4 ms·

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 wil

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.
hef19898 5y ago
Assuming that Mercedes Benz (and all other manufacturers at that) know their shit, which they do, it says more about the self-driving competition and self-driving tech in general thann it does about Mercedes' offering.
slg 5y ago
I personally would rather have a system that I can actually use when I want even if that means I need to accept liability while using it.
- blackoil 5y ago
  This will be treated same as drunk driving. Just because you want to take responsibility doesn't/shouldn't mean anything to legal framework.
  - slg 5y ago
    I'm not sure that I understand your point. Which party takes responsibility for an accident says nothing about the frequency of accidents or the kind of threat this car would pose to other drivers.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Of course it does (indirectly). Tesla for example can't take responsibility, since they know that their "full self drive" or "autopilot" systems are never reliable, in any driving circumstance. What you're saying is like "the engineers that built this bridge never drive over it, but that doesn't mean it's shoddy" - technically correct, but almost certainly wrong in practice.
      - slg 5y ago
        You are assuming the motivations behind these decisions are purely based on safety rather than a philosphical difference in approaches. From a practical standpoint, liability needs to be all or nothing. You can't have a driver worrying about whether they are going 40mph or 41mph. You can't immedaitely give the driver liability if it starts to drizzle or the sun sets. Mercedes is taking the approach that they are always responsibile. Other manufacturers are taking the approach that the driver is always responsible. The end result is that the Mercedes system is much more conservative in how it can be used. This says nothing about the quality of their technology in comparison to their competitors. It simply says they are focusing on the easiest problems first while their competitors are taking a more holistic approach trying to design a system that has more broad usability.
        tsimionescu 5y ago
fastball 5y ago
It doesn't say anything really. This only speaks to Mercedes and the performance of their driverless tech.
spullara 5y ago
This is insurance. It is all probability.
- belter 5y ago
  More Actuarial Science but your point still stands.

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.

hef19898 5y ago

Assuming that Mercedes Benz (and all other manufacturers at that) know their shit, which they do, it says more about the self-driving competition and self-driving tech in general thann it does about Mercedes' offering.

slg 5y ago

I personally would rather have a system that I can actually use when I want even if that means I need to accept liability while using it.

blackoil 5y ago
This will be treated same as drunk driving. Just because you want to take responsibility doesn't/shouldn't mean anything to legal framework.
- slg 5y ago
  I'm not sure that I understand your point. Which party takes responsibility for an accident says nothing about the frequency of accidents or the kind of threat this car would pose to other drivers.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Of course it does (indirectly). Tesla for example can't take responsibility, since they know that their "full self drive" or "autopilot" systems are never reliable, in any driving circumstance. What you're saying is like "the engineers that built this bridge never drive over it, but that doesn't mean it's shoddy" - technically correct, but almost certainly wrong in practice.
    - slg 5y ago
      You are assuming the motivations behind these decisions are purely based on safety rather than a philosphical difference in approaches. From a practical standpoint, liability needs to be all or nothing. You can't have a driver worrying about whether they are going 40mph or 41mph. You can't immedaitely give the driver liability if it starts to drizzle or the sun sets. Mercedes is taking the approach that they are always responsibile. Other manufacturers are taking the approach that the driver is always responsible. The end result is that the Mercedes system is much more conservative in how it can be used. This says nothing about the quality of their technology in comparison to their competitors. It simply says they are focusing on the easiest problems first while their competitors are taking a more holistic approach trying to design a system that has more broad usability.
      - tsimionescu 5y ago

fastball 5y ago

It doesn't say anything really. This only speaks to Mercedes and the performance of their driverless tech.

spullara 5y ago

This is insurance. It is all probability.

belter 5y ago
More Actuarial Science but your point still stands.