yesLevi SumagaysayNone
×

Get access to Protocol

Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

I’m already a subscriber
Politics

Self-driving companies: Don’t measure us by ‘disengagements’

Why Waymo, Cruise and others hate a DMV report showing how often humans had to take the wheel.

A Cruise self-driving car pictured on San Francisco's Embarcadero

A Cruise self-driving car rolls along San Francisco's Embarcadero.

Photo: Andrej Sokolow/Picture Alliance via Getty Images

Like it does every year, the California DMV on Wednesday released a report on how often humans have to seize the wheel and take control of self-driving vehicles, also known as disengagements. And like they do every year, some autonomous vehicle companies complained, saying the disengagement numbers from 2019 painted an incomplete picture of their progress.

As questions swirl about self-driving vehicle safety, companies in the industry are extremely sensitive about their image. They fear reports that tell only part of the story — combined with news stories about individual accidents or fatal crashes, or incidents involving Teslas, which don't have self-driving tech — will signal to the public that their technology isn't nearly ready for mass adoption. Underlying their anxiety is the challenge they face not only to improve their systems and operate in a complex world, but build widespread confidence and buy-in, all while fending off competitors.

Get what matters in tech, in your inbox every morning. Sign up for Source Code.

"We appreciate what the California DMV was trying to do when creating this requirement, but the disengagement metric does not provide relevant insights into the capabilities of the Waymo Driver or distinguish its performance from others in the self-driving space," said Waymo, the Mountain View company spun off from Google, at the start of a seven-part Wednesday tweetstorm.

Waymo's disengagements last year fell to 109, or .076 per 1,000 miles driven. Its autonomous vehicles drove 1.45 million miles on California roads — half of the 2.9 million miles driven by the 60 companies that submitted reports to the DMV. The company pointed out in its tweets that most of its vehicles' real-world driving is done outside California, primarily in Phoenix.

Toyota Research Institute, whose California office is in Los Altos, had the highest number of disengagements: 2,946 in 1,817 miles driven. Other companies with the highest number of disengagements were Mercedes-Benz Research & Development North America, with 2,053 in 14,238 miles driven, and Lyft, with 1,666 in 42,930 miles. Mercedes did not return a request for comment. Lyft said it would have no comment.

Toyota Research Institute, too, doesn't think much of the disengagement stats: "The data in the report is very limited and does not figure in the complexity of the driving environment," spokesperson Rick Bourgoise said. He noted that TRI's drivers are trained to disengage the AV mode any time they foresee an issue, such as a risk to pedestrians, even if the AV system is working just fine. "We are testing more features in more complicated scenarios, which results in more disengagements," he said. "Challenging tests are more valuable to our development process than just accumulating easy miles."

The DMV's reports include dates, who initiated the disengagement, where it occurred (such as street or freeway) and the reasons. Among the reasons cited by companies: potential software, hardware or data-recording issues, error in perception systems or an "erratically, recklessly or aggressively behaving road user."

General Motors' Cruise subsidiary couldn't wait until Wednesday to cry foul. It complained about disengagement reports as far back as last month.

Kyle Vogt, co-founder and chief technology officer of San Francisco-based Cruise, which had 68 disengagements in 831,000-plus miles, wrote in a blog post that disengagement data has "been used by the media and others to compare technology from different AV companies or as a proxy for commercial readiness." He added, "It's woefully inadequate for most uses beyond those of the DMV. The idea that disengagements give a meaningful signal about whether an AV is ready for commercial deployment is a myth."

Jason Levine, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Auto Safety, said this is one of the "rare instances" in which the advocacy group agrees with the self-driving industry. "It's not an illegitimate gripe to say this data as it's currently collected and published isn't particularly useful," he said in an interview. But he added, "There's nothing stopping them from going above and beyond to put out more info than required by California."

Raj Rajkumar, a self-driving vehicle expert and professor at Carnegie Mellon University, agreed the reports can be "extremely misleading," saying that "the number of disengagements is very dependent on the context in which the tests are carried out." He said it was "perverse" that "a company and its operators are incentivized to demonstrate 'progress' from year to year by lowering the number of disengagements … over time," which could cause them to be less cautious.

Get in touch with us: Share information securely with Protocol via encrypted Signal or WhatsApp message, at 415-214-4715 or through our anonymous SecureDrop.

Industry concern over the DMV report is no surprise given continuing questions about what it will take for self-driving cars to be declared ready for mass adoption, and the imperfect measures that may grab the public imagination. On Tuesday, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Robert Sumwalt loudly reminded anyone who was listening to a public hearing about a fatal 2018 crash in a Tesla that was on Autopilot that such drivers need to realize "they don't have driverless cars." The NTSB placed part of the blame on Tesla's Autopilot technology, which has some driver-assist features but is not fully autonomous.

Levine said data collection by the DMV and others will be key not only to determining federal standards for self-driving vehicles, but also to public perception of the technology. He said companies are touchy about information that's released to the public because, "When all this technology is jumbled together, people will jump to the conclusion that it's all the same. The worst actor is going to be the face of the industry, and that is bad for everybody."

Protocol | Fintech

Jack Dorsey is so money: What Tidal and banking do for Square

Teaming up with Jay-Z's music streaming service may seem like a move done for flash, but it's ultimately all about the money (and Cash).

Jay-Z performs at the Tidal-X concert at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn in 2017.

Photo: Theo Wargo/Getty Images

It was a big week for Jack Dorsey, who started by turning heads in Wall Street, and then went Hollywood with an unexpected music-streaming deal.

Dorsey's payments company, Square, announced Monday that it now has an actual bank, Square Financial Services, which just got a charter approved. On Thursday, Dorsey announced Square was taking a majority stake in Tidal, the music-streaming service backed by Jay-Z, for $297 million.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Sponsored Content

The future of computing at the edge: an interview with Intel’s Tom Lantzsch

An interview with Tom Lantzsch, SVP and GM, Internet of Things Group at Intel

An interview with Tom Lantzsch

Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Internet of Things Group (IoT) at Intel Corporation

Edge computing had been on the rise in the last 18 months – and accelerated amid the need for new applications to solve challenges created by the Covid-19 pandemic. Tom Lantzsch, Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Internet of Things Group (IoT) at Intel Corp., thinks there are more innovations to come – and wants technology leaders to think equally about data and the algorithms as critical differentiators.

In his role at Intel, Lantzsch leads the worldwide group of solutions architects across IoT market segments, including retail, banking, hospitality, education, industrial, transportation, smart cities and healthcare. And he's seen first-hand how artificial intelligence run at the edge can have a big impact on customers' success.

Protocol sat down with Lantzsch to talk about the challenges faced by companies seeking to move from the cloud to the edge; some of the surprising ways that Intel has found to help customers and the next big breakthrough in this space.

What are the biggest trends you are seeing with edge computing and IoT?

A few years ago, there was a notion that the edge was going to be a simplistic model, where we were going to have everything connected up into the cloud and all the compute was going to happen in the cloud. At Intel, we had a bit of a contrarian view. We thought much of the interesting compute was going to happen closer to where data was created. And we believed, at that time, that camera technology was going to be the driving force – that just the sheer amount of content that was created would be overwhelming to ship to the cloud – so we'd have to do compute at the edge. A few years later – that hypothesis is in action and we're seeing edge compute happen in a big way.

Keep Reading Show less
Saul Hudson
Saul Hudson has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, especially in understanding and targeting messages in cutting-edge technologies. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, in helping companies to build passionate audiences and accelerate their growth. Hudson has reported from more than 30 countries, from war zones to boardrooms to presidential palaces. He has led multinational, multi-lingual teams and managed operations for hundreds of journalists. Hudson is a Managing Partner at Angle42, a strategic communications consultancy.
Power

A racial justice protest took part of Tesla’s factory offline, an internal email says

In an email obtained by Protocol, a Tesla employee told colleagues that a protest following the Breonna Taylor grand jury decision disrupted manufacturing in Fremont.

Manufacturing in part of Tesla's Fremont factory was disrupted last month during an apparent employee protest, according to an internal email.

Photo: Lauren Hepler/Protocol

A brief disruption to production at Tesla's Fremont auto plant last month — described by the company as an act of sabotage by an employee who was subsequently fired — may have been the result of a protest over the Breonna Taylor grand jury decision, according to an internal email obtained by Protocol.

Tesla's top lawyer said last week that an employee had "maliciously sabotaged" a part of the Fremont factory, then attempted to cover it up, before ultimately confessing. In a message to Tesla workers, the lawyer called the employee's actions "crimes" and violations of the company's policies, but referred only obliquely to the perpetrator's "personal motivations."

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.
Transforming 2021

Blockchain, QR codes and your phone: the race to build vaccine passports

Digital verification systems could give people the freedom to work and travel. Here's how they could actually happen.

One day, you might not need to carry that physical passport around, either.

Photo: CommonPass

There will come a time, hopefully in the near future, when you'll feel comfortable getting on a plane again. You might even stop at the lounge at the airport, head to the regional office when you land and maybe even see a concert that evening. This seemingly distant reality will depend upon vaccine rollouts continuing on schedule, an open-sourced digital verification system and, amazingly, the blockchain.

Several countries around the world have begun to prepare for what comes after vaccinations. Swaths of the population will be vaccinated before others, but that hasn't stopped industries decimated by the pandemic from pioneering ways to get some people back to work and play. One of the most promising efforts is the idea of a "vaccine passport," which would allow individuals to show proof that they've been vaccinated against COVID-19 in a way that could be verified by businesses to allow them to travel, work or relax in public without a great fear of spreading the virus.

Keep Reading Show less
Mike Murphy

Mike Murphy ( @mcwm) is the director of special projects at Protocol, focusing on the industries being rapidly upended by technology and the companies disrupting incumbents. Previously, Mike was the technology editor at Quartz, where he frequently wrote on robotics, artificial intelligence, and consumer electronics.

Power

Tesla created a battery that might someday power your car — and everything else

At its "battery day," Elon Musk showed a battery that Tesla's been working on for years and plans to build itself.

Tesla's new batteries being produced at a plant in California.

Photo: Tesla

There's a new Tesla coming next year: The Model S Plaid, which Elon Musk said "will achieve the best track time of any production vehicle ever, of any kind. Two-door or otherwise." If you can wait a bit longer, Musk also said Tesla's about three years away from selling a $25,000, fully autonomous vehicle.

But those cars weren't the point of Tuesday's event. Musk has always tried to explain Tesla as an energy company, not a car manufacturer. "The point of all this was, and remains, accelerating the advent of sustainable energy, so that we can imagine far into the future and life is still good," Musk wrote in his Master Plan, Part Deux in 2016.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editor at large. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Latest Stories