Mercedes Is the First Certified Level-3-Autonomy Car Company In the US (engadget.com) 87
At CES earlier this January, Mercedes announced that it would become the first car company to achieve certification from the SAE for a Level 3 driver assist system. That became official on Thursday when the automaker confirmed its Drive Pilot ADAS (automated driver assist system) now complies with the requirements of Nevada Chapter 482A, which governs the use of autonomous vehicle technology on the state's roads. That makes Drive Pilot the only legal Level 3 system in the US for the moment. Engadget reports: Level 3 capabilities, as defined by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), would enable the vehicle to handle "all aspects of the driving" when engaged but still need the driver attentive enough to promptly take control if necessary. That's a big step up from the Level 2 systems we see today such as Tesla's "Full Self-Driving," Ford's Blue Cruise, and GM's Super Cruise. All of those are essentially extra-capable highway cruise controls where the driver must maintain their attention on driving, typically keeping their hands on or at least near the wheel, and be responsible for what the ADAS is doing while it's doing it. That's a far cry from the Knight Rider-esque ADAS outlook Tesla is selling and what Level 2 autonomy is actually capable of.
Mercedes' Drive Pilot system can, "on suitable freeway sections and where there is high traffic density," according to the company, take over the bumper-to-bumper crawling duties up to 40 MPH without the driver needing to keep their hands on the wheel. When engaged, the system handles lane-keeping duties, stays with the flow of traffic, navigates to destinations programmed into the Nav system, and will even react to "unexpected traffic situations and handles them independently, e.g. by evasive maneuvers within the lane or by braking maneuvers." "An unwavering commitment to innovation has consistently guided Mercedes-Benz from the very beginning," Dimitris Psillakis, President and CEO of MBUSA, said in Thursday's press statement. "It is a very proud moment for everyone to continue this leadership and celebrate this monumental achievement as the first automotive company to be certified for Level 3 conditionally automated driving in the US market."
Mercedes' Drive Pilot system can, "on suitable freeway sections and where there is high traffic density," according to the company, take over the bumper-to-bumper crawling duties up to 40 MPH without the driver needing to keep their hands on the wheel. When engaged, the system handles lane-keeping duties, stays with the flow of traffic, navigates to destinations programmed into the Nav system, and will even react to "unexpected traffic situations and handles them independently, e.g. by evasive maneuvers within the lane or by braking maneuvers." "An unwavering commitment to innovation has consistently guided Mercedes-Benz from the very beginning," Dimitris Psillakis, President and CEO of MBUSA, said in Thursday's press statement. "It is a very proud moment for everyone to continue this leadership and celebrate this monumental achievement as the first automotive company to be certified for Level 3 conditionally automated driving in the US market."
Twitter integration is the real innovation (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
4D chess you pleb. You can't even handle that level of D's.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for them (Score:3)
But considering my level of trust in humans (barely above 0), there's no way I'm going to use software designed by humans to navigate roads with other humans.
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I drive a stick shift. I'm in control. Yes, there is software in my car, but the worst that can happen is the engine shuts down, not have my car veer off into the lane next to me, plow into the vehicle in front of me, come to a sudden stop so I get rearended, or decide to stop in traffic [insideevs.com] and cause a multi-vehicle pile up.
Re: (Score:2)
I drive a stick shift.
Neat party trick... but it doesn't make you a safer driver.
Re: (Score:2)
I drive a stick shift.
Neat party trick... but it doesn't make you a safer driver.
Decades of driving experience and not a single accident. The only thing I've hit is a bird and squirrel which crossed my path.
Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Decades of driving experience and not a single accident. The only thing I've hit is a bird and squirrel which crossed my path.
Try again. :P
Also means nothing and does not make you a safe driver
Try again?
Re: (Score:2)
The very definition of being a safe driver includes not running into things or people.
The other part is not being a douche to the people around you, such as the SUV driver last week who nearly plowed into the guy in front of me when they, the person in front of me, signalled they were moving into the center lane to make a left turn. The guy, and it was a guy, was so impatient he floored it to drive down the middle lane, then had to swerve into the opposing lane to avoid sideswiping the person in front of me
Re: (Score:2)
come to a sudden stop so I get rearended, or decide to stop in traffic and cause a multi-vehicle pile up.
No, following too close causes that. The thing "self-driving" Teslas do that cause rear endings is expecting the driver to take over at the drop of a hat. Humans aren't good at going from 0-60 in 2 seconds, and there have been several crashes now where Tesla claimed they weren't caused by self-driving because the system was off at the time of the collision, including at least one which was fatal. It's not good enough to reduce accidents, you have to not be setting people up with a terrible trap and then bla
Re: Good for them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good for them (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, SAE Levels are just marketing talk. "SAE Level 3" doesn't actually mean that it's any good; it just means that Mercedes is willing to take the liability for you getting in an accident. If you took flawless Level 5 system from the year 2683, put it in a car today, but mandated that there be a driver there to monitor it, it'd be a SAE Level 2 system. It's not a measure of capabilities.
So should you trust this system? I dunno. Depends on how much liability risk Mercedes is willing to take on.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of... SAE Level 3 is the worst of the levels in my opinion. Level 2 is "driver assist" which means the driver is ostensibly controlling the vehicle, with aids. Like lane following assist - you still have to drive, but the car will add steering torque.
Level 3 is the worst because it drives without any driver input, opening the door for driver inattention. And instead of Level 3 requiring the vehicle to place itself into a safe state before the driver intervenes, Level 3 allows the system to disengage
Re: (Score:3)
You won't be able to drive, or even walk near a road, at all, then, because whether you're in one of these cars or not, you're trusting the cars around you, which might be.
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Well-tested software designed by humans is certainly better than not really well tested humans themselves behind the wheel...
Re: Good for them (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Software doesn't get emotional. It doesn't get tired. It doesn't decide it wants to race. These factors are superior to the human driver. Of course, there are negatives, but perhaps better processing power or algorithms can overcome those.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't read texts, doesn't turn around to yell at its kids, never has just one more beer at the bar...
There's another issue too, a self driving car can be trained on datasets from multiple regions, so it won't be incompetent at driving in the rain like Angelenos.
So, I strongly agree. I think we are a very long way from a self driving car beating a well trained, well rested, skilled human driver in familiar conditions with no distractions. On the other hand that makes about 0.000000000000001% of drivers. So
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand it will never make fatal mistakes that humans make so often they don't even make the news, such as ploughing straight into something due to not watching the road.
No, instead it ploughs straight into something due to not having depth perception, and this has happened multiple times. It also ploughs straight into something due to not giving the driver sufficient time to take control of the vehicle, then Tesla blames the crash on the driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey let me fuck around with quoting you in stupid ways too (had to quote from several posts, but I found what I needed).
I[...] f[...]u[...]c[...]k g[...]o[...]a[...]t[...]s
Gross, dude. Why would you admit to that? You're sick.
No, instead it ploughs straight into something due to not having depth perception
I literally talked about the in the sentence right before which you cut in order to make some sort of stupid point. If you can't argue against self driving cars without inventing positions to argue against
Re: (Score:2)
Hey let me fuck around with quoting you in stupid ways too (had to quote from several posts, but I found what I needed).
Could you be any more disingenuous? I didn't have to hunt, I quoted you directly. If you regret what you said, that's your problem.
It's impossible to have anything approaching a reasonable discussion while you're rocking a massive hate-boner for Tesla. This article isn't even about Tesla.
In case you didn't notice, and I see that you didn't, we are discussing the general state of self driving in this thread (the subject is "Software", as evinced by this text in the comment to which you were replying: "Software doesn't get emotional. It doesn't get tired.") so I have no need to restrict myself to discussing only a single brand. I'm not sure why you would get so bu
Re: (Score:2)
Could you be any more disingenuous?
You mean more than you? Unlikely.
I didn't have to hunt, I quoted you directly. If you regret what you said, that's your problem.
Do you regret to admitting to fucking goats? Or do you admit that carefully snipping parts of a post can completely change the meaning of the quote?
I lie by omission is still a lie. I said two things, you cut the first and the replied to the second with the first that you cut, implying I didn't say it. I don't regret what I DID say, I'm calling y
Re: (Score:2)
do you admit that carefully snipping parts of a post can completely change the meaning of the quote?
Sure. But that didn't happen here.
I lie by omission is still a lie.
Yes, you do and it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But that didn't happen here.
Yeah it did. You cut the bit where I said self driving cars will sometimes drive into the back of stuff in order to make me look like an idiot who didn't know that. Then you swoop in to smugly tell me self driving cars sometimes drive into the back of stuff.
Yes,
So, stop doing it goatfucker.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're being a double idiot because the Mercedes system does have depth perception due to using a LiDAR unit.
Exactly. Basically _nobody_ besides Tesla thinks this can be done safely without dept-perception. That is why they all (AFAIK only exception is Tesla) have it in some form. Oh, and look, Tesla does not have SAE 3 either, but somebody using LiDAR has.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's pretty dumbshit not using lidar or radar. Sure humans can drive without that, so it is theoretically possible, but why take the disadvantages of a perambulating meatsack?
Re: (Score:2)
I think we are a very long way from a self driving car beating a well trained, well rested, skilled human driver in familiar conditions with no distractions. On the other hand that makes about 0.000000000000001% of drivers.
And that is exactly it. Driving is dangerous enough to be experts-only. Almost nobody is an expert driver though and that many think they are makes matters worse.
Re:Good for them (Score:4, Funny)
That's why I can't wait for this shit to come out. Turns out I trust even this stuff more than most drivers on the road. I wouldn't trust half the idiots that manage to pass their exams with coloured string, let alone a 2 tonne SUV.
Especially when it comes to Mercedes drivers. By and large, I feel like they'd run down pedestrians for the audacity of being publicly not wealthy if they could get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
But considering my level of trust in humans (barely above 0), there's no way I'm going to use software designed by humans to navigate roads with other humans.
But you trust your tired, angry, impatient fellow humans to drive it themselves??
Re: (Score:2)
See - FSD isn't software designed by humans anymore - it is an AI taught by humans.
Actually - the Tesla FSD has been capable of most of this for awhile. The difference is - it can get off the freeway and still handle the situation. Is it perfect yet - Nope - so you have to keep hands on the wheel looking forward. Left turns at a blind intersection are the toughest to handle too.
Might actually get me to buy a Mercedes (Score:3)
BUT, I like reading at stop lights. I know. I'm sorry to admit it. But I get stupid impatient. Particularly in traffic. And I've come close to fender benders because of this horrible habit.
FSD 3 is about the right place for me; 4 would be great but I don't mind driving when traffic is moving, but if it stops the temptation to pick up a book is high. This would actually get me to consider moving off my bare bones-focused value in cars.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You should not drive at all, you recognize you're potentially dangerous but too selfish, entitled and weak willed to do anything about
Re: Might actually get me to buy a Mercedes (Score:2)
Not a lot of traffic lights on a highway.
Re: (Score:1)
Your dad's a tool to me. I like your mom because she's efficient, low maintenance, and affordable. She gets me off. I call her Mercedes, and she more than decent enough but definitely not high class. I do her mechanically and directly in the BUTT. She doesn't give me a stop sign, ever. It will never offend her, no matter what habit I practice.
Re: Might actually get me to buy a Mercedes (Score:2)
Mercedes is a complete nogo for me since they are now copying BMW in making built-in standard features add on subscription. Not paying a premium for the Ryanair experience of the car World
Re: (Score:2)
Mercedes are decent enough cars but are in a higher price class given my needs are purely mechanical and direct.
Mercedes are actually fragile shit shows now. They haven't overbuilt them since the 80s, and they aren't as good at designing robust systems with cheap parts as the Japanese are. Mercedes is still pretending their components are top notch despite most of them coming from Bosch — which is just another shit supplier today, there is nothing special about any of their kit like there was back, again, in the 80s when they built it to last.
So much for Tesla (Score:5, Informative)
Turns out that actual engineering is superior to big-ego announcements....
Re:So much for Tesla (Score:5, Informative)
I used to follow the tesla forum and saw the fanboys constantly assuring us that tesla has the best and most advanced and no one else will ever come close.
(I work in the field; not at T, though)
I know that T's stuff is not all that great. elon lies. a lot. and eventually when you drive it enough you get to see what its good at and what its not.
it will never get to level 3 with its current hardware. its not even really safe at level 2.
'most of the time' is just not enough 9's. T does not really care, they want the customer money (once) and then customer can go to hell.
so, I avoid T from now on and am glad they're getting their had handed to them by a 'quiet competitor' (one who does not brag nearly as much as that elon character does)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the competition, so seeing more upcomers is good news.
Why i'm not impressed with the Mercedes announcement is the limitation. Sure, it is lvl 3. But only at slow speeds, on highways. Even a basic lane assist and adaptive cruise control of an entry level vehicle can easily handle that. Follow the car in front of you at slow speeds, staying in the lane.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at SAE's example for SAE, all they give is "traffic jam chauffeur". Thats it. Not very impressive...
Re: (Score:2)
Why i'm not impressed with the Mercedes announcement is the limitation. Sure, it is lvl 3. But only at slow speeds, on highways.
That's the only way in which level 3 is "safe", or at least, as close as you can get with it. Expecting the human to be ready to take over at any time at high speeds is unrealistic, as we have seen since it has already repeatedly killed people — if you can believe Tesla, anyway! We have only their word for it that the system in fact was deactivated at the time of certain collisions which were reportedly due to the use of their self-driving technology.
Level 3 is inherently unsafe, and refusing to do it
Re: (Score:2)
FTH are you talking about? SAE 3 is safe. It just is not SAE 4 or SAE 5. In particular, an SAE 3 car will know to _not_ offer to take over in conditions it cannot make safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that nobody else has anything that comes close, you being unimpressed leaves me unimpressed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm really surprised there wasn't been another class action lawsuit over Full Self Driving yet. The original buyers back in 2016 now have 7 year old cars. They were promised they would be fully self driving that year, then 2017, then again pretty much every year since. At some point, they have to realize that they have been ripped off.
What a massive liability for Tesla too. They promised that all those old cars would get whatever hardware upgrades were needed. If they ever get it to work, they will have to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that T's stuff is not all that great. elon lies. a lot.
it will never get to level 3 with its current hardware. its not even really safe at level 2.
Yep. And Elon is not an engineer either, even if many people mistakenly believe he is. So in addition to being a habitual liar, he is incompetent. What he has is a BSc in physics and a BA in economics. That is almost the lowest level of academic qualification you can have and it is only not the lowest because he has two of the lowest-value degrees. There is apparently also some doubt he got these legitimately...
I will never get why some people think a person that made a lot of money needs to be smart. All t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mean to interrupt your anti Tesla screed, but you do concede that without Tesla we wouldn't even be having this conversation, ya?
I don't own a Tesla nor am I interested in one. I think Musk is a daring entrepreneur, whose ideas and CERTAINLY mouth outrun reality regularly.
But like ai driving cars, electric cars, serious private space launch capabilities, private satellite phone systems...there are aa number of ideas that would have remained science fiction for decades of not for his willingness to
Re: (Score:2)
Its fun that the 2 companies that are pushing forward hardest with self driving are also the 2 companies at the top of consumer reports least reliable list last year.
Citation? According to this [fatherly.com] news article, the two least reliable cars of 2022 are Ford F-150 Hybrid, with a reliability score of 4 out of 100, and Hyundai Kona Electric, with a reliability score of 5 out of 100.
A Mercedes comes in number nine on the top ten list of the least reliable cars, scoring 23 out of 100, and Tesla isn't on the least-reliable list at all.
alternate source [kbb.com]
Re: Tesla and Mercedes, leading self driving race (Score:2)
https://motorillustrated.com/c... [motorillustrated.com]
Tesla is still far ahead (Score:1, Flamebait)
Mercedes is clueless when it comes to urban driving. Their certification is for highway driving below 40 mph. Tesla can handle that very well with zero intervention, they could get the same certification if they wanted. Tesla wants to solve the issue that makes driving a pain, city/urban driving. Also, it's where a lot of human-caused deaths occur. Mercedes EQS doesn't still have as many cameras as a Tesla, nor do they have the computational power. I'm sorry but Tesla is at least 5 to 10 years ahead of Merc
Re: (Score:1)
"[Mercedes] certification is for highway driving below 40 mph"
"Tesla wants to solve the issue that makes driving a pain, city/urban driving"
What universe do you live in where highway driving under 40mph is not part of city/urban driving? Pick one.
Re:Tesla is still far ahead (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh, go ask Mercedes .. it's their specification. Level 3 can only be enabled on highways and that too when the speed is below 40 mph. Reference: https://www.cars.com/articles/... [cars.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Level 3 can only be enabled on highways and that too when the speed is below 40 mph.
So you mean you can only use it for the boring parts, where you want it most? Shucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Most cities have no highways.
And even if it looks like a "highway" it most of the time is legally not a highway.
E.g. you can enter roads that are legally a highway only under certain conditions. Also the speed limit, even if it is not legally a high way, is much higher than 40mph.
Re: Tesla is still far ahead (Score:2)
Uhuh, well the ball is in their court now. Mercedes accepts liability for this relatively easy mode of automated driving, Tesla does not. If Tesla persists in not accepting the liability it will be a vote of no convidence in their own system and who knows better than Tesla?
Re:Tesla is still far ahead (Score:4, Informative)
Mercedes EQS doesn't still have as many cameras as a Tesla
They use radar, lidar, and sonar with the cameras, though.
Re: Tesla is still far ahead (Score:4, Interesting)
Also their cameras are actually stereoscopic.
The LIDAR is a bit weird, placed in the grill. Given the placement I think most of the 3D data comes from the Veoneer Stereo cameras, with the LIDAR a backup.
Re: (Score:2)
Empirically false. I mean, Tesla could apply for this certification any time. Mercedes didn't grant themselves the certification, though I'm sure they would if they could.
Musk is a dimwit and a grifter; I'm sure he's put their engineering teams further behind than they need to be. All that hardware isn't any good if you don't just let the programmers do their work.
Re:Tesla is still far ahead (Score:5, Insightful)
Tesla can handle that very well with zero intervention, they could get the same certification if they wanted.
No, they can't. I have FSD beta and use it regularly. It would get "clever" and drive you into a wall for some reason. Or it would wander off into an incoming merge lane thinking the lane just "some reason" got wider. EAP tried to change lanes the last time I used it and change into a "lane" that ended in a concrete wall.
And even if you were right and they actually could have delivered a limited L3 mode, instead of insisting on chasing some distant L5 fairy tale then that's a massive failure by Tesla's business leadership.
Currently Tesla's motto should be "Why deliver something that only works in some places when you can deliver something that doesn't work everywhere?"
I hope it's more reliable than their (car)hardware (Score:1)
Should I trust their software??
Re: (Score:2)
MB can barely built their cars running 100K kilometers (not miles) without super expensive extra repairs.
Their company service shops consider that a feature, not a bug!
I have heard the following exchange on Car Talk numerous times...
Ray: You really need to get that done ASAP. It's not too expensive... probably run you 150-200 dollars. What kind of car is it again?
Caller: It's a Mercedes.
Ray: (Laughing) Oh, then it's gonna be more like 1500!
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, level 3!?!?! (Score:2)
would enable the vehicle to handle "all aspects of the driving" when engaged but still need the driver attentive enough to promptly take control if necessary.
Hard pass. Until a company states unequivocally that I can nap or read while the car is in operation, I won't waste my time on it. If I have to pay attention at all times, I might as well drive myself. And anyone that could benefit from this (elderly that don't drive well, for example), probably no longer have the reflexes and skill to 'promptly take control'.
Re: (Score:2)
It's useful for many people though, especially those who might get distracted or a heart attack on the highway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe with Level 3, the standard is that the car has to be smart/good enough to provide at least 2 or 3 of seconds warning, that may be enough to get undistracted and grab the wheel. 2 to 3 seconds should be OK as long as the driver isn't asleep.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I should have added that .. the probability of an event that the car can't handle + the driver being distracted must be very low meaning a large percent of accidents would be avoided because the car can be a failsafe. Unless you are distracted ALL the time.. but then that's why some cars have driver monitoring too, to make sure you're paying attention.
Re:Wow, level 3!?!?! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know. I recently went on a road trip in California. I rented a car that had adaptive cruise control, which I had never used before. It certainly made a difference, even though I still had to pay attention at all times. On many winding, mountain roads, I used it to stay a safe distance behind the car in front of me, I didn't have to work so hard to regulate my own speed. It did take some of the stress out of driving.
Like you, I want full automation. But I don't think intermediate steps are worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I too love driving, I drive a stick because I like the mechanical interaction with the car, so I get that. When it comes to paying attention, people already fail to pay proper attention to the road, with or without automation. Automation won't change that, but it might prevent some accidents that would have happened due to inattention (like adaptive cruise control will stop you if traffic stops in front of you). Inattention with automation will also lead to other kinds of accidents that might not happen wit
Re: (Score:2)
Automation won't change that, but it might prevent some accidents that would have happened due to inattention (like adaptive cruise control will stop you if traffic stops in front of you).
That's a good reason to implement AEB and automatic lane-keeping, but not self-driving, because...
Inattention with automation will also lead to other kinds of accidents that might not happen with manual driving controls.
Absolutely. If the system requires a human to take control without warning or with little warning, it will cause a whole class of accidents. That's not a reason to avoid self-driving tech, only a reason to avoid level 3. Mercedes is doing the sane thing and only allowing it to get up to speeds which are very survivable in a freeway collision.
Re: (Score:2)
On many winding, mountain roads, I used it to stay a safe distance behind the car in front of me, I didn't have to work so hard to regulate my own speed.
If you have to work hard not to drive up the arse of the person in front of you, not only are you too pedal happy, but you're following too close. How about you just leave more space, for everyone's safety? Radar cruise control will literally let you follow illegally close if you set it to do so. I get that you're at a disadvantage on the freeway if you leave the legally mandated gap, and it will encourage other people to drive unsafely around you, but on a winding mountain road that's not a consideration.
Like you, I want full automation. But I don't think intermediate steps are worthless.
L
Is != Would (Score:2)
Please!
buying an autonomous car vs. carsharing (Score:2)
Does autonomous driving have a future for cars for sale (as opposed to car sharing)?
Waymo already has Level 4, but they do not sell vehicles, but operate car sharing fleets. Therefore, they do not need a certificate for selling cars individually. The basic question: how big is the market for autonomous cars for individuals, vs fleets?
I suspect that in a few years, the lion's share of autonomous cars will be operated as fleets, which will then be operated, as Waymo does, for use in a specific region under sp
Re: (Score:3)
The basic question: how big is the market for autonomous cars for individuals, vs fleets?
I think most people would like to have AVs if they felt could trust them. Somewhere around a quarter to half of people say they would already be willing to ride in one. The question is, will people be able to afford AVs they feel they can trust? Higher levels of automation are obviously potentially safer (as they don't require humans to intervene with little or no warning) but also ostensibly more costly to implement. Will as many individuals as want to be able to afford to buy AVs? Certainly not for the fo
This feels like a half pregnant situation... (Score:2)
Is it the driver's fault or the car maker's fault? Level 3 makes it the driver's fault if they don't recover from a supposedly automatic driver. At any time. Humans can't do that well. And you think you're taking rich lazy humans and they're going to pretend to be driving the whole time?
This is just a car maker claiming to do all the work but not being safe enough to take responsibility too. It is all too similar to level 2 for this level of pomp.