The fragility of car computers revealed.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Ian Jackson on 25 May 2010 04:53 In message <d9b8f40b-b1ef-4d76-a79d-c21ef202d709(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Man at B&Q <manatbandq(a)hotmail.com> writes >On May 23, 6:06�pm, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Ian Dalziel" <iandalz...(a)lineone.net> wrote in message >> >> news:ulniv5t11kqgmgsv5tvkdrlj29udoi4156(a)4ax.com... >> >> > On Sun, 23 May 2010 17:00:12 +0100, "Brimstone" >> > <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>"Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >>news:09a95adb-36a8-4e27-bd2b-80603cd37720(a)q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... >> >>> On 23 May, 15:26, Bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> Doug wrote: >> >>>> > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> >>>> >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>news:8add536f-2520-4b07-8034-97f341e2f969(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>>> >>> On 21 May, 09:59, boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: >> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100 >> >>>> >>>> Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very >> >>>> >>>>>>> vulnerable >> >>>> >>>>>>> to attack, say experts. >> >>>> >>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug? >> >>>> >>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large >> >>>> >>>> stick >> >>>> >>>> in >> >>>> >>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug! >> >>>> >>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be >> >>>> >>> unlikely >> >>>> >>> to inure anyone but himself. >> >>>> >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps. >> >>>> >> Unlike >> >>>> >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees. >> >> >>>> > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes >> >>>> > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore >> >>>> > people. >> >> >>>> � Change the record Doug. >> >> >>> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever >> >>> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen >> >>> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc? >> >> >>No computer controls braking and if one controlling speed fails then the >> >>car >> >>will stop. >> >> >>Happy now? >> >> > But what about the etc? >> >> "There are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are >> known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't >> know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we >> don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information >> together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the >> situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And >> each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. " >> >> With thanks to D Rumsfeld, former �US Secretary of >>Defencehttp://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s020606g.htm > >He Who Knows Not, And Knows Not, That He Knows Not, is A Fool - shun >Him. >He Who Knows Not, And Knows That, He Knows Not, is a child - Teach >Him. >He Who Knows, But Knows Not, That He Knows, Is Asleep - Awake Him, >He Who Knows, And Knows That, He Knows, Is Wise - Follow Him. > Too many commas! It should be: He Who Knows Not, And Knows Not That He Knows Not, is A Fool - Shun Him. He Who Knows Not, And Knows That He Knows Not, is a child - Teach Him. He Who Knows, But Knows Not That He Knows, Is Asleep - Awake Him, He Who Knows, And Knows That He Knows, Is Wise - Follow Him. -- Ian
From: Ian Jackson on 25 May 2010 05:03 In message <F9Cdnc_VDMGs7GTWnZ2dnUVZ8ggAAAAA(a)bt.com>, Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> writes >Doug wrote: >> On 23 May, 15:26, Bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>> Doug wrote: >>>> On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>>>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:8add536f-2520-4b07-8034-97f341e2f969(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> On 21 May, 09:59, boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100 >>>>>>> Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable >>>>>>>>>> to attack, say experts. >>>>>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug? >>>>>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick in >>>>>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug! >>>>>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely >>>>>> to inure anyone but himself. >>>>> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike >>>>> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees. >>>> They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes >>>> are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore >>>> people. >>> > >>> >>> Change the record Doug. >>> >> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever >> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen >> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc? >> >>>> -- >>>> UK Radical Campaigns. >>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net >>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill. >> > >Feel free to tell me of a computer that controls braking. >Feel free to tell me of a computer that controls braking & doesn't fail >on the safe side? > The problem is, while a braking system might have been designed to fail safe if the computer failed, what would happen if the computer didn't realise that it had failed? Moderate levels of RF interference are probably more likely to confuse a computer than to disable it. -- Ian
From: Adrian on 25 May 2010 05:11 Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > The problem is, while a braking system might have been designed to fail > safe if the computer failed, what would happen if the computer didn't > realise that it had failed? In what way? Regenerative light-braking on hybrids apart, there's really only three ways in which computers affect the brakes on modern vehicles. - ABS anti-lock. Are wheels locking under heavy braking? Yes? Release the brakes and reapply. The signals are constantly monitored for "sense" by the control unit, and if they do not fit expected results, the ABS is disabled, leaving the brakes functioning as if no ABS were fitted. - Emergency Brake Assist. Is the driver pressing the pedal very hard, very suddenly? If so, then just slam full assistance to the brakes, and let the ABS sort locking out. ABS not functioning? Then neither's EBA. Brakes work as if no EBA was fitted. - ESP stability control. Do the ABS sensors indicate that one or more wheel is losing lateral grip? Yes? Then apply the brake lightly to regain grip on that wheel. ABS not functioning? Then neither's ESP. Brakes work as if no ESP was fitted. And, in all of those cases, that means a direct hydraulic link between foot and pedal. Same on a hybrid with regenerative braking. The only difference is that - if the self-tests indicate that all is well - light braking adds in regeneration of electrical charge, assuming charge is required. All of those systems are constantly self-testing, and will interpret any anomaly as "shut down and get out of the way", with a fail-safe being designed-in. Sure, you might have to press the pedal a bit harder, and you might have to remember what to do if they lock - but that's a rather fundamental driving skill that all drivers should be expected to understand. It's why we still require wetware instead of leaving it to hardware and software alone.
From: boltar2003 on 25 May 2010 05:50 On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:03:07 +0100 Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote: >The problem is, while a braking system might have been designed to fail >safe if the computer failed, what would happen if the computer didn't >realise that it had failed? Moderate levels of RF interference are >probably more likely to confuse a computer than to disable it. Doesn't even have to be computerised. If someone or something has messed up the innards no "fail safe" system can be guaranteed to work as the clapham rail crash demonstrated. But the point is that (so far) computers don't have enough control of a car to cause the driver to lose control unless they're stupid americans. B2003
From: Ian Jackson on 25 May 2010 06:03
In message <861iikFhpcU5(a)mid.individual.net>, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> writes >Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, >sounding much like they were saying: > >> The problem is, while a braking system might have been designed to fail >> safe if the computer failed, what would happen if the computer didn't >> realise that it had failed? > >In what way? > >Regenerative light-braking on hybrids apart, there's really only three >ways in which computers affect the brakes on modern vehicles. > >- ABS anti-lock. Are wheels locking under heavy braking? Yes? Release the >brakes and reapply. The signals are constantly monitored for "sense" by >the control unit, and if they do not fit expected results, the ABS is >disabled, leaving the brakes functioning as if no ABS were fitted. > >- Emergency Brake Assist. Is the driver pressing the pedal very hard, >very suddenly? If so, then just slam full assistance to the brakes, and >let the ABS sort locking out. ABS not functioning? Then neither's EBA. >Brakes work as if no EBA was fitted. > >- ESP stability control. Do the ABS sensors indicate that one or more >wheel is losing lateral grip? Yes? Then apply the brake lightly to regain >grip on that wheel. ABS not functioning? Then neither's ESP. Brakes work >as if no ESP was fitted. > >And, in all of those cases, that means a direct hydraulic link between >foot and pedal. Same on a hybrid with regenerative braking. The only >difference is that - if the self-tests indicate that all is well - light >braking adds in regeneration of electrical charge, assuming charge is >required. > >All of those systems are constantly self-testing, and will interpret any >anomaly as "shut down and get out of the way", with a fail-safe being >designed-in. Sure, you might have to press the pedal a bit harder, and >you might have to remember what to do if they lock - but that's a rather >fundamental driving skill that all drivers should be expected to >understand. It's why we still require wetware instead of leaving it to >hardware and software alone. Oh, indeed. However, the ability of any system to perform correctly and react appropriately in all circumstances does depend vitally on the designers' ability to foresee all possible eventualities. Occasionally, their foresight fails. If that were not the case, why have there been so many updates with (just as an example) computer software?!! -- Ian |