[HN Gopher] Mercedes-Benz says Level 3 self-driving option ready...
___________________________________________________________________
Mercedes-Benz says Level 3 self-driving option ready to roll
Author : mxschumacher
Score : 82 points
Date : 2022-05-06 19:49 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thedetroitbureau.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thedetroitbureau.com)
| pojzon wrote:
| If tesla still has issues with self-driving cars and they are
| like a decade if not more ahead of everyone else.
|
| I dont believe this PR stunt.
| chucknthem wrote:
| Tesla owner here, have friends that work at Cruise. Tesla is
| waaayy behind cruise and waymo on the self driving front. Those
| other companies actually have fully driverless cars driving
| around San Francisco. Tesla is not even close.
|
| I think GM will have the best self driving system if they
| manage to commercialize the tech cruise built.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| "If", as the Spartans famously said to Big Alex's dad.
|
| Ah, well, let's hope GM manages to comercialize the stuff.
|
| (The Spartans were undefeated, but became irrelevant and
| dwindled, just a past legend for others to wave around as
| political advertising. Sic transit ...)
| freeflight wrote:
| _> I dont believe this PR stunt._
|
| PR stunts usually don't come with official regulatory approval,
| tho they commonly come with grand promises [0] and the actual
| product not living up to them [1]
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53418069
|
| [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/3aqevk/the-government-is-
| fin...
| qeternity wrote:
| Wow. Or Tesla are the real masters of the PR stunt, and are not
| a decade ahead of everyone.
|
| _EDIT_ I watched this comment drop from 15 pts to 5 pts. The
| Elon apologists are out in full force.
| wollsmoth wrote:
| Maybe LIDAR is more useful than Tesla thought.
| simondotau wrote:
| What mistakes is FSD beta currently making that would be
| solved with more accurate localisation of the vehicle? Are
| you aware of any situations where mistakes are being made as
| a result of errors in depth estimation?
|
| Seriously, look at any FSD beta video and you'll quickly
| recognise that its ability to sense the road is mature and
| robust; most errors are in the planner.
| smileysteve wrote:
| > they are like a decade if not more ahead of everyone else.
|
| Mercedes has been investing radar since the Tesla Roadster.
| They are ahead of Tesla when for European regulation.
| martin8412 wrote:
| Tesla and Elon Musk are lying through their teeth every option
| they get.
|
| They can't even detect stationary emergency vehicles ffs..
|
| Mercedes is accepting liability whenever their self driving
| system is engaged, meaning their insurance is on the hook. So I
| think they're pretty damn certain that it will work as
| intended.
| 01100011 wrote:
| In my uninformed estimation, I think Elon, like a lot of us
| 7-8 years ago, saw the recent advances in deep learning and
| figured they'd be capable of anything in a few years. You
| just need to scale them up and train the shit out of them and
| out pops self driving. Some of us have since repented but
| Tesla made too many promises so they've got to keep pushing
| that narrative or they become just another car company.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| or tesla made a bad engineering decision that stalled progress?
| myko wrote:
| Tesla seems way behind companies like Waymo
|
| It's all marketing hype, I say this as a Model S owner with FSD
| shoulderfake wrote:
| verisimi wrote:
| "Oh no! You didn't pay your road tax. So that you don't lose the
| opportunity to defend yourself, the car will drive you to your
| local police station so you can represent yourself."
|
| "Oh no! Your passenger has been identified, and has a warrant for
| his arrest. To prevent you being charged with aiding and abetting
| a felon, we will drive you to your local police station."
|
| Etc.
| amelius wrote:
| What I don't get: if deep learning can recognize a crosswalk with
| 99.99% accuracy, that's very impressive. Yet it is not enough.
| vanviegen wrote:
| Do human drivers spot crosswalks in time with higher accuracy?
| That seems very unlikely to me.
|
| Still, as long as the driver (human or otherwise) sees the
| pedestrian and vice versa, an accident can usually be avoided,
| with perhaps some angry shouting.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| I can imagine this being at least two orders of magnitude
| higher than most human drivers (one in ten thousand misses
| versus one in one hundred). How many orders of magnitude better
| does it need to be before it's good enough?
| robonerd wrote:
| Missing one in a hundred intersections? That's insane. Most
| human drivers are much better than that and wouldn't keep
| their license (or their life) for long if they weren't.
| everyone wrote:
| Is it still designed to mow down pedestrians?
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15344706/self-driving-mer...
|
| Mercedes ethics: Save the people who can afford lawyers.
| freeflight wrote:
| Usually no pedestrians running around on the autobahn, for
| which this system is intended for.
| everyone wrote:
| Their plan (as it was in 2016) is to eventually have full
| self driving everywhere. Presumably the fundamental decisions
| they make now will carry forward.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That's such a ridiculous problem to worry about. Humans don't
| try to solve the trolley problem, either, I don't know why we
| suddenly expect computers to be able to do it.
|
| The real answer is actually simple, and it's basically the same
| advice for human drivers: stop the car, however you can. Don't
| try to swerve, don't get clever, just dynamite the brakes and
| hope for the best. Or as they say on the race track "both
| pedals in!"
|
| Anything else is foolishness. I think magazines just like to
| talk about it because it makes people click.
| everyone wrote:
| Your argument works both ways. Lets say a truck is driving on
| the wrong side of the road and is going to flatten the
| mercedes (not too uncommon as truck drivers seem to be crazy
| and will overtake each other). Lets say it's possible to
| swerve onto the footpath and squash some pedestrians in order
| to avoid the truck. A human driver wont be solving the
| trolley problem here and will probably just die. It sounds
| Mercedes goal is for the car to save the driver and kill the
| pedestrians in this situation.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Read what the Mercedes guy actually said, though. Swerving
| is bad, because it in no way guarantees a better result,
| and increases the risk substantially of making things
| _worse_. Any tire grip you use to swerve isn 't being used
| to stop, and the best way to minimize damage to the car,
| and by extension risk to the occupant, is to get kinetic
| energy as low as possible and rely on the safety cage for
| the rest.
|
| The magazine writer frames it as "Mercedes is making a
| choice in the trolley problem, and that choice is the
| driver" as if that's actually a decision being made,
| instead of the entirely expected result of trying to slow
| the car enough that regular safety systems are likely to
| save the life of the driver. Mercedes is doing the
| _opposite_ of trying to solve the trolley problem, they 're
| declaring it pointless to try.
|
| It's much more plausible to get the car into the "driver is
| very unlikely to die" kinetic range than it is to get it
| down to "pedestrian is very unlikely to die."
|
| So, back to your hypothetical -- the Mercedes won't be
| swerving for the pedestrians, because that'll statistically
| increase the risk to the driver. The car may very well
| still get hit by that truck, but now it'll be on the driver
| side instead of the front crumple zone. And who knows what
| else happens after the car becomes ballistic because it
| collided with something.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Although it's pretty clear you don't care about an answer to
| your question - it's only designed to operate on highways.
| everyone wrote:
| Their plan (as it was in 2016) is to eventually have full
| self driving everywhere. Presumably the fundamental decisions
| they make now will carry forward.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Is there a map somewhere that discloses which roads it will be
| permitted on?
| lesgobrandon wrote:
| mdoms wrote:
| > Tesla CEO Elon Musk said during a recent conference call with
| investors he expects to have a "Level Four" system ready by the
| end of 2022
|
| How are people still listening to this clown?
| glaucon wrote:
| People love to follow people.
| scrozier wrote:
| I own a Model 3 and love it. But you're 100% right: the "full
| self driving" claim Musk/Tesla has been making for years is
| bizarre. I live in a major city and have never had a trip using
| FSD where I didn't have to take control multiple times. At
| times, updates seem to make it get worse. Simple example, on a
| highway, it can't even keep the car in the middle of the lane
| through moderate curves. It almost always drifts to the
| outside, sometimes onto or over the lane marker. And I know
| it's doing this because I can watch it on the display, so the
| car clearly knows it's not centered. Surely this should be a
| trivial task (as self-driving tasks go).
| simondotau wrote:
| You are quoting someone who is egregiously misquoting and
| misunderstanding what Elon said in that recent earnings call.
| What he actually said:
|
| _Of any technology development I've ever been involved in,
| I've never really seen more false dawns, or where it seems like
| we're going to break through but we don't as I've seen in full
| self-driving. And ultimately what it comes down to is that to
| solve full self-driving, you actually have to solve real world
| artificial intelligence. Which nobody has solved. The whole
| road system is made for biological neural nets and eyes. And so
| actually, when you think about it, in order to solve full self-
| driving, we have to solve neural nets and cameras to a degree
| of a capability that is on par with, and will really exceeds
| humans. And I think we will achieve that this year. The best
| way to reach your own assessment is to join the Tesla full
| self-driving beta program. We have over 100,000 people right
| now enrolled in that program. And we expect to broaden that
| significantly this year. So that's my recommendation is join
| the full self-driving beta program, and experience it for
| yourself. And take note of the rate of improvement with every
| release. And we put out a new release roughly every two weeks.
| And you'll see a little bit of two steps forward, one step
| back. But overall, the rate of improvement is incredibly quick.
| So that's my recommendation for reaching your own assessment
| is, literally try it._
| ksubedi wrote:
| What most people here complaining about the "40 mph" limit do not
| realize is that below 40mph is where it's hardest to implement
| proper self driving, as majority of below 40mph driving will be
| in city streets with pedestrians, frequent turns and more
| variables. Anything higher will generally be in highways where
| lane assist cruise control systems are already more than good
| enough.
|
| I will gladly take a system that can drive itself confidently
| under 40mph in city, and use basic lane assist (and maybe lane
| changes and exit ramps like in Teslas) for highways. Cant wait!
| lorenzfx wrote:
| While the specs sound very underwhelming at first (geo-fenced on
| some roads, very low speeds, no bad weather), they seem to be so
| confident in their system, that they will take responsibility for
| the car when in autopilot. AFAIK, no other manufacturer does this
| for their systems (which capabilities they often make rather wild
| claims about).
| 369548684892826 wrote:
| > they will take responsibility for the car when in autopilot
|
| This probably just means autopilot gets disengaged just before
| impact
| davidvarela_us wrote:
| few things inspire confidence like companies putting their
| literal money where their mouth is
| slg wrote:
| But haven't we all seen Fight Club? It isn't a question a
| confidence, it is a question of financial math.
|
| This decision tells us nothing about the safety of the
| Mercedes system compared to its competitors. All it tells us
| is that adding these limitations to ensure the system is only
| used in the safest possible scenarios makes taking over
| liability more reasonable. That isn't surprising. Their
| competitors' systems are also very safe if used in this
| manner. The only difference is that the competitors are not
| satisfied with releasing a system with enough limitations
| that it only works in stop-and-go highway traffic in clear
| weather. It is that added functionality that is more
| dangerous and the reason other manufacturers don't take on
| liability.
|
| Odds are the marketing and accounting wings of Mercedes had
| just as much if not more influence on this decision than the
| tech team.
| I_DRINK_KOOLAID wrote:
| > This decision tells us nothing about the safety of the
| Mercedes system compared to its competitors
|
| Mercedes is just taking notice that grandstanding and PR
| worked for Tesla, so they are doing the same thing.
|
| Everybody who is serious about this knows that unless you
| get Level 5 it's all just grandstanding.
|
| Level 5 won't come from unleashing Level 3 into the world
| and throwing deers , cyclists and pedestrians at it
| (hopefully not literally).
|
| It's just a weird hill that brainpower and capital decided
| to die on. Deaths on the road are tragic but airbags,
| seatbelts and ultimately bigger cars and lower alcohol
| intake is something practical, whereas Level 5 is something
| like a pie-in-the-sky thing
| upbeat_general wrote:
| I don't know how you came to this conclusion.
|
| Level 4 is a serious goal that provides very useful
| benefits.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >But haven't we all seen Fight Club?
|
| ???
| thematrixturtle wrote:
| http://inaneexplained.blogspot.com/2011/03/fight-club-
| car-re...
|
| TL;DR; If there's a defect that kills or maims people,
| car manufacturers compute if it's cheaper to recall or
| just deal with the lawsuits.
|
| And this happens regularly:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
| idoh wrote:
| There's always a tradeoff between cost and safety, how
| else would you imagine this to work?
| mirntyfirty wrote:
| Have you seen the movie, if I remember the scene
| correctly Norton discusses the financial incentives
| leading to auto product recalls. I don't think this is
| accurate in real life although Boeing hasn't inspired
| much confidence.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| >I don't think this is accurate in real life
|
| Ehhhh I mean they often don't say the quiet part out loud
| but many companies definitely run a variation of the
| equation he describes.
| jerf wrote:
| https://youtu.be/SiB8GVMNJkE
| Hamuko wrote:
| What about legal? As in, if I'm being driven around my
| Mercedes-Benz while watching a movie on my phone and something
| happens, am I not gonna get fucked by the cops?
| lima wrote:
| In Germany, the law was changed to account for this.
|
| There are limits - while you can watch a movie, you have to
| be ready to take over within ten seconds.
| ghaff wrote:
| Absent legal/regulatory changes/waivers, the fact that MB is
| offering to cover financial liabilities would seem to be
| pretty much irrelevant to legal liabilities. So basically
| "we'll cover your costs" is pretty much irrelevant if you
| want to drive in a manner that would normally be considered
| reckless.
|
| But there's talk of certification so this may be taken into
| account. One would of course want to see specifics.
| nradov wrote:
| That would depend on the exact laws in particular
| jurisdictions where you might operate the vehicle. In some
| areas, law enforcement could cite you for using a phone even
| if the manufacturer had taken on the civil liability. Longer
| term some of those laws will probably change as Level 3
| autonomous vehicles start to become more common.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Confident but limited is probably how the German manufacturers
| describe most of their cars (although I think mercedes do at
| least some of their driverless in the USA)
| Traster wrote:
| Just from a management perspective, even if you're super-
| confident in your engineers (which you shouldn't be), doing
| anything other than a very limited slow roll out would be
| negligent. This is a tectonic shift in liability. It's one
| thing if you sell 1,000,000 cars and 100,000 get in an
| accident. It's actually much worse to sell 10,000 cars and
| 1,000 of them get in an accident _and the company is liable_.
| a-dub wrote:
| there should be a qualification level for vehicles that can fully
| self drive at low speeds in heavy traffic on the highway so you
| can nap through traffic jams and then later enjoy your
| performance automobile by driving it yourself when it's clear.
|
| half the point of fancy cars is that they're fun to drive.
| MBCook wrote:
| I think that may be level 4, but I'm not sure.
| a-dub wrote:
| it appears you're correct... but it is a much easier problem
| and one that i argue has massive bang for the buck _today_.
|
| robotaxis will probably happen at scale some day. but for
| now, "nap through bad traffic mode" would be pretty excellent
| both in terms of safety and utility.
| MBCook wrote:
| Phantom traffic jams are so common, where things aren't
| moving as fast as they should because people keep slamming
| on their brakes and scaring the people behind them (who in
| turn do the same). Even if the original reason was good I
| imagine it makes a lot of real life traffic jams worse.
|
| But if the cars are all driving themselves, wouldn't they
| avoid that? I wonder if traffic jams would get smaller just
| from the lack of that one issue.
| a-dub wrote:
| yeah, i've daydreamed about that. if enough cars opt in
| you could implement cooperative flow control algorithms.
|
| i think this has already been shown to help with advisory
| lane specific speed limits that are common in some parts
| of europe and the us. (the lit adaptive per lane speed
| limit signs that appear every mile or two.)
|
| even a few vehicles that drive intelligently in traffic
| could potentially have huge effects.
|
| and i'll say it again: why buy a fun vehicle like a tesla
| or a benz if you're just going to have the computer drive
| it in a way that the manufacturer's legal team is
| comfortable with?
|
| unless, of course, you're stuck in traffic. then let the
| lawyers drive and take a nap.
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| Seems like we need to re-run the DARPA Grand Challenge.
|
| Local car clubs should be happy to work together to define a
| route and run the race.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2AcMnfzpNg
| Havoc wrote:
| What exactly is this "internationally valid certification"
| they're banging on about and how is it the first?
| gzer0 wrote:
| > Drive Pilot can only be engaged on a certain highways, and the
| car must not exceed 40 miles per hour.
|
| > The system will only operate during the daytime, in reasonably
| clear weather, and without overhead obstructions. Inclement
| weather, construction zones, tunnels, and emergency vehicles will
| all trigger a handover warning [1].
|
| There's a _very_ limited subset of areas that one would be able
| to use this.
|
| [1] https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/23/mercedes-will-be-
| legall...
| jzz wrote:
| Mercedes system seems as capable as my 2002 Nissan's cruise
| control.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| For me the corollary of this ("you just invented a more expensive
| railway") is the business model assumptions that go away. Long
| distance trucking is still a likely winner, but there is still
| the "last mile / last off ramp".
|
| None of the business models touted today survive the new railway
| problem. That's not to say it's not a valuable technology - it's
| just we cannot whistle up a human shaped robot that just does
| what we want.
|
| In the same way a machine is shaped by its function, our cities
| and infrastructure green will be shaped by their function.
|
| Disneyland is built one level up, so that all the service tunnels
| (with I am sure some self driving robots) can get around without
| getting in the way of people. Whatever we rebuild our (climate
| neutral) cities to be, i think less surface space given to
| transport will be high
| henrikschroder wrote:
| Meanwhile at Tesla: "We're the industry leaders, wait for us!"
| LightG wrote:
| "Our leader of all things FSD is on sabbatical, please bare
| with us"
| 01100011 wrote:
| Hey, they've had self driving ready to go next year since
| 2014(https://youtu.be/o7oZ-AQszEI).
|
| Why so cynical? :)
| wyldfire wrote:
| > Mercedes-Benz Cars says it plans to release "Drive Pilot," a
| conditionally automated Level 3 system for automated driving
|
| I think it's pretty irresponsible to publish a picture of a
| driver taking his eyes off the road to play Tetris on a system
| designed for Level 3.
| MBCook wrote:
| "Level 3 autonomous driving, as defined by SAE International,
| means that the driver can hand over control to the vehicle, but
| must be ready to take over when prompted" (from an EU car site)
|
| At level 3 the driver no longer has to constantly monitor the
| road, but they can't exactly go to sleep because they need to
| be ready to take over in a few seconds.
|
| Given that the image seems reasonable.
| microtherion wrote:
| In the specific case of the Mercedes-Benz system, if the
| driver does not take over in a timely manner, the car will
| find a safe place to come to a stop, activate the emergency
| lights, and unlock the doors, so you'd probably live even if
| you _did_ fall asleep: https://group.mercedes-
| benz.com/documents/innovation/other/2...
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| Not if the system is designed to achieve a minimal risk
| condition by itself or give the driver sufficient warning to
| take over. Level 3 includes systems that can handle an
| emergency situation but require the driver to respond within
| some limited time.
| freeflight wrote:
| That's pretty much the definition of level 3;
|
| _> In certain situations, the driver can turn attention away
| from the road, but most always be ready to take full control
| again._
|
| https://www.blickfeld.com/blog/levels-of-autonomous-driving/
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| This is powered by nvidia i think:
| https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2021/04/16/mercedes-benz-eqs-h...
|
| This means if mercedes have it, so will many other automakers
| since nvidia sells to everyone.
| [deleted]
| Youden wrote:
| The linked blog post seems to show off hardware but the
| software is all Mercedes, no? In that case automakers wouldn't
| be able to buy the self-driving capability from NVIDIA.
| riotnrrd wrote:
| NVIDIA has a large autonomous vehicle software team and
| releases public products (such as Driveworks:
| https://developer.nvidia.com/drive/driveworks) as well as
| custom products for specific clients.
| _jal wrote:
| We have a cage in a data center right next to Nvidia's main
| campus. There's a redlight right at the lot entrance. Twice
| I've watched their robots drive onto the street and stop in
| the intersection, seemingly too indecisive to do anything.
|
| Last time was several months ago, can't remember if it was
| this year or last. I have no major point to make, it just
| amused me.
| mhh__ wrote:
| With these press releases they can mean anything from "It's our
| tech but rebadged" to "We sold them a CAD program" so not
| always clear.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| "it's geofenced to certain roads, and only work under 40mph", "
| you should not use this in the rain"
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMNnOosjrBo&ab_channel=Engad...
| verisimi wrote:
| > "Geofenced"
|
| That's the word. That's the plan. We will be geofenced, there
| will be a kill switch. You will not be able to go where you
| want, except if the government allows it.
|
| In fact, I think Uber is the best example of geofencing we have
| for the long run. In the medium term, self-driving cars you
| still own will fill the gap.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| You're making a pretty big leap there from "our experimental
| self-driving mode only works inside the geofence" to "the
| government won't let you drive where you want".
| verisimi wrote:
| Yes, a huge leap. I can't possibly imagine that government
| would pass legislation that all the automakers would comply
| with. /s
|
| https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/biden-infrastructure-
| bil...
|
| "Deep within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
| that was signed into law by President Joe Biden is a
| passage that will require automakers to begin including
| what can be best summarized as a "vehicle kill switch"
| within the operating software of new cars, which is
| described in the bill as "advanced drunk and impaired
| driving prevention technology". The measure has been
| positioned as a safety tool to help prevent drunk driving,
| and by 2026 (three years after the enactment of the Act,
| per the text) the kill switch could be mandated on every
| new car sold in the United States. Then there's the broader
| reaching RIDE Act, which we'll touch on in a moment."
| verisimi wrote:
| I'm being downvoted - but this is the reality of what
| will happen. Who wants that sort of monitoring when they
| are driving?
|
| Is this a consumer-driven feature? Or is this more
| government management - leveraging technology to micro-
| manage every detail of our lives - only allowing good
| citizens travel privileges etc?
|
| We are sleep walking into a dystopia, and I get downvoted
| for stating the obvious! Seriously - your government is
| about managing you, saying what you are and aren't
| allowed to do, extracting taxes, fines and licensing fees
| from you - its not there to help!
|
| PS I _was_ being downvoted, but now I 'm back up... It
| was right what I wrote it!
| pigtailgirl wrote:
| Maybe some people just agree with this?
|
| (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
| (1) alcohol-impaired driving fatalities represent
| approximately \1/3\ of all highway fatalities in the
| United States each year;
| (2) in 2019, there were 10,142 alcohol-impaired driving
| fatalities in the United States involving drivers with a
| blood alcohol concentration level of .08 or
| higher, and 68 percent of the crashes that
| resulted in those fatalities involved a driver
| with a blood alcohol concentration level of .15 or
| higher; (3) the estimated
| economic cost for alcohol-impaired driving
| in 2010 was $44,000,000,000;
| (4) according to the Insurance Institute for Highway
| Safety, advanced drunk and impaired driving
| prevention technology can prevent more than
| 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities
| annually; and (5) to ensure the
| prevention of alcohol-impaired driving
| fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving
| prevention technology must be standard
| equipment in all new passenger motor
| vehicles. (b) Definitions.--In
| this section: (1) Advanced drunk and
| impaired driving prevention technology.--The
| term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving
| prevention technology'' means a system that--
| (A) can-- (i) passively
| monitor the performance of a
| driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify
| whether that driver may be impaired; and
| (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation
| if an impairment is detected; (B)
| can--
|
| [[Page 135 STAT. 832]]
| (i) passively and accurately detect whether
| the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a
| motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the
| blood alcohol concentration described in section
| 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and
| (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation
| if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal
| limit is detected; or (C) is a
| combination of systems described in
| subparagraphs (A) and (B).
| rglullis wrote:
| The "right" way to fix this is by reducing car-dependency
| - better public transit outside of metro areas, less
| subsidies to gasoline, taxing car makers to cover for
| externalities - and not by instituting policies that can
| be used against law-abiding people.
| verisimi wrote:
| I think its possible to make an argument for lots of
| things, in the name of safety. That it should be
| impossible to have anonymity online, etc because of child
| abuse, or terrorism, or some other action.
|
| The safety argument cannot balance the fact that we also
| need freedom of speech and thought. We are heading into a
| world where the power balance is going to become so
| wildly asymmetrical - the government will know everything
| about you and will have the power to act against you
| instantly, automatically - it will change us. It will be
| dehumanising - you will have to watch your back. If you
| don't already.
|
| We will have to conform to have a job, be able to travel,
| receive our govcoin vouchers, etc.
|
| We are literally installing an even worse citizen score
| system than China, that no one would ever want, but each
| step of the way we are convinced by some spurious and
| limited 'safety' argument. This misses the whole picture.
|
| And if you think that the government won't act against
| you once it has the power to do so, you are dreaming.
| Everyone seems to think that government is a force for
| good, as opposed to being the operators of the slavery
| system we find ourselves in. Some of us try to kid
| ourselves that we are free, while we hand over 40% of our
| income for government to service the interest on the debt
| that they have accrued on our behalf. I don't.
|
| Anyway - I say what I see, no one likes my message,
| everyone seems blind to the points I raise, or wants to
| ignore them - what can I do? I hope I'm wrong.
| pigtailgirl wrote:
| you might be right you might be wrong - however I suspect
| you'll find there are many of us out here who are just
| not willing to let ourselves get so worked up about such
| a ridged view of a _possible future_ - doubt you 'll find
| many on HN who are not ignorant to the signs - i'm
| certain many are concerned about the trends - that
| doesn't meant people necessarily disagree with your
| thought - we just may disagree with your outlook - myself
| - i'm inclined to believe I - my friends- and fine folks
| like you are thoughtful enough to deal with it in the
| moment - even if that took a civil war - i'm not inclined
| to believe at some point i am going to lose touch with
| reality - nor am i inclined to believe my government is
| going to turn against me without noticing - for what it's
| worth i don't think you need to take it so personally -
| lots of people are concerned - just not everyone is
| freaking out (yet)- maybe you can somehow make peace with
| that? :=)
| jjulius wrote:
| Additional Context:
|
| https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497
| wfhordie wrote:
| Saving his comment for whenever the punishment for a DUI
| post-license reinstatement is a "temporary geo-fence on
| where the car can travel".
|
| "But I'm not a drunk!"
|
| Saving this comment for when the NHSTA recommends hard cut
| offs for speed based on the posted speed limit.
|
| "Who cares? It's safer that way."
|
| Saving this comment for when cities start geofencing to
| reduce congestion.
|
| "Well... I don't live in a big city."
|
| Saving this comment for when insurance companies demand
| geofencing for regions unless you pay extra to travel
| outside your zone
|
| "Well I don't travel out of state anyway, discount for me!"
|
| Saving this comment for when the next civil unrest happens
| and the government implements geofencing temporarily to
| "restore peace"
|
| "Well they shouldn't be rioting."
|
| I'm saving this comment. You won't come back here to
| respond. But I'm saving this comment because all the evil
| shit you can think of this being used for is coming, and
| it's coming to China first. I won't say I told you so --
| you don't me, I don't know you, and we'll never speak to
| each other in person. But I hope you remember the pretty
| big leap, and that pretty big leaps often happen in many
| smaller leaps.
| rglullis wrote:
| Sir, this is a Wendy's.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| arcticbull wrote:
| > You will not be able to go where you want, except if the
| government allows it.
|
| Sounds like in your model Elon will be the one deciding where
| you can and cannot go.
| glaucon wrote:
| Don't worry, at least in a Tesla the geofencing is going to
| be disabled in datetime.now().year + 1
| kube-system wrote:
| Breadth of operating conditions is a trade off with reliability
| of operation. It's possible to do a lot of things okay, or a
| couple things perfectly, but not yet possible to do a lot of
| things perfectly.
|
| When you remove the driver from the equation, the requirement
| for reliability goes up.
|
| There's going to come a day when Tesla is forced to make
| difficult decisions about their "FSD" system. They're either
| going to be requiring human supervision for a long time, or
| they're going to have to start pulling features.
|
| I'm glad to see other manufacturers taking a different approach
| and actually start working on features good enough to qualify
| for SAE level 3 operation.
| na85 wrote:
| If you think Teslas driven by fleeing fugitives, OJ Simpson
| style, can't be remotely commandeered or disabled, then I have
| a bridge to sell you.
|
| Geofencing is a big part of the dystopia that the Valley crowd
| is getting paid a small fortune to shove down our throats.
| [deleted]
| filoleg wrote:
| > If you think Teslas driven [...] can't be remotely
| commandeered or disabled, then I have a bridge to sell you.
|
| I wonder how this is even remotely possible, given that
| Teslas can easily operate fully offline (which they
| frequently do in areas with poor cell reception). You can
| just build a small faraday cage encasing the modem so that it
| cannot receive signal, and you are good to go.
|
| Also, I don't think that the drivetrain subsystem and the
| subsystem that is connected to the internet can even interop.
| I know for a fact that even if the main computer (the one
| that is connected to the big screen) on a tesla is rebooting
| or shutting off, you can still operate the car like usual.
| another_story wrote:
| The point they're making is that this is coming and the
| groundwork is already being laid, both legally and
| technologically.
| loueed wrote:
| Wondering how would they prevent the faraday cage
| solution? I guess the OEM could disable the car if it
| cant phone home but surely that would lead to accidents
| e.g. blocking the modem while driving.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| OJ Simpson, the man that the police forced to stop fleeing
| under threat of deadly violence?
|
| Are you trying to scare people that their car may be
| disabled, when those same people already live in a society
| where police shoot and kill and pit maneuver drivers?
|
| Wouldn't you rather have the car stop safely, instead of
| being pit maneuvered and flipped into a ditch?
| mtlynch wrote:
| _OJ Simpson, the man that the police forced to stop fleeing
| under threat of deadly violence?_
|
| That didn't happen. Police followed OJ for 50 miles and
| ultimately let him drive safely to his house.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#B
| r...
| gitfan86 wrote:
| The LAPD had killed plenty of people who didn't comply
| with their orders at that point. It is completely
| unrealistic to think that the LAPD wouldn't have used
| violence against OJ, if he had tried to flee to Mexico.
| na85 wrote:
| >Are you trying to scare people that their car may be
| disabled, when those same people already live in a society
| where police shoot and kill and pit maneuver drivers?
|
| Scare? No.
|
| I'm just pointing out that, just as pervasive corporate
| surveillance is now the norm on the internet, pervasive
| tracking and always-on kill switches for cars will soon
| become the new norm. Law enforcement will paint it exactly
| as you have done here, with all the pearl-clutching and
| "think of the children"-type arguments that always
| accompany a new overstep/affront against civil liberties.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| Are you suggesting we shouldn't think of the children?
| na85 wrote:
| I think you know perfectly well what my point is and
| you're being deliberately obstinate.
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| The idea that this is the "valley crowd" is laughable. Most
| of this bs is not built in the valley, and most people in the
| Bay Area don't like that kind of dystopia either.
| na85 wrote:
| >Most of this bs is not built in the valley, and most
| people in the Bay Area don't like that kind of dystopia
| either.
|
| Well, certainly it's Bay Area companies leading the charge
| towards said dystopia. Google and Facebook come immediately
| to mind as far as villains in this particular plot.
| daenz wrote:
| I wonder if 40mph is a magic number that is a good tradeoff
| between speed and survivability (and injury-related out-of-
| court settlements)
| fweimer wrote:
| It's translated from 60 kph. Apparently, the current system
| is restricted to German highways. Those are limited to
| vehicles which can go at least as fast as 60 kph, and this
| might be where this number comes from. It's basically the
| slowest highway speed at which there is no controversy about
| legality. Targeting highways first makes sense from a
| complexity and data quality perspective.
|
| Although driving at 60 kph on German highways seems quite
| risky; at that speed, most trucks will overtake you.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| I doubt this reasoning. While it's true that 60 kph is the
| minimum for Autobahn, it's the minimum in the sense that
| the vehicle must be capable of that speed. There is no
| requirement to actually drive 60 kph or faster.
|
| On the other side of the equation, nobody would feel
| comfortable cruising along at that speed, since you'd be
| continuously overtaken by trucks, which drive a little more
| than the allowed 80 kph unless it's physically impossible.
| sjcoles wrote:
| Has to do with the limitations of radar. Radar will fail
| >40mph for stopped vehicles or detect them too late to stop.
| Honda and Tesla are working to remove radars and go vision
| only for speed control.
|
| If you have a car with a AEB or CMBS (automatic emergency
| braking, crash mitigation braking system) the owners manual
| has a ton of fine print about it only making crashes less
| severe, not preventing them outright.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I imagine there are a couple reasons that boil down at some
| point to kinetic energy. Stopping distance goes up pretty
| quickly, there's a huge difference between, say, 40mph and
| 60mph.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| That threshold is generally considered to be 20mph. Below
| that speed pedestrian injuries are unlikely to be fatal.
|
| It's what urban speed limits are in Sweden, and they average
| about one pedestrian death a year in the entire country.
| Closi wrote:
| 20mph is considered to be good for survivability, but is
| not really good from a speed/travel perspective.
|
| I believe OP meant maybe 40mph is a good balance between
| the two factors of speed (higher is better) and
| survivability (higher is better) from a corporate risk /
| insurance perspective.
|
| Raising one of these lowers the other - so the actual
| threshold depends on how you value speed / convenience vs
| accident survivability / risk, and what you want to market
| your car as able to do (few consumers will see a 20mph
| self-drive speed limit as a viable self driving system).
| throwmeariver1 wrote:
| Yeah, look up some videos of Teslas Autopilot in the rain...
| it's not pretty.
| freeflight wrote:
| Restrictions that very much make sense given the usage
| scenario; Stop and go traffic on highways.
| halotrope wrote:
| Meanwhile in Jerusalem
|
| https://youtu.be/pDyMzz8HMIc
| runetech wrote:
| Wow. That was pretty convincing. Thanks for sharing.
| halotrope wrote:
| Agreed. It should be kept in mind that Mobileye solution has
| not really seen a wide rollout and scrutiny yet. One can be
| optimistic considering that the CEO Amnon Shashua is known
| for a very careful and responsible conduct compared to e.g
| Tesla. This apparently let to them having a falling out
| because Tesla overpromised on the old stack selling it as
| "Autopilot" when it was L2 at best. Which resulted in them
| doing FSD from scratch after Mobileye cancelled the
| collaboration after a deathly accident. At least this seems
| to be the semi-official account of things.
| anikan_vader wrote:
| The car pulls out and immediately fails to yield to two
| pedestrians at a crosswalk at 0:54. One of the pedestrians is
| in the crosswalk.
| Hamuko wrote:
| The car did have the right of way though, as the crosswalk
| had a red light on. As to why one of the pedestrians decided
| to stand in middle of the road during a red light, I have no
| idea.
| robonerd wrote:
| That might be the way it works in Israel, but it's not a
| safe way to drive even if the law permits it. In Washington
| state, every intersection is a crosswalk whether or not
| it's marked, and you have to stop for any pedestrian
| crossing an intersection whether or not the light says the
| pedestrian can be there.
|
| I hope these car companies get local laws right. But it
| would be best if they did the safe thing even if local laws
| didn't require it.
| Hamuko wrote:
| It's not a safe way to walk either, and I don't know
| where walking against a red light is legal.
| aeyes wrote:
| It also has a traffic light so I guess this isn't a crosswalk
| where the car has to yield. The pedestrian isn't really in
| the crosswalk, there is a yellow dashed line.
|
| Very confusing but I guess: Different countries, different
| rules.
|
| 1:44 is also confusing, no signs at all so the car should
| yield to the car coming from the right.
|
| 3:35 looks dangerous, pulling left into the scooter.
|
| 10:00 he says that it is very challenging to drive in
| Jerusalem and that you can drive everywhere if you can do it
| there. I haven't seen anything challenging up to this point
| in the video, all roads are clearly marked, no potholes,
| almost no traffic, lots of signs. This looks very easy to me.
| Hamuko wrote:
| 1:44 might have a yield sign behind the no entry sign.
| Looking at Google Maps, it might be 16 HaMatmid Alley, and
| in the 2011 Street View photos there appears to be a yield
| sign behind the no entry sign.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Just like a real person :)
| faebi wrote:
| It's nice to see a self driving car in European conditions. All
| the Tesla FSD videos feel like they lack some complexity and
| depth. I do wonder how Tesla would perform in these conditions.
| sebmellen wrote:
| ny mshvkn`
| mtmail wrote:
| Google translate: "I'm convinced"
| freeflight wrote:
| Kind of skeptical about how all the shots are only from night-
| drives, probably when traffic is the lowest.
|
| Didn't Tesla release a somewhat similar video, showing a Tesla
| driving across the US?
| halotrope wrote:
| Agreed. They plan roll out Robotaxis in Germany and Israel
| this year. We will have to wait for third parties to verify
| the performance. There is another Video from NY last year
| that had a bit more traffic.
|
| https://youtu.be/50NPqEla0CQ
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-06 23:00 UTC)