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

Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 778 posts

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#441

Post by ndm000 »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #412
worik wrote: post #367

What do we want from self driving cars? Naturally I wand a car I can summon from the pub that will drive me the 20km, over country roads, to my house while I mix cocktails or have a nap. That may never happen, current technology does not seem up to it. Then what? Modern cruise control, that keeps my car a constant distance form the car in front (unless it roars off at a speed higher that what I am comfortable with) i…

Recently I was reading that in Europe, most cars sold don't even have automatic transmission, yet the drivers there are much safer than than people in the US or Australia. There was some speculation that because they shift gears manually, they have to pay more attention to the road and can't do things like drink coffees while driving. They also enjoy driving a lot more than we do. I wonder if other technology would h…

After a recent 3 week driving trip through Europe, I can anecdotally back this up. It’s not even the manual transmission, but also the much smaller roads with no shoulder where at times you meet a car, have to slam on the brakes, and decide in the moment whether you or the other car will back up to a turn out. You have to pay constant attention and there’s little room for looking at phones, eating, etc. In the US we have such large roads and shoulders that you can zone out and are more easily tempted to take your eyes off the road.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#442

Post by whyenot »

tshaddox wrote: post #438
whyenot wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was some speculation that because they shift gears manually, they have to pay more attention to the road and can't do things like drink coffees while driving. I am highly skeptical of this. I am sure auto insurers in the US have looked at the statistics, and if it were true, they would be charging higher premiums for automatics than manuals.

There could be a shortage of data to control for obvious things like disproportionately many sports cars having manual transmissions.

I doubt it. There are so many vehicles, especially historically, from Toyota Tacomas, Jeep Wranglers, Honda Civics, to yes, Porsche 911s that are available with both AT and MT. Considering the number of vehicles insured in the US, and the fact that you can do paired comparisons like this, if there is a meaningful difference, insurers would see it.

edit: link from State Farm, a large US insurer. https://www.statefarm.com/simple-insights/auto-and-vehicles/....

Studies haven't really shown which transmission type is safer. Automatic and CVT transmissions do allow you to keep both hands on the wheel at all times, while manual transmissions may require more attentive driving. Your driving habits will play a large role in your safety. Safety features available for both automatic and manual vehicles can make a difference, too.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#443

Post by afarrell »

0xr0kk3r wrote: post #432
tapoxi wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that's a bus or Bus Rapid Transit, because a train requires dedicated infrastructure and is a fixed route. A bus can route around problems where a train cannot. In Boston they're trying to connect North Station and South Station, a distance of about 5 miles. The cost is at least $10 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North%E2%80%93South_Rail_Link

$10B because it was neglected for a century. But that's peanuts compared to CEO compensation. So tax the rich and get it done.

According to labor union association AFL-CIO, the highest CEO compensation in 2021 was $835 million[1], less than a tenth the cost of the $10 billion estimate for the North-South connector.

Also, I would expect at least a few cost overruns.

[1] https://aflcio.org/paywatch/highest-paid-ceos

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#444

Post by vivegi »

Sigh.

> though the driver must remain behind the wheel to take over when prompted

That is a modal interface and the system may also decides to switch modes at will. Anytime a human is expected to wakeup from a mode and takeover from an automated system on short notice, we have failure modes that are unique compared to a modeless system (including Full Human Drive )

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#445

Post by ETH_start »

worik wrote: post #367

What do we want from self driving cars? Naturally I wand a car I can summon from the pub that will drive me the 20km, over country roads, to my house while I mix cocktails or have a nap. That may never happen, current technology does not seem up to it. Then what? Modern cruise control, that keeps my car a constant distance form the car in front (unless it roars off at a speed higher that what I am comfortable with) i…

"That may never happen, current technology does not seem up to it."

Any computerized system is only going to advance over time, with its theoretical limits far beyond the current state of the technology.

So full self-driving is clearly inevitable.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#446

Post by code_duck »

fallingknife wrote: post #272
conroy wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla FSD navigating the complex city streets of LA for 60 minutes with zero human intervention. 17 fatalities, 736 crashes: The shocking toll of Tesla’s Autopilot https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-a...

You're right, that is shockingly low! 43,000 people die in car crashes in the US every year, and only 17 in Teslas since 2019. That's only 1 in 7500.

For that to be meaningful, one would have to consider what proportion of miles driven are in teslas, and where.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#447

Post by barbazoo »

whyenot wrote: post #429
AussieWog93 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently I was reading that in Europe, most cars sold don't even have automatic transmission, yet the drivers there are much safer than than people in the US or Australia. There was some speculation that because they shift gears manually, they have to pay more attention to the road and can't do things like drink coffees while driving. They also enjoy driving a lot more than we do. I wonder if other technology would h…

> There was some speculation that because they shift gears manually, they have to pay more attention to the road and can't do things like drink coffees while driving. I am highly skeptical of this. I am sure auto insurers in the US have looked at the statistics, and if it were true, they would be charging higher premiums for automatics than manuals.

As an expat from Germany I also highly doubt this.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#448

Post by enragedcacti »

redindian75 wrote: post #424
enragedcacti wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll give you 2:1 odds that before this reaches market (looks like end of the year for deliveries per the article) Tesla will duplicate the stunt and lift the driver monitoring requirements in similar situations. I'll put $100 to the charity of your choice.

are u saying current tesla CAN"T do this? 40mph with a lead vehicle in daytime on a highway? TODAY, my model3 (on FSD beta) can go 40-80mph, without lead vehicle in night anywhere, AND take turns, watch lights, watch for pedestrians, monitor who came first in stop sign...etc etc... TODAY. Not 2 years from now. where do i signup?

No, I'm saying Tesla won't sell an L3+ product approved for a CA autonomous vehicle deployment permit before Mercedes does.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#449

Post by tshaddox »

whyenot wrote: post #442
tshaddox wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There could be a shortage of data to control for obvious things like disproportionately many sports cars having manual transmissions.

I doubt it. There are so many vehicles, especially historically, from Toyota Tacomas, Jeep Wranglers, Honda Civics, to yes, Porsche 911s that are available with both AT and MT. Considering the number of vehicles insured in the US, and the fact that you can do paired comparisons like this, if there is a meaningful difference, insurers would see it. edit: link from State Farm, a large US insurer. https://www.statefarm.…

I’m still skeptical there’s enough data to distinguish from the obvious selection effects. The difference in safety between manual and automatic 911s probably tells you essentially nothing about whether a random driver would be safer driving a random automatic or a random manual.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#450

Post by xigency »

0xr0kk3r wrote: post #431
worik wrote: post #367

What do we want from self driving cars? Naturally I wand a car I can summon from the pub that will drive me the 20km, over country roads, to my house while I mix cocktails or have a nap. That may never happen, current technology does not seem up to it. Then what? Modern cruise control, that keeps my car a constant distance form the car in front (unless it roars off at a speed higher that what I am comfortable with) i…

> What do we want from self driving cars? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I want public transportation infrastructure and far, far, FAR fewer cars. I think the US should strive to reduce car ownership by 75% over the next 20 years, at least in cities over a certain population size. I don't want any more money invested in self-driving cars. But I'm also a grown-up of a certain age and realize the bright-eyed 20-something…

Yeah, self driving cars would be a step backward as currently imagined.

We need high speed rail to connect our cities.

Post reply on HN