Why is the ODD not given the attention it deserves?
When talking about Automated Vehicles, the first thing presented is almost always the SAE automation level. The pitch often begins with something like: “This is the world’s first/only/best Level 4 automated driving software/system/vehicle/whatever!”
At some point, there might be a mention that the vehicle is designed for open or closed roads, but not much more detail is shared about this.
When asked, companies sometimes provide only general descriptions like, “We operate on open roads in urban environments and have tested year-round in location X.” There may also be a simple list or spreadsheet describing 5–10 environmental attributes.
However, what I am looking for when asking about the ODD, is a detailed description about what the operational constraints of the system are. For example:
- Maximum rainfall the system can handle, XX mm/hour
- Acceptable snow depth on the ground, XX cm
- Supported intersection types, type X, Y and Z
- Minimum lane width or drivable area XX meters
A proper ODD description should be detailed, rather hundreds than just tens of lines.
Why does this matter?
When acquiring vehicles, we’re planning to deliver public transport services to our customers. That means committing to a certain level of service, on specific routes, for a defined period of time.
To make the right decision of which vehicle to use, we need to know if the vehicle matches our use case and the needs of the customer. We know the environment, the climate, and the dynamic elements involved. We need to know if the technology can handle them.
The SAE driving automation level tells us how the vehicle can be operated; the ODD tells us where it can operate.
And to be fair, some companies do a good job communicating their ODD. But in general and as an industry, we need to put more focus on this.
#automateddriving
#SAEL4
#ODD
#operationaldesigndomain
#AV
#automatedvehicle
