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

121–130 of 197 posts

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#121

Post by pas »

data-ottawa wrote: post #108

As mentioned in the previous thread, I'm not pleased with this colour. For red-green colourblind people (both types), this colour is at the neutral point where both available cones are saturated and the brain can't differentiate it from white light. In their study paper they used a much more blue turquoise, decided it was confusing, and then moved it to a more green version (thus saturating the non-blue cone for dich…

what would be a better alternative color?

to me the placement seems substantially different from the reversing light (which is usually more toward the middle of the back)

of course these pictures probably don't tell much about how it will actually look like in traffic, but some kind of pattern seems to be the way to go (that's recognizable from 2-3 cars afar in a traffic jam, for example if folks are curious WTF that particular car is doing, why is it stopped or going slow)

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#123

Post by oooyay »

trimbo wrote: post #116
vic-traill wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'm genuinely curious - what are you thinking when you say this? As a pedestrian, I always try to make eye contact with drivers before crossing in front of them. It would be nice to know that the car is doing the driving.

I do this on my bike in the city. I used to have so many scary incidents until I started doing this. It's funny how differently people treat you when they look you in the eyes.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#124

Post by greggsy »

data-ottawa wrote: post #108

As mentioned in the previous thread, I'm not pleased with this colour. For red-green colourblind people (both types), this colour is at the neutral point where both available cones are saturated and the brain can't differentiate it from white light. In their study paper they used a much more blue turquoise, decided it was confusing, and then moved it to a more green version (thus saturating the non-blue cone for dich…

In Australia, cars have red rear lights on at all times, so it’s easy to distinguish a reversing car or a headlight.

Also, aren’t all cars now required to have front on driving lights in most jurisdictions, separate to headlights?

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#125

Post by delecti »

nerdponx wrote: post #48
aaomidi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s literally there so cops etc don’t pull you over for watching a movie while driving.

They should still pull you over for that. Pilot's don't get to watch an in-flight movie just because autopilot is on.

The legality of a pilot watching a movie is irrelevant to the discussion. It's legal for the person in the driver's seat to watch a movie with Mercedes' level 3 "Drive Pilot" active (in certain locations). A cop pulling you over is only wasting the time of everyone involved.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#126

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

simondotau wrote: post #16

An autonomous driving system is either good enough to drive on our roads without supervision — or it's not. If it is good enough, it shouldn't matter whether others know if the driver isn't human. Any unsupervised driving system is likely to be around two orders of magnitude safer than a human driver.[0] So effectively they're special lights to tell others that a car is extremely safe. This will backfire horribly. Wh…

> these lights will signal to human drivers and pedestrians that this vehicle can be bullied with impunity, and with no risk of angry retaliation. Human drivers will cut in front of them mercilessly. Pedestrians will step onto the road in front of them.

The risk of angry retaliation is identical to what we have already. The driver of this car can just take manual control at any time and react as they would in a non-AV.

If what you're claiming is true, the behaviors you're describing would already be common with traditional cars.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#127

Post by justsomehnguy »

1920musicman wrote: post #118
treypitt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's tough when you dogmatically refuse to use lidar! For Elmo, since the human eye doesn't have lidar, camera arrays are sufficient to achieve L3

I know almost nothing about cars and so assumed LiDAR sensors are just prohibitively expensive for Tesla to install in every car. But then years later I learned that every modern iPhone has a LiDAR camera. Still don't know how to think about this - how is it possible for a phone to have LiDAR (barely utilized) but it's too expensive to have them in such a critical setup as an autonomous vehicle.

> how is it possible for a phone to have LiDAR

Just like you can have a 50MP camera sensor in the phone: it works? Sure. Is it sufficient to capture the Moon (heh) or something 50-100 meters from you? Not at the quality and performance of professional equipment.

Sure, you can have a matrix of iPhone LIDARs but whould they works at sufficient speed, accuracy, at +40C, at -35?

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#128

Post by toast0 »

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've driven near Waymo vehicles, which are distinctive. Their behavior is quite a bit from the norm, and I'll make more room for them if they signal a lane change, because they wait for an engraved invitation before coming over. And if behind one, I know they won't use the shoulder to get to an offramp, so I'll need to be more patient, if we're both heading to the same exit on a congested freeway. Etc.

Being able to distinguish between a mercedes driven by a mercedes driver and one driven by a mercedes automation is going to help predict behavior of the car. Of course, one needs to be ready for anything, but when I can predict behavior of other cars, it increases my planning window.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#129

Post by pvaldes »

nottorp wrote: post #25

What's turquoise? I know about 8 colour names and that ain't one of them.

Is a color named by the gemstone called turquoise. A particular shade of blue-green provided by copper. Can vary from light blue with a hint of green to jade green mixed with blue. Easily recognizable once you see it.

In this context it means basically light cyan. A much less marketable name.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#130

Post by idopmstuff »

zemvpferreira wrote: post #97
idopmstuff wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's smoke and mirrors to call it anything close (or a path to) Full Self Driving. If Tesla called their tech Pretty Decent Autosteer no one would accuse them of lying. But they don't. And I suspect that's why you're getting downvoted as well.

You're moving the goalposts substantially from the original claim, which was "Tesla's tech is all smoke and mirrors for years now."

It is certainly misleading to call it Full Self Driving - no argument there at all. It's also wrong to call all of Tesla's tech for the last however many years fakery.

Post reply on HN