44 ms·

Mercedes to accept legal responsibility for a vehicle when Drive Pilot is active

613 points by gscott 5y ago

Hypocritelefty 5y ago
popularonion 5y ago
Saved you a click: > “On certain highways, below 40 mph”
anshumankmr 5y ago
Interesting. Let's see how this plays out for them.
EdwardDiego 5y ago
Putting your money where your mouth is, is probably the only way to obtain acceptance for semi-autonomous driving systems. I imagine airplane manufacturers have long been on the hook if their autopilot engages Kill All Humans mode, despite the best efforts of Boeing's lawyers to blame some of the humans their software killed.
- belter 5y ago
  Lot's of disclaimers. Plus what happens if the system disengages and you crash 5 sec after because you were not expecting to? Technically they are not responsible anymore it seems. From the article: "...Handing over driving responsibility completely requires extremely particular circumstances. Right now, Drive Pilot can only engage at speeds under 40 mph (60 km/h in Germany) on limited-access divided highways with no stoplights, roundabouts, or other traffic control systems, and no construction zones. Eligible roads must be mapped by Mercedes for Drive Pilot use (similar to GM SuperCruise); the automaker has already mapped every such highway in Germany, and most of those in Nevada and California. The system will only operate during daytime, in reasonably clear weather, without overhead obstructions. Inclement weather, construction zones, tunnels, and emergency vehicles will all trigger a handover warning. And no, you can't close your eyes or go to sleep while it operates..."
  - Limeray 5y ago
    The car gives you a 10 seconds heads up. From the article: "[...] Unlike all currently available driver-assist systems, Drive Pilot is designed to give drivers a 10-second warning before switching off; engineers had to make sure that, in every situation, the system would safely and faultlessly hand over control. [...]"
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Technically they are not responsible anymore it seems. No, technically whether they or liable or not reverts to normal principles of product liability, rather than their special acceptance of liability. But manufacturers liability for harms caused by their products, while varying in detail from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, tend to be pretty broad in most of the West (incl. the US, despite it's otherwise weak consumer laws.)
  - cge 5y ago
    Are there even any limited-access divided highways in California where speeds under 40 mph are safe? I'm not sure what they would have mapped. As the default speed limit for such a highway would presumably be 65 mph (and traffic usually much faster), anywhere with such lowered speeds would presumably have special circumstances that would probably make it unsuitable. The guaranteed 10 second handoff is impressive, however.
- avalys 5y ago
  Autopilots in airplanes have nothing to do with autonomous driving. Airplane autopilots are so simple they they can be implemented with entirely analog circuits. They are simple feedback control loops that operate off a single scalar variable in each axis. There is ample time for the pilot to correct any “mistakes” the autopilot makes. There is no expectation that the autopilot operates independently of the pilot’s supervision and judgement. In terms of decision-making and autonomy and liability - an airplane autopilot is really analogous to cruise control in a car, nothing more. It operates the flight controls to maintain simple parameters chosen by the pilot, and that’s all.
  - belter 5y ago
    Not only that, Pilot training assumes Autopilot can disengage at any time.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      On top of that, aviation autopilots operate in one of the most controlled and stable environments. Ground based individual traffic is the polar opposite of that.
      - samhw 5y ago
        As aviation people eloquently put it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_sky_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_sky_theory I think there should be a correlative 'small road theory', if only to underscore the difference.
        hef19898 5y ago
        It seems the non-existence of a small-road-theory is in itself an problem when it comes to self-driving cars...
    - fastball 5y ago
      Which is why (imo) Autopilot was a spot-on name for Tesla's initial driverless feature.
- tailspin2019 5y ago
  > Kill All Humans mode I think they discovered that it was the pilots who were accidentally leaning on the that switch when getting up for a coffee break. Terrible decision to put it right next to an armrest...
MichaelRazum 5y ago
Actually that is exactly the right thing to do! If something goes wrong when Autopilot is on, I think the manufacturer have to prove that it was a human error and not otherwise.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  We don't want to say "no mistakes allowed" though, that would be going too far. It's good for manufacturers to err on on the side of limited capabilities to keep things safer, but we don't want them to err too far in that direction. And if they're providing ongoing insurance with no revenue, that's an incentive to be overly restrictive.
- nradov 5y ago
  In a civil lawsuit for wrongful death (or whatever) the manufacturer doesn't have to prove anything. They are treated the same as any other defendant.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pontifier 5y ago
I was imagining a play like this utilizing insurance to smooth out the wrinkles. Seems like a fairly good bet that the restrictions are designed to essentially eliminate fault in the event of an accident.
hutzlibu 5y ago
"If the car crashes while Drive Pilot is operating, that's Mercedes' problem, not yours." Only legally speaking. If the car drives me into an incoming truck, it still is very much my problem. So currently it is only enabled for very clear situations, driving under 40 mp/h(60 kmh) in trafic jams on a motorway (where there usually is a physical separation to the other lane, except in roadbuilding situations, but I would guess, that the autopilot will be disabled then). So it should be quite safe. Otherwise they would not accept the risk. German car makers are very conservative. Edit: correct speedlimit
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Minor note: it's 40 miles /h, which is about 60km/h.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  Well, that is the catch: you can engage the system only on certain roads which also happen to have a divider between the traffic directions. So it is basically impossible to be facing an incoming truck there.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    Still, driving with 60 kmh into an obstacle can result in serious injuries, despite airbags. I hope/think they considered a pointy metal, like it sometimes is on back of trailors in front of you, stabbing through the windshield for example?
    - pintxo 5y ago
      A proper Mercedes developed algorithm will only ever use the left lane, so no risk to have a trailer in front /s
    - _ph_ 5y ago
      Right, the detection of obstacles needs to work perfectly. This is where LIDAR is good at, it gives pretty precise 3D information about your immediate surroundings. Especially when comparing with high resolution maps, obstacle detection should be very good.
35mm 5y ago
“If the car crashes while Drive Pilot is operating, that's Mercedes' problem, not yours.” It’s still my problem if I’m inside the car whilst it crashes.
- freemint 5y ago
  Not much at below 60 km/h max.
  - blackbrokkoli 5y ago
    Deadly crashes are not uncommon on half that speed, and risk does not grow linearly.
    - sdze 5y ago
      For sure not in a S-Class or EQS.
      - julius_deane 5y ago
        seems you're both thinking in absolutes
    - nradov 5y ago
      Crashes at 30 km/h will kill cyclists and pedestrians outside the car. The occupants of modern Mercedes-Benz cars will survive 100% of the time.
      - dwighttk 5y ago
        What are they doing on a controlled access highway?
        aembleton 5y ago
        Exiting their car after it caught on fire in a live lane.
slg 5y ago
>Handing over driving responsibility completely requires extremely particular circumstances. Right now, Drive Pilot can only engage at speeds under 40 mph (60 km/h in Germany) on limited-access divided highways with no stoplights, roundabouts, or other traffic control systems, and no construction zones...The system will only operate during daytime, in reasonably clear weather, without overhead obstructions. Inclement weather, construction zones, tunnels, and emergency vehicles will all trigger a handover warning. Those are some big caveats that mean that you won't be able to use this in most situations. It is basically only good for stop and go highway traffic which is a situation that other driver assist features handle pretty well.
- batiudrami 5y ago
  If that is the only use case Mercedes feel their safety assurance can justify what does that say about other self driving cars for which their manufacturers will not accept liability?
  - Traster 5y ago
    It says that they’re a responsible company that isn’t comfortable playing fast and loose with your safety. Unlike some US companies that don’t come from a background of safety but a background of “move fast and break things” and a business model of regulatory arbitrage.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      But this is quite a bad product in that respect. If this is all it takes, Tesla would implement the same restrictions and get the same fanfare, but alas they're not constantly aiming for "PR stunt" levels of driving.
      - delecti 5y ago
        You're saying that Tesla of all companies isn't aiming for PR stunts with their automated driving? Tesla, the company that calls their level 2 automation "Full Self Driving" isn't out for PR stunts? I would be hard-pressed to name many companies that seem more prone to PR stunts than Tesla.
PostOnce 5y ago
Whatever Mercedes says may not be what the law says. It may not be possible for them to take the liability from you. It may be criminal negligence or something else to not operate a car on a road in a state that says you have to. Maybe they can agree to pay any civil liability you'd have, but taking a nap after you turn a car on may open you to criminal liability that Mercedes can't intervene in.
- detaro 5y ago
  It is what the law says in this case.
  - PostOnce 5y ago
    Which law in which state in which circumstances? If a knife salesman tells me his knives can't hurt people, and signs a contract saying he'll assume all liability, I am nevertheless liable when I stab someone with it. The judge will say you damn well should've known you couldn't go to sleep in a car you're operating, and are in fact culpable for your negligence. "But Mercedes said!" "If Mercedes told you to jump (or drive) off a bridge..."
    - detaro 5y ago
      The law in the one country this currently is offered in, I'm not sure why other places would matter.
foreigner 5y ago
Civil liability is one thing, but what about criminal liability?
- arlcode 5y ago
  At least in Germany the law was ammended to allow this specific scenario.
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    But how far does this go? Does this mean that on root-cause analysis a particular Engineer could be criminally charged?
    - arlcode 5y ago
      I am no lawyer but there is certainly precedence for companies delivering faulty products and causing damages and injuries. At some point a judge will decide.
    - _ph_ 5y ago
      It is the same as with any product on the market. The producing company is liable, if the product causes harm when used and it is the products fault that the harm was caused. For example if lets say a TV blows up during normal usage. This is fist of all liability for damages. A criminal charge only happens if it can be shown, that there was any active wrongdoing leading to the damage. Like neglecting usual engineering practices, or even knowingly selling a defective product.
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
  Not a lawyer, but I think that if you don’t intend for the crash to happen, and don’t act negligently you’re not criminally liable. If the automated process is designed not to require attention of the operator, it should not be considered negligent not to pay attention to it. Maybe a similar case is how business jets that used to always require two pilots, even tiny ones like the Learjet 23. Flying one of them alone might not only be against the regulations, but even be criminally negligent if you crash and kill someone. But newer business jets have more automation and are designed for single pilot operation, so operating it alone would not be negligent.
helsinkiandrew 5y ago
> Once you engage Drive Pilot, you are no longer legally liable for the car's operation until it disengages This is a step in the right direction - but they although they may take responsibility for any financial penalty or civil liability - but can't control what a criminal court decides.
rkagerer 5y ago
Neat, but the article seems a little rosy-eyed. eg: ...the software uses microphones and cameras to detect emergency lights and sirens far enough in advance to issue the full 10-second warning before manual takeover. That doesn't help when the lights and sirens are switched on a few dozen cars away and reach you in 6 seconds.
- ohgodplsno 5y ago
  You are not supposed to be asleep at the wheel with any of these "autopilots", nor are you supposed to be reading books or looking at your phone. What are you doing that you can't take back control of your wheel in less than a few seconds ?
  - trishmapow2 5y ago
    Article clearly says that "In Germany, drivers can legally use their cellphones while Drive Pilot is engaged, a first for semi-autonomous systems". However, you can't go to sleep.
    - ohgodplsno 5y ago
      If your car is yelling at you to grab the wheel, I'm sure you can take two seconds to put your phone in your pocket. With one hand even, so the other can go to your wheel, and your feet are still nice and snug on the pedals, ready to brake should you need to.
      - Nition 5y ago
        I think the crucial thing here is, in this case if you don't do any of that, Mercedes will still take responsibility for a crash until the ten seconds is up. Therefore they need to be very confident in that ten second rule, and naturally we look for cases where it might not work out well.
      - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
        And your focus and situation awareness is out of the window.
gzer0 5y ago
> On certain highways, below 40 mph, a Drive Pilot-equipped S-Class or EQS will take control of the car's speed, steering, and brakes to move you along in traffic. Where can one locate these specific highways that offer guaranteed legal responsibility? I seemed to have missed it in the article.
- bildung 5y ago
  Compared to the conditions under which the competition takes legal responsibility they seem quite extensive?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Well, they are doing it in infinitely more broad areas than any of their competition so far...
- aembleton 5y ago
  Germany
victorp13 5y ago
Self-driving cars will be popularized by people not having to pay (increasingly expensive) accident insurance. Once human driving becomes prohibitively expensive, it'll be reserved for the 'elite' who get a kick out of driving a car themselves.
- paxys 5y ago
  The way things are looking right now it's the autopilot owners who will have to pay an added insurance premium if the tech gains traction.
bjarneh 5y ago
I never understood why others are not required to do so. Even when you stand outside your Tesla and "summon" it to you and it drives into something; you're somehow legally the driver?
- davedx 5y ago
  Considering you need to hold the summon button down for it to proceed, yes you are?
  - Kbelicius 5y ago
    If you were controlling the car as you would an RC car then sure. Considering that you are not in the control of the car I don't see why you should have any responsibility.
    - elcomet 5y ago
      You are controlling it with the single button. You must look at the car the whole time, and release the button in case there is a danger. So you are in control of the car. Not the trajectory, but you control its velocity. And you are responsible according to tesla.
      - Kbelicius 5y ago
        > So you are in control of the car. Not the trajectory, but you control its velocity. So you are not in full control of the car then. If a car decides to go in reverse when instead it should go forward and proceeds to hit a pedestrian that was tying his shoelaces behind it. Can you explain how that was an action of a person pressing a button that has no control over the trajectory of a vehicle and why we should consider them somehow responsible for that action (of backing up) instead of the car manufacturer? > And you are responsible according to tesla. That is irrelevant for this discussion.
        avar 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
orlp 5y ago
> If the car crashes while Drive Pilot is operating, that's Mercedes' problem, not yours. If my car plows into a tree at 40mph and I get turned to mush that still sounds like a "me problem" to me.
- arlcode 5y ago
  True. The difference is that Mercedes will have to pay your relatives while Tesla will say "after 2 hours on autopilot the driver wasn't able to take over in a split second" Neither company really cares about your life and wellbeing, but one is also risking their own money and brand image. I usually trust companies to be good at judging financial consequences
  - orlp 5y ago
    Fair enough, I was just irked by this sentence in the article and had to quip. Overall I'm still ambivalent on automated driving, feeling conflicted by claims that it is safer "on average" but simultaneously painfully aware of the shortcomings of machine learning, and susceptibility to attacks.
  - onethought 5y ago
    Tesla count 5 seconds after a disengagement in "Autopilot crashes".
_ph_ 5y ago
This is an important step. For the first time there is full self driving where the driver is no longer require to pay attention to what the car is doing. However, this is not a generic solution. This system is limited to a very narrow set of conditions. Specifically, to premapped highways with a divider between directions, no crossings, just on- and off ramps. On top of that, at very low speed, so in normal traffic you unfortunately cannot use it either. So how does this compare to Teslas FSD (not Autopilot, which really is only an assistant)? The answer is: not much at all. The Mercedes system has limited the conditions to a point, where it basically just has to do collision avoidance with traffic with predictable behavior. It is limited to selected roads. You don't need much "AI" here and for this task, LIDAR excels in the specified weather conditions. The Tesla FSD system on the other side aims to be a generic driving AI. It has no limitations about on which roads it operates, it uses maps only for navigation to the destination. But the driving operation is done solely by the evaluation of camera footage. Which already works in many more environmental conditions than the Mercedes system. These systems approach the goal from entirely two directions. The Tesla system aims to be a complete solution, but certainly is not able to do that unobserved in the current state. It is doing reasonably well at that, but the literally billion dollar question is, can it ever get so reliable, that the driver can completely hand over to car ever? On the other side Mercedes has full autonomy, but they achieved that in a very limited and controlled environment - it remains to be seen how much they can extend that.
- arlcode 5y ago
  Good analysis. MB also uses cameras extensively. LIDAR and maps are used in addition. I wonder whether these approaches will one day meet in the middle.
- Tomis02 5y ago
  > The Tesla FSD system on the other side aims to be a generic driving AI. ... can it ever get so reliable, that the driver can completely hand over to car ever? Using the current machine learning algorithms? Not likely. Imagine releasing a new airplane and telling the pilot - "this airplane flies well in 99% of scenarios, but 1% of the time it refuses to respond to pilot commands and kills everyone on board. We don't know why it happens but we'll keep training the model". That's the state we're currently at with "AI"; as someone put it, it's alchemy. If it works, we don't know why. If it doesn't, we don't know why - but we tune the parameters until it seems to work. We cannot prove it will work for every possible input. ... Not exactly a scientific approach by any means. Such self-driving cars might be accepted in USA but I imagine they'd quickly get banned in Europe after a few random fatalities.
davnn 5y ago
The big difference is that traditional automakers are almost entirely supplier-innovation-driven and their competitive advantage basically lies in the integration of these supplied parts and solutions. If there are problems with, for example, the Drive Pilot, they will likely blame the supplier of the system and force them to take responsibility/cost.
- aembleton 5y ago
  The hardware components may be supplier driven, but who wrote the software? Isn't that from Mercedes? Its the software that takes the decisions.
  - Geee 5y ago
    Not really. They use the Nvidia Drive platform[0], and most of the software is from Nvidia. [0] https://developer.nvidia.com/drive https://developer.nvidia.com/drive
  - davnn 5y ago
    There are almost no software developers working at the traditional automakers, they are working with consulting firms and software suppliers. Volkswagen is the first traditional automaker showing large investments in software with CARIAD [1], however, according to employee reviews, it‘s very poorly managed (by people who have never worked in software). [1] https://cariad.technology/ https://cariad.technology/
marban 5y ago
It was/is pretty clear that german car makers are going to supersede the cult of Tesla. Better engineering, history, support, network, trust and an actual taste for design. Bonus: Leadership teams that don't post gibberish about Crypto.
- sixQuarks 5y ago
  You may want to revise your thinking. Tesla attracts the best engineers https://electrek.co/2020/11/11/tesla-most-attractive-company-engineering-students-massive-advantage/ https://electrek.co/2020/11/11/tesla-most-attractive-company...
  - fivestarman 5y ago
    Electrek and the writer of that article are heavily biased towards tesla. Also, those are inexperienced students, not established engineers. Also, that article claims that elon is "the world's most brilliant engineer", but elon isn't even an engineer and has never engineered anything.
    - sixQuarks 5y ago
      So do you just go around making up stuff so it fits your world view? Elon is the chief designer and chief engineer at SpaceX. If you watch the video referenced in this article and are not convinced that Elon does engineering, then I don’t know what to tell you. https://observer.com/2021/09/elon-musk-spacex-title-design-engineer-rocket/amp/ https://observer.com/2021/09/elon-musk-spacex-title-design-e...
      - fivestarman 5y ago
        He hasn't designed or engineered anything. He doesn't have an engineering degree. Giving yourself a title of engineer at your own company doesn't make you an engineer automatically.
        sixQuarks 5y ago
hit8run 5y ago
It's a bold move that signals confidence in the own system. If it works out others will probably soon follow. In 10 years cars probably drive fully autonomous.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  A bold press release isn't much of a prognostication aid.
throwaway4good 5y ago
Quite predictable that a company using lidar in combination with video would take the lead over a company using video only.
- onethought 5y ago
  You have a very distorted view of "the lead".
  - throwaway4good 5y ago
    I guess it is subjective. Is it stock market price, followers on Twitter, or another criteria? My claim is that if you narrow it down to actual autonomous driving; lidar + camera + a big chip will beat camera + a very big chip for the foreseeable future.
  - CJefferson 5y ago
    What's your definition of the lead? To me, this is huge. Tesla has never been willing to take responsibility for any crashes, instead blamining the driver.
    - onethought 5y ago
      Tesla instead just crashes less. I don’t know that anyone is shopping for cars based on legal liability of a crash. You are still in the car. You still are injured or die.
      - CJefferson 5y ago
        Do you have evidence Tesla crashes less than Mercedes? I'd be interested to see a comparison.
        onethought 5y ago
        Mercedes don’t publish any data. They also don’t collect any data. So it’s difficult to compare.
Dave3of5 5y ago
All these fancy self drive cars I can't afford on a UK Principle Dev's salary so it's interesting but I'm not sure how mass market these things are or will ever be.
- brianwawok 5y ago
  Remote job to the US will pay for one :)
  - globular-toast 5y ago
    If you work harder and longer you can buy a car you'll never have time to enjoy. Cool.
    - brianwawok 5y ago
      Work smarter not longer.
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  I'm sure you'll be able to afford to rent one, which is the ideal scenario for most people.
- fortran77 5y ago
  What is a "principle dev?"
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    A misspelled principal developer.
michelb 5y ago
I may be too cynical about the car industry, but wouldn't this be a great strategy from Mercedes to hamstring competitors? If they can force stricter regulations that they know/suspect competitors cannot meet, they could prevent these competitors from selling cars with their 'FSD' tech? This would level the playing field, allowing the German car manufacturers to catch up, or at least hold off competition for a while.
- space_rock 5y ago
  100% this. They are so far behind and every move will be to use regulation against competition
jfoster 5y ago
If they go through with this, awesome! I expect that they will walk some of this back before the release, though. (whether through extreme limitations on the situations they will take responsibility for, delaying release, extremely limited volume, etc.) That said, every material step forward is a great thing. If we started out in the autonomous world that we're going to end up in, the idea of humans getting behind the wheel of a vehicle would seem incredibly crazy.
onethought 5y ago
If you're insured with Tesla insurance, and you have a crash... who takes responsibility for the repair?
steeve 5y ago
I used to work on autonomous cars back in the early 2000s. Legal responsibility was considered one of the biggest limiting factor to autonomous cars. Bold move.
londons_explore 5y ago
I'd be interested to know what legal structure they're using here. Does the system legally act as an "insurance policy" that will indemnify the driver against any damages claims from a third party? Does it have a monetary cap? (Car insurance policies vary, but might only cover $250k, which actually won't cover many multi-car accidents).
qwerty456127 5y ago
We can't repair our cars, we have no privacy in when and where do we drive and now we don't even drive them nor are responsible for them. Essentially the car manufacturer plays a role of a transportation service provider now. Ok, I'm not insisting this is bad. But now what's the point of buying a car into your ownership instead of just calling it like a taxi when and where you need it?
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  Agreed but I'm totally cool with renting a self-driving car on demand. I don't want to own and maintain a car at all, if I can avoid it. It sounds like a good self-driving car is going to be really expensive, too, using technologies companies like Tesla are afraid to implement (e.g. LIDAR). Renting by the minute probably makes a lot more sense financially, too.
j1elo 5y ago
> Right now, Drive Pilot can only engage at speeds under 40 mph (60 km/h in Germany) I just felt the urge to clarify that this is written with the intention to mislead readers, and that 40 mph are also 60 km/h in other parts of the world.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  It's poorly written, but... mislead readers into thinking _what_? That Germany has its own special kilometers (or possibly hours?) I think it's just bad editing.
  - j1elo 5y ago
    Sorry, the joke got lost in the text medium! After some minutes I thought that I should have added a "/joke" an "/s", or something like that, but in the end forgot to do it.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    But 40 mph is 64.36 km/h, isn't it? So perhaps it turns on under 60 km/h in Germany and under 64.36 km/h everywhere else? For some weird legal reasons?
    - qkls 5y ago
      It's 60 km/h everywhere else than the US, where it's 64.36 km/h for weird reasons.
- estaseuropano 5y ago
  No need to attribute malice. Why would that be intentional? Its just ambiguous drafting.
- markn951 5y ago
  Everyone responding to you earnestly without understanding the joke... lol
kevincox 5y ago
> you are no longer legally liable for the car's operation until it disengages Until it disengages. Not until you disengage it. So close, yet so far to go. Unfortunately since this isn't a full self driving I don't know if they can do much better. If it hits the end of the road it needs to hand control back.
globular-toast 5y ago
> If the car crashes while Drive Pilot is operating, that's Mercedes' problem, not yours. And the person you hit. Unbelievable that we value these metal boxes on wheels more than human bodies.
avar 5y ago
I wonder how much of this is part of a genuine attempt to bring a safe product to market, and how much is to pressure the German government (and soon thereafter, the EU) into making this sort of promise mandatory for all car manufacturers, including those that are ahead of Mercedes in the self-driving space. I.e. to create a legislative moat in an area where they're behind. While I don't agree with Tesla's strategy of playing it fast & loose, I'm afraid that risk aversion will lead us to demand perfect instead of the good enough. A car manufacturer might not be willing to accept 100% liability, but their system might still be a lot safer than a drunk driver returning home from the bar. Realistically we're not going to be able to pick "well, don't drive drunk then!", it'll happen. By demanding that these system are that reliable before they're in common operation we'll have incurred a net loss in terms of safety. I don't know what the right solution is, probably some mixture of the two. Clearly you don't want manufacturers to be incentivized to ignore the risk associated with their systems, but you also don't want these systems not to be offered when they'd be a net gain in safety. The point at which they're a net gain is not the same point that they become financially viable to the manufacturer from a liability point of view.
- jonfw 5y ago
  I know we all hate subscription models, but for self driving it makes sense. If car manufacturers are expected to be liable for their self driving cars, then they should be charging money to their customers so they can insure them. Manufacturers who produce safer self driving vehicles will have to spend less to insure their fleet, and be more competitively priced. This at least gets the incentives right
  - foepys 5y ago
    I don't want car manufacturers insuring vehicles. This would lead to inflated prices because manufacturers know that you cannot sell your vehicle at any time.
    - symlinkk 5y ago
      I don’t follow
ralmidani 5y ago
Mercedes is perhaps the only auto company that is both supremely innovative and supremely respectable at the same time. Tesla is innovative, but they get ahead of themselves, and Musk is a glorified internet troll who bullies and arguably lies. The Big 3 are respectable in that they don’t really overhype or misrepresent, but Mercedes will probably out-innovate them in self-driving like they’ve out-innovated them (and pretty much everyone else) in just about every other aspect that matters over the past century. Disclaimer: I drive a Toyota Sienna and a Subaru Outback. But I’ve seen a few Mercedes up close (and sometimes driven them) over the years. The only really crappy one in my experience was the ~2006 G500.
- 1970-01-01 5y ago
  I stopped respecting Mercedes engineering when they (and the others) were caught cheating (x2) on emissions. IMHO, they all had a better chance to compete with Tesla, but they took the path of cheating and global pollution. https://jalopnik.com/mercedes-may-have-been-caught-using-defeat-devices-agai-1848009546 https://jalopnik.com/mercedes-may-have-been-caught-using-def... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#Mercedes-Benz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#Merce...
  - mempko 5y ago
    Kind of interesting then that Mercedes was an early Tesla investor. Seems at least someone in Mercedes saw the future.
  - carlivar 5y ago
    Is there a statute of limitations on that, or are they tainted forever?
    - space_rock 5y ago
      Statute of limitations did not apply. All crimes were scrubbed by Western govts and forgotten by Western media. Remember legacy auto pays for most ads during news broadcasts
moron4hire 5y ago
> Right now, Drive Pilot can only engage at speeds under 40 mph... Ah, so maybe this would be great for getting around town. > ... on limited-access divided highways with no stoplights, roundabouts, or other traffic control systems... Oh, so not where the majority of driving happens. > ... and no construction zones. And none of Pennsylvania.
dusted 5y ago
Maybe I'm a cynic, but I'm pretty sure someone at Mercedes just did the math, and concluded that the number they're expecting to pay in damages is a smaller number than the profit from the extra sales. Nothing wrong with that as it is, but while it can be seen as a signal that "Mercedes is super sure their cars won't kill anyone" it should be seen more as a signal that "Mercedes is pretty sure they'll make a profit even when subtracting the price of killing people."
kkfx 5y ago
I'm more concerned about "gray areas" where I'm driving but a proprietary computer system in my car have the real control so at a certain point in time it might decide to break or steer or refuse to for some programmed reasons I do not know. Just imaging actual emergency braking systems: you see an accidents and you decide that the best option is going against another vehicle or even a wall for instance to avoid crushing on a school group on a trip. Actual system do not and can't know that, they'll try to stop your emergency maneuver and due to the little time you have even if formally deactivate you can't deactivate them. Who will be responsible and how to prove what really happen? That's the issue of automation. I can't trust back box logs from a proprietary black box designed, built and installed by the same company who sell the car. Who can? Even public authorities how much practical resources can have to really investigate?
Geee 5y ago
Traffic jam assistant is like the hello world of autonomous driving. It's basically an example project from Github. They are not even approaching the hard problems which Tesla, Openpilot etc. are solving.
giantg2 5y ago
I assume they mean civilly liability. I believe most states still require a driver behind the wheel and will level the criminal/driving penalties against that driver.
- tomp 5y ago
  I wonder this as well. Unless it's the CEO/CTO going to jail, it's not actual responsibility... it's just "we'll pay you some tiny amount if we kill someone" YOLO
1970-01-01 5y ago
>>If the car crashes while Drive Pilot is operating, that's Mercedes' problem, not yours. Unfortunately, no matter how much legislation you put in front of it, that's not how physics works.
hogrider 5y ago
This is the only acceptable result to society and if they limit responsibility it eill only be due to industry lobbying and in benefit to no one else. This can't be an externality for everyone else, if it is too much of a burden sinply don't sell your murderous half baked self driving and we'll keep going on like before.
rotanibmocy2 5y ago
That system is hardly "self-driving". From the article, it will work only under 40 mph in certain highways only. It's way behind other competitors
anonu 5y ago
This really sets a new standard in expectations around how safe and reliable these products are. TSLA probably has a significant head-start in terms of technology - but here's a new (call it marketing) feature by Mercedes that actually leap frogs over Tesla in terms of perception on the product. I think in 3-5 years everyone else will have caught up to tesla and we'll have a more level playing field, mainly in terms of the technology and AI. And "marketing" features like this help accelerate the closing of the gap.
katekoch 5y ago
[flagged]
evancoop 5y ago
The next question is how Lloyd's of London will handle the insurance risk at scale. Clearly, Mercedes is going to need one heck of an insurance contract to justify the policy. What happens if the system is hacked and the number of payouts required reaches stratospheric proportions? What quantity of secondary insurance will be needed for the insurer? Fascinating questions.
- brianwawok 5y ago
  I doubt it's even connected to the internet. Odds of being hacked would seem no different from cruise control of a random Toyota.
gigel82 5y ago
I doubt this is legal. If your car kills someone, you're going to jail. Mercedes, the company, cannot do jail time; it can at most pay fines - and there's no legal system in the world today that would accept it. And if it does, we'll just get a few enterprising folks delivering "hitman as a service" in no time at all (driving hacked Mercedes vehicles into people claiming no responsibility).
dangus 5y ago
I see this as a major signal to the outside world that Mercedes feels confident in its technology. Mercedes must really think it has a better system than its competitors. Either that or these expenses are going to be considered part of its marketing spend? Another thought: isn't it still usually the responsibility of the at-fault party's insurance company to pay out for crashes anyway? Or, in no-fault states, each insurance company covers their own driver and passengers, so it's not really important who cases a crash. I wonder if this announcement is legally meaningless in most cases...but I'm not expert in this area.
buro9 5y ago
This doesn't seem unreasonable. If you consider that it is the driver who is liable today for road traffic incidents (including failing to adapt to environmental conditions)... then why wouldn't the "driver" still be liable when the driver changes? https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-levels.html https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-level... In this it's plain that Level 3 autonomy is the first level where it's considered that the car is the driver. This is what Mercedes are proposing, to accept that the sum of software and hardware that they provide at Level 3, assuming it's used in the situations and conditions described, is the driver and that they are liable. Those caveats seem reflected in what they're proposing (if the article is accurate), and it seems reasonable.
- theluketaylor 5y ago
  Legal liability seems like a much cleaner way to define autonomy for the general public than the SAE levels. If the person is responsible anything the car is doing is assistance or aid. If the manufacturer owns liability it's some level of autonomous. There needs to be some kind of law about how long the car has to alert the driver before handing over liability, but beyond that it's a much cleaner divide. This would also solve issues like Tesla naming their level 2 systems 'Autopilot' and 'Full Self Driving'. I love my Model 3, but those names are deeply misleading at best and downright fraudulent at worst. The FTC really needs to step in and regulate what manufacturers can claim based on liability.
duttaoindril 5y ago
I love this. I genuinely do. But I can't help but imagine some dystopian future where they regret making this decision and they start fighting legal cases on the technicalities like, oh they crashed after they disengaged self driving, so it's the humans fault. Or even worse, they program in self driving to disengage when a crash is imminent. When companies take on liabilities, they're very unlikely to actually pay for it. Leaving the common folk to struggle.
BurningFrog 5y ago
This is the only way this can work legally. If the car causes a crash, the car manufacturer has to be liable. End of story. As long as the self driving system performs well, it should be a win for everyone!

613 points by gscott 5y ago

Hypocritelefty 5y ago

popularonion 5y ago

Saved you a click: > “On certain highways, below 40 mph”

anshumankmr 5y ago

Interesting. Let's see how this plays out for them.

EdwardDiego 5y ago

Putting your money where your mouth is, is probably the only way to obtain acceptance for semi-autonomous driving systems. I imagine airplane manufacturers have long been on the hook if their autopilot engages Kill All Humans mode, despite the best efforts of Boeing's lawyers to blame some of the humans their software killed.

belter 5y ago
Lot's of disclaimers. Plus what happens if the system disengages and you crash 5 sec after because you were not expecting to? Technically they are not responsible anymore it seems. From the article: "...Handing over driving responsibility completely requires extremely particular circumstances. Right now, Drive Pilot can only engage at speeds under 40 mph (60 km/h in Germany) on limited-access divided highways with no stoplights, roundabouts, or other traffic control systems, and no construction zones. Eligible roads must be mapped by Mercedes for Drive Pilot use (similar to GM SuperCruise); the automaker has already mapped every such highway in Germany, and most of those in Nevada and California. The system will only operate during daytime, in reasonably clear weather, without overhead obstructions. Inclement weather, construction zones, tunnels, and emergency vehicles will all trigger a handover warning. And no, you can't close your eyes or go to sleep while it operates..."
- Limeray 5y ago
  The car gives you a 10 seconds heads up. From the article: "[...] Unlike all currently available driver-assist systems, Drive Pilot is designed to give drivers a 10-second warning before switching off; engineers had to make sure that, in every situation, the system would safely and faultlessly hand over control. [...]"
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Technically they are not responsible anymore it seems. No, technically whether they or liable or not reverts to normal principles of product liability, rather than their special acceptance of liability. But manufacturers liability for harms caused by their products, while varying in detail from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, tend to be pretty broad in most of the West (incl. the US, despite it's otherwise weak consumer laws.)
- cge 5y ago
  Are there even any limited-access divided highways in California where speeds under 40 mph are safe? I'm not sure what they would have mapped. As the default speed limit for such a highway would presumably be 65 mph (and traffic usually much faster), anywhere with such lowered speeds would presumably have special circumstances that would probably make it unsuitable. The guaranteed 10 second handoff is impressive, however.
avalys 5y ago
Autopilots in airplanes have nothing to do with autonomous driving. Airplane autopilots are so simple they they can be implemented with entirely analog circuits. They are simple feedback control loops that operate off a single scalar variable in each axis. There is ample time for the pilot to correct any “mistakes” the autopilot makes. There is no expectation that the autopilot operates independently of the pilot’s supervision and judgement. In terms of decision-making and autonomy and liability - an airplane autopilot is really analogous to cruise control in a car, nothing more. It operates the flight controls to maintain simple parameters chosen by the pilot, and that’s all.
- belter 5y ago
  Not only that, Pilot training assumes Autopilot can disengage at any time.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    On top of that, aviation autopilots operate in one of the most controlled and stable environments. Ground based individual traffic is the polar opposite of that.
    - samhw 5y ago
      As aviation people eloquently put it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_sky_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_sky_theory I think there should be a correlative 'small road theory', if only to underscore the difference.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        It seems the non-existence of a small-road-theory is in itself an problem when it comes to self-driving cars...
  - fastball 5y ago
    Which is why (imo) Autopilot was a spot-on name for Tesla's initial driverless feature.
tailspin2019 5y ago
> Kill All Humans mode I think they discovered that it was the pilots who were accidentally leaning on the that switch when getting up for a coffee break. Terrible decision to put it right next to an armrest...

MichaelRazum 5y ago

Actually that is exactly the right thing to do! If something goes wrong when Autopilot is on, I think the manufacturer have to prove that it was a human error and not otherwise.

Dylan16807 5y ago
We don't want to say "no mistakes allowed" though, that would be going too far. It's good for manufacturers to err on on the side of limited capabilities to keep things safer, but we don't want them to err too far in that direction. And if they're providing ongoing insurance with no revenue, that's an incentive to be overly restrictive.
nradov 5y ago
In a civil lawsuit for wrongful death (or whatever) the manufacturer doesn't have to prove anything. They are treated the same as any other defendant.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pontifier 5y ago

I was imagining a play like this utilizing insurance to smooth out the wrinkles. Seems like a fairly good bet that the restrictions are designed to essentially eliminate fault in the event of an accident.

hutzlibu 5y ago

"If the car crashes while Drive Pilot is operating, that's Mercedes' problem, not yours." Only legally speaking. If the car drives me into an incoming truck, it still is very much my problem. So currently it is only enabled for very clear situations, driving under 40 mp/h(60 kmh) in trafic jams on a motorway (where there usually is a physical separation to the other lane, except in roadbuilding situations, but I would guess, that the autopilot will be disabled then). So it should be quite safe. Otherwise they would not accept the risk. German car makers are very conservative. Edit: correct speedlimit

tsimionescu 5y ago
Minor note: it's 40 miles /h, which is about 60km/h.
_ph_ 5y ago
Well, that is the catch: you can engage the system only on certain roads which also happen to have a divider between the traffic directions. So it is basically impossible to be facing an incoming truck there.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Still, driving with 60 kmh into an obstacle can result in serious injuries, despite airbags. I hope/think they considered a pointy metal, like it sometimes is on back of trailors in front of you, stabbing through the windshield for example?
  - pintxo 5y ago
    A proper Mercedes developed algorithm will only ever use the left lane, so no risk to have a trailer in front /s
  - _ph_ 5y ago
    Right, the detection of obstacles needs to work perfectly. This is where LIDAR is good at, it gives pretty precise 3D information about your immediate surroundings. Especially when comparing with high resolution maps, obstacle detection should be very good.

35mm 5y ago

“If the car crashes while Drive Pilot is operating, that's Mercedes' problem, not yours.” It’s still my problem if I’m inside the car whilst it crashes.

freemint 5y ago
Not much at below 60 km/h max.
- blackbrokkoli 5y ago
  Deadly crashes are not uncommon on half that speed, and risk does not grow linearly.
  - sdze 5y ago
    For sure not in a S-Class or EQS.
    - julius_deane 5y ago
      seems you're both thinking in absolutes
  - nradov 5y ago
    Crashes at 30 km/h will kill cyclists and pedestrians outside the car. The occupants of modern Mercedes-Benz cars will survive 100% of the time.
    - dwighttk 5y ago
      What are they doing on a controlled access highway?
      - aembleton 5y ago
        Exiting their car after it caught on fire in a live lane.

slg 5y ago

>Handing over driving responsibility completely requires extremely particular circumstances. Right now, Drive Pilot can only engage at speeds under 40 mph (60 km/h in Germany) on limited-access divided highways with no stoplights, roundabouts, or other traffic control systems, and no construction zones...The system will only operate during daytime, in reasonably clear weather, without overhead obstructions. Inclement weather, construction zones, tunnels, and emergency vehicles will all trigger a handover warning. Those are some big caveats that mean that you won't be able to use this in most situations. It is basically only good for stop and go highway traffic which is a situation that other driver assist features handle pretty well.

batiudrami 5y ago
If that is the only use case Mercedes feel their safety assurance can justify what does that say about other self driving cars for which their manufacturers will not accept liability?
- Traster 5y ago
  It says that they’re a responsible company that isn’t comfortable playing fast and loose with your safety. Unlike some US companies that don’t come from a background of safety but a background of “move fast and break things” and a business model of regulatory arbitrage.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    But this is quite a bad product in that respect. If this is all it takes, Tesla would implement the same restrictions and get the same fanfare, but alas they're not constantly aiming for "PR stunt" levels of driving.
    - delecti 5y ago
      You're saying that Tesla of all companies isn't aiming for PR stunts with their automated driving? Tesla, the company that calls their level 2 automation "Full Self Driving" isn't out for PR stunts? I would be hard-pressed to name many companies that seem more prone to PR stunts than Tesla.

PostOnce 5y ago

Whatever Mercedes says may not be what the law says. It may not be possible for them to take the liability from you. It may be criminal negligence or something else to not operate a car on a road in a state that says you have to. Maybe they can agree to pay any civil liability you'd have, but taking a nap after you turn a car on may open you to criminal liability that Mercedes can't intervene in.

detaro 5y ago
It is what the law says in this case.
- PostOnce 5y ago
  Which law in which state in which circumstances? If a knife salesman tells me his knives can't hurt people, and signs a contract saying he'll assume all liability, I am nevertheless liable when I stab someone with it. The judge will say you damn well should've known you couldn't go to sleep in a car you're operating, and are in fact culpable for your negligence. "But Mercedes said!" "If Mercedes told you to jump (or drive) off a bridge..."
  - detaro 5y ago
    The law in the one country this currently is offered in, I'm not sure why other places would matter.

foreigner 5y ago

Civil liability is one thing, but what about criminal liability?

arlcode 5y ago
At least in Germany the law was ammended to allow this specific scenario.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  But how far does this go? Does this mean that on root-cause analysis a particular Engineer could be criminally charged?
  - arlcode 5y ago
    I am no lawyer but there is certainly precedence for companies delivering faulty products and causing damages and injuries. At some point a judge will decide.
  - _ph_ 5y ago
    It is the same as with any product on the market. The producing company is liable, if the product causes harm when used and it is the products fault that the harm was caused. For example if lets say a TV blows up during normal usage. This is fist of all liability for damages. A criminal charge only happens if it can be shown, that there was any active wrongdoing leading to the damage. Like neglecting usual engineering practices, or even knowingly selling a defective product.
Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
Not a lawyer, but I think that if you don’t intend for the crash to happen, and don’t act negligently you’re not criminally liable. If the automated process is designed not to require attention of the operator, it should not be considered negligent not to pay attention to it. Maybe a similar case is how business jets that used to always require two pilots, even tiny ones like the Learjet 23. Flying one of them alone might not only be against the regulations, but even be criminally negligent if you crash and kill someone. But newer business jets have more automation and are designed for single pilot operation, so operating it alone would not be negligent.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago

> Once you engage Drive Pilot, you are no longer legally liable for the car's operation until it disengages This is a step in the right direction - but they although they may take responsibility for any financial penalty or civil liability - but can't control what a criminal court decides.

rkagerer 5y ago

Neat, but the article seems a little rosy-eyed. eg: ...the software uses microphones and cameras to detect emergency lights and sirens far enough in advance to issue the full 10-second warning before manual takeover. That doesn't help when the lights and sirens are switched on a few dozen cars away and reach you in 6 seconds.

ohgodplsno 5y ago
You are not supposed to be asleep at the wheel with any of these "autopilots", nor are you supposed to be reading books or looking at your phone. What are you doing that you can't take back control of your wheel in less than a few seconds ?
- trishmapow2 5y ago
  Article clearly says that "In Germany, drivers can legally use their cellphones while Drive Pilot is engaged, a first for semi-autonomous systems". However, you can't go to sleep.
  - ohgodplsno 5y ago
    If your car is yelling at you to grab the wheel, I'm sure you can take two seconds to put your phone in your pocket. With one hand even, so the other can go to your wheel, and your feet are still nice and snug on the pedals, ready to brake should you need to.
    - Nition 5y ago
      I think the crucial thing here is, in this case if you don't do any of that, Mercedes will still take responsibility for a crash until the ten seconds is up. Therefore they need to be very confident in that ten second rule, and naturally we look for cases where it might not work out well.
    - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
      And your focus and situation awareness is out of the window.

gzer0 5y ago

> On certain highways, below 40 mph, a Drive Pilot-equipped S-Class or EQS will take control of the car's speed, steering, and brakes to move you along in traffic. Where can one locate these specific highways that offer guaranteed legal responsibility? I seemed to have missed it in the article.

bildung 5y ago
Compared to the conditions under which the competition takes legal responsibility they seem quite extensive?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tsimionescu 5y ago
Well, they are doing it in infinitely more broad areas than any of their competition so far...
aembleton 5y ago
Germany

victorp13 5y ago

Self-driving cars will be popularized by people not having to pay (increasingly expensive) accident insurance. Once human driving becomes prohibitively expensive, it'll be reserved for the 'elite' who get a kick out of driving a car themselves.

paxys 5y ago
The way things are looking right now it's the autopilot owners who will have to pay an added insurance premium if the tech gains traction.

bjarneh 5y ago

I never understood why others are not required to do so. Even when you stand outside your Tesla and "summon" it to you and it drives into something; you're somehow legally the driver?

davedx 5y ago
Considering you need to hold the summon button down for it to proceed, yes you are?
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  If you were controlling the car as you would an RC car then sure. Considering that you are not in the control of the car I don't see why you should have any responsibility.
  - elcomet 5y ago
    You are controlling it with the single button. You must look at the car the whole time, and release the button in case there is a danger. So you are in control of the car. Not the trajectory, but you control its velocity. And you are responsible according to tesla.
    - Kbelicius 5y ago
      > So you are in control of the car. Not the trajectory, but you control its velocity. So you are not in full control of the car then. If a car decides to go in reverse when instead it should go forward and proceeds to hit a pedestrian that was tying his shoelaces behind it. Can you explain how that was an action of a person pressing a button that has no control over the trajectory of a vehicle and why we should consider them somehow responsible for that action (of backing up) instead of the car manufacturer? > And you are responsible according to tesla. That is irrelevant for this discussion.
      - avar 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

orlp 5y ago

> If the car crashes while Drive Pilot is operating, that's Mercedes' problem, not yours. If my car plows into a tree at 40mph and I get turned to mush that still sounds like a "me problem" to me.

arlcode 5y ago
True. The difference is that Mercedes will have to pay your relatives while Tesla will say "after 2 hours on autopilot the driver wasn't able to take over in a split second" Neither company really cares about your life and wellbeing, but one is also risking their own money and brand image. I usually trust companies to be good at judging financial consequences
- orlp 5y ago
  Fair enough, I was just irked by this sentence in the article and had to quip. Overall I'm still ambivalent on automated driving, feeling conflicted by claims that it is safer "on average" but simultaneously painfully aware of the shortcomings of machine learning, and susceptibility to attacks.
- onethought 5y ago
  Tesla count 5 seconds after a disengagement in "Autopilot crashes".

_ph_ 5y ago

This is an important step. For the first time there is full self driving where the driver is no longer require to pay attention to what the car is doing. However, this is not a generic solution. This system is limited to a very narrow set of conditions. Specifically, to premapped highways with a divider between directions, no crossings, just on- and off ramps. On top of that, at very low speed, so in normal traffic you unfortunately cannot use it either. So how does this compare to Teslas FSD (not Autopilot, which really is only an assistant)? The answer is: not much at all. The Mercedes system has limited the conditions to a point, where it basically just has to do collision avoidance with traffic with predictable behavior. It is limited to selected roads. You don't need much "AI" here and for this task, LIDAR excels in the specified weather conditions. The Tesla FSD system on the other side aims to be a generic driving AI. It has no limitations about on which roads it operates, it uses maps only for navigation to the destination. But the driving operation is done solely by the evaluation of camera footage. Which already works in many more environmental conditions than the Mercedes system. These systems approach the goal from entirely two directions. The Tesla system aims to be a complete solution, but certainly is not able to do that unobserved in the current state. It is doing reasonably well at that, but the literally billion dollar question is, can it ever get so reliable, that the driver can completely hand over to car ever? On the other side Mercedes has full autonomy, but they achieved that in a very limited and controlled environment - it remains to be seen how much they can extend that.

arlcode 5y ago
Good analysis. MB also uses cameras extensively. LIDAR and maps are used in addition. I wonder whether these approaches will one day meet in the middle.
Tomis02 5y ago
> The Tesla FSD system on the other side aims to be a generic driving AI. ... can it ever get so reliable, that the driver can completely hand over to car ever? Using the current machine learning algorithms? Not likely. Imagine releasing a new airplane and telling the pilot - "this airplane flies well in 99% of scenarios, but 1% of the time it refuses to respond to pilot commands and kills everyone on board. We don't know why it happens but we'll keep training the model". That's the state we're currently at with "AI"; as someone put it, it's alchemy. If it works, we don't know why. If it doesn't, we don't know why - but we tune the parameters until it seems to work. We cannot prove it will work for every possible input. ... Not exactly a scientific approach by any means. Such self-driving cars might be accepted in USA but I imagine they'd quickly get banned in Europe after a few random fatalities.

davnn 5y ago

The big difference is that traditional automakers are almost entirely supplier-innovation-driven and their competitive advantage basically lies in the integration of these supplied parts and solutions. If there are problems with, for example, the Drive Pilot, they will likely blame the supplier of the system and force them to take responsibility/cost.

aembleton 5y ago
The hardware components may be supplier driven, but who wrote the software? Isn't that from Mercedes? Its the software that takes the decisions.
- Geee 5y ago
  Not really. They use the Nvidia Drive platform[0], and most of the software is from Nvidia. [0] https://developer.nvidia.com/drive https://developer.nvidia.com/drive
- davnn 5y ago
  There are almost no software developers working at the traditional automakers, they are working with consulting firms and software suppliers. Volkswagen is the first traditional automaker showing large investments in software with CARIAD [1], however, according to employee reviews, it‘s very poorly managed (by people who have never worked in software). [1] https://cariad.technology/ https://cariad.technology/

marban 5y ago

It was/is pretty clear that german car makers are going to supersede the cult of Tesla. Better engineering, history, support, network, trust and an actual taste for design. Bonus: Leadership teams that don't post gibberish about Crypto.

sixQuarks 5y ago
You may want to revise your thinking. Tesla attracts the best engineers https://electrek.co/2020/11/11/tesla-most-attractive-company-engineering-students-massive-advantage/ https://electrek.co/2020/11/11/tesla-most-attractive-company...
- fivestarman 5y ago
  Electrek and the writer of that article are heavily biased towards tesla. Also, those are inexperienced students, not established engineers. Also, that article claims that elon is "the world's most brilliant engineer", but elon isn't even an engineer and has never engineered anything.
  - sixQuarks 5y ago
    So do you just go around making up stuff so it fits your world view? Elon is the chief designer and chief engineer at SpaceX. If you watch the video referenced in this article and are not convinced that Elon does engineering, then I don’t know what to tell you. https://observer.com/2021/09/elon-musk-spacex-title-design-engineer-rocket/amp/ https://observer.com/2021/09/elon-musk-spacex-title-design-e...
    - fivestarman 5y ago
      He hasn't designed or engineered anything. He doesn't have an engineering degree. Giving yourself a title of engineer at your own company doesn't make you an engineer automatically.
      - sixQuarks 5y ago

hit8run 5y ago

It's a bold move that signals confidence in the own system. If it works out others will probably soon follow. In 10 years cars probably drive fully autonomous.

robertlagrant 5y ago
A bold press release isn't much of a prognostication aid.

throwaway4good 5y ago

Quite predictable that a company using lidar in combination with video would take the lead over a company using video only.

onethought 5y ago
You have a very distorted view of "the lead".
- throwaway4good 5y ago
  I guess it is subjective. Is it stock market price, followers on Twitter, or another criteria? My claim is that if you narrow it down to actual autonomous driving; lidar + camera + a big chip will beat camera + a very big chip for the foreseeable future.
- CJefferson 5y ago
  What's your definition of the lead? To me, this is huge. Tesla has never been willing to take responsibility for any crashes, instead blamining the driver.
  - onethought 5y ago
    Tesla instead just crashes less. I don’t know that anyone is shopping for cars based on legal liability of a crash. You are still in the car. You still are injured or die.
    - CJefferson 5y ago
      Do you have evidence Tesla crashes less than Mercedes? I'd be interested to see a comparison.
      - onethought 5y ago
        Mercedes don’t publish any data. They also don’t collect any data. So it’s difficult to compare.

Dave3of5 5y ago

All these fancy self drive cars I can't afford on a UK Principle Dev's salary so it's interesting but I'm not sure how mass market these things are or will ever be.

brianwawok 5y ago
Remote job to the US will pay for one :)
- globular-toast 5y ago
  If you work harder and longer you can buy a car you'll never have time to enjoy. Cool.
  - brianwawok 5y ago
    Work smarter not longer.
notreallyserio 5y ago
I'm sure you'll be able to afford to rent one, which is the ideal scenario for most people.
fortran77 5y ago
What is a "principle dev?"
- CRConrad 5y ago
  A misspelled principal developer.

michelb 5y ago

I may be too cynical about the car industry, but wouldn't this be a great strategy from Mercedes to hamstring competitors? If they can force stricter regulations that they know/suspect competitors cannot meet, they could prevent these competitors from selling cars with their 'FSD' tech? This would level the playing field, allowing the German car manufacturers to catch up, or at least hold off competition for a while.

space_rock 5y ago
100% this. They are so far behind and every move will be to use regulation against competition

jfoster 5y ago

If they go through with this, awesome! I expect that they will walk some of this back before the release, though. (whether through extreme limitations on the situations they will take responsibility for, delaying release, extremely limited volume, etc.) That said, every material step forward is a great thing. If we started out in the autonomous world that we're going to end up in, the idea of humans getting behind the wheel of a vehicle would seem incredibly crazy.

onethought 5y ago

If you're insured with Tesla insurance, and you have a crash... who takes responsibility for the repair?

steeve 5y ago

I used to work on autonomous cars back in the early 2000s. Legal responsibility was considered one of the biggest limiting factor to autonomous cars. Bold move.

londons_explore 5y ago

I'd be interested to know what legal structure they're using here. Does the system legally act as an "insurance policy" that will indemnify the driver against any damages claims from a third party? Does it have a monetary cap? (Car insurance policies vary, but might only cover $250k, which actually won't cover many multi-car accidents).

qwerty456127 5y ago

We can't repair our cars, we have no privacy in when and where do we drive and now we don't even drive them nor are responsible for them. Essentially the car manufacturer plays a role of a transportation service provider now. Ok, I'm not insisting this is bad. But now what's the point of buying a car into your ownership instead of just calling it like a taxi when and where you need it?

notreallyserio 5y ago
Agreed but I'm totally cool with renting a self-driving car on demand. I don't want to own and maintain a car at all, if I can avoid it. It sounds like a good self-driving car is going to be really expensive, too, using technologies companies like Tesla are afraid to implement (e.g. LIDAR). Renting by the minute probably makes a lot more sense financially, too.

j1elo 5y ago

> Right now, Drive Pilot can only engage at speeds under 40 mph (60 km/h in Germany) I just felt the urge to clarify that this is written with the intention to mislead readers, and that 40 mph are also 60 km/h in other parts of the world.

rsynnott 5y ago
It's poorly written, but... mislead readers into thinking _what_? That Germany has its own special kilometers (or possibly hours?) I think it's just bad editing.
- j1elo 5y ago
  Sorry, the joke got lost in the text medium! After some minutes I thought that I should have added a "/joke" an "/s", or something like that, but in the end forgot to do it.
- jhgb 5y ago
  But 40 mph is 64.36 km/h, isn't it? So perhaps it turns on under 60 km/h in Germany and under 64.36 km/h everywhere else? For some weird legal reasons?
  - qkls 5y ago
    It's 60 km/h everywhere else than the US, where it's 64.36 km/h for weird reasons.
estaseuropano 5y ago
No need to attribute malice. Why would that be intentional? Its just ambiguous drafting.
markn951 5y ago
Everyone responding to you earnestly without understanding the joke... lol

kevincox 5y ago

> you are no longer legally liable for the car's operation until it disengages Until it disengages. Not until you disengage it. So close, yet so far to go. Unfortunately since this isn't a full self driving I don't know if they can do much better. If it hits the end of the road it needs to hand control back.

globular-toast 5y ago

> If the car crashes while Drive Pilot is operating, that's Mercedes' problem, not yours. And the person you hit. Unbelievable that we value these metal boxes on wheels more than human bodies.

avar 5y ago

I wonder how much of this is part of a genuine attempt to bring a safe product to market, and how much is to pressure the German government (and soon thereafter, the EU) into making this sort of promise mandatory for all car manufacturers, including those that are ahead of Mercedes in the self-driving space. I.e. to create a legislative moat in an area where they're behind. While I don't agree with Tesla's strategy of playing it fast & loose, I'm afraid that risk aversion will lead us to demand perfect instead of the good enough. A car manufacturer might not be willing to accept 100% liability, but their system might still be a lot safer than a drunk driver returning home from the bar. Realistically we're not going to be able to pick "well, don't drive drunk then!", it'll happen. By demanding that these system are that reliable before they're in common operation we'll have incurred a net loss in terms of safety. I don't know what the right solution is, probably some mixture of the two. Clearly you don't want manufacturers to be incentivized to ignore the risk associated with their systems, but you also don't want these systems not to be offered when they'd be a net gain in safety. The point at which they're a net gain is not the same point that they become financially viable to the manufacturer from a liability point of view.

jonfw 5y ago
I know we all hate subscription models, but for self driving it makes sense. If car manufacturers are expected to be liable for their self driving cars, then they should be charging money to their customers so they can insure them. Manufacturers who produce safer self driving vehicles will have to spend less to insure their fleet, and be more competitively priced. This at least gets the incentives right
- foepys 5y ago
  I don't want car manufacturers insuring vehicles. This would lead to inflated prices because manufacturers know that you cannot sell your vehicle at any time.
  - symlinkk 5y ago
    I don’t follow

ralmidani 5y ago

Mercedes is perhaps the only auto company that is both supremely innovative and supremely respectable at the same time. Tesla is innovative, but they get ahead of themselves, and Musk is a glorified internet troll who bullies and arguably lies. The Big 3 are respectable in that they don’t really overhype or misrepresent, but Mercedes will probably out-innovate them in self-driving like they’ve out-innovated them (and pretty much everyone else) in just about every other aspect that matters over the past century. Disclaimer: I drive a Toyota Sienna and a Subaru Outback. But I’ve seen a few Mercedes up close (and sometimes driven them) over the years. The only really crappy one in my experience was the ~2006 G500.

1970-01-01 5y ago
I stopped respecting Mercedes engineering when they (and the others) were caught cheating (x2) on emissions. IMHO, they all had a better chance to compete with Tesla, but they took the path of cheating and global pollution. https://jalopnik.com/mercedes-may-have-been-caught-using-defeat-devices-agai-1848009546 https://jalopnik.com/mercedes-may-have-been-caught-using-def... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#Mercedes-Benz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#Merce...
- mempko 5y ago
  Kind of interesting then that Mercedes was an early Tesla investor. Seems at least someone in Mercedes saw the future.
- carlivar 5y ago
  Is there a statute of limitations on that, or are they tainted forever?
  - space_rock 5y ago
    Statute of limitations did not apply. All crimes were scrubbed by Western govts and forgotten by Western media. Remember legacy auto pays for most ads during news broadcasts

moron4hire 5y ago

> Right now, Drive Pilot can only engage at speeds under 40 mph... Ah, so maybe this would be great for getting around town. > ... on limited-access divided highways with no stoplights, roundabouts, or other traffic control systems... Oh, so not where the majority of driving happens. > ... and no construction zones. And none of Pennsylvania.

dusted 5y ago

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I'm pretty sure someone at Mercedes just did the math, and concluded that the number they're expecting to pay in damages is a smaller number than the profit from the extra sales. Nothing wrong with that as it is, but while it can be seen as a signal that "Mercedes is super sure their cars won't kill anyone" it should be seen more as a signal that "Mercedes is pretty sure they'll make a profit even when subtracting the price of killing people."

kkfx 5y ago

I'm more concerned about "gray areas" where I'm driving but a proprietary computer system in my car have the real control so at a certain point in time it might decide to break or steer or refuse to for some programmed reasons I do not know. Just imaging actual emergency braking systems: you see an accidents and you decide that the best option is going against another vehicle or even a wall for instance to avoid crushing on a school group on a trip. Actual system do not and can't know that, they'll try to stop your emergency maneuver and due to the little time you have even if formally deactivate you can't deactivate them. Who will be responsible and how to prove what really happen? That's the issue of automation. I can't trust back box logs from a proprietary black box designed, built and installed by the same company who sell the car. Who can? Even public authorities how much practical resources can have to really investigate?

Geee 5y ago

Traffic jam assistant is like the hello world of autonomous driving. It's basically an example project from Github. They are not even approaching the hard problems which Tesla, Openpilot etc. are solving.

giantg2 5y ago

I assume they mean civilly liability. I believe most states still require a driver behind the wheel and will level the criminal/driving penalties against that driver.

tomp 5y ago
I wonder this as well. Unless it's the CEO/CTO going to jail, it's not actual responsibility... it's just "we'll pay you some tiny amount if we kill someone" YOLO

1970-01-01 5y ago

>>If the car crashes while Drive Pilot is operating, that's Mercedes' problem, not yours. Unfortunately, no matter how much legislation you put in front of it, that's not how physics works.

hogrider 5y ago

This is the only acceptable result to society and if they limit responsibility it eill only be due to industry lobbying and in benefit to no one else. This can't be an externality for everyone else, if it is too much of a burden sinply don't sell your murderous half baked self driving and we'll keep going on like before.

rotanibmocy2 5y ago

That system is hardly "self-driving". From the article, it will work only under 40 mph in certain highways only. It's way behind other competitors

anonu 5y ago

This really sets a new standard in expectations around how safe and reliable these products are. TSLA probably has a significant head-start in terms of technology - but here's a new (call it marketing) feature by Mercedes that actually leap frogs over Tesla in terms of perception on the product. I think in 3-5 years everyone else will have caught up to tesla and we'll have a more level playing field, mainly in terms of the technology and AI. And "marketing" features like this help accelerate the closing of the gap.

katekoch 5y ago

[flagged]

evancoop 5y ago

The next question is how Lloyd's of London will handle the insurance risk at scale. Clearly, Mercedes is going to need one heck of an insurance contract to justify the policy. What happens if the system is hacked and the number of payouts required reaches stratospheric proportions? What quantity of secondary insurance will be needed for the insurer? Fascinating questions.

brianwawok 5y ago
I doubt it's even connected to the internet. Odds of being hacked would seem no different from cruise control of a random Toyota.

gigel82 5y ago

I doubt this is legal. If your car kills someone, you're going to jail. Mercedes, the company, cannot do jail time; it can at most pay fines - and there's no legal system in the world today that would accept it. And if it does, we'll just get a few enterprising folks delivering "hitman as a service" in no time at all (driving hacked Mercedes vehicles into people claiming no responsibility).

dangus 5y ago

I see this as a major signal to the outside world that Mercedes feels confident in its technology. Mercedes must really think it has a better system than its competitors. Either that or these expenses are going to be considered part of its marketing spend? Another thought: isn't it still usually the responsibility of the at-fault party's insurance company to pay out for crashes anyway? Or, in no-fault states, each insurance company covers their own driver and passengers, so it's not really important who cases a crash. I wonder if this announcement is legally meaningless in most cases...but I'm not expert in this area.

buro9 5y ago

This doesn't seem unreasonable. If you consider that it is the driver who is liable today for road traffic incidents (including failing to adapt to environmental conditions)... then why wouldn't the "driver" still be liable when the driver changes? https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-levels.html https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-level... In this it's plain that Level 3 autonomy is the first level where it's considered that the car is the driver. This is what Mercedes are proposing, to accept that the sum of software and hardware that they provide at Level 3, assuming it's used in the situations and conditions described, is the driver and that they are liable. Those caveats seem reflected in what they're proposing (if the article is accurate), and it seems reasonable.

theluketaylor 5y ago
Legal liability seems like a much cleaner way to define autonomy for the general public than the SAE levels. If the person is responsible anything the car is doing is assistance or aid. If the manufacturer owns liability it's some level of autonomous. There needs to be some kind of law about how long the car has to alert the driver before handing over liability, but beyond that it's a much cleaner divide. This would also solve issues like Tesla naming their level 2 systems 'Autopilot' and 'Full Self Driving'. I love my Model 3, but those names are deeply misleading at best and downright fraudulent at worst. The FTC really needs to step in and regulate what manufacturers can claim based on liability.

duttaoindril 5y ago

I love this. I genuinely do. But I can't help but imagine some dystopian future where they regret making this decision and they start fighting legal cases on the technicalities like, oh they crashed after they disengaged self driving, so it's the humans fault. Or even worse, they program in self driving to disengage when a crash is imminent. When companies take on liabilities, they're very unlikely to actually pay for it. Leaving the common folk to struggle.

BurningFrog 5y ago

This is the only way this can work legally. If the car causes a crash, the car manufacturer has to be liable. End of story. As long as the self driving system performs well, it should be a win for everyone!