Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

insideevs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 283 posts

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#251

Post by Koemul »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #244
tialaramex wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even your Level 5 domain is dubious as I've written before. Jim would drive in a blizzard, some Level 5 car refuses to drive in a blizzard. Is the car faulty by this definition or is Jim a lunatic ? I think it's probably Jim. I think Level 4 is clearer because it's closer to public transit. Somebody else (the machine) is driving, so if I'm day dreaming, or indeed asleep, nothing bad happens. I can listen to tunes, ha…

> As I understand it, there's no reason you'd need a Driving License to ride in a Waymo for example. Waymo is driving, you're in the back like a cab, why would you need a license? You "need" a license and insurance because Waymo and other self-driving companies will never ever allow a scenario where they're liable for accidents. They'll move heaven and earth to prevent it.

Do you have any source that you need a license and insurance to ride with a Waymo car?

Because according to the Waymo One public service rules [1] you need to be 18 or older to use the app and order a Waymo, but they don't mention anything about requiring a license or insurance.

It would also be a weird requirement, since you sit in the back and couldn't control the car even if you wanted to.

[1] https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/9197501?hl=en

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#252

Post by Dylan16807 »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #244
tialaramex wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even your Level 5 domain is dubious as I've written before. Jim would drive in a blizzard, some Level 5 car refuses to drive in a blizzard. Is the car faulty by this definition or is Jim a lunatic ? I think it's probably Jim. I think Level 4 is clearer because it's closer to public transit. Somebody else (the machine) is driving, so if I'm day dreaming, or indeed asleep, nothing bad happens. I can listen to tunes, ha…

> As I understand it, there's no reason you'd need a Driving License to ride in a Waymo for example. Waymo is driving, you're in the back like a cab, why would you need a license? You "need" a license and insurance because Waymo and other self-driving companies will never ever allow a scenario where they're liable for accidents. They'll move heaven and earth to prevent it.

> “From our perspective at Waymo, a Level 4 vehicle is a vehicle in which you can put a rider who doesn't have a driver’s license or vision and they could move from point A to point B,” Krafcik said. “If you need a driver’s license, you can’t call it self-driving.”

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#253

Post by nullish_signal »

pySSK wrote: post #36
nullish_signal wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elaborate? The demo of a Pig on a Treadmill, with accurate predictions of Joint Locations, was very impressive to me.

That has existed in academia for 10-20 years. The only thing different is the marketing + the move fast break things ethos both of which are typically frowned upon in academia.

Again, I would appreciate some Links, Product Names, and Elaboration.

I'm a Video Gamer, not a Bio-Electrician Researcher aware of the past 3 Decades of Cutting Edge Technologies.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#254

Post by jmole »

oblio wrote: post #101
jmole wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying a major car company is buying a whole heap of liabilities and depreciating assets. The major value drivers (contributors to market cap) are brand, patent portfolio, and future revenues from existing capex. Tesla doesn't want to support the supply chain of new and used parts for a legacy car company, they can barely keep up with their own (and they only make 4 models!).

> legacy car company Let's drop the BS, please. Mercedes is a car company. They are not legacy anything. They're the inventor of the car and a myriad other innovations. They're making a ton of EVs and will sell a ton more next year and the year after that. They have AR navigation and now are close to L3 self driving.

“Legacy” is not a pejorative term, it’s descriptive. They have a dealer network. They have a parts counter. Their operations are the result of a 120 year legacy. Their valuation is based on longstanding economics of the automobile industry.

I’m saying all this to draw a comparison against Tesla. Tesla doesn’t want a dealer network, or a parts counter, or a typical car company valuation. Buying a legacy car company is not in Tesla’s interest, because they don’t want to play by the rules (unwritten or written) that every other auto manufacturer plays by.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#255

Post by oblio »

jmole wrote: post #254
oblio wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> legacy car company Let's drop the BS, please. Mercedes is a car company. They are not legacy anything. They're the inventor of the car and a myriad other innovations. They're making a ton of EVs and will sell a ton more next year and the year after that. They have AR navigation and now are close to L3 self driving.

“Legacy” is not a pejorative term, it’s descriptive. They have a dealer network. They have a parts counter. Their operations are the result of a 120 year legacy. Their valuation is based on longstanding economics of the automobile industry. I’m saying all this to draw a comparison against Tesla. Tesla doesn’t want a dealer network, or a parts counter, or a typical car company valuation. Buying a legacy car company is…

> “Legacy” is not a pejorative term, it’s descriptive.

99% of the time I see "legacy" used for established car companies is when it's an article or comment about Tesla.

And it is meant as a pejorative.

Maybe you're the exception:-)

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#256

Post by judge2020 »

idiotsecant wrote: post #243
TacticalCoder wrote: post #203

I drive a lot and I don't know if I'm crazy or not but instead of a car which can "mostly self drive but which I must watch at all times for something could wrong", I want instead a car that watches me while I drive and which prevents me from making most dangerous things. Rephrasing it: I don't want to be the one preventing the car from doing stupid things. I want the car to be preventing me from doing stupid things.…

I agree, but I am quite cautious of technology which prevents me from doing something and much more comfortable with and welcoming of technology that informs me that I'm doing something unsafe, so that I can not do that thing. There is a post going around just this morning about a Tesla that stopped itself on a major bridge in San Diego and caused a huge accident and pileup. I don't want technology that has the abili…

> There is a post going around just this morning about a Tesla that stopped itself on a major bridge in San Diego and caused a huge accident and pileup. I don't want technology that has the ability to take action like that on it's own. I don't trust it's decision making enough for that

There is still almost no information on this crash, probably because Tesla HQ stopped Elon from writing blog posts to put the record straight on PR-harming issues [0]. The fact of the matter is that the person was not using "Full Self-Driving Beta", given it does not activate on highways yet; the only real possibility is Enhanced Autopilot, ie. the driver hit the left turn stalk, the car moved over for them, and it detected a stopped car in front of it, either triggering the AEB system (which can slam on the brakes completely independently from every other system) or TACC detected a car and came to a safe stop as if the traffic in that lane was already stopped.

My guess is confused pedals or both pedals being depressed at the same time, since the accelerator will not spin the tires if you're on the brake whatsoever.

0: https://www.tesla.com/blog/not-so-revealing-story

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#257

Post by lamontcg »

ricardobayes wrote: post #140
ahartmetz wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of like it, it's moving away from the overly aggressive looking style of most modern cars. Maybe we can have cars for adults again instead of these Transformers-style designs. A shape that is fit for purpose (aerodynamic) is part of that. BMW and Mercedes switch places periodically in technical and design leadership, and I think it's Mercedes's time. BMW has been going off the rails recently...

As a kid I remember standing in ave when a new car came out, very few cars have that effect anymore (on me). New car design generally is pretty meh nowadays. Seems mid-2000s leading up to 2014-15 was peak.

Incorrect. The 1984-1991 Ferrari Testarossa was the peak. Source: poster in my bedroom.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#258

Post by JadoJodo »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #203

I drive a lot and I don't know if I'm crazy or not but instead of a car which can "mostly self drive but which I must watch at all times for something could wrong", I want instead a car that watches me while I drive and which prevents me from making most dangerous things. Rephrasing it: I don't want to be the one preventing the car from doing stupid things. I want the car to be preventing me from doing stupid things.…

I agree. It would be like an “easy bake oven” that guarantees either a perfectly baked cake, with no user input required, or your entire house burnt to the ground in a fiery explosion. I’d rather just watch it myself

This is why I think the only direction in which this can all be headed is “human roads” and “robot roads”. When the robot cars all start talking to each other/the road 100,000x/second, there won’t be a need for traffic lights, and so anytime an accident happens, it will be because of a human.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#259

Post by neuralRiot »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #203

I drive a lot and I don't know if I'm crazy or not but instead of a car which can "mostly self drive but which I must watch at all times for something could wrong", I want instead a car that watches me while I drive and which prevents me from making most dangerous things. Rephrasing it: I don't want to be the one preventing the car from doing stupid things. I want the car to be preventing me from doing stupid things.…

The more assistance drivers get, the less attention they pay to the road, and the safer people perceive something to be, the more likely to take risks.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#260

Post by bsder »

piva00 wrote: post #163
bsder wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be very nice to be able to "link" my electric car into a convoy of other electric cars at say "San Diego" and allow the system to take said convoy to somewhere in "Los Angeles" and reassert control. This would solve a lot of the "last mile" problems that we currently have with train stations in the US (need to park at one terminus, need to get picked up at the other, can't deal with accidents on rails, etc.)…

It'd be even nicer to have investments in public transport infrastructure to allow large population centers to not depend on cars for the majority of A to B trips. The problems of last mile train stations in the US are completely self-inflicted, to cater for the current status quo of car-centric development, you don't need massive parking lots in central train stations for the majority of big population centres in Eu…

> It'd be even nicer to have investments in public transport infrastructure to allow large population centers to not depend on cars for the majority of A to B trips.

Your suggestion requires that we demolish and redo entire swathes of cities before we would gain any benefits. My suggestion can be implemented piecemeal on specific corridors and start gaining benefits immediately.

Path dependence is a thing. Political will is finite with short time horizons. Something which can be implemented piecemeal is less optimal but more likely to gain enough momentum to deliver real benefits.

Post reply on HN