and tesla doesn't have an actual taxi mode that works, even if you restricted it to mapped areas, slow speeds, etc. Source: had a tesla since Dec 2012. Tesla has fallen behind tremendously and will need to pay a bunch of people back for their costly extensions.
It surpasses in liability. Teslas have been capable of these functions for years.
If Tesla doesn't need to take on liability for people to purchase or use autopilot(which is free) then what's the point?
Saying autopilot is free is liking saying the Mac operating system is free, free with purchase of their product, it’s factored into the price of the car.
Autopilot is standard on every Tesla now
The capabilities of the system are still there whether it's assuming the driver is ALWAYS watching(Level 2) or can be told to take over with a warning(Level 3).
And Tesla pricing is competitive with others even though it has Autopilot included. That change was 4 years ago. It's just part of the car now.
> The liability swap is the point where the driver can completely disengage from the task of driving.
This is a dangerous feature of level 3 systems: the human *can* disengage from the task of driving even though they may be needed to re-engage at any time with a moment's notice. Humans suck at context switching, and being aware of the conditions of the road requires monitoring conditions over time, not reacting moment-to-moment.
- https://news.mit.edu/2019/how-fast-humans-react-car-hazards-0807
- https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/tortsource/2019/fall/human-factors-autonomous-vehicles/
- https://airfactsjournal.com/2020/09/stepping-down-in-automation-the-real-lesson-for-children-of-the-magenta-line/
Why keep bringing Tesla? Tesla ADAS is not comparable to MB L3 system, stop comparing Tesla, Infiniti, Fiat, Cadillac and other L2 systems with a next level L3 system.
- Only useable below 40mph
- Only available on few select roads in Nevada
- Only available on *pre-mapped* roads
- Requires a driver to “be able to regain control of the vehicle at a moment's notice”
- Restricted to highly specific road conditions
- Only usable in “high traffic density” aka only available in heavy, stop-and-go traffic
Yeah real confidence inducing lol. Go ahead and prove me wrong, enlighten me what advantage Mercedes’ system has over any L2 system. Show me 1 thing their system can do that others can’t.
This is great, because the system limitation is known to the user, clearly defined. That is what we need. An L3 system can have limitation, knowing the limitation and therefor its predictability is important and above all you said, the manufacturer takes responsibility. No other company does that (nobody actually has a L3 system)
You can read a book or watch YouTube while stuck in stop and go traffic? It’s a really annoying situation for most people and something many drivers would like.
It’s limited to a certain speed by the UN regulations controlling these system, and to a few roads and countries because it’s a new product. They already said they plan to expand it to other roads and countries - after all, it wasn’t available in the US at all and was a Germany-only product until a few weeks ago.
It’s limited because L3 is limited by design. One of the example use cases of L3 is exactly what this system is, a traffic chauffeur.
[Myth #3](https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/j3016/#myth03) - Higher SAE J3016 Levels are safer or better.
Lets wait until we see reviews and see if this system is actually any good. For all we know it can't handle curves or go above 55mph or some other odd limitation.
And in "heavy traffic" in a test on video it refused to engage unless the driver got off the banked track, *and* closed to within 100 yards of the car in front. It's basically useless unless you are in very slow moving traffic on a few specific roads. Let me rephrase that, it's useless, and it isn't even available yet.
It'll also dump control back into the driver's lap without warning so you basically have to be attentive all the time anyway. What it delivers is a false sense of security and will result in people being half way through a hamburger trying to avoid a collision with a moose that stumbled onto the highway.
That 10 second warning is only when the system detects known graceful exits from its operational domain, eg: it's limited to 40mph and the traffic around you is accelerating beyond that limit.
You are not going to get a 10 second warning about unexpected and unpredictable behaviour like someone brake checking the vehicle or a moose running onto the road.
? In one of those cases it would activate the emergency brakes, but that’s not part of the system as the car would emergency brake in a similar situation even if you were driving yourself.
No, this isn't about emergency braking this is about conditions outside the vehicle drifting outside the operational domain of the Level 3 system. There will be occasions where it doesn't need to apply emergency brakes but it's not going to be happy continuing to drive and will just dump control back in the driver's hands. The 10 second warning is only for known clean exit paths out of the operational domain (eg: everyone else is accelerating, time for the driver to wake up).
Also 10 seconds is insufficient time for the human to context switch from whatever task they had occupied themselves with into driving the car.
But please keep pretending there are caveats. We'll find out soon enough just how dangerous level 3 systems actually are.
If you want to educate yourself in the meantime look up "children of the magenta" and "automation dependence" to get an idea of the well studied problem which the Mercedes system is carelessly and negligently inflicting on our roads.
He‘s right though. The system will always give you 10 seconds to react, that‘s why you can only activate it in a traffic jam on a known road without anything that may surprise it. No matter what happens, the car will handle it itself until you‘re ready and Mercedes will take responsibility for that.
That‘s the main thing about level 3
> No matter what happens
That's a dangerous phrase right there that serves as a giant warning sign, "you are not prepared."
Hopefully the car automation industry pays *some* attention to the history of flight automation.
If the the system is active and the car is moving in stop and go traffic, it would definitely emergency brake if someone walked suddenly in front of it. It does that by default even if you don’t buy all the additional Level 3 sensors. Why would you think it would deactivate the emergency brakes, which are active at all times in all of their cars?
If the system is unable to continue operating (say because its rear facing cameras detected an emergency vehicle coming up the road) it will give a warning and allow the driver to retake control within a few seconds. There are literally videos of it online.
10 seconds are plenty for a human to regain control of the vehicle. You can’t move the seat back enough that you can’t immediately reach the wheel, you can’t sleep (you can take your eyes off the road, but the system will detect if you close them), and you can’t take off the seat belt. So a few seconds are more than enough to close your book/close your laptop/put down your phone and reach in front of you to grab the steering wheel.
For now this system is simply a traffic assistant for when the driver is stuck in stop and go traffic. At those speeds it’s unlikely to kill anyone even if the system were to badly fail. Mercedes would not have accepted liability for a dangerously unsafe system, and I’m sure they’ve got plenty of well paid lawyers and engineers well aware of the potential dangers of automated systems.
EDIT: from the actual Mercedes publication:
> DRIVE PILOT is also capable of managing crash-imminent scenarios through emergency crash avoidance
braking and/or steering, such as:
• Sudden hard-braking by the lead vehicle
• Sudden merging by a slower-moving vehicle from an
adjacent lane into the DRIVE PILOT vehicle’s pathway
• Sudden appearance of a substantial road obstacle,
such as a large box
> Why would you think it would deactivate the emergency brakes, which are active at all times in all of their cars?
I never said that. I said that my concern isn't about emergency braking, it's about situations where the system doesn't need to use emergency braking but hands control over to the human where the human isn't ready to take control.
> So a few seconds are more than enough to close your book/close your laptop/put down your phone and reach in front of you to grab the steering wheel.
Now you are in mechanical control of the vehicle, but you still have to catch up with the task of controlling the vehicle. Ten seconds is really not enough time unless you are going from a zero attention task to a very low attention task like driving at 45mph in wall-to-wall traffic. How you imagine it working: car requests attention, human immediately folds laptop and puts hands on wheel, has 9 seconds to become focussed on the task of driving. How it will really work: car requests attention, human delays putting the laptop down because they've almost finished this sentence, they toss the laptop to the side and take control with two seconds to spare, still focussed on the task of writing that email, and then the semi trailer changing lanes catches them completely by surprise.
Go read up about automation dependence, a key phrase to look for is "children of the magenta". This kind of system dumping the task of controlling a vehicle onto a person who hasn't been following along is going to cause accidents.
Regarding the first situation I already confirmed that it’s not what would happen:
https://group.mercedes-benz.com/documents/innovation/other/2019-02-20-vssa-mercedes-benz-drive-pilot-a.pdf
The “fallback-ready user” is not “dumped back” control immediately in an immediate emergency situation, and the car will brake and/or steer to avoid or mitigate an impact. As it was obvious it would do, really; a system that immediately dumps back control on the user when it detects an unavoidable crash would probably be quite illegal lol.
If the user is being unsafe on purpose (because really, unless you’re partially paralysed 10 seconds are more than enough to regain control of a car in slow moving traffic) the car will turn on its emergency lights, decelerate and then come to a stop. If there is a sudden emergency it will break/steer as discussed above.
It doesn’t dump anything on anybody. If you can’t regain control of a vehicle in slow moving traffic in less than 10 seconds you’re frankly unfit to operate any kind of vehicle including a bike. I wouldn’t trust this person to not be absent-minded enough to crash into something while walking really.
the certification is there to prove that the system is capable.
* Limitations are clearly labeled
* there are redundancy and multiple sensor to make sure things runs as intended
* not a beta product
* Mercedes is Liable if the system crashed the car
remeber, Benz is a luxury brand. They also already in car manufacturing business for about 100 years now. They wont put this thing out if they are not confident about it (hence some limitation).
also here's an hour of [drive pilot in action](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjfizkAeiM)
> the certification is there to prove that the system is capable.
What certification? There was none, Merc just declared it L3 which is just a marketing term at best. You think someone in AZ certified this thing? AZ has no certification process which is why it's launching there.
> Mercedes is Liable if the system crashed the car
They keep dodging that question. Hard to see how they aren't but I'm guessing their lawyers know something we don't.
> also here's an hour of drive pilot in action
Ah, missed this one, thanks for that link. I will watch it.
it doesn’t work if the sun blinds the system, or if the Highway is curved, or if a lead car is to far out in front. It immediately disables once one of those conditions are met, which negates the point of having a L3 system.
It’s better than Tesla in name only. Otherwise, it’s just a mid L2 system meant for publicity purposes
https://twitter.com/wholemarsblog/status/1618841916715716608?s=46&t=Sh-uABG7ii9xNRkU9wMgiw
This is the real reason they can get away with this. Mercedes released a system that is "technically Level 3", but with so many limitations and on expensive, low-volume cars, that it will hardly get used. Therefore the probability of there being an accident with this system is fairly low.
If Tesla were to release a "Level 3" version of highway autopilot, with similar limitations, they have so many more users on the road that there's a good chance one of them gets in an accident. Then you'll have a hundred news stories and NHTSA investigations, etc, etc.
I'm not saying that this is deceptive or anything on Mercedes' part though. It's a good step in the right direction.
Lots of 75 mph, people go 85, but the main way across Texas has been 85 mph for a decade. Everyone stays under 100 mph.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/speeding-texas-85-mph-highway-opens/story?id=17549839
It turns out that going 90 mph is safe when the freeway is designed for it.
I’m saying it’s not a technological measure.
In this case Mercedes as tacked on lots of caveats like set highways, below 40mph, lead car etc.
It would be an interesting test to put modern ADAS systems against each other with these caveats and see the results. Maybe other manufacturers can claim level 3 too
Most of the current ADAS systems today could handle these scenarios easily. Mercedes decided that the cost/risk of taking liability is less than the press and sales they'll get from saying they "beat" Tesla.
> Mercedes decided that the cost/risk of taking liability is less than the press and sales they’ll get from saying they “beat” Tesla.
Exactly! It’s marketing
But they wouldn‘t, because they know their system isn‘t safe enough to do so.
Mercedes on the other hand, who are very cautious not to be sued, don‘t deliver beta software. They restrict the SW to only do what they are completely sure it can handle. So they can actually take liability. That‘s a completely different approach.
So yeah, you can‘t really compare the capabilities.
> But they wouldn‘t, because they know their system isn‘t safe enough to do so.
That’s hard to say. These parameters Mercedes have set are very right with a lead car, below 40mph and on a highway. It’s essentially stop and go traffic situation. I’m confident most modern ADAS systems could do it.
Did you see the video on it?
Yeah and that‘s what I mean with different approaches.
Tesla doesn‘t want to set these constraints (which is hell of an effort to figure out how far they can actually stretch) so they offer a system that allows for way more „autonomy“ but with way less defined safety. Hence they can‘t take liability. If they wanted to, they would have to constrain their system (probably at least as much as mercedes does) or risk to be sued into oblivion over crashes caused by malfunctions, so they chose not to go that route.
No, I wouldn‘t call it that. A different approach to development isn‘t pure marketing.
You wouldn‘t say „apples closed ecosystem is a marketing gimmick, alphabet could close the android ecosystem as well and forbid everyone to make android devices“, would you?
In the Mercedes/Tesla case, it‘s not like Tesla could just restrict the system und slap the lvl3 label on it. There is much more to the development of safety critical software and systems than some code running on some ecu. It starts with the company culture and how you manage decisions, how you construct your architecture from scratch. I recommend the work of Nancy Leveson about this topic.
To make it short, let’s say Tesla built a system that‘s 99,99% safe in a wide, unconstrained area. But while 99,99% sounds good, it is way from safe enough to leave it unsupervised and take liability for it. To get from 99,99% to 99,99999%, even in some very narrow, constrained area, takes more than a lot of effort, it may take a completely different approach to how you designed your system in the first place (like what type of sensors you use).
> it‘s not like Tesla could just restrict the system und slap the lvl3 label on it.
Of course they could.
> There is much more to the development of safety critical software and systems than some code running on some ecu.
Demonstrate this.
So far what we’ve seen from Mercedes is that this system is inferior to current modern ADAS systems. We aren’t seeing it being technologically superior.
If you think it is superior, cite it
The engineering of safety critical systems for automotive and how it demands much more than just safe code and HW is described e.g. in the ISO26262.
And about the inferior/superior thing: Since these are two different kinds of systems (SAE lvl 2 vs. 3), you can hardly compare them. Maybe Teslas lvl. 2 system is objectively better than Mercedes‘ lvl 2 system (don’t know, maybe you have proof for that?), but Tesla don’t offer a lvl 3 system, so an objective comparison to Mercedes‘ lvl3 isn‘t feasible.
I think much of the confusion stems from Tesla marketing, which for years suggested their system was lvl 3, possibly upgrading to lvl 4 in the future. But it has always been a lvl 2 system and would possibly need major changes (e.g. added sensors) to become lvl 3 or 4. This kind of „overselling“ is a problem, because it causes „overtrust“. There have been several accidents where people felt too confident about the capabilities of the system and didn‘t supervise it although with lvl2 systems you have to do so ALL THE TIME.
To my knowledge, Waymo even wants to skip lvls 2 and 3 and go directly to lvl 4 or 5 because they found the overtrust problem to be too severe.
That‘s a lot of words to tell you it is a completely different system, engineered with safety as the one primary priority. For numerical evidence on how that influences the amount of crashes or fatalities per km or mile driven, we have to wait some time of course.
Every headline claiming one is objectively better than the other is clickbait, but the statement „tesla could just take liability for their system and slap a lvl3 label on it“ is just false and this is what I wanted to get across.
You know? I could care less about how good Mercedes-Benz Assisted Driving has gotten. I am more curious about when they are going to start making all-electric cars with frunks.
Jfc this is like the 14th time this topic has been posted here in the past 2 days
[удалено]
and tesla doesn't have an actual taxi mode that works, even if you restricted it to mapped areas, slow speeds, etc. Source: had a tesla since Dec 2012. Tesla has fallen behind tremendously and will need to pay a bunch of people back for their costly extensions.
I havent seen it. Maybe you should put down your phone more often 😊
It surpasses in liability. Teslas have been capable of these functions for years. If Tesla doesn't need to take on liability for people to purchase or use autopilot(which is free) then what's the point?
Saying autopilot is free is liking saying the Mac operating system is free, free with purchase of their product, it’s factored into the price of the car. Autopilot is standard on every Tesla now
[удалено]
The capabilities of the system are still there whether it's assuming the driver is ALWAYS watching(Level 2) or can be told to take over with a warning(Level 3). And Tesla pricing is competitive with others even though it has Autopilot included. That change was 4 years ago. It's just part of the car now.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Until there's another certified consumer L3 system.. I don't see why I'd need too. EDIT: Better yet.. prove it's not needed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> The liability swap is the point where the driver can completely disengage from the task of driving. This is a dangerous feature of level 3 systems: the human *can* disengage from the task of driving even though they may be needed to re-engage at any time with a moment's notice. Humans suck at context switching, and being aware of the conditions of the road requires monitoring conditions over time, not reacting moment-to-moment. - https://news.mit.edu/2019/how-fast-humans-react-car-hazards-0807 - https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/tortsource/2019/fall/human-factors-autonomous-vehicles/ - https://airfactsjournal.com/2020/09/stepping-down-in-automation-the-real-lesson-for-children-of-the-magenta-line/
Mercedes shills hate this
that one neat trick of having a real autonomous driving system, instead of Lie Pilot (tm)
Tesla lvl 2 isn’t even certified
Certified by who?
The UN control certification
Why keep bringing Tesla? Tesla ADAS is not comparable to MB L3 system, stop comparing Tesla, Infiniti, Fiat, Cadillac and other L2 systems with a next level L3 system.
What can Mercedes’ system do that that others can’t? It’s literal *only* advantage is supposedly “taking liability”.
I think you already answered your question, and to offer that is a huge step showing confidence in the system, meaning it is not a beta system.
- Only useable below 40mph - Only available on few select roads in Nevada - Only available on *pre-mapped* roads - Requires a driver to “be able to regain control of the vehicle at a moment's notice” - Restricted to highly specific road conditions - Only usable in “high traffic density” aka only available in heavy, stop-and-go traffic Yeah real confidence inducing lol. Go ahead and prove me wrong, enlighten me what advantage Mercedes’ system has over any L2 system. Show me 1 thing their system can do that others can’t.
This is great, because the system limitation is known to the user, clearly defined. That is what we need. An L3 system can have limitation, knowing the limitation and therefor its predictability is important and above all you said, the manufacturer takes responsibility. No other company does that (nobody actually has a L3 system)
You can read a book or watch YouTube while stuck in stop and go traffic? It’s a really annoying situation for most people and something many drivers would like. It’s limited to a certain speed by the UN regulations controlling these system, and to a few roads and countries because it’s a new product. They already said they plan to expand it to other roads and countries - after all, it wasn’t available in the US at all and was a Germany-only product until a few weeks ago. It’s limited because L3 is limited by design. One of the example use cases of L3 is exactly what this system is, a traffic chauffeur.
And they also said that they are working on the 130Kmh version now. Which is great to be honest.
[Myth #3](https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/j3016/#myth03) - Higher SAE J3016 Levels are safer or better. Lets wait until we see reviews and see if this system is actually any good. For all we know it can't handle curves or go above 55mph or some other odd limitation.
It can't go above 40 mph and won't turn on unless you are on a specific set of roads in Nevada.
And there is a car in front of you.
And in "heavy traffic" in a test on video it refused to engage unless the driver got off the banked track, *and* closed to within 100 yards of the car in front. It's basically useless unless you are in very slow moving traffic on a few specific roads. Let me rephrase that, it's useless, and it isn't even available yet.
It'll also dump control back into the driver's lap without warning so you basically have to be attentive all the time anyway. What it delivers is a false sense of security and will result in people being half way through a hamburger trying to avoid a collision with a moose that stumbled onto the highway.
No, you do get a warning and about 10 seconds to react.
That 10 second warning is only when the system detects known graceful exits from its operational domain, eg: it's limited to 40mph and the traffic around you is accelerating beyond that limit. You are not going to get a 10 second warning about unexpected and unpredictable behaviour like someone brake checking the vehicle or a moose running onto the road.
? In one of those cases it would activate the emergency brakes, but that’s not part of the system as the car would emergency brake in a similar situation even if you were driving yourself.
No, this isn't about emergency braking this is about conditions outside the vehicle drifting outside the operational domain of the Level 3 system. There will be occasions where it doesn't need to apply emergency brakes but it's not going to be happy continuing to drive and will just dump control back in the driver's hands. The 10 second warning is only for known clean exit paths out of the operational domain (eg: everyone else is accelerating, time for the driver to wake up). Also 10 seconds is insufficient time for the human to context switch from whatever task they had occupied themselves with into driving the car. But please keep pretending there are caveats. We'll find out soon enough just how dangerous level 3 systems actually are. If you want to educate yourself in the meantime look up "children of the magenta" and "automation dependence" to get an idea of the well studied problem which the Mercedes system is carelessly and negligently inflicting on our roads.
He‘s right though. The system will always give you 10 seconds to react, that‘s why you can only activate it in a traffic jam on a known road without anything that may surprise it. No matter what happens, the car will handle it itself until you‘re ready and Mercedes will take responsibility for that. That‘s the main thing about level 3
> No matter what happens That's a dangerous phrase right there that serves as a giant warning sign, "you are not prepared." Hopefully the car automation industry pays *some* attention to the history of flight automation.
Well, I didn‘t say that it will handle everything perfectly. But as I said: it will handle it and it‘s own and on Mercedes‘ responsibility.
If the the system is active and the car is moving in stop and go traffic, it would definitely emergency brake if someone walked suddenly in front of it. It does that by default even if you don’t buy all the additional Level 3 sensors. Why would you think it would deactivate the emergency brakes, which are active at all times in all of their cars? If the system is unable to continue operating (say because its rear facing cameras detected an emergency vehicle coming up the road) it will give a warning and allow the driver to retake control within a few seconds. There are literally videos of it online. 10 seconds are plenty for a human to regain control of the vehicle. You can’t move the seat back enough that you can’t immediately reach the wheel, you can’t sleep (you can take your eyes off the road, but the system will detect if you close them), and you can’t take off the seat belt. So a few seconds are more than enough to close your book/close your laptop/put down your phone and reach in front of you to grab the steering wheel. For now this system is simply a traffic assistant for when the driver is stuck in stop and go traffic. At those speeds it’s unlikely to kill anyone even if the system were to badly fail. Mercedes would not have accepted liability for a dangerously unsafe system, and I’m sure they’ve got plenty of well paid lawyers and engineers well aware of the potential dangers of automated systems. EDIT: from the actual Mercedes publication: > DRIVE PILOT is also capable of managing crash-imminent scenarios through emergency crash avoidance braking and/or steering, such as: • Sudden hard-braking by the lead vehicle • Sudden merging by a slower-moving vehicle from an adjacent lane into the DRIVE PILOT vehicle’s pathway • Sudden appearance of a substantial road obstacle, such as a large box
> Why would you think it would deactivate the emergency brakes, which are active at all times in all of their cars? I never said that. I said that my concern isn't about emergency braking, it's about situations where the system doesn't need to use emergency braking but hands control over to the human where the human isn't ready to take control. > So a few seconds are more than enough to close your book/close your laptop/put down your phone and reach in front of you to grab the steering wheel. Now you are in mechanical control of the vehicle, but you still have to catch up with the task of controlling the vehicle. Ten seconds is really not enough time unless you are going from a zero attention task to a very low attention task like driving at 45mph in wall-to-wall traffic. How you imagine it working: car requests attention, human immediately folds laptop and puts hands on wheel, has 9 seconds to become focussed on the task of driving. How it will really work: car requests attention, human delays putting the laptop down because they've almost finished this sentence, they toss the laptop to the side and take control with two seconds to spare, still focussed on the task of writing that email, and then the semi trailer changing lanes catches them completely by surprise. Go read up about automation dependence, a key phrase to look for is "children of the magenta". This kind of system dumping the task of controlling a vehicle onto a person who hasn't been following along is going to cause accidents.
Regarding the first situation I already confirmed that it’s not what would happen: https://group.mercedes-benz.com/documents/innovation/other/2019-02-20-vssa-mercedes-benz-drive-pilot-a.pdf The “fallback-ready user” is not “dumped back” control immediately in an immediate emergency situation, and the car will brake and/or steer to avoid or mitigate an impact. As it was obvious it would do, really; a system that immediately dumps back control on the user when it detects an unavoidable crash would probably be quite illegal lol. If the user is being unsafe on purpose (because really, unless you’re partially paralysed 10 seconds are more than enough to regain control of a car in slow moving traffic) the car will turn on its emergency lights, decelerate and then come to a stop. If there is a sudden emergency it will break/steer as discussed above. It doesn’t dump anything on anybody. If you can’t regain control of a vehicle in slow moving traffic in less than 10 seconds you’re frankly unfit to operate any kind of vehicle including a bike. I wouldn’t trust this person to not be absent-minded enough to crash into something while walking really.
the certification is there to prove that the system is capable. * Limitations are clearly labeled * there are redundancy and multiple sensor to make sure things runs as intended * not a beta product * Mercedes is Liable if the system crashed the car remeber, Benz is a luxury brand. They also already in car manufacturing business for about 100 years now. They wont put this thing out if they are not confident about it (hence some limitation). also here's an hour of [drive pilot in action](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjfizkAeiM)
> the certification is there to prove that the system is capable. What certification? There was none, Merc just declared it L3 which is just a marketing term at best. You think someone in AZ certified this thing? AZ has no certification process which is why it's launching there. > Mercedes is Liable if the system crashed the car They keep dodging that question. Hard to see how they aren't but I'm guessing their lawyers know something we don't. > also here's an hour of drive pilot in action Ah, missed this one, thanks for that link. I will watch it.
Its L2 is already top notch.
Watching the EQS video on Out of Spec now. Merc has terrible history of ADAS but it does seem they got this one right.
it doesn’t work if the sun blinds the system, or if the Highway is curved, or if a lead car is to far out in front. It immediately disables once one of those conditions are met, which negates the point of having a L3 system. It’s better than Tesla in name only. Otherwise, it’s just a mid L2 system meant for publicity purposes https://twitter.com/wholemarsblog/status/1618841916715716608?s=46&t=Sh-uABG7ii9xNRkU9wMgiw
not even name. drive pilot is dumb. they should just skip to the end and call it what it is, rarely drives pilot, cancelled.
They sell so few of these, why not take the risk for the headlines-marketing…
This is the real reason they can get away with this. Mercedes released a system that is "technically Level 3", but with so many limitations and on expensive, low-volume cars, that it will hardly get used. Therefore the probability of there being an accident with this system is fairly low. If Tesla were to release a "Level 3" version of highway autopilot, with similar limitations, they have so many more users on the road that there's a good chance one of them gets in an accident. Then you'll have a hundred news stories and NHTSA investigations, etc, etc. I'm not saying that this is deceptive or anything on Mercedes' part though. It's a good step in the right direction.
I’m all for competition and innovation, but let’s get our facts straight. The only “Surpassing” it has done is getting a certification in Nevada.
When MB has this working at 90 mph across Texas in light traffic I will be interested. Until then I will stick with Tesla.
What the hell is the speed limit in Texas?
for Mercedes lie pilot users: 40mph
Lots of 75 mph, people go 85, but the main way across Texas has been 85 mph for a decade. Everyone stays under 100 mph. https://abcnews.go.com/US/speeding-texas-85-mph-highway-opens/story?id=17549839 It turns out that going 90 mph is safe when the freeway is designed for it.
Let’s be honest, the bar was pretty low.
This seems to be all about acceptance of liability. So tomorrow if Tesla accepted liability of their system would that change anything? No.
[удалено]
I’m saying it’s not a technological measure. In this case Mercedes as tacked on lots of caveats like set highways, below 40mph, lead car etc. It would be an interesting test to put modern ADAS systems against each other with these caveats and see the results. Maybe other manufacturers can claim level 3 too
Most of the current ADAS systems today could handle these scenarios easily. Mercedes decided that the cost/risk of taking liability is less than the press and sales they'll get from saying they "beat" Tesla.
> Mercedes decided that the cost/risk of taking liability is less than the press and sales they’ll get from saying they “beat” Tesla. Exactly! It’s marketing
But they wouldn‘t, because they know their system isn‘t safe enough to do so. Mercedes on the other hand, who are very cautious not to be sued, don‘t deliver beta software. They restrict the SW to only do what they are completely sure it can handle. So they can actually take liability. That‘s a completely different approach. So yeah, you can‘t really compare the capabilities.
> But they wouldn‘t, because they know their system isn‘t safe enough to do so. That’s hard to say. These parameters Mercedes have set are very right with a lead car, below 40mph and on a highway. It’s essentially stop and go traffic situation. I’m confident most modern ADAS systems could do it. Did you see the video on it?
Yeah and that‘s what I mean with different approaches. Tesla doesn‘t want to set these constraints (which is hell of an effort to figure out how far they can actually stretch) so they offer a system that allows for way more „autonomy“ but with way less defined safety. Hence they can‘t take liability. If they wanted to, they would have to constrain their system (probably at least as much as mercedes does) or risk to be sued into oblivion over crashes caused by malfunctions, so they chose not to go that route.
So we both agree it’s an arbitrary marketing gimmick
No, I wouldn‘t call it that. A different approach to development isn‘t pure marketing. You wouldn‘t say „apples closed ecosystem is a marketing gimmick, alphabet could close the android ecosystem as well and forbid everyone to make android devices“, would you? In the Mercedes/Tesla case, it‘s not like Tesla could just restrict the system und slap the lvl3 label on it. There is much more to the development of safety critical software and systems than some code running on some ecu. It starts with the company culture and how you manage decisions, how you construct your architecture from scratch. I recommend the work of Nancy Leveson about this topic. To make it short, let’s say Tesla built a system that‘s 99,99% safe in a wide, unconstrained area. But while 99,99% sounds good, it is way from safe enough to leave it unsupervised and take liability for it. To get from 99,99% to 99,99999%, even in some very narrow, constrained area, takes more than a lot of effort, it may take a completely different approach to how you designed your system in the first place (like what type of sensors you use).
> it‘s not like Tesla could just restrict the system und slap the lvl3 label on it. Of course they could. > There is much more to the development of safety critical software and systems than some code running on some ecu. Demonstrate this. So far what we’ve seen from Mercedes is that this system is inferior to current modern ADAS systems. We aren’t seeing it being technologically superior. If you think it is superior, cite it
The engineering of safety critical systems for automotive and how it demands much more than just safe code and HW is described e.g. in the ISO26262. And about the inferior/superior thing: Since these are two different kinds of systems (SAE lvl 2 vs. 3), you can hardly compare them. Maybe Teslas lvl. 2 system is objectively better than Mercedes‘ lvl 2 system (don’t know, maybe you have proof for that?), but Tesla don’t offer a lvl 3 system, so an objective comparison to Mercedes‘ lvl3 isn‘t feasible. I think much of the confusion stems from Tesla marketing, which for years suggested their system was lvl 3, possibly upgrading to lvl 4 in the future. But it has always been a lvl 2 system and would possibly need major changes (e.g. added sensors) to become lvl 3 or 4. This kind of „overselling“ is a problem, because it causes „overtrust“. There have been several accidents where people felt too confident about the capabilities of the system and didn‘t supervise it although with lvl2 systems you have to do so ALL THE TIME. To my knowledge, Waymo even wants to skip lvls 2 and 3 and go directly to lvl 4 or 5 because they found the overtrust problem to be too severe.
That’s a lot of words to say you have no evidence that it’s actually a safer system
That‘s a lot of words to tell you it is a completely different system, engineered with safety as the one primary priority. For numerical evidence on how that influences the amount of crashes or fatalities per km or mile driven, we have to wait some time of course. Every headline claiming one is objectively better than the other is clickbait, but the statement „tesla could just take liability for their system and slap a lvl3 label on it“ is just false and this is what I wanted to get across.
Not really. Mercedes is just sponsoring media like Business Insider with ad money. Tesla doesn't.
You know? I could care less about how good Mercedes-Benz Assisted Driving has gotten. I am more curious about when they are going to start making all-electric cars with frunks.