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

Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

jalopnik.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 197 posts

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#81

Post by terminous »

idopmstuff wrote: post #62
nixass wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surprised to learn it's not tesla Actually anyone even slightly interested in automotive industry isn't surprised by this. Tesla's tech is all smoke and mirrors for years now

I find this to be such a weird take - I just drove from San Diego -> LA with my Tesla doing 90+% of the freeway driving (I only have the free autosteer, so I have to handle exits, etc.). I have been in multiple rides through SF in friends' Teslas where they did not have to intervene at any point. Is Tesla FSD ready to replace human drivers? It is not. Is it smoke and mirrors? No - there is a mountain of evidence that…

So does my Toyota RAV4.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#82

Post by tveita »

vic-traill wrote: post #19
takumo wrote: post #8

I think this idea makes some sense, in a mixed-traffic world where some vehicles are autonomous and others are not, some indication that a vehicle is driving autonomously is useful information to everyone around them. Additional situational information, provided it is not overly intrusive or overwhelming is generally beneficial. As for the colour, clearly Mercedes requested Turquoise for brand reasons. I wonder if th…

> some indication that a vehicle is driving autonomously is useful information to everyone around them I'm genuinely curious - what are you thinking when you say this? I don't know what I'd do with that information. It shouldn't make me drive differently - e.g. not be aggressive to see if I can invoke reaction(s) in the autonomous system, and I should already be driving w/ due care.

I assume you would drive differently if you noticed the driver you were overtaking was looking at their phone and their hands were not on the wheel?

Like the article hints at, a true self driving car lets the driver behave in ways that would normally be reckless and illegal. Best to avoid ambiguity.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#83

Post by coffeebeqn »

vic-traill wrote: post #19
takumo wrote: post #8

I think this idea makes some sense, in a mixed-traffic world where some vehicles are autonomous and others are not, some indication that a vehicle is driving autonomously is useful information to everyone around them. Additional situational information, provided it is not overly intrusive or overwhelming is generally beneficial. As for the colour, clearly Mercedes requested Turquoise for brand reasons. I wonder if th…

> some indication that a vehicle is driving autonomously is useful information to everyone around them I'm genuinely curious - what are you thinking when you say this? I don't know what I'd do with that information. It shouldn't make me drive differently - e.g. not be aggressive to see if I can invoke reaction(s) in the autonomous system, and I should already be driving w/ due care.

If they get deadlocked in a intersection or something and can’t make a decision I know I should go around them

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#86

Post by gruez »

gcr wrote: post #61
gruez wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? All the recorded telemetry is going to show up in discovery anyways

What do you mean “why”? Storing additional telemetry helps Mercedes to show whether Drive Pilot or the opposing driver is at fault for accidents

The OP said

>which will make it far easier for Mercedes to prove that you’re at fault than you to do the opposite.

which implied the telemetry collected had some sort of asymmetry in the evidence (ie. it helps prove Mercedes was at fault more than it helps prove the other driver was at fault)

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#87

Post by gurchik »

edgyquant wrote: post #85
gurchik wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

I did a search for the phrase because I was also curious what it meant and hadn’t heard it before, but found your original question on the first page of the search results.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#88

Post by dylan604 »

vic-traill wrote: post #19
takumo wrote: post #8

I think this idea makes some sense, in a mixed-traffic world where some vehicles are autonomous and others are not, some indication that a vehicle is driving autonomously is useful information to everyone around them. Additional situational information, provided it is not overly intrusive or overwhelming is generally beneficial. As for the colour, clearly Mercedes requested Turquoise for brand reasons. I wonder if th…

> some indication that a vehicle is driving autonomously is useful information to everyone around them I'm genuinely curious - what are you thinking when you say this? I don't know what I'd do with that information. It shouldn't make me drive differently - e.g. not be aggressive to see if I can invoke reaction(s) in the autonomous system, and I should already be driving w/ due care.

For the same reason they have the signs that say Student Driver. It lets everyone else know that this car might do something totally unexpected as the car is being controlled by a totally inexperienced operator.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#89

Post by idopmstuff »

School-Cotton wrote: post #73
idopmstuff wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this to be such a weird take - I just drove from San Diego -> LA with my Tesla doing 90+% of the freeway driving (I only have the free autosteer, so I have to handle exits, etc.). I have been in multiple rides through SF in friends' Teslas where they did not have to intervene at any point. Is Tesla FSD ready to replace human drivers? It is not. Is it smoke and mirrors? No - there is a mountain of evidence that…

If you still have to keep your hands on the wheel, can’t watch movies or read books, etc., what is even the point?

I've made a lot of long freeway drives, and for me, even though I have to keep my eyes on the road, it's much more relaxing when the car does it. I arrive to my destination feeling much less exhausted from the drive.

Anyway, that doesn't really have anything to do with the original post - all I was saying was that it is a functional product and that it's just incorrect to call it smoke and mirrors.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#90

Post by idopmstuff »

bombcar wrote: post #64
idopmstuff wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this to be such a weird take - I just drove from San Diego -> LA with my Tesla doing 90+% of the freeway driving (I only have the free autosteer, so I have to handle exits, etc.). I have been in multiple rides through SF in friends' Teslas where they did not have to intervene at any point. Is Tesla FSD ready to replace human drivers? It is not. Is it smoke and mirrors? No - there is a mountain of evidence that…

Many cars have autosteer at that level, once my silly minivan is on the freeway it can lane follow and adaptive cruise can go down to zero if necessary, and knows the speed limit and adjusts as necessary.

Putting aside the fact that you ignored the second half of what I said, that doesn't really change the point - the post I was responding to said Tesla's tech is smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrors means fakery. It means it's a thing that fundamentally does not work, and tricks are used to make it appear as though it does.

My response was simply to point out that it is wrong to say it is smoke and mirrors (or I would be dead in a high speed car crash instead of writing this).

Post reply on HN