Skip to main content

Can’t we all just drive along? The not-so-universal language of autonomous cars

The success of failure of self-driving cars — that’s whether you will eventually be able to surf the web, chat with friends, read emails, or even take a nap while your car pilots itself down the road — comes down to code. Every major automaker employs an army of programmers tasked with virtually the same goal: Write the code that keep a car rolling safely down the road to its destination.

The problem is that eventually, they’ll all share the same road. Which begs the question: If self-driving systems can’t talk to one another, can multiple systems safely navigate roadways without conflict?

Recommended Videos

“Everyone going into the first DARPA Urban Challenge in 2007 had similar concerns,” recalls Bryan Salesky, who helped build the self-driving Chevy Suburban that navigated the complex urban course to victory. Today he’s the CEO of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Argo AI, the company Ford commissioned to build the automated driving system it will roll out in 2021.

“It was the first time that multiple driving systems were all operating on the same test course and interacting with one another and needing to obey the same rules of the road and so on,” recalls the high-tech entrepreneur. “We were delighted to see the interactions were surprisingly human-like. The advanced systems were able to interact with other robotic traffic without any issues.”

Today, the “challenge” is much different. It’s not about whether we can achieve autonomy, but rather which company will produce the first vehicle and win first-mover advantage in the marketplace.

AI developers and safety advocates think a single driving system is the safest, most efficient pathways to autonomous driving.

The race has also moved from a relatively small, highly controlled test course to the real world. The geography is more diverse. There are more self-driving cars competing for the prize. And from pedestrians to bouncing balls, the obstacles are as unpredictable as ever. Not to mention, self-driving vehicles will have to share the road with those driven by your mom, dad, Aunt Ida, and every other human that chooses to pilot their vehicle.

In a nutshell, there is more risk. If a driving system failed during the Urban Challenge, the vehicle would do little damage to person or property. That cannot be said about an out-of-control autonomous vehicle (AV) in downtown Pittsburgh, for example. Search “Uber and pedestrian,” if you have any doubts.

So, can competing self-driving systems still coexist?

One code fits all

Unfortunately, there is little consensus on this subject. Some AI developers and safety advocates think a single driving system — a unique set of code that manages all driving responsibilities — is the safest, most efficient pathways to autonomous driving.

nuTonomy self-driving car
nuTonomy

“If we had a single system with clear expectations, clear deliverables, clear failure modes, and outcomes there would be a greater level of transparency and understanding,” says Deborah Hersman, CEO of the National Safety Council. “There would be no more race to gain a first-mover advantage in the driverless evolution, and every developer would be building around a sure thing.”

Others think a standardized set of rules for how AVs should behave in different situations is the best approach. Relative newcomers to the AV race, NuTonomy and Voyage are in favor of such a strategy. Both have published papers that provide a framework for how a self-driving vehicle should behave in a wide range of circumstances, including pedestrians being in the road, nearby cars reversing, and arrival at a four-way stop, which they hope other developers will use as the cornerstone for their programming efforts.

 
In June, autonomous taxi start-up Voyage announced the Velodyne VLS-128, an ultra long-range lidar sensor, will be coming to their second generation vehicles. The VLS-128 features a 360 degree horizontal view, a +15 to -25 degree vertical view, and 300 meter range. Voyage/Velodyne

Voyage has made the company’s internal safety procedures, materials and test code all open source to provide “a foundational safety resource in the industry.” CEO Oliver Cameron Cameron told Ars Technica that after the deadly Uber collision in Tempe, Arizona, he had to spend a lot of time calming people down, telling folks it was an isolated incident. “But the truth is that everyone in the industry is reinventing the technology and safety processes themselves, which is incredibly dangerous,” Cameron told the magazine. “Open source means more eyes, more diversity, and more feedback.”

More is better

However, some experts see a serious risk to the one-code-fits-all approach. “It locks everyone into a single system that might not allow for future innovation or change going forward,” warns Argo’s Salesky. “Not everyone is solving for the same reasons or solutions.”

“[Sharing data and work] is the only way to produce the safest, best-driving AI possible.”

Instead, Salesky and others believe there is utility in having multiple efforts, multiple approaches to tackling the issue: “Design diversity is one of the pillars of building robust and fault-tolerant systems that can better respond to challenging conditions and environments. We have not seen any adverse interaction between our system and other competing systems either in the Bay Area or Pittsburgh — and we don’t expect to.”

While there haven’t been conflicts between competitive “self-driving” cars in the Iron City, or anywhere else, there have been a few notable mishaps with driven vehicles and pedestrians that can be related to the systems programming. And not all the participants survived.

Learning from others

One thing everyone seems to agree upon is that safety must come first. “Automakers must agree to stop competing on safety,” says the NSC’s Hersman. “Everyone wants to buy a top safety pick. But that only says one car is better than another. Automakers need to take a page out of the aviation industry’s playbook. They need to voluntarily elevate safety to their primary focus and share their research, what they have learned through experimentation to ensure that not only one automaker will make the safest [AVs], but all will be the safest.”

Tesla Model X, autopilot avoids a crash in The Netherlands
In December of 2016, a Tesla Model X in the Netherlands correctly anticipated a car crash more than a second before it happened. The Autopilot's Forward Collision Warning went off to alert the driver and then applied the brakes immediately. The Model X is equipped with radar that can bounce around and under objects, allowing the vehicle to see when the driver may be unable to because of an obstructed view.

While sharing data — any data — is a hot topic right now that no one wants to discuss or be associated with thanks to Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, some believe it is the lynchpin to the success of the self-driving movement going forward. “Sharing work is essential to developing robust technologies that can communicate and work in tandem over a standard network that has not yet been defined,” says Bryan Reimer. “It is the only way to produce the safest, best-driving AI possible.”

Edge cases — rare events that tax the capabilities of autonomous systems – might be one of the most compelling reasons for automakers to share knowledge. Think of other drivers unexpectedly swerving, debris on the road, or plastic bags blowing in front of a vehicle. Because such events occur infrequently, and computers currently lack the common sense to decide how to respond, training AVs to cope with edge cases is hard.

Most automakers are not giving up their “competitive advantage” easily – safety procedures are intellectual property to them.

But by sharing with each other information from edge cases that have happened, AV firms can test their systems in simulators to see how they would respond, and adjust them where needed, benefiting from each other’s experience.

“We need to have some minimum performance standards or expectations for creating a ‘belt and suspenders’ approach toward safety,” says NSC’s Hersman.

The question is what kind of data should be shared. Many automakers are actively talking to regulatory bodies and other members of the automotive community to discuss best practices. But most are not giving up their “competitive advantage” easily – safety procedures are intellectual property to them.

“Not all data should be shared in all circumstances,” says Rami Sass, CEO of Whitesource, which provides software development and security teams full control and visibility over their open source usage. “But data that will have an impact on safety features and on the ability of AV to maintain safety and security will have to be a common effort for [the transition from driven to driverless] to work properly.”

Speaking the same language

While compatible code is not necessarily a concern to most, everyone agrees that a common language to facilitate communication between vehicles is a must. Even so, vehicle-to-vehicle communication is not a must-have element in the self-driving equation.

NVIDIA DRIVE—GTC 2018 Demonstration

“It simply becomes another sensor, gathering information on the state of traffic, the position of other vehicles, and their speed,” says Danny Shapiro, director of Automotive for chip-set giant Nvidia. The chipset behemoth has taken a dominant position over the past few years in the development of super-fast in-vehicle computers that allow cars to drive autonomously. “That data will help cars see around corners sooner, identify oncoming traffic sooner, tell us to adjust speed to avoid a collision,” says Shapiro. “But there needs to be a common language, something all systems can understand.”

Unfortunately, V2V is a long way from being standardized. “So, we are now building systems that can make stand-alone decisions, not connected to another car or by connecting to the cloud but by being able to perceive their surroundings,” says Shapiro.

Right now, the goal is to have cars that can drive themselves safely within a certain geographic area within the next few years. They will be used for mobility-as-a-service applications. Ford, GM, Tesla, Uber, and Waymo have all promised to launch autonomous ride-share operations, and are well on their way to delivering on that promise.

However, these first generation of AVs won’t be able to drive themselves anywhere, anytime, under any conditions. For that to happen most experts believe communication between vehicles — hence, compatibility — is necessary if the vehicles want to coexist without conflict. So, when will this happen? Your guess is as good as anyone’s. If autonomous ride shares are a commercial success, developers might not have incentive to take that next step: a fully autonomous car in your driveway.

Chuck Tannert
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Chuck Tannert is a seasoned writer, editor, and digital content strategist with more than 20 years of experience. (Read: He…
Jeep Compass EV breaks cover—but will it come to the U.S.?
jeep compass ev us newjeepcompassfirsteditionhawaii  4

Jeep just pulled the wraps off the all-new Compass EV, and while it’s an exciting leap into the electric future, there's a catch—it might not make it to the U.S. anytime soon.
This is a brand new electric version of the Jeep Compass, and being built on Stellantis' STLA platform—the same architecture underpinning models like the Peugeot E-3008 and E-5008—it looks much slicker and packs a lot more inside than previous versions of the Compass.
Let’s start with what’s cool: the new Compass EV is packing up to 404 miles of range on a single charge, a 74 kWh battery, and fast-charging that gets you from 20% to 80% in about 30 minutes. Not bad for a compact SUV with Jeep's badge on the nose.
There are two versions: a front-wheel-drive model with 213 horsepower and a beefier all-wheel-drive version with 375 horsepower. That AWD setup isn’t just for looks—it can handle 20% inclines even without front traction, and comes with extra ground clearance and better off-road angles. In short, it’s still a Jeep.
The design's been refreshed too, and inside you’ll find the kind of tech and comfort you’d expect in a modern EV—sleek, smart, and ready for both city streets and dirt trails.
But here’s the thing: even though production starts soon in Italy, Jeep hasn’t said whether the Compass EV is coming to America. And the signs aren’t promising.
Plans to build it in Canada were recently put on hold, with production now delayed until at least early 2026. Some of that might have to do with possible U.S. tariffs on Canadian and Mexican vehicles—adding a layer of uncertainty to the whole rollout.
According to Kelley Blue Book, a Stellantis spokesperson confirmed that the company has “temporarily paused work on the next-generation Jeep Compass, including activities at” the Canadian plant that was originally meant to build the model. They added that Stellantis is “reassessing its product strategy in North America” to better match customer needs and demand for different powertrain options.
So while Europe and other markets are gearing up to get the Compass EV soon, American drivers might be left waiting—or miss out entirely.
That’s a shame, because on paper, this electric Jeep hits a lot of sweet spots. Let’s just hope it finds a way over here.

Read more
Tesla just scrapped the Cybertruck range extender
Tesla CEO Elon Musk behind the wheel of a Cybertruck.

The writing was pretty much on the wall for the Cybertruck range extender last month when Tesla removed the option from its website. Now, it’s officially scrapped it and is refunding the $2,000 deposits that customers put down for the $16,000 battery pack. 

“We are no longer planning to sell the range extender for Cybertruck," Tesla said in a message to customers on Wednesday, adding, "As a result, we will be refunding your deposit in full.”

Read more
Zoox recalls robotaxis after Las Vegas crash, citing software fix
zoox recall crash 1739252352 robotaxi side profile in dark mode

Amazon's self-driving vehicle unit, Zoox, has issued a voluntary safety recall after one of its autonomous vehicles was involved in a minor collision in Las Vegas. The incident, which occurred in April 2025, led the company to investigate and identify a software issue affecting how the robotaxi anticipates another vehicle’s path.
The recall, affecting 270 Zoox-built vehicles, was formally filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Zoox said the issue has already been addressed through a software update that was remotely deployed to its fleet.
Zoox’s robotaxis, which operate without driving controls like a steering wheel or pedals, are part of Amazon’s entry into the autonomous driving space. According to Zoox’s safety recall report, the vehicle failed to yield to oncoming traffic while making an unprotected left turn, leading to a low-speed collision with a regular passenger car. While damage was minor, the event raised flags about the system’s behavior in complex urban scenarios.
Establishing safety and reliability remain key factors in the deployment of the relatively new autonomous ride-hailing technology. Alphabet-owned Waymo continues to lead the sector in both safety and operational scale, with services active in multiple cities including Phoenix and San Francisco. But GM’s Cruise and Ford/VW-backed Argo AI were forced to abandon operations over the past few years.
Tesla is also expected to enter the robotaxi race with the launch of its own service in June 2025, leveraging its Full Self-Driving (FSD) software. While FSD has faced heavy regulatory scrutiny through last year, safety regulations are expected to loosen under the Trump administration.
Zoox, which Amazon acquired in 2020, says it issued the recall voluntarily as part of its commitment to safety. “It’s essential that we remain transparent about our processes and the collective decisions we make,” the company said in a statement.

Read more