Hacker News Reader

Comment by wilg | Hacker News Reader

Ford and Cadillac have Level 2 systems, not Level 3. Tesla also has Level 2, but it is significantly more capable. (I don't think any of the others work on city streets at all, or even change lanes automatically based on navigation.)

Mercedes is so limited to just technically qualify for Level 3 that it could be likely be trivially outmatched by some limited FSD conditions if that's the route Tesla wanted to go.

But yeah I assume you start with some limited Level 3 subset, probably highway, then extend it to city streets. Then just start working your way through validating new conditions.

View on HN

Fair call out that bluecruise and supercruise are not actually L3

https://www.arenaev.com/mercedesbenz_drive_pilot_now_works_a...

? this demonstrates the limitations of drive pilot. and its describe a feature that is not out until 2025. current limitations are 40mph on a straight line highway, no lane changes, navigation, etc

Mercedes, unlike every other automaker, including Tesla, *takes over legal liability* in those circumstances.

They're putting their money where Musk's mouth is.

And next year it will go up to 85kmph, close to highway speeds.

No they aren't.

If you look at their wording, they are saying they are ready to defend themselves and their software, not that they will protect anyone from a lawsuit.

The owners manual even explicitly states you are always the operator under drive pilot.

> The owners manual even explicitly states you are always the operator under drive pilot.

Just a straight up lie. The manual states:

> The person in the driver's seat when DRIVE PILOT is activated is designated as the fallback-ready user and should be ready to take over control of the vehicle.

> As soon as the driver steers, accelerates or brakes, the responsibility for driving and safe operation of the vehicle, including compliance with traffic regulations, will be returned to the driver.

On other words, the product can just return control to the user at the moment when there is a problem, so they don‘t take responsibility.

IDK how you got that from what I quoted other than just wishcasting it to be the case. There is a 10 second handover window after which the car goes into an emergency stop procedure if the user hasn't taken control.

They’re taking legal liability when you are driving a straight line on selected freeways going less than 40mph and with a car in front of you to follow during the day. This doesn’t demonstrate advanced capability, just limited scope.

Tesla’s system is purportedly far more advanced — do you believe that they could offer the same safety promises and legal protection for that limited scope if they wanted to?

(leaving aside for the moment, why they wouldn’t want to)

I’m not sure, I think it’s technically feasable given the current state, I expect that scope has pretty good safety numbers on current software, since it’s such a narrow scope.

But they would probably want to do all kinds of extra training and validation and fine tuning on it first rather than just blast out the current version.

Does no one read the article? They're going to bump up the speed limit to 85kmph (52mph for the metric-impaired).

And I actually believe Mercedes Benz, you know, the inventors of the automobile, to deliver.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com