5 ms·

> According to the SAE levels of driving automation, a Level 3-capable vehicle can take over certain driving tasks, but a driver is still required to be present

> According to the SAE levels of driving automation, a Level 3-capable vehicle can take over certain driving tasks, but a driver is still required to be present and ready to take control of the car at all times when prompted to intervene. The first part of the article mentions the driver being able to take a meeting or watch a movie. That’s complete horseshit if they need to be ready to take control of the car at all times.

emodendroket 4y ago
Right, these things seem worse than nothing if they're good enough to make you completely distracted, paying no attention to the road, but them dump control over to you the minute something unexpected happens.
- seadan83 4y ago
  That describes Tesla FSD, not this. Tesla does level 2 in more varied of situations, but that warning time before taking control is a very key difference. Enough that you can pay 0 attention to be able to look around and see what's up before taking control (vs, you're expected to swerve the car when it fails)
CyanLite4 4y ago
L3 driving is only available at low speeds, approx 35mph which means only useful for stop-and-go traffic. Many cars with adaptive cruise control can already do this. Source: https://www.rambus.com/blogs/driving-automation-levels/#level3 https://www.rambus.com/blogs/driving-automation-levels/#leve...
- theluketaylor 4y ago
  The big difference is MB is taking liability in the event of a collision and he car won’t simply hand control back to the driver. This is much more advanced than any L2 system and the fact MB is taking liability is a whole different ballpark.
- judge2020 4y ago
  The public page makes no such distinction[0]. I created a mySAE account to download the full spec. What I found is that the manufacturer generally has fairly free reign to define their "operational design domain (ODD)" for level 3 systems, aka what conditions the car's "level 3" operation is designed for and can operate under. The only real requirement for level 3 is that OEDR is required (monitoring the driving environment (detecting, recognizing, and classifying objects and events and preparing to respond as needed) and executing an appropriate response to such objects and events (i.e., as needed to complete the DDT and/or DDT fallback [fallback to driver]). 0: https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update
  - gumby 4y ago
    Those are SAE’s criteria but I wonder what Federal and state DoT’s have to say about the matter. Props to SAE for making their spec free do download, modulo a gratuitous account.
- drusepth 4y ago
  Then why does the article claim Mercedes is the first automaker to offer L3 driving?
  - kube-system 4y ago
    The difference is the confidence level. The required level of supervision. Other cars, like Teslas, can “do” this task, but not with enough certainty that they are safe to do it while not being actively monitored by a driver.
    - ultrablack 4y ago
      Teslas did this years ago. The standard autopilot could do this, at speeds up to 100miles/hour. Later, they add the nag. 2018 I think.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        Yes, at SAE J3016 level 2.
- miles 4y ago
  > L3 driving is only available at low speeds, approx 35mph In that case, this paragraph from the article doesn't make much sense (in fairness, it was on pretty shaky ground to begin with): > Mercedes’ Level 3 conditionally automated driving assistant can, on suitable highway sections [emphasis added] and where traffic density is high, offer to take over the driving, leaving the driver free to do something else, like watch a movie or participate in a meeting.
  - andrewf 4y ago
    It's for people stuck in traffic on a congested highway.
  - manfre 4y ago
    Highways during rush hour in many cities have traffic that moves very slowly for many miles/hours. This L3 is perfect for those situations where people are reading books during the stop and go.
freetime2 4y ago
It certainly sounds like a contradiction, but I suppose it comes down to how much time the driver has to take control "when prompted to intervene". If they are expected to take control in (for example) less than one second's notice, then yes driver must keep their attention on the road at all times. If the car is able to recognize far enough in advance that it doesn't know what to do in a situation and reduce speed, pull over, etc., then that could be enough time for a person to put down their phone and take control of the vehicle.
brigade 4y ago
Big difference between needing to keep attention on the road because the car is liable to hit parked cars obstructing the travel lane, and merely having to be ready to start paying attention when the operational design domain of a L3 system is no longer met. Like for this Drive Pilot, when traffic speeds up to 40 MPH.
- judge2020 4y ago
  The only thing is whether or not Mercedes will take liability for their system if it causes an incident while operating within their defined driving limitation (eg. 35mph). If they still say "it's up to you", it's tough to trust it enough to read a book or watch a movie.
  - sveme 4y ago
    In Germany, they take the liability. Probably the same in the US.
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
The article is correct. The SAE explains this in more detail and makes the distinction between being constantly ready to immediately take over and being asked to resume driving. https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update
- metaphor 4y ago
  Is this supposed distinction actually meaningful? I don't know...color me unconvinced. When I interpret "being constantly ready to immediately take over" language, it's unambiguous that I need to maintain full situational awareness as if I were driving the vehicle. Physically and mentally transitioning from partial to full situational awareness obviously takes some time, and yet from the graphic in the SAE link, the chart remains entirely ambiguous about the permitted time between "when the feature requests" and when "you must drive". Furthermore, a quick review of SAE J3016 Rev 2021-04 reflects equally ambiguous language in § 5.4 NOTE 4 (my emphasis): > NOTE 4: In the event of a DDT performance-relevant system failure in a Level 3 ADS, or in the event that the ADS exits its ODD, the ADS will issue a request to intervene within sufficient time for the fallback-ready user (whether in-vehicle or remote) to respond appropriately. I'm curious what the normative minimum of "sufficient time" will be in practice.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    There’s a big difference between “constantly vigilant” and “you can chill out and watch YouTube, and just, like, don’t be drunk or super stoned The way I’m reading the SAE, it’s closer to the second. Like, it’s actual real self driving, but might need the user to take back control with a modicum of warning if it sees, say, a construction zone ahead or if it detects too much standing water on the road.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      Chilling out and watching youtube is still a huge issue though. You lose situational awareness and, drunk or not, you cannot react to sudden urgent issues that confuse the system.
foepys 4y ago
In Germany (where this system is already available) Mercedes takes liability and the system gives the driver a 10 second advanced warning before they have to take over. It's also only available on certain stretches of the Autobahn. If the system allows you to enable it, you can use it. The German law allows autonomous driving up to 130 km/h although Mercedes currently only allows their system to work up to 60 km/h.
- verdenti 4y ago
  That just seems like adaptive cruise control. Comparing Tesla to this is apples and oranges.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Mercedes takes liability This has to be the standard for all but the most egregious examples of other-driver-at-fault crashes. That, together with marketing standards, e.g. you can say FSD but you have to also disclose Level 2, should help clean things up while incentivizing good development.
  - berkes 4y ago
    Certainly. But companies will offer this only if the downside risk is bearable. Which, (IANAL) is quite certainly much bigger in the US than in Germany.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > companies will offer this only if the downside risk is bearable Is the liability in Germany uncapped?
      - micwag 4y ago
        Didn't find anything, but I imagine it's similar to normal car insurance. In Germany most insurances are capped at 100m (legal minimum is 7.7m). Most expensive accident in history was 32m.
geodel 4y ago
> The first part of the article mentions the driver being able to take a meeting or watch a movie. I think the idea here is that typical executive meetings ( which of course Mercedes owners would be) are monotonous and boring and it would not take more than 20% of your attention in any case. Roughly same for movies as it has to be Hollywood franchise movies which even if one is watching first time, it still feels like seeing same thing thousand times before. And now concentrating on road looks more interesting than movie. All Mercedes has to do is put `*` on Movies/Meetings and define them appropriately to be on firm legal grounds.
- seadan83 4y ago
  It is 100% attention. The caveat is there is ample time after the car notifies you to take control where you put down your task, look around and gain situational awareness. How often that happens is a question. Seemingly rare enough you could reliably do a meeting, that latter part is just a presumption though. No '*', Mercedes takes full responsibility and there are many seconds before it shifts control (and liability). The system can reliably predict when it will want to give back control.
valleyer 4y ago
Why? As far as I can tell, people already watch their smartphones while driving at level zero.
- kortilla 4y ago
  Not legally.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

emodendroket 4y ago

Right, these things seem worse than nothing if they're good enough to make you completely distracted, paying no attention to the road, but them dump control over to you the minute something unexpected happens.

seadan83 4y ago
That describes Tesla FSD, not this. Tesla does level 2 in more varied of situations, but that warning time before taking control is a very key difference. Enough that you can pay 0 attention to be able to look around and see what's up before taking control (vs, you're expected to swerve the car when it fails)

CyanLite4 4y ago

L3 driving is only available at low speeds, approx 35mph which means only useful for stop-and-go traffic. Many cars with adaptive cruise control can already do this. Source: https://www.rambus.com/blogs/driving-automation-levels/#level3 https://www.rambus.com/blogs/driving-automation-levels/#leve...

theluketaylor 4y ago
The big difference is MB is taking liability in the event of a collision and he car won’t simply hand control back to the driver. This is much more advanced than any L2 system and the fact MB is taking liability is a whole different ballpark.
judge2020 4y ago
The public page makes no such distinction[0]. I created a mySAE account to download the full spec. What I found is that the manufacturer generally has fairly free reign to define their "operational design domain (ODD)" for level 3 systems, aka what conditions the car's "level 3" operation is designed for and can operate under. The only real requirement for level 3 is that OEDR is required (monitoring the driving environment (detecting, recognizing, and classifying objects and events and preparing to respond as needed) and executing an appropriate response to such objects and events (i.e., as needed to complete the DDT and/or DDT fallback [fallback to driver]). 0: https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update
- gumby 4y ago
  Those are SAE’s criteria but I wonder what Federal and state DoT’s have to say about the matter. Props to SAE for making their spec free do download, modulo a gratuitous account.
drusepth 4y ago
Then why does the article claim Mercedes is the first automaker to offer L3 driving?
- kube-system 4y ago
  The difference is the confidence level. The required level of supervision. Other cars, like Teslas, can “do” this task, but not with enough certainty that they are safe to do it while not being actively monitored by a driver.
  - ultrablack 4y ago
    Teslas did this years ago. The standard autopilot could do this, at speeds up to 100miles/hour. Later, they add the nag. 2018 I think.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Yes, at SAE J3016 level 2.
miles 4y ago
> L3 driving is only available at low speeds, approx 35mph In that case, this paragraph from the article doesn't make much sense (in fairness, it was on pretty shaky ground to begin with): > Mercedes’ Level 3 conditionally automated driving assistant can, on suitable highway sections [emphasis added] and where traffic density is high, offer to take over the driving, leaving the driver free to do something else, like watch a movie or participate in a meeting.
- andrewf 4y ago
  It's for people stuck in traffic on a congested highway.
- manfre 4y ago
  Highways during rush hour in many cities have traffic that moves very slowly for many miles/hours. This L3 is perfect for those situations where people are reading books during the stop and go.

freetime2 4y ago

It certainly sounds like a contradiction, but I suppose it comes down to how much time the driver has to take control "when prompted to intervene". If they are expected to take control in (for example) less than one second's notice, then yes driver must keep their attention on the road at all times. If the car is able to recognize far enough in advance that it doesn't know what to do in a situation and reduce speed, pull over, etc., then that could be enough time for a person to put down their phone and take control of the vehicle.

brigade 4y ago

Big difference between needing to keep attention on the road because the car is liable to hit parked cars obstructing the travel lane, and merely having to be ready to start paying attention when the operational design domain of a L3 system is no longer met. Like for this Drive Pilot, when traffic speeds up to 40 MPH.

judge2020 4y ago
The only thing is whether or not Mercedes will take liability for their system if it causes an incident while operating within their defined driving limitation (eg. 35mph). If they still say "it's up to you", it's tough to trust it enough to read a book or watch a movie.
- sveme 4y ago
  In Germany, they take the liability. Probably the same in the US.

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago

The article is correct. The SAE explains this in more detail and makes the distinction between being constantly ready to immediately take over and being asked to resume driving. https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update

metaphor 4y ago
Is this supposed distinction actually meaningful? I don't know...color me unconvinced. When I interpret "being constantly ready to immediately take over" language, it's unambiguous that I need to maintain full situational awareness as if I were driving the vehicle. Physically and mentally transitioning from partial to full situational awareness obviously takes some time, and yet from the graphic in the SAE link, the chart remains entirely ambiguous about the permitted time between "when the feature requests" and when "you must drive". Furthermore, a quick review of SAE J3016 Rev 2021-04 reflects equally ambiguous language in § 5.4 NOTE 4 (my emphasis): > NOTE 4: In the event of a DDT performance-relevant system failure in a Level 3 ADS, or in the event that the ADS exits its ODD, the ADS will issue a request to intervene within sufficient time for the fallback-ready user (whether in-vehicle or remote) to respond appropriately. I'm curious what the normative minimum of "sufficient time" will be in practice.
- TylerE 4y ago
  There’s a big difference between “constantly vigilant” and “you can chill out and watch YouTube, and just, like, don’t be drunk or super stoned The way I’m reading the SAE, it’s closer to the second. Like, it’s actual real self driving, but might need the user to take back control with a modicum of warning if it sees, say, a construction zone ahead or if it detects too much standing water on the road.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    Chilling out and watching youtube is still a huge issue though. You lose situational awareness and, drunk or not, you cannot react to sudden urgent issues that confuse the system.

foepys 4y ago

In Germany (where this system is already available) Mercedes takes liability and the system gives the driver a 10 second advanced warning before they have to take over. It's also only available on certain stretches of the Autobahn. If the system allows you to enable it, you can use it. The German law allows autonomous driving up to 130 km/h although Mercedes currently only allows their system to work up to 60 km/h.

verdenti 4y ago
That just seems like adaptive cruise control. Comparing Tesla to this is apples and oranges.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Mercedes takes liability This has to be the standard for all but the most egregious examples of other-driver-at-fault crashes. That, together with marketing standards, e.g. you can say FSD but you have to also disclose Level 2, should help clean things up while incentivizing good development.
- berkes 4y ago
  Certainly. But companies will offer this only if the downside risk is bearable. Which, (IANAL) is quite certainly much bigger in the US than in Germany.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > companies will offer this only if the downside risk is bearable Is the liability in Germany uncapped?
    - micwag 4y ago
      Didn't find anything, but I imagine it's similar to normal car insurance. In Germany most insurances are capped at 100m (legal minimum is 7.7m). Most expensive accident in history was 32m.

geodel 4y ago

> The first part of the article mentions the driver being able to take a meeting or watch a movie. I think the idea here is that typical executive meetings ( which of course Mercedes owners would be) are monotonous and boring and it would not take more than 20% of your attention in any case. Roughly same for movies as it has to be Hollywood franchise movies which even if one is watching first time, it still feels like seeing same thing thousand times before. And now concentrating on road looks more interesting than movie. All Mercedes has to do is put `*` on Movies/Meetings and define them appropriately to be on firm legal grounds.

seadan83 4y ago
It is 100% attention. The caveat is there is ample time after the car notifies you to take control where you put down your task, look around and gain situational awareness. How often that happens is a question. Seemingly rare enough you could reliably do a meeting, that latter part is just a presumption though. No '*', Mercedes takes full responsibility and there are many seconds before it shifts control (and liability). The system can reliably predict when it will want to give back control.

valleyer 4y ago

Why? As far as I can tell, people already watch their smartphones while driving at level zero.

kortilla 4y ago
Not legally.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]