Beige Screen of Death: Toyota Wants People, Not Computers, Crashing Its Cars

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

The Toyota Motor Corporation is a little skeptical of the imminency of self-driving vehicles. It plans on continuing production of designs where human operators are saddled with the bulk of the driving responsibilities for years to come.

The automaker is openly dubious that tech-focused companies like Waymo and Tesla are sufficiently far enough along to hint at delivering self-driving cars. However, Toyota’s problem with handing the keys to a computer has as much to do with leaving companies open to litigation and criticism as it does with the technology simply not yet being ready.

North America expects millions of traffic accidents every year, but is much less willing to accept computer-controlled chaos at even a fraction of that scale.

“None of us in the automobile or IT industries are close to achieving true Level 5 autonomy,” said Gill Pratt, CEO of Toyota’a Research Institute, at this year’s CES. “It will take many years of machine learning and many more miles than anyone has logged of both simulated and real-world testing to achieve the perfection required.’’

Pratt’s background makes him an excellent candidate to call bullshit. Previously, Pratt served as the top robotics expert for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Toyota hired him to lead its charge into automotive Artificial Intelligence and autonomous technology. The company spent over a billion dollars establishing its research institute, populating it with the best minds associated with AI and robotic engineering.

Could it be that Toyota is just behind the times? Tesla is already making promises that every new car it makes will have the hardware required for total self-driving capabilities. Google’s car project has transformed into Waymo, and claims its fleet of autonomous Chrysler Pacifica Hybrids is ready to go. Even Uber has tested self-steering Volvos and Fords on public roads.

Toyota says that, for the most part, automakers will focus on what SAE International considers Level 2 autonomy. Anything higher would be nonviable without a lot more testing, it claims.

“It was a surprisingly sober and realistic view of the challenges that autonomous vehicles face,’’ Mike Dovorany, an analyst at The Carlab, told Bloomberg. “I give them kudos.’’

According to Pratt, the safest and most lucrative course of action is to provide Level 2 autonomy where computers have some control over steering, speed, and braking, but require a human operator to maintain control. When the technology is ready, however, Toyota says it may just skip Level 3 and implement Level 4.

The jump would avoid an era of less-trustworthy computer-controlled vehicles. At Level 4, the car can make all driving decisions on approved roadways — likely starting with highways — and hand control back to the fleshy masses in less predictable areas.

[Image: Toyota]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 29 comments
  • 05lgt 05lgt on Jan 05, 2017

    I'm seeing more difference in spin / marketing than the substance of the claims. Tesla carefully says new cars will have "the hardware", Alphabet spun off Waymo gaining distance from liability, and TMC said the same things with a spin that downplays the threat to their market. The messages are all massaged to help the parent companies stock though.

  • APaGttH APaGttH on Jan 05, 2017

    Toyotas future crystal ball is a tad cloudy it seems. A decade plus ago they said electrification was poo poo, hybrids were a bridge, and the real answer was hydrogen fuel cell. Now we have Prii with all the charm of a Pontiac Aztek, they broke up with Tesla, no dedicated electric, and their pants are a bit down (yes they have hybrid leadership but Prius sales are in the tank). So they say self-driving cars are meh while the rest of the industry races toward the technology. Toyota is losing its edge, bit by bit.

    • See 1 previous
    • Tedward Tedward on Jan 06, 2017

      @stuki Good point on the cost difference. What tesla, uber, Google and Apple have shown is that they dont weigh the safety of the general public on the same scale as established manufacturers. Whether that weight is determined by experience with liability, brand value protection, utopian fundamentalism or altruism is irrelevant to me as a road user. It's hard to assign a cause. Employee age and experience, the pep rally tech industry thing, a focus on shorter term financials and plain greed all probably play a role. The push to remove the driver and traditional control interfaces from the current test cars makes me genuinely angry. The only upside for such a change is in the pr value that their current test fleets can provide. Our safety is negotiable when it comes to tech r&d, but the idea that all it costs is some short term marketing department gains is obscene.

  • Calrson Fan Jeff - Agree with what you said. I think currently an EV pick-up could work in a commercial/fleet application. As someone on this site stated, w/current tech. battery vehicles just do not scale well. EBFlex - No one wanted to hate the Cyber Truck more than me but I can't ignore all the new technology and innovative thinking that went into it. There is a lot I like about it. GM, Ford & Ram should incorporate some it's design cues into their ICE trucks.
  • Michael S6 Very confusing if the move is permanent or temporary.
  • Jrhurren Worked in Detroit 18 years, live 20 minutes away. Ren Cen is a gem, but a very terrible design inside. I’m surprised GM stuck it out as long as they did there.
  • Carson D I thought that this was going to be a comparison of BFGoodrich's different truck tires.
  • Tassos Jong-iL North Korea is saving pokemon cards and amibos to buy GM in 10 years, we hope.
Next