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

171–180 of 197 posts

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#171

Post by manquer »

thelastgallon wrote: post #166
flutas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah Currently - Only in CA and NV - Only below 40mph - Only on specifically mapped freeways ("only available on freeways that have been mapped by Mercedes") - There MUST be a vehicle in front of your car - "reasonable road conditions with readable markings and lines" - "clear weather" - Daytime only ("Drive Pilot can’t be used at night or in the rain, and the headlights and wipers must be set to auto for it to work.…

(daytime + clear weather + reasonable road conditions + vehicle in front) AND (mapped freeways + CA/NV + below 40mph) So... That rules out nearly all driving, probably usable for 0.1% of driving.

that covers like 90% of commute and bulk of my weekly driving time and miles for me and I would say it is true lot of Bay Area driving commuters who take something like the 101 or 880 to work . I would expect 405 say in LA etc have similar conditions .

It is not solving a pain point for you and others I understand but for the BMW sedan target demographic I think has a good overlap to these conditions to their typical usage

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#172

Post by simondotau »

hasmolo wrote: post #63
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…

what does this fear come from? the logic doesn’t hold up with any automated mass transit i’ve seen. why aren’t people standing on the train lines at airports? why aren’t people trying to hit the distribution robots in Japans airports? do you really think there’s a future where people in ‘rough neighborhoods’ (this is very poorly hidden classism/racism) where they are jumping out in front of cars? there’s very little…

> what does this fear come from?

For starters, dash cam footage of how drivers and pedestrians are willing to interact with vehicles with human drivers. If that's what they're willing to do when it's an unpredictable human in control, I can only imagine what they'll do when it's an extremely predictable computer in control.

> people in ‘rough neighborhoods’ (this is very poorly hidden classism/racism)

I think it's racist to assume that rough areas implicitly means a different racial demographics. That might be the case in your country, but it isn't in mine.

In cases where there are different racial demographics in rough areas, the fact of this disparity is a fact. Your dispute is with reality, not the person who might dare to point at reality. It's my opinion that systemic improvement is made harder when we cloak reality in double-speak.

> i strongly suspect the desire to not be hurt

I'm not necessarily talking about jumping into the path of an autonomous car so that it's forced to perform an emergency brake. I'm talking about jaywalking without concern for the car having to slow down well ahead of you to maintain a safe distance.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#173

Post by simondotau »

ginko wrote: post #110
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…

>Pedestrians will step onto the road in front of them. Pedestrians SHOULD be able to just step onto the road on a crosswalk without having to worry if drivers will stop as they're legally required to.

I didn't say crosswalk.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#174

Post by rad_gruchalski »

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.

Please don’t walk over congested highways where this system is allowed to be used.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#175

Post by simondotau »

aaomidi wrote: post #29
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…

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

This is precisely why L3 is dangerous and unworkable and should be banned. Playing high speed tag-team with vehicular responsibility is insane and I can't believe anyone takes it seriously.

If the vehicle has a driver's seat and you're sitting in it, you should be considered responsible for the car's actions. If you want to watch a movie, that's fine, don't sit in the driver's seat. If you want your car to drive your drunk ass home, that's fine, don't sit in the driver's seat.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#176

Post by rad_gruchalski »

satiric wrote: post #6

Blue lights are banned on cars in lots of places (so that you don't look like a cop car). I'm assuming SAE has thought of this already? It doesn't look too similar to the bright blue lights on cop cars, but still.

Blue flashing lights are not allowed.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#177

Post by rad_gruchalski »

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.

> But then years later I learned that every modern iPhone has a LiDAR camera.

The iPhone lidar has a range of 5 meters.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#178

Post by infecto »

asylteltine wrote: post #70
flutas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah Currently - Only in CA and NV - Only below 40mph - Only on specifically mapped freeways ("only available on freeways that have been mapped by Mercedes") - There MUST be a vehicle in front of your car - "reasonable road conditions with readable markings and lines" - "clear weather" - Daytime only ("Drive Pilot can’t be used at night or in the rain, and the headlights and wipers must be set to auto for it to work.…

[flagged]

While FSD was over promised and under delivered. Your statement is pretty unsubstantiated.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#179

Post by infecto »

Miiko wrote: post #161
flutas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah Currently - Only in CA and NV - Only below 40mph - Only on specifically mapped freeways ("only available on freeways that have been mapped by Mercedes") - There MUST be a vehicle in front of your car - "reasonable road conditions with readable markings and lines" - "clear weather" - Daytime only ("Drive Pilot can’t be used at night or in the rain, and the headlights and wipers must be set to auto for it to work.…

> Only below 40mph > Only on specifically mapped freeways Those two seem to contradict each other - there are no freeways in CA or NV where you can (safely) drive below 40mph

It is right now only to be used in rush hour style traffic. Cannot speak for NV but CA is miserable during peak rush.

Re: Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

#180

Post by nixgeek »

gruez wrote: post #86
gcr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Yes, and what I meant is if you drive a clunker into a new Mercedes, you are very much in an asymmetric situation in terms of "What happened?". Your clunker has extraordinarily little, in comparison to the Mercedes, and the sensors it requires to make Level 3 work (and which, presumably, log everything for collision situations and to determine who is at fault).
Post reply on HN