[latexpage]
Teknikimobil.com – Talking about matters of faith will indeed be difficult to convince the public, especially regarding safety issues. Likewise with confidence in autonomous vehicles (AVs). People’s fears regarding driving autonomous vehicles (AV) have indeed decreased. However, even so, this fear can still be said to be high. A survey conducted some time ago by AAA (American Automobile Association), it turned out that the sensitivity to reports of pedestrian deaths at the end of March was relatively small. As we know, there was an accident that resulted in the death of a pedestrian at the end of March in Tempe, AZ. On the other hand, it was found that earlier this year there was a survey report that the reluctance to drive an AV rose to 63 percent and increased to 65 percent at the end of March. Based on these results, Intel’s research is driven towards building trust in AVs.
Sumber: Union of Concerned Scientists
It seems to be a slow, long-term trend. But even though it is slow, there seems to be an attitude that is heading in a favorable direction for the automotive industry in the future. However, industry players will still face many challenges in building trust in AV vehicle passengers. The long-term trend is a slow but favorable attitude, although the industry still faces many challenges in building passenger confidence. Matt Yurdana is a creative director at the Intel Internet of Things Experiences Group. He spoke at the SAE WCX technical forum in April and stated that the issues involved were being identified and taken seriously. Intel is currently devoting substantial resources to the subject of building global public confidence in the issue of autonomous transportation.
Intel’s research focuses on the issue of trust or increasing trust in AV vehicle passengers.
Also read:
About Fuel Tank Capacity – Must Know
Does the AC waste fuel in your car?
In the forum, he discussed a simple AV shuttle type operation. Intel’s short-range operation is based on its campus in Chandler, AZ. It was explained that the system uses a telephone application to request vehicles and schedule trips. This is exactly like the bus ride services by Uber and Lyft. When the shuttle arrives for pick-up, a screen near the rear side window will display a welcome message with names for passengers. The goal is to reassure passengers that the vehicle is there for them. This step is the first step in the process to give passengers a sense of an overall controlled situation. Which means that everyone is under control even though they are not driving.
The short journey was within the permitted speed limit. The shuttle will make an announcement and then stop to allow pedestrians to pass. This vehicle will slow down and almost stop completely and will stop completely when the traffic signal turns red. The design includes detour routes required by construction and the vehicle responds smoothly. In this case there is an announcement that they have identified the situation and recalculated a new route. When it reached its destination, the car stopped at the side of the road and informed passengers that it was safe to exit from the left side door.
Intel’s research is based on several things such as human vs machine judgment and various other important things as described below.
Intel conducted many interviews with 10 passengers. The interview is intended to find out not only what they like and don’t like. But further, regarding what changes they want to see, with a particular focus on the seven areas of contradiction expressed by passengers, namely:
- Human vs machine judgment: Looking at concerns about traffic nuances and reaction times from a lack of human judgment. However, there is confidence that AVs will avoid mistakes made by humans. Therefore, AVs can be seen as safer.
- Personalized space vs. lack of assistance: There is a possibility that the taxi that has been available is “just for me” for single passengers. But concerns about how disabled/elderly people and children will get in and out of the car.
- Getting the right amount of communication between passengers and vehicle: making people aware of issues during travel vs. freeing passengers from having to be alert.
- Providing vehicle control vs providing a new form of control.
- Showing how the technology works and providing evidence that the technology really works: Seeing evidence that the vehicle is correctly assessing the road situation and responding correctly gives passengers confidence.
- Telling passengers vs listening to them: being able to “communicate” with the vehicle, just like a human driver. This is seen as an advantage, especially for desired route changes and requests for immediate stops.
- Following safe driving rules vs human interpretation of rules: passengers learn that their behavior as a driver is not always safe or necessary by (texting, etc.). Includes acknowledgments that vary based on age, experience, and driving style. By giving up control of the vehicle, they face driving with “by the book” safe driving. Ereka also expects good physical protection in the vehicle.
Automated driving control, invented by Intel, has the pernicious effect of telling passengers that they are not in control. However, Yurdana said, “engineers love it.”
Despite the various issues that have occurred recently, Intel research shows that there is increasing trust among AV drivers.
Announcements using human voices add trust. However, Intel found that passengers indicated they wanted some interaction. Such interactions include being able to talk to the vehicle as if there were a human driver, to change the destination, or perhaps to ask the vehicle to slow down or even stop if the weather suddenly changes such as a sudden storm. Weather changes and autonomous operation in the dark are among passengers’ long-known concerns. Specifically pedestrian detection following Tempe, AZ, fatality.
What’s interesting, as people become more familiar with vehicle operation. They are so confident in the basic operation as safe. They want less information — without constantly announcing stops for traffic lights, pedestrians, etc. And at some points on the route, they’ll like the vehicle to go a little faster. For example, the streets are completely empty in good weather.
Yurdana noted that there is some rider familiarity with using shared transportation. Some of them are trains, buses, planes, and even autonomous systems such as monorails. But the cabins are large, so even though they are crowded, the number of unrelated passengers produces a sense of privacy. Additionally, where there are shared taxi type services such as Via, these trips are very short term. So unrelated passengers usually do not face relationship problems.
SAE also set up an indoor route during WCX for the Navya autonomous shuttle. The French-developed vehicle operates in more than 60 cities in 11 countries around the world. Their operations include a noteworthy shuttle in downtown Las Vegas. Although it has a maximum speed of 45 km/h (28 mph), it is reduced to 15 km/h (10 mph) for SAE operations. This vehicle has a passenger capacity of 15 (11 seated). Including one emergency passenger/driver who just sat down for the ride (as if he were the only passenger). If necessary, he can quickly reach the compartment for the joystick-type controller to operate the vehicle manually. However, it runs smoothly in autonomous mode for the duration of the event.[]