual mode. Because control! But guess what: I almost never turn the mode selector to M. More often than not, it’s set to Program or Aperture Priority, because both of these semi-automated modes are good enough, and both allow me to focus on taking the picture, not on micromanaging my camera.

What about you? Are you ready for a car that needs a little less micromanagement?

Will autonomous cars motivate more teenagers to get behind the wheel?

I know, it seems like an odd question. But allow me to provide some context.

A few months ago, my colleague Andy Gryc predicted that autonomous cars will, in a few years, start rolling off the assembly lines. To support this prediction, he cited several trends, including two demographic factors: 1) baby boomers are getting older and hence losing their ability to drive safely, and 2) young people today are much more interested in connecting than in driving; they prefer to live their lives online.

I must admit, I thought the second factor was anecdotal at best. But boy, was I wrong… I think.

According to a new study published by the journal Traffic Injury Prevention, the number of young drivers is, in fact, falling precipitously. For instance, in 1983, 87.3% of 19-year-olds had a driver’s license. By 2008 that number had fallen to 75.5%, and by 2010 it had tumbled to 69.5%.

Similar drops occurred in other age groups under 40, but the trend is far more pronounced among teenagers and twenty-somethings. Here’s a graph from the article:



So what accounts for the trend? According to the authors, Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle, the decrease in driver licensing is consistent with the increase in Internet usage — an interpretation that falls in line with Andy Gryc’s hypothesis. I, too, believe that the Internet is a factor. But is it the only one?

In July, Jordan Weissmann of The Atlantic wrote a short piece on Sivak and Brandon’s article, and if the comments are anything to go by, the trend is the result of many contributing factors, not just one. Commenters noted that, since the 1980s, gas prices have gone up; teenagers face more restrictions when applying for licenses; parents have become more protective; and cars, with all their electronics, can no longer be maintained by an teenager with a wrench and a smattering of mechanical skills. And let’s not forget the elephant in the room: the lack of jobs available to young people.

So, to return to our original question, will autonomous cars spur more young people to get behind the wheel? If young people are losing interest in driving because they’d rather stay connected, possibly yes. But if serious economic factors are at play, probably not.

What do you think?

The great autonomous car debate

Paul Leroux

When it comes to cars that drive themselves, are you for or against? Either way, you're bound to find fodder for your arguments in Six reasons to love, or loathe, autonomous cars, a recent CNET article co-authored by Wayne Cunningham and Antuan Goodwin.

Wayne is for, Antuan is against, and they both score good points. For instance, Wayne argues that autonomous cars will reduce accidents and help the elderly remain mobile. Antuan, meanwhile, warns of the potential for reduced privacy and the likelihood that driving will become less random — that last point may not sound like a drawback, but I found myself nodding in agreement.

Actually, I found myself agreeing with both writers on several points. Does that make me a fence-sitter or just someone with a balanced perspective? Read the article and tell me what you think.