2021 Lexus Rx 350 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Apple uses Logitech steering wheels and pedals to control autonomous cars

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple outlined a plan to train operators of self-driving cars in documents submitted to California regulators earlier this month, the latest clues to the company's autonomous vehicle technology aspirations. Apple was granted a permit to test self-driving cars on April 14 by the California Department of Motor Vehicles but the company has never said anything about its plan. The state released 41 pages of Apple application documents to Reuters that give some clues about the company's highly secret self-driving effort, which it has never openly acknowledged. The iPhone maker joins a long list of carmakers, start-ups and technology rivals, including Alphabet's Waymo, that are testing cars on state roads. Apple is looking for new hit products and autonomous car technology is expected to revolutionize the traditional auto industry. As part of the application, Apple included a 10-page training plan that appeared to be related to operators taking back manual control of the car during automated driving exercises of the system, which it calls a development platform. Business Insider reports that Apple engineers riding in the back seats have the ability to take over control of the car using off-the-shelf steering wheel and pedal video game controllers from Logitech. Apple declined comment beyond the filing. The plan includes a document called "Automated System: Development Platform Specific Training Overview" whose objective is "to train safety drivers in various automated driving conditions." "Development platform will be controlled electronically (e.g. joystick) and safety drivers must be ready to intervene and take control," the document reads. The document highlights different scenarios to be tested, from high speed driving and tight U-turns to lane changes. One letter sent from Apple to the state Department of Motor Vehicles noted that Apple's development platform "will have the ability to capture and store relevant data before a collision occurs." The document does not include detail on how Apple's self-driving platform actually works or other technical details. It also does not say what kind of sensors are found on Apple's three permitted vehicles, all 2015 Lexus model RX450h. The permit does not necessarily mean that Apple itself is building a full car. Apple could instead be designing a self-driving platform that can be integrated into other manufacturer's cars. (By Alexandria Sage.

Google shares more details on self-driving car accidents

Google has pledged to release monthly reports on the status of its self-driving car program, and says these updates will include information on accidents involving the vehicles. But the company won't release the actual accident reports, a sore point for activists who recently have clamored for the company to be more transparent in the way it tests this promising technology on public roads. "Google is dribbling out bits of information in the hope to silence legitimate calls for full transparency," said John Simpson, privacy director for Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit that has asked Google to release reports from the 12 accidents the company says it has been involved in over the past six years. "They are testing on public roads, and the public has a right to know exactly what happened when something goes wrong." Under California law, the accident reports are not considered public records. Google has attributed all accidents to human error, and says drivers of the other cars involved caused 11 of the 12 accidents. In eight of those, the Google cars were rear-ended, and the autonomous vehicles were sideswiped in two other crashes. One of the accidents occurred at an intersection when a human driver failed to yield at a stop sign, and in one incident, a Google driver accidentally rear-ended another car while manually driving. Google had previously provided those details. The first monthly report installment sheds new light on which types of self-driving vehicles were involved, directions of travel, locations, and whether the cars were operating in autonomous or manual mode. Update: Google says this information comes directly from the OL 316 forms used to report accidents involving autonomous cars in California, though it has "edited the summaries lightly to protect other drivers' information." But Google still will not release the original OL 316 forms, nor the "traffic collision report" forms used in California to report accidents. Another company that has been involved in a single self-driving car accident, Delphi Automotive, has released this information, which verified its car was not at fault. Regarding Google, Simpson said, "We now know a few more details of what happened. The problem is that it's Google's version and they want us to take their word for it." The Google self-report adds information that goes beyond accidents, with further details on the company's overall program.

Lexus tops JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study again, Buick bests Toyota

It shouldn't surprise anyone, but Lexus has once again taken the top spot in JD Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. That'd be the Japanese luxury brand's fourth straight year at the top of table. The big news, though, is the rise of Buick. General Motor's near-premium brand beat out Toyota to take second place, with 110 problems per 100 vehicles compared to Toyota's 111 problems. Lexus owners only reported 89 problems per 100 vehicles. Besides Buick's three-position jump, Scion enjoyed a major improvement, jumping 13 positions from 2014. Ram and Mitsubishi made big gains, as well, moving up 11 and 10 positions, respectively. In terms of individual segments, GM and Toyota both excelled, taking home seven segment awards each. The study wasn't good news for all involved, though. A number of popular automakers finished below the industry average of 147 problems per 100 vehicles, including Subaru, (157PP100), Volkswagen (165PP100), Ford/Hyundai (188PP100 each) and Mini (193PP100). The biggest losers (by a tremendous margin, we might add) were Land Rover and Fiat, recording 258 and 273 problems per 100 vehicles. The next closest brand was Jeep, with 197PP100. While the Vehicle Dependability Study uses the same measurement system as the Initial Quality Survey, the two metrics analyze very different things. The VDS looks at problems experienced by original owners of model year 2012 vehicles over the past 12 months, while the oft-quoted IQS focuses on problems in the first 90 days of new-vehicle ownership. Like the IQS, though, the VDS has a rather broad definition of what a problem is. Because of that, a low score from JD Power is no guarantee of extreme unreliability, so much as just poor design. In this most recent study, the two most reported problems focused on Bluetooth connectivity and the voice-command systems. The former leaves plenty of room for user error due to poor design (particularly true of the Bluetooth systems on the low-scoring Fords, Volkswagens and Subarus), while the second is something JD Power has already confirmed as being universally terrible. That makes means that while these studies are important, they shouldn't be taken as gospel when it comes to automotive reliability. News Source: JD PowerImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Jeremy Korzeniewski / AOL Buick Fiat Ford GM Hyundai Jeep Land Rover Lexus MINI Mitsubishi RAM Scion Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Auto Repair Ownership study