The project contains software that acts as functional safety software in a vehicle, so ISO 26262 should apply. I couldn't find any reference to this in the repository or landing page?
Some sources mention it is for research only purposes (in closed roads?), others advertise this as a CES consumer product, has the project evolved along the way?
Each car manufacturer has to provide a battery of tests to regulators for each vehicle and sub-system within each vehicle. This project claims to be safe to use on more than 100 separate vehicles, perhaps I am missing something but this claim would require a considerable amount of evidence.
I am all for open-source and experimentation but in cases where we cannot provide guarantees, this should be done on a private road at your own risk.
Afaik you buy this thing as a dashcam and then flash the self driving software on your own at your own risk. This was done exactly when "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) demanded that Comma.ai provide proof to regulators that its proposed device for self-driving cars would be safe". [1] I wonder if there's anything new around this development with regards to Comma.ai as this is status of 2016.
The legal risk should scare people. If I reflash my dash cam, then I’m the only liable party. The insurance minimums in most states are criminally low. Whereas if I’m using something built into my car, the manufacturer’s deep pockets should at least deflect most of the liability away from me.
No need to be pedantic. No-one's arguing about the meaning of 'at your own risk', it's just that your decision to use this software affects more than just yourself.
I think the response you are replying to was a reaction to the possible interpretation that OpenPilot puts pedestrians etc. at increased risk, or that it put the driver at increased risk.
While a reasonable interpretation includes putting the driver at increased /legal/ risk relative to a system where the manufacturer represents it as for sale for autonomous driving, it is unreasonable to infer that this puts the driver at greater risk of being sued, having to sue, or monetary loss. OpenPilot may be better / safer than the competition such that using it lowers your risk of accident, monetary loss, etc. even including any purported loss of the ability to pass the buck to the manufacturer.
To be fair the person they're replying to was the one who was either being pedantic of trying to score some cheap virtue points by stating the obvious (and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming the former)
I'm not sure where you looked, but https://github.com/commaai/openpilot states it very clearly: "openpilot observes ISO26262 guidelines, see SAFETY.md for more detail."
> openpilot is developed in good faith to be compliant with FMVSS requirements and to follow industry standards of safety for Level 2 Driver Assistance Systems. In particular, we observe ISO26262 guidelines, including those from pertinent documents released by NHTSA. In addition, we impose strict coding guidelines (like MISRA C : 2012) on parts of openpilot that are safety relevant. We also perform software-in-the-loop, hardware-in-the-loop and in-vehicle tests before each software release. [0]
I would be quite curious to see how they perform HIL tests and in-vehicle tests and if those results are also public?
Yes, but what does "observes" ISO26262 mean? The words I would want to hear before plugging this into my car are, "meets", "complies with with", or "certified to ISO26262."
They run Python codes on the phone, and let a separate microcontroller do car interfacing, in which they do their best to gatekeep the ML output. That “critical” uC part is self certified by them on best effort basis.
And of course that uC unit comes in a 3D printed enclosure so yeah
They plan on open sourcing their ISO26262 documentation when Openpilot 1.0 is released. They were hiring (or already did? don't know) someone to help them write it up for release.
Some sources mention it is for research only purposes (in closed roads?), others advertise this as a CES consumer product, has the project evolved along the way?
Each car manufacturer has to provide a battery of tests to regulators for each vehicle and sub-system within each vehicle. This project claims to be safe to use on more than 100 separate vehicles, perhaps I am missing something but this claim would require a considerable amount of evidence.
I am all for open-source and experimentation but in cases where we cannot provide guarantees, this should be done on a private road at your own risk.