Hacker News Reader

Comment by jstummbillig | Hacker News Reader

> Yes but it's (according to the article) the only system that takes on any legal responsibility and guarantees a fairly long takeover window within which Mercedes will still be at fault for an accident.

I don't think it's that big of a deal but it's clearly well done from a PR/marketing standpoint.

Insurance/warranty is just an expense from a companies POV. You control it via a combination of

a) building a well working product

b) limiting use of that product

c) putting a high enough premium on it

a) is what all customers want. b) is what Mercedes is heavily leaning into right now, because looking at the restrictions it's pretty clear that they don't think they have accomplished a) to any satisfying degree.

I am sure they will be setting c) to where their insurance math says it has to be to be financially viable.

View on HN

> I don't think it's that big of a deal but it's clearly well done from a PR/marketing standpoint.

This is a really big deal. If you are required to instantly take over, you need to permanently pay attention to the current road situation, at which point the autopilot is really just a fancy cruise control. People still stop paying attention, of course, but that's actually a massive risk.

A longer takeover window actually allows you to do something useful, such as read or look at your phone, without taking this risk, since you will have time to adjust to the situation if necessary.

To ensure operation inside the limited legal responsibility, there are just two options:

a) The system would have to be allowed to disengage automatically when conditions change unfavourably, in which case you would still have to be alert, all of the time for when that happens

b) It would not be allowed to do that automatically and you are liable from the moment autopilot drives into an area that is exempt from its legal responsibility as laid out by the insurance coverage limitations

For example, take a look at the exemption of "construction sites": Either the car disengages and says "from here on our it's your job, not ours anymore" or it does not, and then in the case of an accident you are not covered by their limited legal responsibility. What the autopilot can definitely not do, is making the construction site disappear or guaranteeing that the car will never hit one after having been engaged.

You missed:

c) The system needs to detect worsening conditions early either prompt you to take over with enough time to spare (or fail gracefully).

That's the big thing that Mercedes guarantees here: You'll have enough time to take over even if you're doing something else; if the system does fails to give you a warning in time and you crash, Mercedes takes the responsibility. In all other systems, once the autopilot prompts you to take over, you are responsible. With this system, once the autopilot prompts you to take over, Mercedes is still responsible for the next ten seconds, which should be more than enough time to take over in an emergency.

Oh well, we seem to have different opinions about whether a 10s-to-react-window in quickly moving car qualifies as having to be alert all the time. Fair enough.

There is not ever going to be a takeover window long enough to allow the driver to read a book at their leisure. That would require tens of seconds for context switching during which the traffic is going to be changing behaviour.

How will the car detect a construction zone it can’t see yet with enough time to hand over to an inattentive driver?

I look forward to seeing this system in operation. I have significant doubts about the feasibility of its operational claims.

Absolutely.

Regulators also love b) and now that there is precedence we should see the next step by some of the a) companies.

If their product is better they should be able to easily match or exceed Mercedes (and I think they will. Either voluntarily or by law).

To me this is a really exciting step along the way to autonomous vehicles.

Fair enough. I definitely agree that autonomous driving has to be insured by the company providing the service and at least in so far it's a big step in the right direction.

However claiming they have beaten Tesla seems like a bit of a stretch given the circumstances.

I might have written that poorly.

Tesla probably has the lead on average but can't (or won't) guarantee that their system is safe in a specific set of best case conditions.

It's a different approach if you ask me.

>Tesla probably has the lead on average but can't (or won't) guarantee that their system is safe in a specific set of best case conditions.

Do people not see how much of a nightmare it would be if liability is constantly switching back and forth depending on the circumstances the self-driving system is being used under? The only practical approach is to either have the driver always be responsibile when the system is on or the manufacturer always be responsible when the system is on. The choice to use the latter approach means the system has to be limited to very narrow circumstances. That doesn't mean the system is necessarily safer than the competitors in those circumstances, it simply means that the companies are approaching the same problem from differenct angles.

How does Tesla have the lead? Their autonomous technology seems pretty far behind Waymo and Cruise.

You just don't know about the autonomous technology from Mercedes. Because they don't talk about. They don't produce blog post about every small step they do, like Waymo and the others.

The automotive industry is more like Apple. They don't talk and show off until its done. Like: Never over promise and under deliver.

In particular the automotive industry has been sued often enough to be careful what they say. I fully expect Tesla to be found at fault for some situation where they officially say the driver is in charge, but the courts decide marketing messages mislead the driver.

You must be joking. This is the industry that has annual travelling car shows where every manufacturer displays "concepts" that are never thereafter produced.

If Mercedes would apply the same safeguards as Tesla, then Tesla would look not so nicely anymore.

I am still waiting for the promised full autonomous cross-country trip from East to West. I think it was promised for 2019.

While Mercedes had a full autonomous trip including small town traffic and several round-abouts.

Mercedes just applies higher standards on what they deploy on average Joe.

Musk may have promised that in 2019, but he famously promised it in 2017.

> I think it was promised for 2019.

https://youtu.be/o7oZ-AQszEI / https://old.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/s7vea9/fsd_bei...

Although his earlier claims in 2014 / 2015 were met, as autopilot works reasonably well on roads and highways. The claim for LA->NY was 2016[1]

1: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-autonomous-tesla-d...

They very much have beaten Tesla, or does Tesla have a similar approval and infrastructure in place? Will Tesla take liability from you when the car crashes in Autopilot? They won’t, while Mercedes actually will and has that legally backed by the German government.

As the top comment said, it's only in extremely tight circumstances. Tesla Autopilot / FSD beta (the one that you can use if you have >98 safety score) will work anywhere your car can see lane lines and it'll try its best to work in rain/snow or at 1am with limited visibility.

It is as tiny a degree as between software 95% ready and 100% ready. Or a software development contract with or without the pesky word ‚guarantee‘ in it. At some point a few degrees make the difference between water and vapor.

Tesla will never take legal responsibility for their autopilot with current cars.

There's a reason for that and it's because of a lack of confidence in the technology.

They will try to avoid taking responsibility anyway. The courts will decide if they do or not.

Insurance doesn't cover brand image, which is very important for Mercedes.

> I don't think it's that big of a deal but it's clearly well done from a PR/marketing standpoint.

If this is true why don't all of companies do it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com