[HN Gopher] Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in Califo...
___________________________________________________________________
Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California
Author : belter
Score : 226 points
Date : 2023-06-10 13:45 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| belter wrote:
| "Conditionally automated driving: Mercedes-Benz DRIVE PILOT
| further expands U.S. availability to the country's" -
| https://media.mercedes-benz.com/article/81a29ac5-4d02-4b58-b...
|
| "Mercedes-Benz DRIVE PILOT is the world's only SAE Level 3 system
| with internationally valid type approval. It builds on a very
| robust foundation, setting new industry standards. DRIVE PILOT
| uses a highly sophisticated vehicle architecture based on
| redundancy with a multitude of sensors enabling comfortable and
| safe conditionally automated driving. The certification by the
| authorities in California and in Nevada once again confirms that
| redundancy is the safe and thus the right approach."
|
| "...Mercedes-Benz is focusing on SAE Level 3 conditionally
| automated driving with the ultimate goal of driving at speeds of
| up to 80 mph (130 km/h) in its final iteration..."
|
| "Mercedes-Benz S-Class DRIVE PILOT Sensors Details" -
| https://youtu.be/9m-VS55w9HA
| cj wrote:
| >"Mercedes-Benz S-Class DRIVE PILOT Sensors Details" -
| https://youtu.be/9m-VS55w9HA
|
| - LiDAR
|
| - Radar
|
| - Cameras
|
| - Ultrasonic sensor
|
| - Road moisture sensor
|
| Curious how this collection of sensor compares with Tesla and
| also with run of the mill cars with ACC / lane keeping.
| stefan_ wrote:
| It seems a bit suboptimal to place LiDAR in the front and
| low. More like a lane following kinda setup.
| belter wrote:
| https://youtu.be/BFdWsJs6z4c
| cj wrote:
| I'm aware of Elon's opinion: "LiDAR is lame. LiDAR is lame.
| Lame. Losers use LiDAR. LiDAR is expensive."
|
| I can't stomach watching a video that starts out like that.
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| Do you use LiDAR when you drive?
| timeon wrote:
| Do you use camera when you drive?
| fallingknife wrote:
| I use 2
| [deleted]
| tgv wrote:
| How much processing power do you use to process the input
| and control the car? You've got more of it in your head
| than a whatever Tesla puts in their cars. Your cameras
| are also better.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| No, but at the same time Boeings and Airbuses don't flap
| their wings and birds don't use jet engines to fly.
|
| Just because nature and millions of years of evolution
| have solved a problem in a way that looks simple on the
| surface, doesn't mean the same thing can be copied with
| current tech to solve the same problem.
|
| Elon's "but humans drive with only use two eyes therefore
| we can do it with cameras" is the most moronic argument
| ever and it saddens me when I hear others here parrot it.
|
| Our two eyes may be enough to drive, but our eyes can
| move in their sockets, our heads can move around and
| parallax for depth perception, our retinas have miles
| better dynamic range than any commercial sensor that
| Tesla is using, but most importantly, our brains are
| orders of magnitude ore intelligent at reasoning with new
| or unknown situations than current self driving tech
| which is just basic pattern matching in comparison.
| carlmr wrote:
| It's moronic because it's motivated reasoning.
| ajross wrote:
| It's also worth pointing out that this is an extremely limited
| system:
|
| > On suitable freeway sections and where there is high traffic
| density, DRIVE PILOT can offer to take over the dynamic driving
| task, up to speeds of 40 mph.
|
| Basically, this will follow the car in front of you in slow
| freeway traffic. It won't navigate, it won't even change lanes.
| It won't work (and it's not clear to me how it disengages) when
| traffic speeds up.
|
| That's not useless. There's a reasonable argument that this is
| the product the market wants. But the "Germans beat Tesla"
| framing here is really quite spun. Autonomy and capability
| aren't the same thing.
| Vespasian wrote:
| You forgot the best "feature": It allows you to take your
| hands off the wheel and your eyes off the road.
|
| This is significant as it means MB takes on liability and
| will give you sufficient time (i think 10s in the European
| version) to take over.
|
| In the world of corporate liability this is huge even if it
| isn't a technical achievement by itself.
| justapassenger wrote:
| Only people who don't understand problem domain think it's
| not a technical achievement.
| ajross wrote:
| I'll give you 2:1 odds that before this reaches market
| (looks like end of the year for deliveries per the
| article) Tesla will duplicate the stunt and lift the
| driver monitoring requirements in similar situations.
|
| (Edit: two replies here playing gotcha games with prior
| FSD announcements. But I'm serious: Tesla can do what
| this Mercedes does already, essentially perfectly, and
| has been for the two years I've operated the vehicle. The
| cost to them of duplicating this stunt is near zero. I'll
| bet you anything they do it.)
| noAnswer wrote:
| They claimed in 2018 that in 2019 you will be able to let
| your Tesla work for you as a Robo-Taxi and make 300.000,-
| a year. Why would they still wait?
|
| Why did Elon Musk wait so long to say the videos showing
| "him" saying "We will have full self driving in 201x" are
| deep fakes?
| justapassenger wrote:
| The Tesla, who claimed they're full self driving next
| year, for more than half a decade now?
|
| Cool, let's wait.
|
| I think it shows how little you understand the problem,
| to call it a "stunt".
| panick21_ wrote:
| There are lots of level 2 systems where you can take your
| hands of the wheel. That not the definition of level 3.
| kelnos wrote:
| The interesting thing is it's roughly the same system my 2022
| Mercedes has, except it requires my hands on the wheel (and
| does not disengage over 40mph). I mean, this is just adaptive
| cruise with lane keeping.
|
| Really the big thing here is Mercedes is saying it's good
| enough (under 40mph) that the driver doesn't have to pay
| attention at all.
| guerby wrote:
| I searched and it looks like the Mercedes L3 is available for
| 7430 EUR on top of 149900 EUR for the base EQS 450+ model (link
| below, in french).
|
| Anyone looked if there's a cheaper way to get this Mercedes L3?
|
| https://www.lesnumeriques.com/voiture/drive-pilot-mercedes-c...
|
| https://www.lesnumeriques.com/voiture/essai-mercedes-eqs-450...
| lvl102 wrote:
| It doesn't take a lot to retro-fit roads with autonomous
| guardrail markers when we repave. It's going to take a federal-
| level effort to accomplish this (which should have been apart of
| pandemic infrastructure stimulus).
|
| I strongly believe this would improve safety for autonomous
| vehicles by 1000x.
| justapassenger wrote:
| Detecting lane is mostly solved problem. Detecting AND
| predicting what other things will do on the road (not only
| cars, but people, animals, trash, etc) is not.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| > predicting what other things will do on the road... [like]
| trash
|
| At least we do have a model for this one (physics). I wonder
| what additional signals the car would need to accurately
| simulate trash movement? Wind?
| MattRix wrote:
| I don't think you could ever accurately simulate trash
| movement.
|
| Trash is irregularly shaped, even with the highest
| resolution cameras, it'd be impossible to know what the far
| side of the trash is shaped like. Then on top of that
| there's no way to predict highly localized gusts of wind.
|
| The best way to deal with trash is to just have an ML model
| deal with lots of it so it can make predictions about what
| it is likely to do (which is basically what Tesla is
| already doing).
| justapassenger wrote:
| Wind, yes. But even without it - thing get tricky, when
| you're traveling at 80mph. You need to detect enough of
| movements to be able to predict future path. It not easy,
| even with very advanced sensors.
|
| And you cannot "play it safe and assume it'll collide with
| us". You get phantom breaking, which is very dangerous.
| ikekkdcjkfke wrote:
| Have you seen the video where a tesla tries to hard left into
| the guard rail on a freeway because of construction/redirect
| lines going to the left
| aedocw wrote:
| Lane keeping is not the hard part, that's been solved for a
| while. It's dealing with pedestrians and other drivers doing
| unpredictable things. Slow moving infrastructure projects will
| not help that at all.
| zaroth wrote:
| I used to think that V2X road infrastructure was a major
| necessary component for self driving. I no longer hold that
| opinion.
|
| The "self-driving" infrastructure would not be magically any
| better than the "human-driving" infrastructure, and how to
| handle conflicting data from the infra in terms of sensor
| fusion is not at all clear.
|
| In short, it creates as many problems as it solves, and doesn't
| really solve the problems that it sets out to in the real-
| world.
|
| Even simpler things like supplemental signaling that could be
| used in special circumstances like road work and emergency
| vehicles, if they are not used properly and consistently in all
| cases, it doesn't change the fact that the system needs to
| correctly handle these cases internally.
| lvl102 wrote:
| I definitely agree state of the art is good enough for 97% of
| driving scenarios but they're also not fail-safe and robust.
| In order for autonomous to be truly acceptable, they need to
| be 100x more safe. No, nearly flawless. In order to
| accomplish that you need physical and hardcoded methods as
| well. In addition, and equally as important, is that road
| infrastructure gives you improved ability to coordinate cars
| on the road without relying on individual and disparate
| compute units.
| kbos87 wrote:
| There's just no need for this. Tesla can detect even the most
| poorly defined edges of a dirt road without a problem.
| belter wrote:
| Maybe they should start at detecting children? Luminar Tech
| can... - https://youtu.be/3mnG_Gbxf_w
| throwaway_ab wrote:
| Many people are saying Tesla FSD is far more advanced, and I've
| seen videos of A Tesla driving around LA for 2 hours completely
| autonomously so I agree Tesla FSD is the world leader by far and
| blows what Mercedes has built out of the water.
|
| However Mercedes are taking liability whilst their system is in
| use which implies Tesla takes no liability whilst their system is
| in use.
|
| I'm surprised Tesla is scared to take legal responsibility for
| their system and I am surprised lawmakers are allowing autonomous
| systems when the manufacturer doesn't believe in it enough to
| take responsibility whilst it's in use.
|
| How is Tesla getting away with this?
|
| Of course they can beat the competition especially if they do not
| need to take legal responsibility for any deaths/accidents that
| occur when it's in use.
| notyourwork wrote:
| If I were Tesla why would I take responsibility for something
| no one is forcing me to take responsibility for? Lawmakers are
| responsible for this charade and its embarrassing to me that a
| company can be so misleading with marketing and get away with
| it.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Both state and capital can be bad at the same time y'know
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Because it means the feature is actually useful.
|
| If the human "driver" is liable for what an autonomous car
| does, it means you have to watch the car like a hawk. At that
| point, may as well be driving.
| prmoustache wrote:
| I wouldn't do any business with you for example if that is
| your default level of ethics.
| jchoca wrote:
| You say that, but it's how most companies operate
| unfortunately.
| GreedClarifies wrote:
| OK then don't!
|
| That's the magic of the market! People have different
| values.
| radomir_cernoch wrote:
| > [...] blows what Mercedes has built out of the water.
|
| Mercedes FSD prototype, 10 years ago:
| https://youtu.be/G5kJ_8JAp-w
| elif wrote:
| In that video they mention doing localization based upon a
| prebuilt map of the route by matching images to the model 10
| times per second.
|
| That is by definition, not FSD. That is like the system
| announced today, a limited route autonomy.
|
| For comparison, FSD v3 (they are shipping v4 in every vehicle
| now) performs localization 2,000 times per second based upon
| a hybrid model of every road in open street maps and a
| generalized model of roads. That is why it is FULL. Even if
| you are on an unmapped brand new road built yesterday, it
| will know how to drive appropriately.
| akmarinov wrote:
| They aren't shipping v4 in the model 3, so no on the "every
| vehicle"
| elif wrote:
| https://www.teslaoracle.com/2023/06/07/tesla-
| model-3-highlan...
| akmarinov wrote:
| That's not shipping...
|
| If you buy a model 3 TODAY you get V3
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> Mercedes FSD prototype, 10 years ago:_
|
| Mercedes FSD prototype 1986 to 1994 via the 400 Million Euro
| EU funded Prometheus project
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I39sxwYKlEE
|
| It's funny that German, and Italian researchers and car
| makers had the early lead on self driving tech and then lost
| it by shelving the tech. Oof.
|
| Which reinforces my earlier point I made in another thread
| here today, that innovation only happens in the EU as long as
| it's government funded and as soon as the funding stops, work
| stops and everything gets shelved instead of the private
| industry picking up the slack, funding it further to
| commercialize it like in the US. Sad.
|
| _"It's possible that [Germany] threw away its clear vanguard
| role because research wasn't consistently continued at the
| time," Schmidhuber said. He added that carmakers might have
| shied away from self-driving technology because it seemed to
| be in opposition to their marketing, which promoted the idea
| of a driver in charge of steering a car. "_
| moffkalast wrote:
| > What do they have now?
|
| > > Mercedes sprinter
|
| I don't know why but that is hysterical.
| jeffreygoesto wrote:
| Ernst Dickmanns. Legend. Sat close to him at a CVPR and he
| could not resist to rant about "How's that new? We did that
| in the 90es!" =:-D
| constantcrying wrote:
| >It's funny that German, and Italian researchers and car
| makers had the early lead on self driving tech and then
| lost it by shelving the tech. Oof.
|
| Actually a very common occurrance. I don't think FSD on
| todays level was possible in '94 and the projects failure
| was inevitable unless it had been continously funded for at
| least 15 years more.
|
| >innovation only happens in the EU as long as it's
| government funded and as soon as the funding stops
|
| Seems like a bad example. Funding stopped because the
| technology didn't work.
| MattRix wrote:
| Yeah that's nowhere close. It's easy to make a prototype that
| looks good in a marketing video while driving a very tightly
| mapped route. It's a whole other thing to let anyone use self
| driving tech anywhere, especially on routes it has never seen
| before.
| jeffreygoesto wrote:
| That was teen years ago, remember. All I can say is that
| these guys are extremely knowledgeable, kind and an
| absolute joy to work with. Big shout out to Eberhard,
| Carsten, Christoph, Clemens and Thao, and to the ones not
| appearing in the video, like Uwe (enjoy your retirement),
| David and Henning and a lot others from the chair of
| Christoph Stiller and from Mercedes research.
| elif wrote:
| The responsibility already isn't on the car occupants, it is on
| the occupants' insurance carrier. The only way to meaningfully
| diminish responsibility on the car occupants is to lower
| insurance premiums.
|
| To that end, Tesla is offering insurance directly to consumers
| now, offering lower premiums based upon driver safety system
| utilization. In my case it would cut my insurance rates in
| half.
| ajross wrote:
| > However Mercedes are taking liability whilst their system is
| in use
|
| Are they? This press release doesn't actually say so. There was
| an announcement a while back when they deployed this system in
| Germany, but that's obviously a different legal environment.
|
| FWIW, this is mostly spin anyway. Liability isn't generally
| something that is granted, it's either there or not. If Tesla
| FSD causes an accident, they can absolutely be sued for that in
| the US. And they have been on a handful of occasions
| (Successfully even, I think? Pretty sure there were settlements
| in some of the early AP accidents?).
|
| The reason that "Tesla is liable for accidents" doesn't make
| news is... that there are vanishingly few AP/FSD accidents. The
| system as deployed is safe, but that doesn't match people's
| priors so we end up in arguments like this about "accepting
| liability" instead of "it crashed".
| ra7 wrote:
| > Liability isn't generally something that is granted, it's
| either there or not. If Tesla FSD causes an accident, they
| can absolutely be sued for that in the US.
|
| That's not what liability means here. Assuming the story is
| true, it means Mercedes is responsible for damages caused
| when the system is engaged and the users know that when they
| buy the car. Being sued afterwards is not the same thing.
|
| > The reason that "Tesla is liable for accidents" doesn't
| make news is... that there are vanishingly few AP/FSD
| accidents.
|
| Or because Tesla actively hides accident data by using
| suspect methodology and not following regulations about
| disclosure.
|
| Just a couple of days ago there was a user report of FSD
| hitting and killing a dog: https://twitter.com/TeslaUberRide/
| status/1666860361381818384...
|
| Unsurprisingly, it won't show up in any of the stats Tesla
| publishes in their two-paragraph "safety report". That's
| because they don't consider any contact that doesn't deploy
| airbags to be an accident. There are plenty of reports like
| this that are not being counted.
|
| Not to mention, Tesla is openly violating at least CA DMV
| regulations that require reporting of all disengagements and
| contact events.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Yes, because an accident is when there are personal
| injuries, otherwise it's a collision.
| ra7 wrote:
| I'm not aware of any definition of accident that says
| personal injuries have to occur. But sure, you can
| replace accident here with collision or contact events.
| Also, airbag deployment doesn't automatically mean there
| are injuries either.
|
| Point is these types of events are not being reported by
| Tesla, while every other company testing self driving
| technology (specially ones that have CA DMV permit to do
| so) are reporting them.
| toast0 wrote:
| > Not to mention, Tesla is openly violating at least CA DMV
| regulations that require reporting of all disengagements
| and contact events.
|
| Tesla letters to CA DMV claim they don't participate
| because their system isn't a self-driving system. Which is
| fine, other than they're telling customers it is at the
| same time.
| charcircuit wrote:
| A word's meaning is a specific legal document can be
| different than a word's meaning in a product's marketing
| material.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| [1] (2) (A) "Autonomous vehicle" means any vehicle equipped
| with autonomous technology that has been integrated into that
| vehicle that meets the definition of Level 3, Level 4, or
| Level 5
|
| [2] (c) The manufacturer has in place and has provided the
| department with evidence of the manufacturer's ability to
| respond to a judgment or judgments for damages for personal
| injury, death, or property damage arising from the operation
| of autonomous vehicles on public roads
|
| [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySec
| tio...
|
| [2] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/adopted-regulatory-
| text-p...
|
| > FWIW, this is mostly spin anyway. Liability isn't generally
| something that is granted, it's either there or not.
|
| Mercedes is releasing an L3 product in a jurisdiction where
| operation of L3 products is insured by the manufacturer. That
| is substantially different than "someone could sue them and
| maybe maybe maybe win"
|
| > The reason that "Tesla is liable for accidents" doesn't
| make news is... that there are vanishingly few AP/FSD
| accidents.
|
| There have been 736 known AP/FSD crashes and 17 deaths. The
| reason that "Tesla is liable for accidents" doesn't make news
| is that they aren't legally liable for their level 2 system
| under existing AV regulation.
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/theres-been-a-
| whopping-...
| ajross wrote:
| Sorry, where do you get "accept liability" from "ability to
| respond to a judgement for damages"? That's not a
| requirement to pay, that just requires that the company
| have the ability to pay if they are found liable! It's the
| corporate equivalent of requiring liability insurance.
|
| Show me the contract (or hell, even a press release) where
| Mercedes acknowledged accepting liability in the US. I
| really don't think this happened.
| piotrkaminski wrote:
| There were a ton of articles around 2022-03-20 (e.g.,
| [1]) that had a line like this:
|
| > Once you engage Drive Pilot, you are no longer legally
| liable for the car's operation until it disengages.
|
| Not quite a press release but given that Mercedes never
| denied the claims it's pretty close. It'll be interesting
| to see how this is implemented legally, of course.
|
| [1] https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-
| happens-if-...
| ajross wrote:
| That was a German product though. The press release about
| the american rollout is notably missing that language.
| piotrkaminski wrote:
| Hmm, the latest article [1] specifically about the
| California authorization says:
|
| > When active, Mercedes takes responsibility for Drive
| Pilot's actions.
|
| and
|
| > "Mercedes-Benz Drive Pilot is the world's only SAE
| Level 3 system with internationally valid type approval,"
| Mercedes CTO Markus Schafer said in a statement.
|
| Not as clear-cut as you'd want it to be but certainly
| leaning towards the claim. I guess we'll know for sure
| once the cars actually go on sale in California.
|
| [1] https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a44139131/mercedes-
| benz-se...
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Why are you quoting "accept liability" as if its
| something I actually said?
|
| > Show me the contract (or hell, even a press release)
| where Mercedes acknowledged accepting liability in the
| US.
|
| I'm not sure why this is the bar to clear, there is no
| reason Mercedes would want to potentially open themselves
| to more responsibility than the law requires. That said,
| it should be obvious to most people that Mercedes is
| taking some legal exposure when they:
|
| 1) call their product SAE L3 when SAE L3 is the legal
| definition of a vehicle where the operator doesn't have
| to pay attention
|
| 2) tell the user they can watch movies while driving! (no
| US manual available yet but they make a similar statement
| in the press release) https://moba.i.mercedes-
| benz.com/baix/cars/223.1_mbux_2021_a...
|
| That very obviously speaks to their level of confidence
| in their system compared to something like FSD:
|
| > It may do the wrong thing at the worst time, so you
| must always keep your hands on the wheel and pay extra
| attention on the road.
|
| some legal analysis of US law on AV liability if you're
| interested: https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowle
| dge/publication...
| zaroth wrote:
| Mercedes could also ship their own L2 AutoPilot without having
| to take legal responsibility. Their customers would love it as
| much as Tesla drivers love theirs.
|
| The thing is, they just aren't capable of it.
| bobsoap wrote:
| Mercedes has been shipping their L2 system since 2013, at
| least in Europe.
| amf12 wrote:
| Or Mercedes has certain reputation to maintain. This is not a
| dig at Tesla, but Mercedes not shipping L2 AP doesn't imply
| they aren't capable of it.
| kelnos wrote:
| Huh? The L2 system on my 2022 Mercedes works just fine. And
| I'm sure that's not the first model year where it was
| present.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I see. This car is good enough for a morning commute in Bay Area
| traffic. The question is the disengagement mode. 40 mph on the
| highway means it only makes sense in traffic, but when the
| conditions are no longer met how does it decide to hand over
| control?
|
| If it can reliably wake me up or pull over at the off ramp then
| it's good enough.
| cryptoegorophy wrote:
| All these comments are a perfect example and a study of
| confirmation bias.
| pvorb wrote:
| By the way, Mercedes tested a self-driving van in 1986[1].
|
| [1]: https://www.politico.eu/article/delf-driving-car-
| born-1986-e...
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| Clickbait title to say the least !
|
| While Tesla did amazing things for EVs adoption, and self driving
| (even if one may say the main contribution is hyping it) it's
| hard to see them as leaders anymore.
|
| Fact is, Mercedes is taking responsibility for its system while
| Tesla is not. Tesla claims (and especially it's fanboys) starts
| to look like Theranos. Yeah it almost work and it will be a game
| changer. Yeah well...
|
| I'm curious about those Tesla videos that are everywhere - is
| there some kind of dataset somewhere with videos of similar
| situations, annotated with which version it is etc, so one can
| make a kind of historical evaluation of its progress ?
|
| (Would also like the history of Elon tweets claiming each version
| fix this or that to go along in the dataset)
| onethought wrote:
| Is there a database of videos of Mercedes? I know "they take
| liability" but if I'm dead, that still sucks.
|
| What has Mercedes ceo commented about it?
|
| I think you'll find Mercedes just don't publish anything, where
| as Tesla pretty much develop in the open. Regardless of the
| sausage, some people just don't like knowing how it's made.
| Havoc wrote:
| Comments are surprisingly negative - I would have thought hn
| would celebrate such an advance
| warkdarrior wrote:
| Only Elon is allowed to make advances in the automotive, space,
| tunneling, and tweeting spaces.
| kubb wrote:
| they probably hold tesla stock since its all time high :)
| claudiug wrote:
| sadly I can only do a +1 once :)
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Over the last handful of years, it does seem like HN commenters
| have become much more negative about tech advances.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I think with a different headline the comments would have been
| positive, but this one is misleading at best
| dbcurtis wrote:
| L3 is profoundly unwise. L3 can disengage at any moment. The
| attention required of the human in order to drive safely exceeds
| that required in L2, and is much more difficult to maintain.
| ajross wrote:
| I don't know that it's "unwise"; that depends on failure rate.
|
| But it's absolutely true that the practical difference between
| "human must supervise" and "human must be ready to take over"
| is _MUCH_ smaller than people want it to be. Mostly everyone
| wants to yell about Elon Musk and "2 vs. 3" is ammunition.
| Retric wrote:
| L3 requires zero attention, that's what makes it L3 vs L2. The
| driver needs to stay sober, awake, and in the drivers seat but
| are supposed to be able to read a book or something.
|
| A L3 car is required to be able to handle all short term
| situations and only do a handoff with 5-10 seconds of warning.
| The idea is it's ok for the car to come to a complete stop and
| say I have no idea what to do, but it isn't ok to simply fail
| on a freeway at 70 MPH.
|
| Failing safely is a huge difference, as mentioned in the
| article: _if a driver doesn 't take over when prompted the car
| activates the hazard lights and slowly comes to a stop before
| making an emergency system call to alert first responders to a
| potential problem._
| belter wrote:
| It will give a 10 second warning - https://youtu.be/1gjweWq8qAc
| dbcurtis wrote:
| I have verrrry limited connectivity RN so can't watch video.
| If they really do give 10 seconds, then does the system
| remain engaged for the "dog/kid darting out between parked
| cars" scenario? And engage a collision avoidance trajectory
| planner? 10 seconds is an eternity, even in 35 mph zones. (60
| kph)
| Retric wrote:
| Yes L3 must handle the dog running into the road situation,
| this Mercedes will even do evasive driving when possible to
| avoid a collision.
| foepys wrote:
| Mercedes' system will always give the driver a 10 seconds
| warning before disengaging. Enough to put away your phone and
| assess the situation.
| Gasp0de wrote:
| How is that different from L2? SAE Levels 0-2 demand constant
| supervision and the ability to take over at any moment. Level 3
| is actually better, as it only requires you to be able to take
| over after a short (e.g. 10 second) notice. Levels 4 and 5 do
| not require the driver to be able to take over (e.g. drunk,
| sleeping, no license).
|
| https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update
| dbcurtis wrote:
| How short is short? How fast is your OODA loop? L3 plays into
| known human factor weaknesses.
| gzer0 wrote:
| Friendly reminder that this system is HEAVILY limited, with the
| following restrictions: - Must be under 40 mph
| - Only during the daylight and only on certain highways -
| CANNOT be operated on city/country streets - CANNOT be
| operated in construction zones - CANNOT be during heavy
| rain or fog or flood roads
|
| And for comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjZSZTKYEU4
|
| Tesla FSD navigating the complex city streets of LA for 60
| minutes with zero human intervention.
|
| This seems like a marketing gimmick by Mercedes at best; the two
| technologies aren't even in the same league. Any comparison is
| laughable. They are outmatched, outclassed, and absolutely
| outdone. Karpathy (now @ OpenAI) and the Tesla FSD team have
| really done an incredible job.
| golemiprague wrote:
| [dead]
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Friendly reminder that there are many humans who choose to not
| operate their vehicle outside of these conditions as well. Not
| me, but I know people...
| jacquesm wrote:
| I don't think we're going to agree here.
|
| > This seems like a marketing gimmick by Mercedes at best;
|
| No, this is what a professional roll-out of a feature like this
| should look like.
|
| > the two technologies aren't even in the same league. > Any
| comparison is laughable.
|
| Well, at least we agree on these two. But probably not about
| the direction.
| [deleted]
| akmarinov wrote:
| In the end, Mercedes assumes liability for its system, where
| Tesla doesn't. Tells you all you need to know.
| slg wrote:
| This doesn't mean the system is actually better. It just
| means that Mercedes thinks that the cost of covering the
| liability won't exceed the boost in sales that come from this
| decision. It reminds me of what an automotive innovator once
| said[1]:
|
| >Here's the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on
| a box 'cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty
| inside... Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed
| piece of shit. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want
| me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I
| got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for
| your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a
| quality product from me.
|
| Not that I'm implying Autopilot is necessarily a "quality
| product" in comparison. It is just that a guarantee or
| liability coverage is nothing but a marketing expense for the
| company issuing it. It doesn't actually mean the product is
| higher quality.
|
| [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEB7WbTTlu4
| wilg wrote:
| Is there evidence for this?
| DoesntMatter22 wrote:
| [flagged]
| djcannabiz wrote:
| https://insideevs.com/news/575160/mercedes-accepts-legal-
| res...
|
| "once a driver turns on Drive Pilot, they are "no longer
| legally liable for the car's operation until it
| disengages." The publication goes so far as to say that a
| driver could actually pay zero attention to the road ahead,
| play on their mobile phones, and even watch a movie. If the
| car were to crash, Mercedes would be 100 percent
| responsible."
| wilg wrote:
| Yes, but is there any evidence this is actually
| happening? Not that they announced it might a year ago.
| wilg wrote:
| Folks, don't downvote me, show me where Mercedes actually
| says they are taking liability for actual cars that are
| actually on the road with customers. What people cite on
| this is a vague marketing puff piece from a year ago. If
| they are doing it, it should be pretty easy to find out
| how that is structured from their website or whatever the
| car owner has signed, or just like literally any evidence
| whatsoever.
| dmix wrote:
| This explains the 40mph and other extreme restrictions
| froh wrote:
| for now, that is. in German they call it "traffic jam
| pilot" Staupilot. they start L3 autonomy with the boring
| and tedious scenario first.
|
| it's obvious they'll expand it to more and more
| freeway/highway driving scenarios, and from there grow
| into any out of town driving.
|
| meanwhile Waymo and Tesla can take their bruises with
| downtown traffic and pedestrians and children and hand
| drawn road signs and dirty signs and poorly placed ones
| and whichever more crazy real life reality show surprise
| guests appear on stage...
|
| I wouldn't (and I don't think you did but several others
| in such discussions do) snicker too much on Mercedes.
| they have a knack on getting a couple of car related
| things pretty right.
| jpalomaki wrote:
| I can understand financial liability, but what if somebody
| gets seriously hurt and there's criminal charges? Is there
| already a legal framework in US for transferring this kind of
| liabilities from the driver to manufacturer?
| simondotau wrote:
| How exactly is Mercedes accepting liability? I mean to say,
| how does this work in practice? Who absorbs the demerit
| points if your car is accused of going 40 in a 30 zone?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How exactly is Mercedes accepting liability?_
|
| You're indemnified.
| kbos87 wrote:
| Mercedes can't indemnify you. Local police and
| prosecutors make those decisions.
| nradov wrote:
| Nope. Local police and prosecutors have no authority to
| make decisions on liability. Their authority is limited
| to criminal matters. However, police reports can
| generally be used as evidence in civil trials where
| judges and juries make decisions about liability.
|
| There may be some circumstances where a driver operating
| a Mercedes-Benz vehicle using Drive Pilot could be
| committing a criminal offense. For example, I think
| sitting in the driver's seat while intoxicated would
| still be illegal even if you're not actually driving. But
| that is separate from liability.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Mercedes can't indemnify you. Local police and
| prosecutors make those decisions_
|
| Are you thinking of immunity? Indemnity is regularly
| contracted between private parties. (Also, police can't
| give you immunity in America.)
| jimjimjim wrote:
| good god! No autonomous drive should drive through fog or
| flooded roads or construction zones. I wouldn't trust any
| system in those conditions regardless of what stans say.
| oxfordmale wrote:
| Mercedes accepts legal liability for collisions if the system
| is used under these stringent conditions. Tesla doesn't do
| this.
|
| It also doesn't mean it doesn't have the technical capability
| to drive through the streets of LA for 60 minutes.
|
| https://www.thatcham.org/mercedes-to-accept-liability-for-ac...
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Working in the AV space, it's really frustrating how
| confidently people who have no idea about what's hard and
| what isn't go off about Tesla right now.
|
| Mercedes has soundly beaten the last decade of Tesla efforts
| by reaching L3.
|
| I've personally watched FSD go off the rails and into a crash
| situation within 60 seconds of being turned on three times
| this month (I have a friend who loves to try it in San
| Francisco)
|
| Had it crashed it'd be on my friend, not Tesla. The fact
| Mercedes is taking responsibility puts it in an entirely
| different level of effectiveness.
|
| -
|
| People also don't seem to understand Mercedes has a separate
| L2 system that works above 45 mph that already scores better
| than AP by consumer reports
| amelius wrote:
| Do they use a RealTime OS?
|
| If so, (how) do they run GPU drivers on it?
|
| And if not, how do they guarantee that the system is responsive
| and safe?
|
| (Of course a third option would be that they don't use an OS at
| all for the mission critical stuff).
| simion314 wrote:
| Would you bet your life on a Tesla Twitter promise? They are
| not even betting one cent on their car safety.
| zaroth wrote:
| > They are not even betting one cent in their car safety.
|
| Do you mean strictly in the sense of accepting liability for
| crashes while AutoPilot is engaged?
|
| Because Tesla makes safety a primary selling point of their
| vehicles. Objectively Tesla invests hugely in the safety of
| their vehicles, and scores the absolute highest marks for
| safety in many government tests.
|
| Tesla makes an L2 system where the driver must remain
| engaged. And part of their _FSD_ system includes the most
| sophisticated driver gaze and attention tracking system on
| the market. This has made their FSD system on predominantly
| _non-highway_ roads safer than the average human driver
| without FSD.
| simion314 wrote:
| No, I mean actually bet your life, say put your little
| children in the back and send them to some destination
| because you seen Tesla videos on YouTube.
|
| if you won\t do it for a randoms destination, on what would
| you risk your children life, on some white listed high-way?
| which one?
| kelnos wrote:
| In minor traffic a week or so ago, I ended up next to a
| Tesla for a few minutes where the driver had zero hands on
| the wheel, and her eyes were buried in her phone, with her
| head angled downward. Whatever system was running seemed to
| be totally fine with that situation; if that's the most
| advanced driver attention monitoring system available,
| we're in a lot of trouble. Tesla caring so much about
| safety is so obviously a bad joke.
| chroma wrote:
| I don't believe you. Teslas have a cabin camera that
| monitors your gaze and quickly emits warnings if you look
| at your phone while autopilot is on. If you ignore the
| warnings, the car puts it emergency flashers on, pulls
| over, and disables autonomous driving until your next
| trip. If you do the five times with the FSD beta, you are
| banned from using FSD.
| qwytw wrote:
| > are banned from using FSD
|
| Do you get a refund?
| zaroth wrote:
| It's a one week ban I believe.
| zaroth wrote:
| It is not. The FSD Beta enables an aggressive attention
| monitor which is not active with the basic AutoPilot
| system.
|
| The nag when FSD is enabled is actually quite annoying.
| Even glancing over at the screen for more than a second
| will trigger it. If it triggers more than a couple times
| you get locked out for the drive. If it triggers more
| than 5 times in total across any number of drives, you
| get locked out entirely for a full week.
| justapassenger wrote:
| > And part of their FSD system includes the most
| sophisticated driver gaze and attention tracking system on
| the market.
|
| That's a just blunt lie. Their driver monitoring system is
| very deficient. They lack, for example, industry standard
| of infrared camera that allows you to see through the
| sunglasses.
|
| And all older Model S/X, that have FSD, lack any camera at
| all.
| zaroth wrote:
| You're right, their older cars don't have their most
| advanced system. When I said "on the market" I mean the
| cars they are selling now, not historically.
|
| I've found the system extremely adept at gaze tracking
| and alerting. The cabin camera is infrared in their
| latest models (at least for the last 2 years).
|
| Please don't call me a liar. I am happy to be called
| wrong and corrected.
|
| I should have said "one of the most advanced" because
| this is in truth a subjective measure and I don't think
| agencies like NHTSA rank and qualify attention tracking?
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| I'm curious what streets are under 40 mph and not "city" or
| "country" streets?
| spockz wrote:
| Congested highways?
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| For comparison, Tesla FSD veering directly at a cyclist, who
| was saved only by the driver's lightning reflexes:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5wkENwrp_k
|
| For comparison, Tesla FSD cruising right through a crossswalk
| with pedestrians and the driver is gleeful about it:
| https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/teslas-full-self-drivin...
|
| For comparison, Tesla FSD veering into oncoming traffic
| https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/128zncy/fsd_te...
|
| I remember seeing a video where Tesla FSD veered right at an
| island/telephone pole. Another where it veered at a _crowd_ of
| pedestrians on the corner of a signalized intersection waiting
| to cross.
|
| A reminder that the software has been buggy for years and Tesla
| is somehow being allowed to "beta test" it in public among
| people who did not consent to the risk.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| As a counter point: these Tesla videos are much more common
| because there are more Teslas driving around with the feature
| enabled.
|
| We don't know of the Mercedes is as much of a murder machine
| based on the little material from their FSD system there is.
|
| All self driving car manufacturers have videos of their cars
| doing the most ridiculous things. It's hard to pick one above
| the other. At least Mercedes seems to have documented their
| limitations rather than assumed their system works
| everywhere, so that's a good sign to me.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| Because ultimately there hasn't been a single publicized
| death or injury resulting from FSD Beta, while it only took a
| few months for a professional tester of Uber's SDC effort to
| kill someone. So maybe it makes sense to test with millions
| of people for a few minutes a day instead of 8 hours a day
| with a few hired testers. The media would sure jump on such
| tesla headlines.
| belter wrote:
| Took me less than a few minutes, to find in the same channel,
| FSD failing and the human having to intervene. Here it is at
| the proper time and for a video uploaded 10 hours ago... -
| https://youtu.be/KG4yABOlNjk?t=995
|
| And even worst failures...looking at all these I simply do not
| believe the videos posted are not edited or a selection of a
| success out of many failed ones.
|
| https://youtu.be/KG4yABOlNjk?t=1252
|
| https://youtu.be/WowhH_Xry9s?t=77
|
| https://youtu.be/WowhH_Xry9s?t=196
|
| Since the video was live on YouTube no editing was done...
|
| These videos are only posting the successful events, we need to
| see them all. That is why probably Tesla is not putting their
| money where their mouth is.
| shdshdshd wrote:
| Now, lets see Mercedes ones...
| elif wrote:
| Why don't you find a video of FSD failing on a 40mph highway
| with no lane changes for an apples to apples comparison...
|
| Oh wait that is an unreasonably niche scenario to be worthy
| of consideration in the context of full autonomy.
| belter wrote:
| Will almost accelerating straight into the guard rail at 30
| mph do it? - https://youtu.be/sNBEHumIHJI?t=14
|
| https://www.carscoops.com/2022/05/tesla-driver-claims-
| model-...
| fallingknife wrote:
| That road is not within the operating requirements of the
| Mercedes L3 which is only allowed on highways where such
| turns are never found.
| zaroth wrote:
| This is a great example! I hope people will take the time to
| click and watch it drive.
|
| I think it's a tough call in this case. The Tesla is trying
| not to block an intersection where a light is green but
| there's no room to clear the intersection on the other side
| due to traffic ahead. In fact an oncoming car is able to turn
| left in front of the Tesla because it waited.
|
| Probably the law is that you should NOT enter the
| intersection in such a state, but the human nature would be
| to make a more nuanced judgement of "how bad would it be" to
| continue thru and possibly get stuck sticking out into the
| intersection for a bit until traffic moves again.
|
| I would think - how long might I be stuck? Would it actual
| impede other traffic? Also factors like, am I'm late for
| work? Am I frustrated because traffic has been horrible or am
| I enjoying a Sunday drive?
|
| Ego (Tesla's name for the driving software) doesn't get
| impatient. It can maximally obey all traffic regulations at
| all times if they code it to do so, even if human drivers
| behind might be laying on the horn.
|
| This little clip really shows how much nuance is involved in
| designing these systems, and how doing the technically right
| thing can either be wrong or at least ambiguously right.
| belter wrote:
| That is not the failure. The failure is that would not move
| anymore and the driver had to intervene and accelerate.
| zaroth wrote:
| At 16:55 thru 17:15? Where he manually accelerates the
| car and blocks the intersection?
| belter wrote:
| https://youtu.be/KG4yABOlNjk?t=999
|
| 16:40 to 17:12
| szundi wrote:
| Seemed to be completely OK, a driver who is on the safe
| side would have just done this exactly
| rvnx wrote:
| Totally, you are not supposed to block an intersection,
| and it is forbidden to stay on a pedestrian crossing.
| belter wrote:
| Again...that was not the failure. Actually there are two
| failures:
|
| - First one, to stop too far away both from the road
| intersection and the pedestrian crossing. And of course
| you should not stop on top the pedestrian crossing. The
| car behind the Tesla, noticed that right away, and went
| over the Tesla. Even the Tesla driver in the video
| commented on that. I wonder what FSD version that driver
| has :-)
|
| - Second failure, the car ahead, the one already over the
| road crossing started moving but the Tesla would not move
| at all. Only when the video author accelerated as he
| mentions in the video.
| belter wrote:
| If you stay there, blocking traffic for no reason, and do
| not proceed when you are clear to go, as it did until the
| driver accelerated, you will fail a driving license exam
| in most countries.
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| "Most countries" would fail a driver for not crossing an
| intersection until there is space on the other side? I
| think you're being a little absurd here.
|
| The driver in this case could see that the cars beyond
| the blue car were starting to move, and thus _predict_
| that he could cross a little bit early (betting on the
| space being available by the end of the maneuver, but
| risking being the ass who ends up blocking the crosswalk
| after miscalculating).
| Phil_Latio wrote:
| Maybe it would have moved a second later...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jondwillis wrote:
| LA has an unwritten law where 2-3 cars make unprotected
| lefts after oncoming traffic has cleared on yellow/red
| lights. Letting FSD drive, it can't honor this "cultural"
| (technically illegal) behavior. If I am operating it, off
| goes FSD in that moment.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| It's legal to turn left in such a case as long as you
| entered the intersection already. So at least the first
| 1-2 cars are not doing anything illegal
| jondwillis wrote:
| Yeah, but sometimes the second and usually the third (and
| fourth - I have seen it!) are not in the intersection.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| You can't legally enter an intersection (advance past the
| stopping line if present) until you are clear to perform
| your transit of the intersection. Left on red is never
| legal and marginal on yellow.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Left on red is never legal and marginal on yellow.
|
| Not parituclarly relevant to the gridlock violation at
| issue here, but left on red from a one-way street to a
| one-way street is legal in the same conditions as right-
| on-red generally in a large majority of US states, a few
| of which also allow left-on-red from a two-way street to
| a one-way street. Left-on-red is only completely illegal
| in a few states.
| toast0 wrote:
| Dude it's totally following the law. You're allowed to
| enter the intersection for an unprotected left even if
| it's not clear to turn (possibly not if the end of the
| intersection you're going to is full of cars). If you are
| in the intersection, you're allowed to clear when
| possible regardless of the color of your light.
|
| Most intersections with unprotected left turns let you
| fit at least a whole car, sometimes two in the
| intersection to wait, and the third car has its front
| wheels on the paint, so it's totally in the intersection.
| shkkmo wrote:
| While you are allowed to enter the intersection during a
| yellow, you are also considered legally to have been
| warned and would be consider liable if doing so causes an
| accident.
|
| This extra liability would seem like making self driving
| cars error on the side of stopping to be in the interests
| of auto makers who would be exposed to that liability.
| toast0 wrote:
| Mostly the cars will have entered during the green, not
| the yellow, and were waiting for a chance to turn. When
| there was no opportunity to turn while the light was
| green, they must turn while the light is yellow or red,
| because they are already in the intersection and must
| clear the intersection.
| illumin8 wrote:
| Incorrect. As long as your front wheels pass the stop
| line prior to the light turning red, you are legally
| driving through the intersection and should continue and
| clear the intersection on the other side (not stop in the
| middle).
|
| Imagine how crazy the law would be if this were the case:
| - Light changes from green to yellow 1ms before your
| front wheels pass the stop line - Other direction traffic
| runs a red light and hits you from the side - You're now
| somehow liable because your wheels entered the
| intersection with zero ability to react quickly enough
| (no human can react in 1ms and no car can stop that fast)
| and the other driver that clearly blew a red is not?
|
| That would be pants on head crazy, tbh...
| illumin8 wrote:
| Correct. The law states that as long as your front wheels
| are in the intersection prior to the light turning red,
| you should proceed through the intersection.
| Inexperienced drivers that either stay in the
| intersection or try to reverse into traffic behind them
| are breaking the law and create a huge hazard for others.
|
| Even if the light for opposing traffic turns green while
| the turning car is still clearing the intersection,
| opposing traffic is legally required to wait and not
| enter the intersection until opposing traffic has cleared
| the intersection.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| Tesla has been specifically reprimanded by NHSTA for
| allowing FSD to drive like human rather than to the
| letter of the law. The rolling stops is one I remember,
| but basically it'll apply to anything.
| rhtgrg wrote:
| > The Tesla is trying not to block an intersection where a
| light is green
|
| What light? There is none if you're talking about t=995.
| jondwillis wrote:
| Anecdotally, in LA, I turn off FSD basically every minute
| while trying to use it, due to it doing something slightly
| "inhuman" or not ideal/too to the letter of the law,
| signaling incorrectly while staying in a lane that curves
| slightly, etc.
|
| I can't imagine letting it go for a full hour without causing
| some road rage or traffic blockage.
|
| To be clear there is a definite driving "culture" in LA that
| is very permissive and aggressive (out of necessity). FSD
| doesn't follow this culture.
| belter wrote:
| Now imagine it trying to manage a Dutch Roundabout -
| https://youtu.be/41XBzAOmmIU or driving in a city like
| OPorto - https://youtu.be/VIWikUUl5YQ
| rlupi wrote:
| Or Naples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCE1aUkeMe0
| belter wrote:
| Well I was trying to still give a chance to FSD, but as
| you are raising the stakes...Let's agree to have
| Marrakech as the baseline - https://youtu.be/SsZlduEIyPQ
|
| And we can also test it in Ho Chi Minh. Tesla says it has
| superhuman abilities... - https://youtu.be/1ZupwFOhjl4
| natch wrote:
| Every time you disengage it invites you to leave immediate
| voice feedback as to why, and presumably they are using all
| this feedback in conjunction with camera and data feeds
| from cars that are opted in (which includes all FSD beta
| cars I believe).
|
| So, they are getting what they need to make it better.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| > signaling incorrectly while staying in a lane that curves
| slightly
|
| This is _super_ annoying, but the most recent FSD update
| seems to have mostly fixed that.
|
| It's still pretty crappy in a lot of other ways, but at
| least that improved.
| jondwillis wrote:
| I only started noticing it since the Autopilot/FSD fusion
| update a month or two ago. I haven't been driving much
| the past few weeks so maybe it has been fixed.
| noja wrote:
| > but the most recent FSD update seems to have mostly
| fixed that.
|
| I have read this comment before.
| kbos87 wrote:
| I'm left wondering what this comment proves? The four
| situations you posted were the most minor of minor annoyances
| when the car was being _too cautious_ , and you've decided
| they must be cherry picked without any evidence given.
| belter wrote:
| It's shows the system does not have a semantic
| understanding of what is happening. That is why he stops so
| far away from the gate, it does not know it is a gate.
|
| This is another one, definitely one of my favorite examples
| ( at correct time) - https://youtu.be/2u6AgLuwVqI?t=86
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Tesla not only isn't putting their money where their mouth
| is, they have a lond-standing history of using illegal DMCA
| takedowns to remove these sorts of videos from Twitter,
| reddit, Facebook, etc.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| Incorrect
| wilg wrote:
| I'm not sure exactly your point. The Tesla does sometimes
| require intervention, that's why it's Level 2. But it's still
| attempting to drive in significantly more complicated
| situations than this Drive Pilot thing. Does Drive Pilot stop
| at stoplights or make turns? I don't think so.
|
| Regarding deceptive editing, plenty of people post their
| Teslas doing squirrely things and them intervening. So it's
| not like a secret that sometimes you have to intervene.
| belter wrote:
| Look at is happening at this point, another additional
| failure mode, not seen in the links I posted before
|
| https://youtu.be/WowhH_Xry9s?t=272
|
| See how is confusing the speed limit for cars and trucks,
| and doing a sudden break. More precisely, at 5:12.
|
| So if you have car driving behind you, not expecting the
| sudden break, this could cause an accident. They are joking
| with people lives.
|
| Ethics matter in Software Engineering.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| FYI: Not unique to Tesla, I get plenty of sudden
| slowdowns when riding Cruise.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| Attempting and failing is clearly, _clearly_ worse for the
| general public and in my opinion Tesla should be strictly
| liable.
| wilg wrote:
| It's not necessarily worse, since there is a person
| driving the car who can prevent the car from behaving
| badly. What's the safety difference between this and a
| regular cruise control, which will happily plow you into
| a wall or car if you don't intervene?
|
| And, empirically, there's no evidence that these cars are
| less safe when driving this way. Tesla claims people
| driving with FSD enabled have 4x fewer accidents than
| those driving without it, and nobody has presented any
| data that disputes that.
| belter wrote:
| "Tesla Again Paints A Crash Data Story That Misleads Many
| Readers" - https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/202
| 3/04/26/tesla-...
|
| "...Several attempts have been made to reach out to Tesla
| for comment over the years since these numbers first
| started coming out, however, Tesla closed its press
| relations office and no longer responds to press
| inquiries..."
| wilg wrote:
| This critique of their impact report (I was referring to
| a more recent statement) only goes as far as saying FSD
| beta is equally safe to humans driving, not worse, which
| seems perfectly acceptable?
| avereveard wrote:
| Depends on the average of human driver. Especially if the
| average includes motorbikes.
|
| Saying fsd on tela has the same statistic than the
| general driver population prints a grim picture, as it
| puts it in a strictly worse performance than peers
| vehicles (SUV or saloons depending on the model)
| adsfgiodsnrio wrote:
| We know Tesla cannot match Mercedes. We don't know whether
| or not Mercedes can match Tesla. Mercedes isn't reckless
| enough to let untrained fanboys play with defective
| software in two-ton vehicles on public roads.
| samr71 wrote:
| "We know Tesla cannot match Mercedes" - how? You know
| this?
|
| "reckless" "untrained fanboys" "defective software" -
| what is this tone? Why is it reckless? Why do the fanboys
| need training? Why do you think the software is
| defective? These are significant unjustified claims!
|
| To me, it seems each company has a different strategy for
| self-driving, which aren't directly comparable. Beta
| testing with relatively untrained people on public roads
| seems necessary for either strategy though.
| adsfgiodsnrio wrote:
| >how? You know this?
|
| California seems to think so.
|
| >Beta testing with relatively untrained people on public
| roads seems necessary for either strategy though.
|
| Then why is Tesla the only company doing it?
|
| Mercedes has an L3 system shipping _today_ and they didn
| 't see any need to endanger my life to build it.
| wilg wrote:
| Mercedes' system does not do most of the things Tesla's
| does, right? Such as stop at stoplights or make turns, or
| do anything at all off-highway. It's a significantly
| different product, and since they didn't try to do many
| of the things Tesla is trying to do, it's pretty
| difficult to claim that those things aren't necessary
| because Mercedes didn't do them, when they haven't even
| attempted to deliver the same feature.
| belter wrote:
| "Watch the Self-Driving Struggle" -
| https://youtu.be/2u6AgLuwVqI?t=88
| activiation wrote:
| A few weeks ago, i saw a Tesla suddenly go 90 degrees on a
| small road downtown Atlanta ... It took a while for it to get
| going again... Of course I don't know if it was FSD but I have
| never seen a human do something this dumb.
| anaganisk wrote:
| Yowzzaa, but the damm Beta on Tesla can't still think of
| slowing down while cornering on steep curves, throwing people
| on to the side and not navigate into a dead end that drops into
| the ocean. This is not an anecdote, it's my personal
| experience. No way I'm not gonna trust a system again, that
| puts human lives (even those who are not driving a Tesla) for a
| beta test.
| foota wrote:
| Sounds like they don't want people to die from their product.
| rvnx wrote:
| It's very different goals, the Tesla approach is more of a
| hack, which is to release things, without any liability or
| guarantee "we quickly hacked this together, good luck, if you
| die or get injured this is your problem!", and Mercedes is
| delivering a product that only support a few features but do it
| well, and they put their responsibility on it.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > "we quickly hacked this together, good luck, if you die or
| get injured this is your problem!"
|
| Or kill someone who didn't ask for any of this
| dmix wrote:
| What features does Tesla FSD offer that Mercedes doesn't?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Liability.
| Gys wrote:
| Very serious limitation of Tesla:
|
| The human has to keep the hands on the wheel at all times and
| eyes on the road.
|
| Edit: I looked at these FSD videos before and am very sure it
| will not work that well in an average European city.
| Unfortunately, because I really would love to buy a real self
| driving car that legally allows me to watch a movie while
| driving (highways is enough).
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah this isn't beating Tesla to anything.
|
| If you constrain a system to where it's effectively useless and
| declare victory, that's worse than trying to actually solve the
| problem and saying you're not there yet.
|
| It's lowering the goal precipitously until you can achieve and
| then pretending you did it. Tesla has flaws, but this is a dumb
| article.
| cbsmith wrote:
| > Yeah this isn't beating Tesla to anything.
|
| They beat Tesla to being certified in California as Level 3,
| with restrictions.
| fossuser wrote:
| anything _that matters_ (which was implied by the rest of
| my comment)
|
| They can check a box and make this press release though, I
| guess that's worth something.
| conroy wrote:
| > Tesla FSD navigating the complex city streets of LA for 60
| minutes with zero human intervention.
|
| 17 fatalities, 736 crashes: The shocking toll of Tesla's
| Autopilot
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-a...
| charcircuit wrote:
| Just because you crash that doesn't mean you aren't able to
| navigate without human intervention. Humans are also capable
| of crashing their car.
| merth wrote:
| He means under their supervisor control. There are "normal"
| people who do their best to cause a crash.
| bmicraft wrote:
| Without any comparison to humans those numbers are completely
| meaningless
| readams wrote:
| Autopilot is just fancy cruise control. How many crashes have
| there been with cruise control turned on? It's just a
| completely meaningless thing to even look at. How many
| crashes would there have been during those miles without
| autopilot?
| pell wrote:
| Tesla doesn't sell Autopilot as cruise control though.
| fallingknife wrote:
| You're right, that is shockingly low! 43,000 people die in
| car crashes in the US every year, and only 17 in Teslas since
| 2019. That's only 1 in 7500.
| georgyo wrote:
| These statistics are meaningless.
|
| How many Tesla cars with full self driving are there
| compared to regular cars?
|
| A Tesla with FSD will only be using FSD a small fraction of
| the time.
|
| If we had statistics on the number of hours FSD was active
| compared to the number of hours all other car driving of
| all cars we might be able to compared these numbers.
|
| Hour wise, I think normal driving is way above 7500:1.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| Why are people willing to excuse things because they
| happen in a car? If an AI power tool were going haywire
| once in a while and chopping the arms off of bystanders
| near by, would we find that acceptable because people
| using non-AI powered tools also chop off their body parts
| sometimes? 'We can't know if it would have happened if a
| person were in control' is not an argument that would fly
| for anything else just as dangerous.
| pavlov wrote:
| I have a Model 3 in Europe with the so-called FSD, and it's
| mostly terrible. I regret paying for it. The car often doesn't
| understand even speed limit signs, so it fails at the bare
| minimum of safety.
|
| Recently I visited LA and a friend gave me a drive in their
| Model 3. The difference in sensor interpretation quality was
| massive compared to what I see back home. That gave me hope of
| my aging Model 3 still seeing improvements... But also a
| nagging suspicion that Tesla may have spent a lot of manual
| effort on data labeling and heuristics for LA roads
| specifically, and the results may not be easily scalable
| elsewhere.
| chroma wrote:
| The difference in FSD behavior is due to the EU's laws on
| autonomous vehicles. The EU mandates maximum lateral
| acceleration, lane change times, and many other details that
| make for a worse (and less safe) driving experience.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| Could you explain why the limits make the experience less
| safe.
|
| Less lateral acceleration should mean more safety, or I m
| wrong?
| ifdefdebug wrote:
| Now why would the EU mandate details that make for a less
| safe driving? You are implying they are either malicious or
| stunningly incompetent.
| 221qqwe wrote:
| > stunningly incompetent
|
| Not stunningly, just moderately. But generally yes,
| that's a good description for EU bureaucrats.
| smabie wrote:
| Government stunningly incompetent? Who would have
| thought..
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| It will likely take a while because there is a difference.
| I'm not sure if it's manual effort or just having more data
| in certain regions.
|
| When I first got into the beta, it wasn't great, but has
| improved significantly since then.
| adsfgiodsnrio wrote:
| So, in the absolute best-case scenario cherry-picked from
| thousands of videos, Tesla's system is capable of going
| _twenty-five miles_ without making dangerous mistakes.
|
| I agree the comparison is laughable.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Skeptical but genuine question here: if Tesla's Level 3 system
| is more advanced, why don't they have authorization to release
| it? And why does the article quote Tesla as saying they only
| have a level 2 system?
| jeremyjh wrote:
| They aren't pursuing it, and stopped publicly reporting
| disengagement data. They found out their stans are happy to
| buy the cars and use FSD without liability protection or
| safety data, so why bother? Whenever one crashes it's the
| driver's fault by definition.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| Yea you will struggle to find a single video of drive pilot
| where it's not driven by a representative from Mercedes.
|
| In those, you can see the system disengage the second it
| doesn't have a vehicle to follow at slow speeds right in front
| of it (like when the vehicle ahead changes lanes).
|
| Useless.
| wonnage wrote:
| Tesla FSD is a marketing gimmick
| croes wrote:
| They are all heavily limited.
|
| But FSD isn't even necessary to help, an autonomous
| acceleration and follow mode for all cars on traffic lights and
| in traffic jams would already have huge benefits.
| olliej wrote:
| So it can only be used on highways with a 40mph speed limit???
| :D
| hristov wrote:
| Even considering its heavy limitations, the Mercedes system is
| miles better than the Tesla, because it is actually useful. You
| can actually turn on the system and do your email, or take a
| nap. Yes, the 40 mph limitation on highways seems to make it
| useless, but many highways get congested to the point where you
| are not going over 40 mph anyways, and those are the times when
| it is most frustrating to drive.
|
| And regarding the FSD, most youtube videos I have seen run into
| human intervention within 20 minutes or so. Going 60 minutes
| without human intervention is certainly possible if you get a
| bit lucky but that does not mean you should take your eyes off
| the road for a second. FSD still has to be constantly
| supervised, which makes it of very limited utility. At this
| stage it is still a fun experiment at most.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| Now try to look up videos of Mercedes' L3 system in operation
| and you'll see how hilarious this claim is. It shuts off
| immediately without a vehicle to follow in front of you. Good
| luck taking a nap and typing emails. L3 my ass.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| You're not allowed to sleep, you need to take control
| within 10-15 seconds.
|
| And no, it doesn't turn off if there are no vehicles in
| front, but it does turn off above 45 MPH. On most highways
| you'll only be below 45 because of traffic.
|
| Above 45 they have a separate L2 system that requires
| "normal" attentiveness.
| thegrim33 wrote:
| "do your email, or take a nap" <- The definition of an SAE
| Level 3 system is that you must remain in the seat, prepared
| to take control immediately when the system requests you to.
| Taking a nap or otherwise not paying attention is not what
| such a system supports.
| torginus wrote:
| Afaik the key differentiator of a L3 and a L2 system is
| that if you don't take control when the system requests you
| to, the L3 system can safely stop/pull aside while all bets
| are off with an L2 system.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I guess it is not ok to be asleep as even a loud alarm will
| take time to wake you up, but not paying attention, like
| when you are doing your email is fine. In fact, that's the
| entire point of level 3 autonomy.
|
| You are "on call" rather than "at work", so you must be
| prepared to act when the car rings. If the car doesn't
| ring, you are free to do whatever you want as long as you
| can hear the ring and take back control when it happens.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > prepared to take control immediately
|
| I don't think that's correct. I've seen "in a certain
| amount of time" but you make it sound like it's a safety
| issue, which it's not, that being a key differentiation
| from a L2 system. When it can't drive it stops driving and
| you have to drive. If it's not a safety issue you could
| conceivably bee sleeping, as long as you can wake up in a
| timely manner.
|
| The SAE makes it clear that the car is driving at L3, and
| on that basis you would expect the transition to another
| driver would be graceful, just like with two human drivers.
| olex wrote:
| That "certain amount of time" is variable, but in
| practice is on the level of 10-15 seconds for the
| Mercedes system - at least that's what it was when it was
| first certified in Germany some time ago. It is designed
| to let you take your hands off the wheel and look at the
| scenery, but anything more than that is too much
| distraction for when it requires you to take over. And it
| will, because it's really not very capable at all - it's
| basically an advanced traffic jam autopilot that can
| follow other cars in a straight well marked line, that's
| it.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| What would be great is the SAE tightened the definitions
| so there were standards of performance, maybe with
| different quality sublevels within each.
| [deleted]
| hristov wrote:
| For person like me that takes very light naps when
| sitting, 10 seconds is plenty to wake up and take
| control. Also if I am using a tablet doing email or
| browsing or even playing games, 10 seconds is plenty of
| time to put the tablet away and grab the wheel.
| rl3 wrote:
| > _For person like me that takes very light naps when
| sitting, 10 seconds is plenty to wake up and take
| control._
|
| I'd argue that isn't remotely enough time to safely take
| control. You're betting your brain wakes up sufficiently
| in that time, and if it doesn't the consequences are
| potentially deadly.
|
| > _Also if I am using a tablet doing email or browsing or
| even playing games, 10 seconds is plenty of time to put
| the tablet away and grab the wheel._
|
| That's a bit better from an alertness standpoint, but not
| from a situational awareness one. You're deprived of both
| context and situational awareness on the road.
|
| Some key details extend far beyond a 10-15 seconds, such
| as: another car driving erratically, lanes ending, line
| of sight on pedestrians or cyclists visible prior that
| are now occluded by traffic. The list goes on.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > And regarding the FSD, most youtube videos I have seen run
| into human intervention within 20 minutes or so. Going 60
| minutes without human intervention is certainly possible if
| you get a bit lucky but that does not mean you should take
| your eyes off the road for a second. FSD still has to be
| constantly supervised, which makes it of very limited
| utility. At this stage it is still a fun experiment at most.
|
| Are there equivalent videos for Mercedes?
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| Autopilot works fine in highways under 40 miles per hour. You
| still pay some attention but that's also true with this, if
| traffic goes above 40 mph you have to take control in 2
| seconds while Autopilot is more gradual
| qwytw wrote:
| > This seems like a marketing gimmick by Mercedes at best; the
| two technologies aren't even in the same league.
|
| You might be right or not but gave zero arguments in your
| comment. The fact that these safety/regulatory restrictions
| exist does not mean the system is not more capable.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Can you explain how - Must be under 40 mph
| - Only during the daylight and only on certain highways -
| CANNOT be operated on city/country streets
|
| doesn't exclude all roads? Where I live, highways all have a
| speed limit of 65-75 mph, and all streets with a speed limit of
| 40 or below are city our county roads. So where can you
| actually use this?
| iknowstuff wrote:
| It does. The system is useless. Not all freeways are even
| allowed.
| onion2k wrote:
| In a traffic jam. Which is most of LAs roads at least some of
| the time.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| From what it sounds like, when you are in a traffic jam you
| use it and then the second that traffic jam ends you
| immediately have to take control.
|
| Ngl that sounds like it requires more attention than
| autopilot, if you're not doing anything and then have to take
| full control that sounds like it could lead to an absurdly
| unsafe outcome
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| We've actually had nearly self driving vehicles for over a
| century. They're called trains. We should invest in some. The
| navigation problem gets way easier
| andylynch wrote:
| Most trains are far from self driving; training to operate one
| is easily 6-12 months work, depending on the line, with strict
| licensing as well.
| Spivak wrote:
| Driverless trains are actually a pretty new thing, being on
| tracks is not as set/forget as people assume.
|
| If you mean "transportation where I'm not driving" then sure
| but taxis also fit that bill.
| brooke2k wrote:
| Proportionally, they are far, far closer to self driving even
| with multiple people driving the train. A ratio of just 1:100
| drivers:passengers is a vast improvement on personal cars
| which would probably be what, 1:1? Maybe 1:2 on average?
| katbyte wrote:
| Sky train in Vancouver bc has been driverless for near 40
| years now
| DanielVZ wrote:
| Subway trains have been able to be autonomous since at least
| a decade.
| masswerk wrote:
| Paris Metro introduced driverless on all their MP 55 train
| sets in 1967.
| Longhanks wrote:
| Do you have a train station in front of your house and any
| target destination you can imagine wanting to go to? Because
| most people don't.
| rdlw wrote:
| Do you have a self driving car? Because no one does.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Maybe the all the money invested in self driving and EV
| insentives and insane highways and stroads maybe you could
| afford decent public transit.
| berkes wrote:
| Yes. And yes.
|
| I live in the Netherlands and we have this. Because it is
| what people want and need. And because it's been invested in
| for decades. And because it has a way higher ROI than car
| infra.
| yread wrote:
| Well the road infra has also been invested in heavily.
| Dutch highways are the best
| berkes wrote:
| Yup. It's not an either/or as many seem to think. Public
| Transport works best in addition and next to cars, bikes,
| and such. It's mixing and combining that offers the true
| value.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Maybe if we built more of those, more people would be within
| walking distance of them.
| ImprobableTruth wrote:
| Trains for local transportation make no sense. Trams for
| high-throughput and buses for everything else is the only
| sensible thing for local public transport.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Works well in Japan.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > Trains for local transportation make no sense.
|
| Plenty of people take trains for local transportation
| every day.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Trams and metros however are quite reasonable.
| megaman821 wrote:
| Headlines like this really speed up the decline of media. While
| it is factual it really exploits what a common person would
| interpret the headline to mean. Tesla is exploring autonomous
| driving on most roads and conditions. L3 autonomous driving is
| not binary, you can get it at certain times, in certain places,
| under certain weather conditions yet the comparison is anchoring
| it to a system that isn't aiming to operate under those
| constraints. So the headline is taking a decent accomplishment
| for Mercedes and turning into catnip for Tesla haters.
| simondotau wrote:
| [flagged]
| dmbche wrote:
| I doubt so, I think in the guidelines Meta comments are not
| encouraged as they are not fruitful for conversation.
| simondotau wrote:
| I appreciate your contribution but I disagree that it's any
| more "meta" to respond to the community's unwritten
| reactions (votes) than responding to its written reactions
| (normal replies).
| dmbche wrote:
| Oh I was refering to your comment on the editorialisation
| of the title, since it's not a comment on the subject of
| the article but on the writing of it's title. Not a dig,
| just an observation.
| simondotau wrote:
| Oh, I misunderstood. Still, I'd argue that in a world
| where most people who eyeball the headline don't read the
| article, _the headline is the story._ And thus discussing
| whether the headline leaves a misleading impression is
| fair game -- and not at all meta.
| dmbche wrote:
| I'm not a fan of tesla, but not a fan of self driving over all.
| This headline just tells me that benz is the first to be
| selling legal automatic driving cars in California, something I
| assumed Tesla was doing. I found it enlightening.
|
| Non technical people would probably assume that Tesla already
| has this, since we hear about it all the time, and that this is
| Benz getting up to speed - while it's not the case at all and
| Benz is beating the largest competitor in the market.
|
| I think this is a fair title.
| belter wrote:
| Mercedes achieves Level 3, while putting their money and
| responsibility, behind what is a life and death scenario. Tesla
| fans call it "decent". It's worst than a religion..it's a cult.
| megaman821 wrote:
| Address nothing about the misleading headline. Call the
| person that points it out as part of a cult. Maybe you should
| take a harder look at yourself.
| justapassenger wrote:
| Mercedes shipped a system that's legally self driving, under
| some set of conditions.
|
| Tesla sells system that's not legally self driving under any
| set of conditions. You're always driving, and Tesla will fight
| you in court if you want them to take liability for any action
| it took.
|
| There's nothing misleading about this headline.
| simondotau wrote:
| All of that is technically correct but isn't the point the OP
| was making. These are products with wildly different
| aspirations and at different stages of achieving those
| aspirations.
| justapassenger wrote:
| Yes. One product works and other doesn't.
|
| And one that doesn't work is better and for sure will
| improve and work in the future? And one that does work
| won't improve?
| simondotau wrote:
| I don't know who you're replying to, because that's
| certainly nothing to do with what I said.
| zaroth wrote:
| It's bizarre and absurd to claim a system that's driven
| _billions_ of miles "doesn't work".
|
| I really like how Simondotau put it. These are wildly
| different systems. Benchmarks can always be rigged and I
| see this move by Mercedes no differently.
|
| Having failed to compete with Tesla on actual self
| driving technology, they concocted a minimally useful
| system that could check a box in their marketing
| material. Mercedes, here, is an ostrich.
|
| My primary benchmark for how useful the system is would
| be how many passenger-miles its driven. We'll be waiting
| a long time for Mercedes to be bragging about that
| metric.
| justapassenger wrote:
| Because it's very very simple. One system is self driving
| and other isn't, no matter how you try to spin it.
| zaroth wrote:
| One is a universal L2 autonomous driving system and one
| highly limited L3 autonomous driving system. They are
| both considered forms of autonomous driving.
|
| [1] - https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-
| driving-level...
| justapassenger wrote:
| One legally drives the car for you. Other doesn't.
| zaroth wrote:
| Actually they are both legally autonomously driving
| according to SAE. You should read up on it!
|
| "SAE International is the world's leading authority in
| mobility standards development." Forgive me if I'll take
| their internationally recognized standards over your
| characterization.
|
| Certainly only one of the systems accepts liability for
| accidents while it's enabled, but liability for accidents
| is just one component of autonomous driving, and not the
| most important one.
|
| The most important one is clearly the percentage
| availability of the system across varying roads and
| conditions.
|
| An L3 or L4 system that is geofenced to work on a few
| miles of select private roads might be a "world first"
| while simultaneously being of little practical value.
|
| In essence, a pissing contest or vanity metric.
| justapassenger wrote:
| Ok, you've convinced me. I'll go drive in FSD Tesla and
| be certain that you and Musk will personally guarantee
| safety of it and pickup the bill if something happens.
|
| Also, please actually go read the standard, and talk
| about design intent, and which main way to differentiate
| the systems.
| as-j wrote:
| The actual title is:
|
| > Germans beat Tesla to autonomous L3 driving in the Golden State
|
| Which mashed a lot more sense since Waymo, Cruise and Zoox all
| have L4 autonomous cars on the road today in California operating
| with no human inside at all.
| jjmorrison wrote:
| such clickbait
| sidcool wrote:
| Seems like a mistaken title. The limitations are so significant,
| it can't be called autonomous driving.
| elif wrote:
| Level 2 FULL self driving is way harder of a problem than
| location limited, condition limited, maneuver limited, speed
| limited level 3 so to me it is hilarious to call Tesla beat in
| any sense of the word.
|
| 40mph single lane travel during clear skies and daytime down
| certain highways can be done by any number of naive driver
| assistants from many manufacturers. Tesla's autopilot from 2015
| could certainly accomplish that, let alone the 2023 FSD versions.
| The only thing Mercedes has accomplished here is ambitious
| paperwork.
| justapassenger wrote:
| You really think there's no engineering difference between
| system that's designed to actively kill you, and others if you
| don't pay attention vs system that's designed not to do it, and
| company putting their money behind that statement?
| elif wrote:
| You really think Mercedes legal filings guarantee a safer
| system? It is more important to focus on the technical
| capabilities of the systems than who can add more asterisks
| to their crash statistics.
|
| You are comparing a mature system with billions of miles of
| testing to a system which you will struggle to keep engaged
| for 2 mile intervals.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Tesla FSD is not mature, it's just old
| justapassenger wrote:
| Ok, let's focus on the technical aspects.
|
| Tesla has no safety life cycle process and as a result FSD
| is inherently unsafe, from the engineering point of view.
|
| You can try to hand wave over that, but if you are an
| engineer working on the safety critical systems (it's an
| actual engineering field), that's all you need to know
| about FSD.
| fallingknife wrote:
| You are not actually focusing on technical aspects. You
| are focusing on regulatory credentials and bureaucratic
| process. Focusing on technical aspects would mean looking
| at actual data from on road performance.
| justapassenger wrote:
| Design process and lifecycle of the product and
| development is not a technical aspect only at startups
| building apps to share cat photos.
| elif wrote:
| How will you discretely identify every problem to be
| solved in the domain of live real drivers in real world
| conditions? Applying a model of an industrial plant where
| machines interface with machines, and occasionally humans
| in prescribed and orderly functions, will not get you any
| closer to safety.
|
| What will get you closer to safety is insanely large
| corpus of real world data being trained on in a
| continuous feedback loop.
| justapassenger wrote:
| Ask Boeing how ignoring it works out.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Which Boeing execs ended their career in disgrace after
| killing hundreds of people in pursuit of lower training
| costs ?
| rdlw wrote:
| Dennis Muilenburg.
|
| 189 people:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610
|
| 157 people: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Air
| lines_Flight_30...
|
| That's 346 people killed.
|
| Here's an article about his being fired in disgrace after
| this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/business/Boeing-
| ceo-muile...
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Wow, totally missed anyone at all was held accountable
| for that. It's not much but something at least.
| pnw wrote:
| I tried to buy the Mercedes EQS with that feature. All the
| dealers had a $50k markup , you had to wait months for delivery
| and most of the cool features in their marketing were not
| available due to parts shortages.
|
| So call me skeptical...
| ryanwaggoner wrote:
| Skeptical? Because it's so popular that it's very hard to get?
| empiricus wrote:
| popular would mean at least 100k-1mil. is this mercedes
| really popular like this?
| hef19898 wrote:
| Tesla's sell at 100k - 1 mil mark up?
| frenchman99 wrote:
| I think they mean 100k to 1 million units sold
| sixQuarks wrote:
| I love reading the mental gymnastics the anti-Elon folks in here
| are doing to actually believe Mercedes has beat Tesla in
| autonomous driving.
| claudiug wrote:
| because is not like that?
| kbos87 wrote:
| What exactly do people think it means when Mercedes says they
| will "take liability"? Decisions about whether to prosecute a
| driver when something bad happens are local and state level
| decisions. Mercedes can't protect you when a local prosecutor
| decides to say "yeah level 3, whatever, you were behind the
| wheel."
| belter wrote:
| That was handled in Germany by changing existing laws. I would
| imagine equivalent laws were made or are being prepared for
| California and Nevada.
|
| "Germany will be the world leader in autonomous driving" -
| https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/EN/Articles/DG/act-on-autono...
|
| "...The Autonomous Driving Act took effect in Germany on July
| 28, 2021, introducing significant and comprehensive amendments
| to the German Road Traffic Law..." -
| https://www.ippi.org.il/germany-autonomous-driving-act/
|
| Law here (German):
| https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/DE/Anlage/Gesetze/Gesetze-19...
| toast0 wrote:
| Well, they can provide a rigorous criminal defense, perhaps.
|
| But I don't think there's a lot of criminal prosecutions for
| driving on highways at speeds under 40 mph.
| jupp0r wrote:
| I assume they can only take over civil, not criminal liability.
| Vespasian wrote:
| As another user posted at least in Germany the laws were
| changed to account for this.
| oblio wrote:
| "Slow and steady" better than "move fast and break things"? :-)
| seydor wrote:
| break people
| ajross wrote:
| Define better? A Tesla will do exactly the same thing[1] and
| just nag you every few minutes to tug on the steering wheel
| (those nags are getting rarer every release as the driver
| monitoring camera improves, FWIW). The Mercedes driver can have
| their hands doing other things, but still needs their eyes out
| of the cockpit because the second traffic speeds up to 40mph
| they need to take over.
|
| In practice, this is "Level 3", but only within an ephemeral
| subset of driving conditions that aren't going to be consistent
| enough for you actually exploit that autonomy.
|
| [1] Actually much more, obviously, but it at least does this.
| zaroth wrote:
| People forget the status quo is millions of deaths and
| trillions in property and economic damages. Moving slow
| condemns millions more to die.
| qwytw wrote:
| Those millions (especially in developed countries where the
| per capita number of accidents is highest) won't be able to
| buy Teslas anyway.
|
| Statically you could decrease the number of deaths by
| 20-30% by just banning cars older than 10 years. There are
| some other (cheaper) things that can be done as well.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| 40k+ people die per year in car accidents in the US alone. I
| would say "move fast and break less things" is better.
| waffleiron wrote:
| We can get that to 60k!
| oblio wrote:
| You know how you could REALLY fix that?
|
| 1. Actual car checks everywhere. I've seen some crazy cars in
| the US that would be impounded ASAP in most of Europe.
|
| 2. Add pedestrian safety requirements for new cars, which
| would practically ban tall cars (trucks and SUVs) except for
| professional use.
|
| 3. Something for smartphones, not really sure about the best
| attack angle.
|
| This "might not ever happen" self driving shtick is just
| moving the goalpost into the middle of nowhere.
| olliej wrote:
| Does Mercedes accept liability for any crashes that occur while
| its system is in control?
| porphyra wrote:
| ... only when driving under 40 mph on highways. So it is pretty
| useless.
|
| The main thing is that Mercedes Benz will take liability for
| anything that goes wrong. But the system as a whole is far less
| capable than Tesla FSD.
| ethanbond wrote:
| > but the system as a whole is far less capable than Tesla FSD,
| the renowned "exaggerator" told me so
|
| We actually have no idea what Benz et al.'s systems are capable
| of if they were to deploy them with the same recklessness as
| Tesla.
| zaroth wrote:
| This statement makes no logical sense. Their systems are
| "capable of" what they can be used to achieve in actual
| operation.
|
| It's not like it's this massively sophisticated system for
| FSD with most of the code commented out.
|
| These are purpose-built and heavily tested to a
| _specification_ - that's how engineering works. The Mercedes
| system specification is extremely limited in practice, but
| gives them the marketing win of being able to claim they do
| L3.
| adsfgiodsnrio wrote:
| Tesla's system can be used to achieve _nothing_ in actual
| operation. It makes constant mistakes and requires an ever-
| vigilant human to take over in a fraction of a second when
| it does. There is no advantage over manual driving, let
| alone manual driving with modern driver assistance.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Systems that are required to have ~100% performance within
| an operational design domain generally have more than 0%
| performance beyond that domain.
|
| For example, Tesla FSD seems like a pretty good highway
| cruise control, but it can be dangerously deployed in city
| driving too. Of course this is a little difficult to argue
| about since AFAIK Tesla has never defined its ODD and their
| lead autopilot software guy said in his deposition that he
| didn't even know what an ODD was?
|
| I suppose one man's "marketing win" to "claim" L3 is
| another man's "actually deploying L3."
| zaroth wrote:
| I maintain that the Mercedes system is "capable of" what
| it can functionally be deployed to achieve by a user.
| That's what "capable of" means. If Mercedes wants to try
| its hand at a universal L2 system, I wish them the best.
| This system is in truth _not capable_ of L2 or L3
| autonomous driving under almost all typical driving
| conditions. There is a small geofenced and speed
| constrained window under which the car will lane-keep and
| TACC without requiring hands-on-wheel. To me, that's what
| we call a "gimmick".
|
| An autonomous system which cannot even change lanes
| should not - in my opinion - be classified as L3
| Autonomy. Not only is it a gimmick, it's basically a
| loophole in the spec.
|
| As an aside, since you mentioned it, I think that
| describing FSD as "pretty good highway cruise control" is
| gaslighting.
|
| Describing FSD as dangerously deployed in city driving is
| merely misinformed. In fact FSD (including the human
| driver and FSD's comprehensive attention tracking and
| alerting) is safer than the average driver in city
| driving.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/impact
| qwytw wrote:
| Well Mercedes does supposedly offer a L2 system. Why do
| you say it doesn't?
| ethanbond wrote:
| I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue here. You
| disagree with SAE's designations? Interesting trivia I
| guess.
|
| Anyway I'm sure Tesla will say it's Level 3 whenever it's
| Level 3. Would've thought that was a while back when they
| marketed, sold, and rolled out "Full Self Driving" on
| public roads.
| dmbche wrote:
| That's all enforced by the government, it's not a limitation of
| the system. They might be comfortable with liability for more
| than this but are not allowed to by regulators - which is wise
| zaroth wrote:
| It literally is a "limitation of the system".
| dmbche wrote:
| The implied system is Benz's autodriving. You seem to refer
| to "society" as a system. Clever, but not really fruitful.
| zaroth wrote:
| I wasn't trying to be cheeky. I must have misunderstood
| your comment?
|
| As I understand it the L3 system is limited to limited
| access highway roads, < 40mph, and no lane changes. Those
| are its limitations, and I believe they are self-imposed
| by Mercedes, not any US regulations.
| dmbche wrote:
| "Regardless of those capabilities, the California DMV is
| placing some serious restrictions on the Merc system. It
| can only operate during the day on certain limited roads,
| and only at speeds of up to 40 miles per hour. The system
| will be usable on California highways in the Bay Area,
| Central Valley, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Diego, as
| well as on Interstate 15 between southern California and
| Nevada, where the autopilot was approved for use in
| January."
|
| This indicates to me the limitations come from regulators
| and not the manufacturer but I might be wrong.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| People spend years of their life going under 40 on the highway
| in LA. This seems huge in socal.
| elif wrote:
| Only on CERTAIN highways if it's daytime and it's not raining.
| oblio wrote:
| > The main thing is that Mercedes Benz will take liability for
| anything that goes wrong. But the system as a whole is far less
| capable than Tesla FSD.
|
| "It's less capable except for the minor fact that if we
| <<kill>> someone, it's <<our fault, not yours>>".
|
| You know, that minor factor called "life or death".
|
| > ... only when driving under 40 mph on highways. So it is
| pretty useless.
|
| If Waymo/Tesla/whatever would do this, they'd be the darlings
| of the internet.
|
| If Mercedes does this, no one thinks: "ah, it's the first
| iteration, they can you know, <<increase>> the speed later on".
| kelnos wrote:
| If the local DA decides to prosecute you after your car kills
| someone, there is nothing Mercedes can do for you. This
| liability they are assuming must be civil only.
| sidibe wrote:
| > If Waymo/Tesla/whatever would do this, they'd be the
| darlings of the internet.
|
| How exactly do you think Waymo works that they wouldn't take
| responsibility?
| neysofu wrote:
| Waymo takes responsibility for all accidents and Tesla is
| able to drive autonomously at 40km/h on highways, but
| neither does _both_. Mercedes does. That 's -I believe- the
| point that parent is making.
|
| Now, I'd argue that Waymo has probably somewhat solved
| highways already as they're much simpler than city driving,
| they're just not offering it to the public yet.
| belter wrote:
| Also known as "draw the rest of the owl"
| oblio wrote:
| Mercedes has drawn a lot more of the owl than anyone else.
| Accepting liability is huge.
|
| It's putting their money where their mouth is.
|
| Musk is putting his mouth on a lot of things, I guess that
| makes him a baby?
| sidibe wrote:
| At least they started with an owl shape. Tesla is starting
| with a square before "draw the rest of the owl"
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| You aren't going to kill people while going under 40mph on a
| highway (cars only, no pedestrians) anyway. Under 40mph is
| like stop and go traffic.
|
| This is a marketing stunt. They've taken a well-solved
| problem (stop and go) and taken responsibility for it, and
| getting headlines by screaming something about J3016 level 3.
| Arainach wrote:
| A highway is any public road per legal definition.
| https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-
| veh/divisi...
|
| 40mph is more than enough to kill someone.
| zaroth wrote:
| "Limited access highway" is a different thing, and that's
| the roads this system will engage on. Zero pedestrians,
| unless you know, a climate protest is shutting it down.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Changing who holds liability does not make the system more or
| less capable. Think about it. Was Mercedes system any less
| capable the day before they declared it L3 than the day
| before? Clearly not. It was the same system.
|
| If you want to convince me that their system is way more
| capable than Tesla, you would have to show me evidence that
| Tesla FSD fails in the same limited environment as Mercedes
| is certified L3 in, and I have not seen any.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-10 23:00 UTC)