My top 10 QNX Auto posts from 2013

Normally, people write this kind of post at the beginning or end of a calendar year. But as an old friend once said, “Paul defines his own kind of normal.” He may have been right, I don’t know. What I do know is that this is definitely a personal list. It consists of posts that either made me laugh, taught me something I didn’t know, or helped me see things in a new light. I hope they do the same for you.

Disclosure: I wrote a couple of the posts in question. Because, sometimes, the best way to learn about something or see it in a new light is to write about it. :-)

Okay, enough preliminaries, let’s get to it…

• What happens when autonomous becomes ubiquitous? — One question, seventeen answers.
   
• Top 10 lessons learned from more than a decade in automotive — When it comes to software in the car, John Wall is the man.
   
• Protecting software components in an ISO 26262 system — Sometimes, software components can be downright delinquent.
   
• Why doesn’t my navigation system understand me? — Big data might be important, but small data can add a personal touch.
   
• Top 10 challenges facing the ADAS industry — For ADAS systems to be successful, a safety culture must be embedded in every organization in the supply chain. And that’s just the first challenge.
   
• Reducing driver distraction with ICTs — Yes, mobile phones can contribute to driver distraction. But they can also help solve the problem.
   
• A sound approach to creating a quieter ride — Paradoxically, the best way to eliminate engine noise is to generate noise.
   
• What's the word on HTML5? — If you want to know what experts at Audi, OnStar, Gartner, Pandora, TCS, and QNX think about HTML5 in the car, this is the post with the most (videos, that is).
   
• A matter of context — A look at how digital instrument clusters can help provide the right information, at the right time.
   
• My top moments of 2013 — Because this reminds me of the fantastic momentum QNX is building in automotive.
   
• HTML5 blooper reel — Because laughter.
  

Oops, I guess that makes 11.

Klocwork joins QNX automotive safety ecosystem

Paul Leroux

This just in: Klocwork, a leader in development tools for creating secure software, has become an ecosystem partner for the QNX Automotive Safety Program for ISO 26262.

Klocwork joins a roster of companies, including Elektrobit, Freescale, NVIDIA, and TI, who already support the program, which is designed to help automotive companies build digital instrument clusters, ADAS systems, and other products with functional safety requirements.

Klocwork offers Insight, a source code analysis tool recently certified to the ISO 26262 and IEC 61508 functional safety standards. Insight plugs directly into the QNX Momentics Tool Suite, allowing developers to detect security and safety vulnerabilities on the fly, and to ensure their code meets functional safety standards.

"Klocwork Insight provides real-time feedback during code development, immediately alerting developers to code that may conflict with the MISRA C/C++ coding standards required by ISO 26262," said Grant Courville, director of product management at QNX. "Better yet, Insight plugs into our IDE to provide a seamless and productive development experience."

The QNX Automotive Safety Program for ISO 26262 was created to help automotive companies building functional safety products to leverage QNX Software Systems’ proven competency in certifications, safety-critical systems, and automotive software design. Key elements of the program include an example safety case based on the QNX Neutrino RTOS Safe Kernel, guidelines on safety-critical design for real-time OS-based systems, a suite of professional services, and an ecosystem of supporting vendors who offer complementary hardware, tool chains, graphics technologies, and consulting services for safety critical systems.

Read the press release.

My top moments of 2013 — so far

Paul Leroux

Yes, I know, 2013 isn’t over yet. But it’s been such a milestone year for our automotive business that I can’t wait another two months to talk about it. And besides, you’ll be busy as an elf at the end of December, visiting family and friends, skiing the Rockies, or buying exercise equipment to compensate for all those holiday carbs. Which means if I wait, you’ll never get to read this. So let’s get started.


We unveil a totally new (and totally cool) technology concept car

Times Square. We were there.

It all began at 2013 CES, when we took the wraps off the latest QNX technology concept car — a one-of-a-kind Bentley Continental GT. The QNX concept team outfitted the Bentley with an array of technologies, including a high-definition DLP display, a 3D rear-view camera, cloud-based voice recognition, smartphone connectivity, and… oh heck, just read the blog post to get the full skinny.

Even if you weren’t at CES, you could still see the car in action. Brian Cooley of CNET, Michael Guillory of Texas Instruments, the folks at Elektrobit, and Discovery Canada’s Daily Planet were just some of the individuals and organizations who posted videos. You could also connect to the car through a nifty web app. Heck, you could even see the Bentley’s dash on the big screen in Times Square, thanks to the promotional efforts of Elektrobit, who also created the 3D navigation software for the concept car.

We ship the platform
We wanted to drive into CES with all cylinders firing, so we also released version 2.0 of the QNX CAR Platform for Infotainment. In fact, several customers in the U.S., Germany, Japan, and China had already started to use the platform, through participation in an early access program. Which brings me to the next milestone...

Delphi boards the platform

The first of many.

Also at CES, Delphi, a global automotive supplier and long-time QNX customer, announced that version 2.0 of the QNX CAR Platform will form the basis of its next-generation infotainment systems. As it turned out, this was just one of several QNX CAR customer announcements in 2013 — but I’m getting ahead of myself.

We have the good fortune to be featured in Fortune
Fast forward to April, when Fortune magazine took a look at how QNX Software Systems evolved from its roots in the early 1980s to become a major automotive player. Bad news: you need a subscription to read the article on the Fortune website. Good news: you can read the same article for free on CNN Money. ;-)

A music platform sets the tone for our platform
In April, 7digital, a digital music provider, announced that it will integrate its 23+ million track catalogue with the QNX CAR Platform. It didn't take long for several other partners to announce their platform support. These include Renesas (R-Car system-on-chip for high-performance infotainment), AutoNavi (mobile navigation technology for the Chinese market), Kotei (navigation engine for the Japanese market), and Digia (Qt application framework).

We stay focused on distraction
Back in early 2011, Scott Pennock of QNX was selected to chair an ITU-T focus group on driver distraction. The group’s objective was serious and its work was complex, but its ultimate goal was simple: to help reduce collisions. This year, the group wrapped up its work and published several reports — but really, this is only the beginning of QNX and ITU-T efforts in this area.

We help develop a new standard

Goodbye fragmentation; hello
standard APIs.

Industry fragmentation sucks. It means everyone is busy reinventing the wheel when they could be inventing something new instead. So I was delighted to see my colleague Andy Gryc become co-chair of the W3C Automotive and Web Platform Business Group, which has the mandate to accelerate the adoption of web technologies in the car. Currently, the group is working to draft a standard set of JavaScript APIs for accessing vehicle data information. Fragmentation, thy days are numbered.

We launch an auto safety program

A two-handed approach to
helping ADAS developers.

On the one hand, we have a 30-year history in safety-critical systems and proven competency in safety certifications. On the other hand, we have deep experience in automotive software design. So why not join both hands together and allow auto companies to leverage our full expertise when they are building digital instrument clusters, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), and other in-car systems with safety requirements?

That’s the question we asked ourselves, and the answer was the new QNX Automotive Safety Program for ISO 26262. The program quickly drew support from several industry players, including Elektrobit, Freescale, NVIDIA, and Texas Instruments.

We jive up the Jeep

A tasty mix of HTML5 & Android
apps, served on a Qt interface,
with OpenGL ES on the side.

If you don’t already know, we use a Jeep Wrangler as our reference vehicle — basically, a demo vehicle outfitted with a stock version of the QNX CAR Platform. This summer, we got to trick out the Jeep with a new, upcoming version of the platform, which adds support for Android apps and for user interfaces based on the Qt 5 framework.

Did I mention? The platform runs Android apps in a separate application container, much like it handles HTML5 apps. This sandboxed approach keeps the app environment cleanly partitioned from the UI, protecting both the UI and the overall system from unpredictable web content. Good, that.

The commonwealth’s leader honors our leader

I only ate one piece. Honest.

Okay, this one has nothing to do with automotive, but I couldn’t resist. Dan Dodge, our CEO and co-founder, received a Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in recognition of his many achievements and contributions to Canadian society. To celebrate, we gave Dan a surprise party, complete with the obligatory cake. (In case you’re wondering, the cake was yummy. But any rumors suggesting that I went back for a second, third, and fourth piece are total fabrications. Honestly, the stories people cook up.)

Mind you, Dan wasn’t the only one to garner praise. Sheridan Ethier, the manager of the QNX CAR development team, was also honored — not by the queen, but by the Ottawa Business Journal for his technical achievements, business leadership, and community involvement.

Chevy MyLink drives home with first prize — twice
There's nothing better than going home with first prize. Except, perhaps, doing it twice. In January, the QNX-based Chevy MyLink system earned a Best of CES 2013 Award, in the car tech category. And in May, it pulled another coup: first place in the "Automotive, LBS, Navigation & Safe Driving" category of the 2013 CTIA Emerging Technology (E-Tech) Awards.

Panasonic, Garmin, and Foryou get with the platform

Garmin K2 platform: because
one great platform deserves
another.

August was crazy busy — and crazy good. Within the space of two weeks, three big names in the global auto industry revealed that they’re using the QNX CAR Platform for their next-gen systems. Up first was Panasonic, who will use the platform to build systems for automakers in North America, Europe, and Japan. Next was Foryou, who will create infotainment systems for automakers in China. And last was Garmin, who are using the platform in the new Garmin K2, the company’s infotainment solution for automotive OEMs.

And if all that wasn’t cool enough…

Mercedes-Benz showcases the platform

Did I mention I want one?

When Mercedes-Benz decides to wow the crowds at the Frankfurt Motor Show, it doesn’t settle for second best. Which is why, in my not so humble opinion, they chose the QNX CAR Platform for the oh-so-desirable Mercedes-Benz Concept S-Class Coupé.

Mind you, this isn’t the first time QNX and Mercedes-Benz have joined forces. In fact, the QNX auto team and Mercedes-Benz Research & Development North America have collaborated since the early 2000s. Moreover, QNX has supplied the OS for a variety of Mercedes infotainment systems. The infotainment system and digital cluster in the Concept S-Class Coupé are the latest — and arguably coolest — products of this long collaboration.

We create noise to eliminate noise

Taking a sound approach to
creating a quieter ride.

Confused yet? Don’t be. You see, it’s quite simple. Automakers today are using techniques like variable cylinder management, which cut fuel consumption (good), but also increase engine noise (bad). Until now, car companies have been using active noise control systems, which play “anti-noise” to cancel out the unwanted engine sounds. All fine and good, but these systems require dedicated hardware — and that makes them expensive. So we devised a software product, QNX Acoustics for Active Noise Control, that not only out-performs conventional solutions, but can run on the car’s existing audio or infotainment hardware. Goodbye dedicated hardware, hello cost savings.

And we flub our lines on occasion
Our HTML5 video series has given companies like Audi, OnStar, Gartner, TCS, and Pandora a public forum to discuss why HTML5 and other open standards are key to the future of the connected car. The videos are filled with erudite conversation, but every now and then, it becomes obvious that sounding smart in front of a camera is a little harder than it looks. So what did we do with the embarrassing bits? Create a blooper reel, of course.

Are these bloopers our greatest moments? Nope. Are they among the funniest? Oh yeah. :-)

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 2011, 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 2012, 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.

Squeezing into a tight spot

Paul Leroux

No doubt about it, autonomous and semi-autonomous cars will present a variety of legal and ethical challenges. But they'll also offer many benefits — some of which will be pleasantly surprising.

Take parking, for example. Cars are getting wider, but parking spaces generally aren't. So how do you squeeze into a tight spot and then step out of your car without slamming your door into the car next to you? Well, what if you didn't have to be in the car? This new video from Ford tells all...



This technology is cool, especially for aging drivers who can't crane their necks as well as they used to. Still, some gotchas come to mind. For instance, other drivers might get peeved if you momentarily leave your car on the road so you can park it remotely. Also, what if you squeeze your car into a tight parking spot just inches away from driver's door of the adjacent car — but that car doesn't support remote-controlled parking? How will the driver get back into his or her vehicle?

That said, these problems can be avoided with a little common sense on the part of the user. And I'll bet you dimes to donuts that this new technology from Ford can negotiate parking spaces more adroitly than most motorists. Which means that, eventually, we'll all have vehicles with fewer bumps, scuffs, and scratches. I could live with that.

Seminar: managing the growing amount of software in cars

It’s no secret that the amount of software in automobiles is growing rapidly — as is the challenge of maintaining it reliably and efficiently. At QNX Software Systems we focus on areas like infotainment, telematics, clusters, and ADAS, but our long-term FOTA partner, Red Bend Software, takes a more holistic view, working with companies like Vector Informatik to extend FOTA all the way down to ECUs.

To help automakers and tier one suppliers manage their software deployments more efficiently, Red Bend is hosting a seminar Friday September 27 at the Westin Southfield Detroit. Speakers will include representatives from Strategy Analytics, Texas Instruments, and Vector, not to mention our own Andy Gryc. You can register on the Red Bend website.

C3 recap: The future of the connected car

UPDATE: CE Week has uploaded audio and video of the C3 panels that Derek covers in this post. To hear what experts from companies like AT&T, BMW, Delphi, GM, and QNX see on the horizon for the connected car, visit the Connected Car Conference website — Ed.

Derek Kuhn

“Automotive has always been a wellspring of technology and innovation.” Those ten words, spoken by Doug Newcomb, car technology consultant and conference chair — and occasional QNX blog contributor — brought the Connected Car Conference (C3) to a successful close. The conference, co-located with CEA’s CE Week in New York City, featured panels on issues and trends for the connected car: big data, the future of radio, driver distraction, and more.

I was honored to sit on a panel that included executives from General Motors, AT&T Emerging Devices, and Audiovox, and that tackled the question on the minds of everyone in the industry: how can cars keep pace with consumer electronics? Traditionally, the speed of car development has trailed consumer devices, but with consumers looking at their cars as another connected gadget, the industry is working to bring technology into the car faster, while still providing a safe, reliable experience. As GM’s Tim Nixon put it, “we want to make the car better from the day you drive it off the lot.”

Striking a balance
Tim’s comment touches on something we frequently discuss — the significance of over-the-air (OTA) updates in ensuring that a car always has the latest technology. In fact, my colleague, Tina Jeffrey, just wrote a blog post on the topic; it's worth a read. Another point that came up is the need to balance security with consumers’ desire for cutting-edge technology. As I pointed out, not all infotainment systems are created equal — security shouldn’t be an afterthought in the pursuit of the latest and greatest tech. Rather, it should be deeply engrained in each step of the software development process. At the same time, consumer choice also has to be balanced with what OEMs are comfortable with.

Driving big data

John Quain of the NYT hosts the big data panel.
Photo: Doug Newcomb

John Quain of the New York Times hosted a panel on big data, which was full of insights on how data is being used to connect drivers and their cars. In response to the question, “how can big data in automotive save lives?” Delphi’s Doug Welk commented that, while data on crashes was abundant and readily available, data on near misses — which is even more important to understanding how to prevent accidents — is scant. Telenav’s Niall Berkey pointed out something that my colleague Andrew Poliak often discusses: the importance of the car as a sensor. For instance, by using information on how a driver is behaving, a car could activate assisted-driving technologies to reduce the likelihood of an accident.

Dealing with distraction
During the “Dealing with Driver Distraction” panel, representatives from the Auto Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Nuance, NVIDIA, and Pioneer spoke on how the industry is working to curb distraction. Gloria Bergquist of the Auto Alliance stated that the concern is nothing new; when car radios were first introduced in the middle of the last century, industry watchers claimed that drivers’ attention would be diverted by the novelty.

Gloria also drew from her organization’s recent report, which showed that most drivers overestimate how well they can handle distractions and think that it’s other drivers who can’t cope. Erik Clauson of Nuance discussed how voice recognition technologies — like the QNX intent framework — can play a large role in decreasing the cognitive load of drivers. Dave Anderson of NVIDIA defended skeumorphism — a design aesthetic that has received much criticism as of late — as a way to increase the intuitiveness of user interfaces and therefore decrease distraction. For example, digital instrument clusters that look like conventional (and familiar) analog instruments can enhance the driving experience.

Continuing the conversation
The day ended with a networking reception — a unique opportunity to pick the brains of the some of the industry’s thought leaders and observers. While I got to spend only a short time in New York for the event, I am look forward to next year when we can continue this conversation on the industry’s challenges and innovations.

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.

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.

The isolation imperative: protecting software components in an ISO 26262 system

Software components can be impolite, if not downright delinquent. For instance, a component might:

• rob other components of CPU time
  
• rob other components of file descriptors and other system resources
  
• access the private memory of other components
  
• corrupt data shared with other components
  
• create a deadlock or livelock situation with other components
  

Shameful, I know. But in all seriousness, this sort of behavior can wreak havoc in a safety-critical system. For instance, let's say that a component starts to perform a CPU-intensive calculation just as the system enters a failure condition. Will that component hog the CPU and prevent an alarm process from running?

The answer, of course, is that it damn well better not.

It becomes important, then, to prevent components from interfering with one another. In fact, this principle is baked into the ISO 26262 functional safety standard for road vehicles, which defines interference as:

"...the presence of cascading failures from a sub-element with no ASIL [Automotive Safety Integrity Level] assigned, or a lower ASIL assigned, to a sub-element with a higher ASIL assigned leading to the violation of a safety requirement of the element”

To put it crudely, less important stuff can't stop more important stuff from happening.

So how do you prevent interference? One approach is through isolation. For instance, a system may implement spatial isolation between application processes. This would include mechanisms for interprocess communication and interprocess locking that prevent one process from inadvertently affecting another.

Mind you, there are multiple types of interference, so you need to implement multiple forms, or axes, of isolation. Time for a picture:




In general, you need to determine what does, and what doesn't, need to be isolated. You also need to identify which components are apt to be delinquent and build a cage around them to protect more critical components. Which brings me to a recent paper by my inestimable colleagues Chris Hobbs and Yi Zheng. It's titled "Protecting Software Components from Interference in an ISO 26262 System," and it explores techniques that can help you:

• implement the component isolation required by ISO 26262
• demonstrate that such isolation has been implemented

And while you're at it, check out the other titles in our "safe" whitepaper series. These include "The Dangers of Over-Engineering a Safe System" and "Ten Truths about Building Safe Embedded Software Systems."

And don't worry: there's nothing delinquent about downloading all of them.

An (info)graphic look at self-driving cars

If I were in the insurance industry, I'd be following the development of autonomous cars with keen interest. Think about it: all those cars will have to be insured, but they will probably get into fewer accidents (and incur fewer insurance settlements) than conventional vehicles. That could be good for business as well as for safety.

So why am I bringing this up? Because InsuranceQuotes.com has come up with an infographic on autonomous cars, and it's a doozy. (Trivia dep't: Some believe that the expression "it's a doozy" was coined by the legendary automaker Duesenberg, as part of a campaign to promote its vehicles. Others disagree. I thought you'd want to know.)

Kidding aside, the infographic does a nice job of summarizing the potential benefits of self-driving vehicles, including greater safety, faster traffic flow, reduced fuel wastage, and increased mobility for people with physical handicaps.

Of course, if these benefits are borne out, we will all have to come to terms with the inevitable conclusion: computers do a better job of driving than humans. If you can get comfortable with that, you should survive the year 2040 with a minimum of future shock.



Infographic from Bankrate Insurance’s InsuranceQuotes.com

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.

The ISO 26262 functional safety standard: No way but up?

I was scanning some Google alerts the other day when my eyes stopped at an announcement from Freescale. The headline didn’t mince words: the Freescale Qorivva MPC5643L microcontroller, a 32-bit part based on the Power architecture, has become the first automotive MCU to receive ISO 26262 functional safety certification.

Did you notice? Freescale didn’t say only; they said first. Which suggests they see ISO 26262 as a growing trend in automotive. If so, I think they see right.

If you’re unfamiliar with ISO 26262, let me provide the Reader’s Digest version. First and foremost, it applies to automotive electronic or electrical systems that could pose a hazard (i.e. hurt people) if they malfunction. Examples include anti-lock brakes, traction control systems, adaptive cruise control systems, engine control units, and digital instrument clusters.

Will more automotive
components soon come
with stickers like this?

The standard isn’t concerned with how well such systems perform. Rather, it’s about reducing the risk, and mitigating the effects, of any malfunction that may cause injury or death. So even if something bad unexpectedly happens in a 26262-certified system — and the assumption is that bad things will happen, no matter how well the system is designed and tested — the system will minimize potential harm. For instance, consider the scenario where a high-priority software process enters an infinite loop and starts to gobble up CPU cycles. Obviously, it’s important to prevent this error from happening in the first place. But even if it does happen, the system should prevent the rogue process from starving other critical processes of CPU time. It should also achieve a graceful recovery from the failure state.

ISO 26262 applies to production passenger vehicles with a gross mass up to 3500 kilograms (7716 pounds). Anything else is out of scope. But while the scope is limited, the standard itself is comprehensive. It covers functional safety aspects of the entire development process, from requirements specification to product decommissioning. And in case you were wondering, it’s closely related to IEC 61508, the international safety standard with a very long history and which many other safety standards reference.

So why do I think that 26262 is on the ascent? For starters, the first edition of the standard was published less than a year ago, yet a silicon vendor has already spent the considerable effort to get an MCU certified. Achieving certification to a standard like ISO 26262 doesn’t come easy, so I assume Freescale did it only because they anticipate market demand. (Disclaimer: This statement isn’t based on any special knowledge of Freescale’s business, but is simply my opinion. Interpret it as such.)

TÜV Rheinland:
Also in the game

It doesn’t stop at Freescale. TÜV Rheinland, a global provider of technical services for safety-critical systems, now offers 26262 services (training, consulting, testing, certification, you name it) for a wide variety of automotive components in multiple geographies. And if TUV has gotten in the game, it’s a good signal that the 26262 standard has legs.

Meanwhile, the LinkedIn group dedicated to 26262 has more than 3600 members and grew by more than 50 members last week alone. If you visit the group, you’ll find engineers from automotive OEMs and tier ones looking for guidance on satisfying 26262 requirements — a sure sign that support for the standard is gearing up.

From what I can tell, things haven’t gotten to the point where a company has been mandated to have its automotive systems certified to ISO 26262. But it will happen. And chances are, it will snowball: the more companies that adopt the standard, the more others will feel the pressure and follow suit. Which means it’s only a matter of time before more ISO 26262 product announcements show up in my Google alerts.

Will adaptive cruise control spell the end of traffic jams?

Did you know that rear-end collisions account for about 30% of car crashes? For that reason alone, widespread adoption of adaptive cruise control (ACC) can’t come too soon. ACC helps prevent such collisions in two ways: 1) by maintaining a safe, preset distance from the car ahead; and 2) by applying the brakes quickly if that car comes to a sudden stop — more quickly, in fact, than most humans.

Good news is, ACC may soon become pervasive. The folks at Global Industry Analysts crunched some numbers and determined that annual installations of ACC systems will reach 6.9 million units by 2017.

Mind you, ACC isn’t just about safety; it’s also about traffic flow. For instance, a study by Suzuki and Nakatsuji (2003) suggests that travel times shrink significantly when at least 20% of vehicles on the road use ACC. And a study by Kesting et al. (2008) suggests that, in some scenarios, traffic congestion simply disappears when 25% of vehicles use ACC.

Example of adaptive cruise control
Source: Volvo

The picture isn’t all rosy, however. ACC may improve traffic flow, but not in every situation, such as merging from an on-ramp onto a freeway. That said, a study by L. C. Davis (2010) suggests that a technique called cooperative merging can significantly the improve the performance of ACC in this scenario. Meanwhile, a study by Jerath and Brennan (2010) suggests that the benefits associated with ACC may come at a possible cost — “self-organized” traffic jams. This effect, caused mostly by human behavior, may occur in a traffic system where most, but not all, cars use ACC.

Caveats aside, ACC systems continue to evolve. Some drivers tend to slam their brakes and use heavy throttle in traffic, creating congestive shockwaves that ripple down the highway. According to J.C. Power, newer versions of ACC help alleviate this problem by smoothly modulating brakes and throttle in stop-and-go traffic.

And now, a look at ACC from 1939…
If you think the concept of ACC is relatively new, think again. Over 70 years ago, GM created a “Futurama” exhibit for the 1939 World's Fair that showcased a scale-model highway in which cars automatically maintain a safe, efficient distance from one another.

GM predicted this technology would be in place by 1960. They got the timing wrong, but the idea right. Click the video to see a surprisingly prescient look at the car of the future — I’ve already bookmarked the spot for you:



What about you? Have you had much experience with ACC? And if so, has it helped or hindered your driving experience?

Drivers want ADAS, but not so sure about autonomous cars: study

In May, market researcher Penn Schoen Berland canvassed 2,506 American drivers about their driving habits. The findings, presented last week at a Ford press conference, are sobering:

• 76% of respondents admitted to eating or to drinking non-alcoholic drinks while behind the wheel
• 53% admitted to talking on a handheld phone
• 33% admitted to fiddling with their mobile gadgets
• 55% admitted to driving beyond the speed limit
• 37% admitted to driving when too tired

And here’s the kicker: 99% of respondents claimed they were safe drivers.

I know, it's a major disconnect. But here's what I find interesting: most respondents also expressed interest in driver assistance systems. In other words, even self-proclaimed safe drivers tacitly admitted they could use help now and then. For instance:

• 8 out of 10 respondents expressed interest in technologies that would help them stay in their lane
• 9 out of 10 expressed interest in technologies that could detect an impending collision and slow the car down

Respondents also expressed interest in systems that could detect a car in their blind-spot, provide voice-activated phone dialing, or park the car automatically. That said, only 39% said they’d feel comfortable riding an autonomous car.

My take? That number will grow significantly once more people drive cars equipped with adaptive cruise control, automatic parallel park, and other driver-assist systems. The more people become accustomed to such systems, the more they'll accept a car that does most of the driving for them.

For media coverage of this study, visit Forbes, Scientific American, and the Wall Street Journal.

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? :-)

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? :-)

The future of the self-driving car ain't what it used to be

Some people think self-driving cars are cool, others think they're very cool, and still others can barely contain themselves. Here, for instance, is an excerpt from an article I stumbled on a few days ago:

"Some day in the future when you drive onto a superhighway, you’ll reach over to your dashboard and push the button marked “Electronic Drive.” Selecting your lane, you’ll settle back to enjoy the ride as your car adjusts itself to the prescribed speed. You may prefer to read or carry on a conversation with your passengers—or even to catch up on your office work. It makes no difference for the next several hundred miles as far as the driving is concerned."

Bring it on, I say. Especially since the technical challenges are far from insurmountable, or so the author claims. I quote again from the same article, which reviewed a study of driver assistance systems conducted on a public highway in Nebraska:

The demonstration made two major points. First: the various elements of the system can be used immediately in conjunction with roadside and intersection lights to increase driving safety under present conditions... Second: the system as a whole can be developed without major technical complications into a fully automatic highway traffic control system. [emphasis mine]

Told you: This will be easy!

But here's the thing. This article dates from 1958, when it was published in a journal called Electronic Age. Here's a facsimile of the article's opening page, courtesy of the folks at the Modern Mechanix blog:



As you can see, the caption writer is even more optimistic, claiming that "electronic highways" (and, by extension, electronic drive) will eliminate accidents and make driving "foolproof".

Well, if the self-driving car is so easy, why haven't we seen it yet?

The short answer: we have. But it's a work in progress.

Giving up control
It all started 80 years ago, when GM introduced the first automatic transmissions. For the first time, the car started to make some driving decisions — namely, when to shift gears — on behalf of the driver.

Fast-forward to the early 1970s, when the first computerized anti-lock brakes came off the assembly line. These, too, do some "thinking" on behalf of the driver. When you slam your foot on the brake pedal of a car with anti-lock brakes, you're not really in control. You're just asking the braking system to make a series of decisions for you.

Fast-forward again to 2003, when Toyota introduced automatic parallel parking. With this technology, the car becomes even more autonomous, to the point of steering itself. More to the point, it does a better job at parallel parking than many humans — including yours truly.

Kicking out the jams
Other driver assistance systems also come to mind, including adaptive cruise control and collision avoidance technology. When you add them all up, it becomes obvious that the self-driving car is coming along nicely, thank you. Moreover, it's moving downmarket.

For instance, Ford recently announced Traffic Jam Assist, a combination of active cruise control and lane-position technology already available on the Focus, Escape, and Fusion. Using cameras and radar sensors, the new system will help the car stay in its lane and keep pace with other vehicles.

The Ford system signals an important trend. In a recent article, Doug Newcomb quoted Ian Riches of Strategy Analytics as saying. “In 2009, over 70 percent of ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) technology was fitted to premium vehicles. By 2019, we’re forecasting only around 40 percent of ADAS will be on these premium vehicles..."

It don't come easy
Don't get me wrong. I realize that building a fully (or mostly) autonomous car is an immense challenge. Making it affordable is an even bigger challenge. But clearly, things are moving along. And, as my colleague Andy Gryc has pointed out, the sheer difficulty of achieving autonomy is precisely what will motivate some extremely intelligent people to pony up to the challenge.

Personally, I don't know what fascinates me more: the engineering behind these advances or that people are becoming accustomed to letting go — of their steering wheels, of their gas pedals, of being in control. It's an interesting socialization process.

Either way, one thing is for sure: the self-driving future really ain't what it used to be. Because, this time, it's real.

Moving pictures
Enough talk. Here's a video of Ford's proposed Traffic Jam Assist system, which can take of steering, braking, and acceleration in stop/start traffic: