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

771–778 of 778 posts

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#771

Post by roenxi »

Kbelicius wrote: post #748
roenxi wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working in the space appears to be misleading you. It is quite obvious that Teslas can already drive themselves - the thread ancestor literally linked a video. Your comment has complaints about an academic engineering definition/legal standard that, realistically, is probably going to be paid for in lives by delaying the roll-out and development of self driving vehicles. We know from the march of AI in other fields t…

> Nobody is being forced to drive a car with autopilot if they aren't comfortable. The risks are obvious and understood. Personal liability is fine. What about all the others participants on the road? Should pedestrian and cyclist also take personal responsibility for getting hit by a self driving car?

> Should pedestrian and cyclist also take personal responsibility for getting hit by a self driving car?

No. Personal liability is fine.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#772

Post by Kbelicius »

roenxi wrote: post #771
Kbelicius wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody is being forced to drive a car with autopilot if they aren't comfortable. The risks are obvious and understood. Personal liability is fine. What about all the others participants on the road? Should pedestrian and cyclist also take personal responsibility for getting hit by a self driving car?

> Should pedestrian and cyclist also take personal responsibility for getting hit by a self driving car? No. Personal liability is fine.

Whose? Drivers, cyclists or the person that made the self driving that ran in to the cyclist?

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#773

Post by roenxi »

Kbelicius wrote: post #772
roenxi wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should pedestrian and cyclist also take personal responsibility for getting hit by a self driving car? No. Personal liability is fine.

Whose? Drivers, cyclists or the person that made the self driving that ran in to the cyclist?

The "driver" should be responsible. They were the one with most control over what brand of car was used, what conditions it was driving in and the choice to let it drive itself. They have the power to choose cars that don't run people over. Hold them liable and the situation will sort itself out as quickly as is efficient.

The situation would be very similar to how it is now, except a lot less people would be dying in car accidents.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#774

Post by CRConrad »

charcircuit wrote: post #283
toast0 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not to mention, Tesla is openly violating at least CA DMV regulations that require reporting of all disengagements and contact events. Tesla letters to CA DMV claim they don't participate because their system isn't a self-driving system. Which is fine, other than they're telling customers it is at the same time.

A word's meaning is a specific legal document can be different than a word's meaning in a product's marketing material.

Can. It can also be the same.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#775

Post by bboygravity »

BoorishBears wrote: post #414
bboygravity wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This FUD is insane. You make it sounds like Tesla's with FSD on are crashing all the time. This makes no sense at all, because... they aren't?

Teslas with FSD are disengaging all the time. And even worse, it's not always FSD initiating: often times it's FSD not realizing it's about to do something wrong, the humans take over, and then them brushing it off as "well it's a beta" or "I bet it would have gotten it but I wasn't so sure". Getting to a point where Mercedes can guarantee their system will correctly initiate disengagements and do so with a 10 second…

Tesla's with the FSD option (with or without FSD engaged) are crashing less than any other car.

Yet, according to you that is somehow a bad thing (dangerous?) or worse han some other brand. Which again, is factually untrue afaik.

This reasoning still makes no sense at all.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#776

Post by bboygravity »

natch wrote: post #485
l33t233372 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FUD is an interesting term. Why do you use it here? Are you implying GP’s message is part of a broader campaign?

Not op but there are several groups that are independent but essentially aligned on anti-Tesla motivation that have reasons to support campaigns against Tesla: TSLAQ, union supporters, oil producers, legacy auto, to name just a few. There are more. And FUD is well known and easy enough that even individuals can practice it, so I wouldn’t read too much into that.

I was thinking hedge funds paying troll-farms to bash anything TSLA related when they're short the stock (yes I actually believe that is a real thing that happens all the time), but sure those too.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#777

Post by oblio »

valval wrote: post #740
oblio wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and also doesn’t want to walk the 10 minutes of the journey? If they have a pre-existing medical condition: sure, they can use an alternative method of transportation. If they don't want to walk for 10 minutes, they're bound to have a medical condition soon-ish.

Walking seems like a waste of time to me. It's a slow form of transportation and a very inefficient form of exercise.

Yet most people don't exercise, obesity is skyrocketing and personal responsibility is failing.

But hey, you got yours so who cares about others, right?

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#778

Post by Justsignedup »

prmoustache wrote: post #765
Justsignedup wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to use turn signals. Using those the algos know what line crossings to expect. My dad went through this because it forced him to start signalling. This is also probably why I'm seen more and more BMWs use turn signals... maybe it wasn't faulty turn signal wiring after all (/s)

Thanks for that. I definitely use turn signals when changing lane to overtake but indeed I don't necessarily do it when returning to the main lane because it is implicit. I am not supposed to drive on the opposite lane indifinetely once the overtake is complete and I am faster than the other car so no warning is needed.

Yeah, its a good habit to have anyways that you turn, you signal at least 3 seconds ahead of time, that way drivers around you can react. Predictability is king on the road.
Post reply on HN