Mercedes adds a new car light color: Blue for self-driving | Hacker News Reader

Mercedes adds a new car light color: Blue for self-driving

cnn.com

This seems perilously close to the green color of traffic lights.

Is there any reason to use anything close to the existing spectrum of green (drive quickly into this light) or blue (emergency) for this? Why not purple?

Do bear in mind they selected turquoise which is just equal parts blue and green light. Like, why would you do that if you had any other choice?

Color perception is a tricky thing as anyone who has ever painted a house knows. The ambient can deeply affect it, and people have different perceptions of color in their eyes to say nothing of those with Tritanomaly who simply won’t be able to discern these colors at all. And then there’s lots of traffic lights already have kind of a turquoise color. Just look for yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?q=green+traffic+light&prmd=imvn...

Is that really the best choice? Really? Seems kinda short sighted, so to speak.

Agreed. Many green traffic lights do look quite turquoisy. A Deep Purple might have been better and cooler

If you want "green" traffic lights, check out Japan's.

Due to historical reasons, and to comply with international standards, they changed the meaning of the color to match the existing street lights.

I don't think that is quite right. Afaik, historically, in japan, green is a shade of blue. And they didn't comply with international standards, they aren't part of the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals.

This is how traffic lights looked when I was there https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37988388

Photos on a Canon consumer-level DSLR and on a Pixel 3 phone

https://imgur.com/a/S815y7o

They also look like the low-quality aftermarket headlights that are ubiquitous on US roads.

Light purple is the preferred color of a good nighttime LED headlight blinding.

I winced at this comment because I felt what it felt like when I read it.

The trauma is real.

What's your problem exactly? That people could mistake the cars lights as traffic lights? Looks like non-issue 4 MBAs could hold 8 meetings over.

I’d like to submit my resignation and unsubscribe to this newsletter please?

> Color perception is a tricky thing as anyone who has ever painted a house knows.

Also, 8% of men have some form of colorblindness.

As part of that subgroup, I think 'colorblindness' is a stigmatising term.

I prefer 'chromatographically challenged'.

I'll lead myself out.

The same here. Things for me are pretty much in color as if in a giant OLED screen. It is just that some very specific hues of yellow and green look different to me compared to standard vision people.

I’ve never really liked “colourblind” as a term because I can see colour, just differently, which always surprises people in the “oh, what colour is this” game they play after finding out.

I’m not a fan of “chromatographically challenged”, I would prefer colour vision defficiency even to it.

Dichromat, or anomalous trichromatic are accurate, but I don’t think people will adopt them…

Yes. And of course that was accounted for when choosing the color and in fact was one of the areas where the turquoise choice clearer outperformed other choices. Read more here: https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/75532788/AVSR-03...

They had actually evaluated aqua and purple, and chose aqua because it was more visible?

This isn’t critical road information. Why does it need to use the most visible spectrum, and the spectrum closest to blue/green confusion possibilities?

I’m not sold on their methodologies.

They examined one colour, then changed it in the final selection to be more green (which was one of the suggestions).

After shifting that original turquoise from the paper into green it’s now in the central neutral point at which the largest groups of colourblind people cannot differentiate it from white, which is the colour used for reversing lights (and also a light in the taillight group).

In this paper they should have reviewed the new suggested colour as well; the original turquoise does not have the same confusion with white light, so they’ve effectively taken the pros from a previous result and mixed them into the pros from their hypothetical changed result, without reexamining the new one.

> Perilously close to the green color of traffic lights

In the same way that brake lights are perilously close the same color as traffic lights? Or that the amber to red color of turn signals is close to traffic colors as well? How is this perilous?

I suspect the choice of blue/green over purple or violet has more to do with daytime visibility, which is the same reason blue was chosen for emergency vehicles.

Brake lights being the color of stop lights is helpful because it's a reminder to stop, just as turn signals being the color of caution lights is helpful as a reminder to be cautious of a turning vehicle. Green lights don't fall into either category, being generally a cue to step on the gas.

For an example of lack of respect for existing patterns, see the HAWK signal.

that one is so crazy.. how on earth could anyone think that re-purposing "STOP RIGHT AWAY OR YOU WILL BE HIT BY TRAIN" signal into "ok to proceed after stop" was a good idea?

The first time I encountered one it was off. So, I alone slowed thinking it was malfunctioning.

Even worse is when the power goes out, these default to indicating there is no one there.

I thought that was going to be awesome because of the name. So disappointed lol.

For those who don’t know this name, even if you’ve seen it, here is an great discussion about it:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/30/roadshow-gasp-clearin...

> No. During a flashing red, a driver may proceed if the pedestrian/bicycle rider has cleared their lanes of travel.

(And people are deeply confused about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/phoenix/comments/brqwbc/reminder_fl...)

> Drivers should always use caution while passing a HAWK signal as a pedestrian or bicyclist may fail to push the activation button and begin to cross.

How? What? Who designs things like this?

Wait, I'm a little confused on the confusion. Are flashing reds not common? In my area a lot of lights switch to flashing red at night or just intersections will be flashing red (and flashing yellow opposite - one way stop signs) all the time. If I ever saw a flashing red I would know to treat it like a stop sign even at a foreign intersection. Or am I misunderstanding the HAWK system?

Single flashing red = stop sign.

Alternating flashing red (school busses and railroad crossings) = stop until signal goes out... except in case of HAWK.

Precisely.

Honestly, confusion here is just poor driver education in the US. HAWK signals follow normal patterns: Amber is caution/be prepared to stop. Red is stop. Flashing red is "stop until clear," i.e., use as a stop sign. This is true for all traffic lights in the US.

Having originally gotten my license in the US -- in what is apparently the hardest state to get a license in (WA) -- and now in the UK, I can say emphatically that US driver education is severely lacking.

As a limey I've never been able to figure out why the US likes red turn signals on the rear

Perhaps it means less complexity (depends if the bulb is coloured or the assembly), although that seems to be cancelled out by the lack of differentiation between braking and turning

They also don't really bother with fog lights

From Wikipedia

Until the early 1960s, most front turn signals worldwide emitted white light and most rear turn signals emitted red. Amber front turn signals were voluntarily adopted by the auto industry in the USA for most vehicles beginning in the 1963 model year,[40][41] though the advent of amber signals was accompanied by legal stumbles in some states[42] and front turn signals were still legally permitted to emit white light until FMVSS 108 took effect for the 1968 model year, whereupon amber became the only permissible front turn signal colour. Presently, almost all countries outside North America require that all front, side and rear turn signals produce amber light. In North America the rear signals may be amber or red. American regulators and other proponents of red rear turn signals have historically asserted there is no proven safety benefit to amber signals, though it has been recognized since the 1960s that amber turn signals are more quickly spotted than red ones.[43][44][45] International proponents of amber rear signals say they are more easily discernible as turn signals,[46] and U.S. studies in the early 1990s demonstrated improvements in the speed and accuracy of following drivers' reaction to stop lamps when the turn signals were amber rather than red.[46][47][48][49][50] A 2008 U.S. study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) suggests vehicles with amber rear signals rather than red ones are up to 28% less likely to be involved in certain kinds of collisions,[51] and a 2009 NHTSA study determined there is a significant overall safety benefit to amber rather than red rear turn signals.[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_lighting#Turn_signal...

I was taught that it’s really about saving money by having fewer parts though. One color light means rear lights can double up as signals AND brake lights. But the whole debate about it is fascinating and a great little history lesson.

I wouldn’t be shocked if it was totally about US carmakers being cheap. Amber turn signals are safer.

I’d put money on that. Ironically.

I hate red turn signals because I often confuse it with brake lights if I can only see half a vehicle. This leads to premature and sudden braking for cars that follow. I think it should be required that turn signals be amber. I only see it on American cars. I kid you not, I complain about this everyday in the US while driving.

I mean, when the red traffic light and red tail lights both mean stop, it makes sense. When the amber traffic light and amber turn signal both mean caution, it makes sense.

When blue means "emergency vehicle" and green means "go" when driving, co-opting a similar color to serve a different purpose goes against the intuition that all US drivers have ingrained in them over years of driving.

Red means stop. Yellow means warning. Green means go. Blue means emergency.

Aquamarine (right in the middle of blue+green) means engaged self-driving car?

Do I really have to explain why red and yellow are compatable (warning/stop) and blue/green/aqua (emergency/go really fast/self driving car) is less so?

Besides, my point was why not choose a distinct spectrum for unimportant information that has no chance of confusion?

And really, what is the need for a “self driving color” as it’s not critical road information in the first place. It’s a “nice to know” not “need to know” piece of information.

So, why any need for it at all? And if you’re going to do it, why such a poor choice of spectrum? There are plenty of other colors that have absolutely no risk of confusion.

But red doesn't mean stop and yellow doesn't mean warning, when it comes to vehicle lights at least. They can mean emergency vehicle, a turning car, rear running lights, a braking car, non-police emergency vehicle, turn signalling, running lights, fog lights, etc.

Red and yellow are used in lots of cases. In their passive use (not flashing), they're mainly used to distinguish cars and direction at night.

There's a limited number of useful and distinguishable light colors for vehicles. There are even fewer useful colors for passive use during daylight.

Blue-green probably makes the most sense for daytime, passive use.

Wait till you find out what color brake lights on cars are...

Traffic lights are installed in infra-structure, those lights in cars. If drivers get confused by this, maybe they shouldn't be driving.

Haha. People can’t even pay attention to gigantic lines on the road, giant red signs, and bright lights in their faces with any reliability.

And you want them to stop driving because they should be able to distinguish a moving from a fixed light?

Yes. I have this strange desire not to die in a completely avoidable manner because people who shouldn't be driving are driving.

I lived for a time in Germany, drivers there seem to have no problem with that kind of basic thing. And mind you, not only German drivers, but people who came from all over the world, no matter how fucked the traffic on their home countries is, seem to learn quite well how to drive in a civilized and efficient manner like the Germans.

I don't care if people think they are entitled to drive no matter how badly they approach this task as long as they don't risk my fucking life. Do someone want to be a jerk, text and drive at 100 mph? Them buy themselves a farm, build themselves a road, propel themselves into a wall to die in a ball of fire: not my fucking business. Doing the same stuff in the same road other people are using? Well, now I have a problem with that person, and it is only reasonable that I expect them to show some respect for other's people lives.

It is not that hard. People should be expected to pay attention when controlling a fucking heavy bolide of steel death.

Human eyeballs have shallower color depth in blue

Yes, of course the closeness to the color of traffic lights was considered. Like do you think these people are fucking idiots? You can read more here: https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/75532788/AVSR-03...

That also addresses your question "why not purple", as that was one of the options they explicitly consider.

Specifically where turquoise was preferred over purple:

1. In the central visibility field, people are more sensitive to turquoise than to purple

2. purple has poorer visibility/discriminability when accounting for color vision deficiencies

3. Studies on colour preferences reveal bluish colours to be the most positively rated worldwide

Why use the highest visibility available color spectrum available for something as trivial as indicating whether a car is under computer control? Seems like you’d want to use it for something important. Especially as the only remaining color isn’t as good for those with color issues in their eyes.

It’s in no way critical to other road users to know. Witness how completely unnecessary for the current generation of level 1 and 2 self-driving technologies. We have no light. Nothing is missing from the driving experience. Other road users do not care.

What makes it so critical that people are aware that computer-controlled cruise control is operating?

And yes, I think a lot of decisions are made by idiots. Many decisions are made for reasons besides common sense. Logic is just a small contributor to why giant bureaucracies make decisions, and sometimes it doesnt survive the process of becoming a standard. So in general I think it’s incredibly important to question what look like a lack of common sense, even if there is a study. Can’t tell you the number of times the obvious solution that became a standard turned out to be dumb or wrong when it came into contact with the real world.

The justification from Mercedes is:

> The turquoise lights are needed, according to Mercedes, to alert passing drivers and police that the vehicle is under fully automated control. That way, when someone outside the vehicle sees the driver looking away from the road, they don't think the driver is doing something wrong.

This is a truly dumb justification for use of one of the most important spectrum lights remaining for automotive. This is in absolutely no way mission critical or even critically important information to other road users. It’s nonsense and more driven by marketing than substantive need for some innovation to handle a use case that matters in any way.

It’s great for cops. They can finally be completely sure of that phone ticket.

I think this is conceptually a good idea, even if this implementation and color choice may leave something to be desired.

The idea that there would be a pilot lamp for self driving itself is a good idea - and while I think this color is fine (ships use green lights for starboard for example) - its obvious from reactions here that further thought and discussion is needed on the matter.

I think once we can agree on a color/mode of operation, a self driving pilot lamp should be a legal requirement - particularly as a means to enhance pedestrian safety.

Adding shape or location is better than color alone. For example, most countries accommodate color-blind drivers by standardizing the ordering and orientation of traffic lights in addition to the colors. In the US, there's no shape variation, but some other countries add it.

Another good option to consider.

> its obvious from reactions here that further thought and discussion is needed on the matter.

No, its obvious from reaction here that commenters here have the completely misguided belief that experts in fields somehow are unable to consider the little pet topics that each of those commenters come up with. Everything brought up here was considered when choosing that light color. You can read all about how the SAE choose that color here: https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/75532788/AVSR-03...

> commenters here have the completely misguided belief that experts in fields somehow are unable to consider the little pet topics that each of those commenters come up with

Welcome to discussion forums on the Internet.

This was a great source by the way - thank you for posting it!

If this new tail light color becomes street legal you can bet people are going to install it on their cars regardless of autonomous driving capabilities.

they can easily make that illegal, i mean make it illegal to install blue light on non self driving cars, or while not self driving

I'm sure it is illegal as part of the new regulation. The color is legally reserved for a particular car mode. Likewise, you can't have bright red lights that turn on-and-off when you're not braking because that light behavior is legal but reserved for the braking mode.)

(It's true that this will be more difficult to enforce than prohibitions against using darker blue, since a regular passenger car using them is clearly a violation, whereas pulling someone over for the light blue will presumably require the officer to have probable cause that the car is not self-driving.)

> you can't have bright red lights that turn on-and-off when you're not braking because that light behavior is legal but reserved for the braking mode.

Except in the US where indicator lights (turn signals) can be red.

Making it illegal is easy, but that's not necessarily true for enforcing said regulation. Unless we expect law enforcement to memorize which make and model should have blue lights, increasing year by year.

That, or a much more technologically invasive solution like letting cops see into car's driving mode remotely which is a whole other can of worms.

Speed cameras will easily enforce this.

Just like today they automatically bill you for entering in special zones or give you a speed ticket.

Except people will argue your privacy rights are violated by having cameras .. at least in SF .. they'll also argue it's racist by showing stats that poor people pay more of a percent of their income and so it's harder on them and there are more poor people of color than not.

They're supposed to add a few speeding cameras next year except ....

https://www.sfmta.com/projects/speed-safety-cameras

See the steps. I suspect it will never actually make it to the final step before some group successfully prevents them from being put up

Probably autonomous cars will have some kind of transponder readable by road infrastructure, other cars and law enforcement. So, it would be easy to catch offenders.

If that's the case they can just use that transponder to signal this info as according to the article, informing the police that a driver is not supposed to pay attention is the point of it.

Waymo's typical accident, from the CA DMV reports, is this:

- Waymo vehicle comes to a required stop before entering an intersection.

- View of the cross street is obstructed when stopped at the stop line.

- Waymo advances into intersection far enough to see cross traffic.

- Cross traffic is detected, and Waymo stops.

- Trailing vehicle rear-ends Waymo vehicle at low speed.

That's happened at least half a dozen times. There's one location in Mountain View where there's a tree in the median strip that obstructs the car-top scanner when the Waymo is stopped at the stop line. Two rear-end collisions at that location so far.

As far as I know, no Waymo vehicle has ever entered an intersection and been hit by previously occluded cross traffic. Many human drivers get T-boned in such situations. So this is a good design.

One way to prevent those minor rear-end collisions would be slightly different brake light usage. When moving slowly forward, likely to stop suddenly, and there is another vehicle close behind, flash the brake lights rapidly to get the trailing vehicle to back off.

Drivers would understand that.

Cynical old geezer "fix": Add big, obvious trailer hitches to Waymo vehicles. Following drivers notice, realize that fender-benders would be far more expensive for them, and stay a reasonable distance back.

I’ve always wanted another light on cars to signal approval. Thank you, you’re welcome, go ahead.

Also, front brake lights for people to see you are braking. Pedestrian crossings, intersection cross turns etc.

At least I know it’s possible now.

As my friend pointed out, on the road everyone has extreme autism; only one ambiguous signal for conveying any emotion.

Where I am (New Zealand), turning on the emergency lights while driving for 2 or 3 ‘blinks’ is understood to mean ‘thank you’.

Truck drivers do that in the US. I do that in my car, too. Sometimes it's too dark to see the handwave out the back window.

I used to do that in Australia, using the "hazard lights". In Finland, they are indeed called "emergency lights" and the police are rather strict about using them only in emergencies - e.g. not when simply pulled over to use your phone or calm your toddler.

This is true for Turkey as well.

Ya, or several different horn sounds.

> Also, front brake lights for people to see you are braking. Pedestrian crossings

The safer thing to do is just estimate the speed of the car and it's breaking. I never cross if it's obvious that at current speed/deceleration I don't have time to clear it. This tends to frustrate drivers because it makes them break harder (since I don't start crossing while looking at them) and it takes me longer to cross (since I start later), but I don't care.

As a cyclist, I always want cars to have a blue flashing indicator opposite the yellow turning signal, such that if you're turning right the right side flashes yellow (amber) and the left side flashes blue.

If I'm biking on one side of the car, I can't often tell why it's slowing down suddenly like it's about to turn when its signals are hidden on the other side. It's 50/50 whether it's turning the other way, or about to turn right into me and didn't bother to signal.

On a related topic, why aren't turning signals standardized to be the outermost light? I hate it when signal are inside of the headlights, because, again, I get people turning into me and I can't see their signal.

This is why I'd like cars to be able to signal "I am going straight". Today it's unclear if they go straight or simply forgot to signal. On a bike guessing wrong can be very dangerous, so one has to err on the side of caution, which is inconvenient and has its own dangers.

> I’ve always wanted another light on cars to signal approval ... go ahead.

Not sure I agree with the "go ahead", it should never be ambiguous who's turn it is.

> Also, front brake lights for people to see you are braking

But this yes! How come the brake lights are just in the back and not also in the front? So obvious it should be.

> Not sure I agree with the "go ahead", it should never be ambiguous who's turn it is.

Legally it may not be ambiguous but in reality some drivers don't remember they have the right-of-way and you have to remind them, otherwise it becomes a stalemate. Also sometimes you have the right-of-way but you want to yield it because, e.g. you need more time to process the situation (is that a small animal in the road? do I need to turn left here instead?) or you simply want to be a good Samaritan (let that pedestrian cross even though they are technically jaywalking).

I always drive with headlights on, and my way of yielding (or simply telling the other car or person to go ahead) is to flash my headlights a couple of times.

> don't remember they have the right-of-way and you have to remind them, otherwise it becomes a stalemate

Then that's the problem, that people don't remember the right-of-way. In these cases, I simply wait for them, trying to signal to them with my hand or my horn, as it is their right-of-way.

> simply want to be a good Samaritan (let that pedestrian cross even though they are technically jaywalking)

This causes accidents though, as suddenly you're driving unpredictable because you're trying to be nice. And yes, I'm not saying other drivers aren't unpredictable already, but less of that would certainly be better.

Be educated, be right and be safe. Then both drivers and pedestrians end up in less accidents.

> Then that's the problem, that people don't remember the right-of-way. In these cases, I simply wait for them, trying to signal to them with my hand or my horn, as it is their right-of-way.

So now you're advocating for what @cromulent wrote: "I’ve always wanted another light on cars to signal approval ... go ahead" (i.e. a way to signal to the other driver), but a few comments above you disagreed with the need for a special light to do just that. Since you obviously think there's occasionally a need to signal to the other driver that you are yielding to them, why wouldn't you want a light to do so? Hands only work when they can see you (hands aren't always visible through glass due to reflections, and you don't want to roll down your window when it's raining hard) and horns only work when they can hear you (not hearing impaired or listening to music on headphones) and understand that a honk means "you can go!", not "watch out, here I come!"

> This causes accidents though, as suddenly you're driving unpredictable because you're trying to be nice.

Who said anything about being unpredictable? If I have to slow down to avoid a pedestrian, I'm going to do it, even if it means a slight chance of being rear-ended by the driver behind me who isn't driving a safe distance. That's also a perfect example of a time when I'd want to yield to the pedestrian so they can get out of the road without me having to swerve left or right to avoid them. What better way to tell them I'm yielding than with a special light designed to convey that?

Turquoise, not blue, as the article quickly makes clear.

(The exact shade is spec'ed by the Society of Automotive Engineers, presumably to minimize the chance of normally-sighted drivers mistaking it for the actual blue color used on many police vehicles.)

They can make that claim, but I happen to be gifted with eyesight, which allows me to know that even blue-tinted headlights are easy to mistake as police lights under a pretty wide variety of circumstances.

As long as we're casting aspersions, those little blue Uber dashboard lights have given me a few palpitations at this point.

The feature actually sounds amazing if you had to commute in heavy traffic every day. I wouldn't trust a fully autonomous system at highway speed yet, but under 40mph in a traffic jam, and I can read a book? Sign me up.

I know it's a trite comment at this point, but that used to be my commute on the train.

Ditto my commute in the bus to and from work. People wince when I tell them it takes me ~45 minutes to go to work, and the same amount of time to go back home, but 30 minutes of each trip is done with my laptop open working, meaning I only need to spend 7 hours in the office each day.

This will allow me to do something I've been looking forward to - When a car is running autonomously, I can turn in front of it because I know it will stop. Think of making a left turn across traffic in an almost-big-enough gap. If it is a meatbag driver, it might hit me. If it is autonomous, it should auto-brake. I'm not talking about a slam on the brakes scenario, just a little bit of a slowdown so I can make a gap that I wouldn't otherwise attempt.

Need to merge? Cut off the autonomous car.

For people finding their browser blocked by cnn:

https://www.ocregister.com/2023/12/19/mercedes-adds-a-new-ca...

Outside of the US, blue is often used for police and emergency services due to biology reasons (visibility for those with poor eyesight)

I think a "special colour" for autonomous cars is a good idea, but I wonder what the colour will be in e.g. Europe

>Outside of the US, blue is often used for police and emergency services due to biology reasons (visibility for those with poor eyesight)

Flashing blue is used for police and emergency vehicles in the US as well and is illegal to use for other purposes in all the states I've bothered to know the local laws of (city/state snow plows being the one exception I believe).

This light is very much not blue, it's turquoise which they say in the article. I have no idea why they say blue in the title because people definitely don't think "turquoise" when they hear "blue".

Sometimes its blue, sometimes its red and blue in combination.

Blue is also used for police in the US for flashing lights, usually in combination with red. But Mercedes use is for running lights near headlights and tail lights, so I guess that's different enough?

As someone who drives a car with adaptive cruise control, that's awesome. My car leaves a safe following distance and sometimes people behind me expect me to react to their tailgaiting or aggression. Having an indicator that clearly indicates the car is driving automatically should reduce aggressive driving over time.

Also I worry sometimes that other drivers will think I'm boxing them in, but it's only the car leaving a safe following distance and is completely automatic. I want to say.... "It's the automated driving function" to those people.

On the other hand, if they're boxed in and unable to maneuver, does it really matter the reason behind it?

My solution to that problem is bring more oblivious than they are mad. You can get 1" behind my car for all I care I won't even notice.

I've been driving for years and I don't brake check tailgaters, but I don't accelerate either. The only times someone has rear ended me was when I stopped at a traffic light and they weren't paying attention, so as much as people try to intimidate you, it's rare they will actually hit if you are driving in a reasonable manner, so I think it's actually fairly safe.

I would like to reduce peoples stress though and I feel like indicating that your vehicle is in some sort of automated mode would likely reduce other drivers stress and generally be beneficial.

For me the major story here is that progress is good enough that a car manufacturer is actually trying to tackle this problem:

> Only California and Nevada have approved the new light color. Those are the only states where Mercedes’ “conditionally autonomous” Drive Pilot technology is legal.

> Mercedes Drive Pilot can be used in traffic jams on selected major highways when vehicles are traveling at less than 40 miles an hour. Under those conditions, the driver can take their feet off the pedals, let go of the steering wheel and — this is where is it differs from any other driver assistance system — completely take their eyes off the road.

It's stuff like this that makes me excited that we really will have totally self-driving cars one day - in our lifetimes, and maybe not that far down the line.

Mercedes is making a huge gamble, IMO.

If their autonomy fails to notice a hazard and causes a crash, they're setting themselves up to take ALL liability by telling drivers they don't need to pay attention.

Compare that to Tesla which says the driver still needs to watch the road and be ready take over, which implies Tesla wants to push any liability for failures onto the driver.

This distinction is what separates L2 and L3 autonomy. Yet...Tesla's AP is certainly capable of L3, especially if you were to limit its usage in the same way as Mercedes, but Tesla doesn't want liability.

Tesla is way behind Waymo, apparently.

L3 is coming. Especially if legislation is made which can mitigate the risk to the manufacturers.

From the article:

”Browser Blocked

We apologize, but your web browser is configured in such a way that it is preventing this site from implementing required components that protect your privacy and allow you to view and change your privacy settings. This functionality is required for privacy legislation in your region.

We recommend you use a different browser or disable the “EasyList Cookie” filter from your “Content Filtering” settings (found under “Settings” -> “Shields” in the Brave Browser).”

Is this now the recommended way of dealing with users who use adblockers? talking down to them?

As a colourblind person my first thought is: why is your car in reverse on the freeway

I hope this never ships as is, because it's not a safe design as is, but I like the idea.

As a non colourblind person I thought the same!

Isn't reverse white light? If your colorblindness prevents you from distinguishing turquoise from white, I think that is an extremely rare condition? The vast majority of color blindness is red-green at ~0.5% of the population (or ~2% if you include very mild forms). The next most prevalent type, I think, is blue-yellow (mostly tritan CVD) at 0.01%.

It’s actually very common.

The obvious place most red/green colourblind people will have issues is differentiating red from green where the cones (would normally) overlap, but with only two cones if you saturate both of them equally there’s no additional signal to tell if you’re looking at a colour or white light.

The point at which a red-blind person’s green sensitivity intersect with blue is cyan, and for a green-blind person it’s green-cyan (turquoise), so depending on the tone/shade of turquoise it appears white to most colourblind people.

> Mercedes’ Drive Pilot allows the driver to take their eyes off the road continuously

This is so people/police/whatever don’t go thinking the driver is doing something illegal when not paying attention.

Yes, that's what the article says.

I would think that you cannot see the blue light on the front of the vehicle (e.g. in your own rear-view mirror if driving in front of it) with the MB's headlights on.

My Mercedes already uses a blue colour for automatic dipping of headlights and other automated headlight activity. But that blue is a definite mid-blue.

Tesla will not need it in the near future.

Turquoise is not blue. Blue is for police and shouldn't be used on passenger cars in the US.

let's spell it out: a new color to alert of a new danger

Hey, now the at-fault vehicle will match the first responder's!

If it was legal enough it would not be necessary

Knowing that an other vehicle is under computer instead of human control can be useful to (human) drivers.

Isn't blue light really bad for eyes

No, it's not.

Yes it is. It can damage retinal cells. But this isn't deep blue and not very bright.

https://health.ucdavis.edu/blog/cultivating-health/blue-ligh...

There's research showing that extended exposure to (extremely bright) sunlight can damage the eyes. There's no research I'm aware of showing that blue spectrum light from, eg., a computer or cellphone screen, which is what people are usually concerned with, can do damage. (And obviously nothing about blue lights on cars, but clearly they're not going to be particularly bright either.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com