AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES

AND THEIR ROAD

WORTHINESS TO SAFETY
[Document subtitle]

Autonomous Vehicles and their road worthiness to safety

Autonomous vehicles are self-contol vehicles that operate solely on control systems in
order to drive on a roadway, i.e. without human intervention. Though still mostly simulations
and virtual scenarios, from research it has been understood that more intelligent advancements
in robotics and in safety on the roadways as contributed to artificial intelligent kinodynamic
functions, wireless communication modes and ultimately inherent safety verification analysis. All
contributing to safe road worthiness in the 0s and 1s of a computer.
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) possess the innate capability of being independent of its own
driving, i.e., without human supervision or input. This innate capability results from integrated
artificial intelligent control systems and other sophisticated internal structures. However,
maintaining safety of internal and external passengers at all times is even of more importance to
society than when a human is in control of the movements and judgements of the vehicle. This
takes into consideration many safety mechanisms whereby said artificial intelligence is capable
of adhering to real time unintended day to day road scenarios. Scenarios spanning from
malfunctioning street lights to unforeseen weather outbreaks and even wandering pedestrians. As
a result, there has been a surge in research and applications in safety mechanism in control
system of AVs resulting in conclusive findings. In effect, these findings showcased that
autonomous vehicles guarantee safety of its drivers by the use of wireless communication modes,
the utilization of kinodynamic artificial intelligence, and by the use of inherent safety
verification.
Wireless communication between vehicles predetermines the interaction amongst them
on the road way. King (2014) referred to vehicle to vehicle (V2V), vehicle to Pedestrian (V2P),
and the vehicle to infrastructure (V2I); comprehensively referred to as the V2X construct that
coordinates the vehicles self-safety mechanisms. This V2X operates in such a way that it
employs scenarios that aid in their manipulation of real time situations of proximity of vehicles,
i.e. knowing how to communicate with a vehicle in a 360o range taking into consideration
closeness, speed and other safety determining parameters. It was noted by King (2014) that the
background operational considerations are inclusive of sensing systems of light detection and

ranging (LIDAR) which for simplicity possess similar ranging applications like that of a sonar
detection system. The LIDAR is coupled with a GPS enabled construct that is used to maintain
and manipulate the directional variances of the vehicle. In a scenario where a driver, new to a
particular local, finds himself or herself within close proximity of a fire fight between the police
and criminals and not knowing the safest route to diverge showcases best how the LIDAR
function works. The LIDAR operational principles in such a case allows the deciphering of
millions or routes and there by choosing the fastest and safest route to diverge. Similar principles
are applicable, but in a less robust way, when in traffic and decision making is required; whether
to overtake, respond to a malfunctioning street light or when approaching a sudden stop in order
to avoid an accident. However, this case scenario takes into consideration a more robust
mechanism- Kinodynamic solutions.
Kinodynamic planning tends to solve a class of problems in which velocity, acceleration
and force/torque bound must be satisfied. Macek et al (2008) inferred that Ackerman
kinodynamic allows a more refined computer robotic artificial intelligent system. This allows for
safety verification to be integrated in rush scenarios. As noted, autonomous vehicles are selfcontrol vehicles that operates solely on the input of 0s and 1s to give instructions on what to do
in any and every situation. The scenarios noted above are in recognition of obstacles, however by
just knowing where to go is a totally different parameter than knowing how to do it. NonAutonomous vehicles driven by a human can easily execute the how, but now safety of
passengers inside and outside and also pedestrians must now be taken into consideration when
being in the care of a computer. Macek et al (2008) further detailed the issues with an original
AV system of the Sliding mode path following (SMPF) controller. This SMPF controller negates
a kinodynamic functionary and as such the introduction of the Ackerman kinodynamic
functionary of the Traversability anchored dynamic path following (TADPF) controller in
conjunction with this SMPF was implemented. This TADPF-SMPF controller hereby now
guarantees the integration of characteristics of both controllers inherent strategies, including said
Ackerman kinodynamic function. This conjunct artificial intelligence demonstrates the capacity
of the AV system to compute millions of simulations and generate the best outcome with
increased accuracy and precision. The TADPF-SMPF controller therefore coordinates the
scenario illustrated above in a timely manner with respect to acceleration and force and moreover
safely. Needless to say, with generation of millions of scenarios simultaneously, there poses the

inclination of errors and as such the accurate analysis of said errors ultimately determines the
outcome of the scenario.
Inherent safety verification, i.e. accurate analysis of errors, from a dynamic and static
system compels the future advancements of autonomous vehicles. Static systems errors in a AV
may be illustrated as one which remains unresponsive in a situation as that of the fire fight; a real
possibility in a computer intelligent system. However, a dynamic, which is the opposite of a
static, control system was proposed with the path following TADPF-SMPF controllers and the
safety verification and efficiency of said system needed to be justified. Needless to say that
errors are a still a significant deterrent within every system whether human or artificially
intelligent, however mitigation to a high probability is forthcoming. Kandula (2011) spoke of the
cyber-physical system (CPS), referred to as a static system, parameters posing a huge threat in
the process of safety verification and as such introduced the mobile cyber-physical systems
(MCPS), and considered a dynamic system, parameter towards the future of inherent safety. The
non-existent error assessment systems of present CPS is considered in the MCPS where
responses are made with regard to environmental condition. King (2014) spoke of the V2I
wireless component of the AVs and now the MCPS integrates this concept by calculating the
best behaviour for the system in other unwelcomed scenarios like the fire fight, sudden stops in
order to mitigate crashes and also bad weather conditions of e.g. flooded road ways. MCPS
would, unlike the former CPS, have the capabilities to negotiate these safety scenarios with
regard to safety verification allowing the AV artificial intelligent component to calculate with
relatively superb speeds and efficiency the safer error probability for the best outcome which
may mitigate serious injuries and or death.
Though still mostly simulations and virtual scenarios, autonomous vehicle are becoming
safer and more intelligent as advancement in robotics and safe roadway scenarios integrate.
Moving pass static systems to combined kinodynamic functionaries, Inherent wireless
connectivity between vehicles on a road way and to coordinating 360o viewpoints ranges. Safety
implications are negating as capabilities to allow safety verification built within their systems
come to the forefront in the designs of autonomous systems.