4 ms·

Please, please drive your car. More than zero hands should be on the wheel and your eyes should be on the road. If you can't be bothered to do this, perhaps f

by rsync 4y ago

Please, please drive your car. More than zero hands should be on the wheel and your eyes should be on the road. If you can't be bothered to do this, perhaps find another mode of transport.

jupp0r 4y ago
Isn't the definition of level 3 that you don't have to do this? Is your point that the claim of level 3 readiness is false or that all autonomous driving is somehow inferior to non autonomous driving?
- rsync 4y ago
  We can't handle mode switching in this manner. If you are responsible for two tons of metal flying down the road at 70 mph you need to be fully engaged in that task. We can handle being passengers and we can handle being drivers but we can't switch in a split second. So my contention is that level-X where X is less than "I can fall asleep in the back seat" is a deadly valley between unassisted driving and passive passenger.
  - slavik81 4y ago
    > If you are responsible for two tons of metal flying down the road at 70 mph The Mercedes system has a top speed of 40 mph. > We can handle being passengers and we can handle being drivers but we can't switch in a split second. That's why there is a 10 second handover. If the human fails to take control of the vehicle during the handover, the vehicle will slow to a stop.
    - azinman2 4y ago
      Slowing to a stop isn’t enough: https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1612848872061128704?s=20&t=9G41oBWpoN_NnXD_Q3cx2Q https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/16128488720611287...
    - akmarinov 4y ago
      > The Mercedes system has a top speed of 40 mph. That's up to 130 km/h starting 2023
  - czzr 4y ago
    You’re correct, but this is the point of this announcement - 10secs to reorient yourself is a lot of time - it’s vastly different to “oops, you’re about to crash in 0.5s, sorry, you’re on your own”
    - lolinder 4y ago
      10 seconds may be a lot or a little, depending on what you were doing. Humans are bad at grayscale rules and time estimation, so it's far safer to say "you're either a passenger or a driver" than to say "you're either a passenger or a driver or a person doing something that can easily be switched away from in 10 seconds". A few examples of activities that could be hard to switch away from in time: * Eating breakfast with food in my lap and the spoon halfway to my mouth. * Typing an email. * Reading a book. Some of these could allow you to physically have your hands on the wheel in time, but then you still need to context switch your brain and then get up to date on the road.
      - cypress66 4y ago
        10 seconds seems like more than enough even if I were doing those things.
    - akira2501 4y ago
      Presuming it can always afford you that 10s interval. That's quite the assumption to give to drivers trusting theirs and others lives to this system.
  - akmarinov 4y ago
    > If you are responsible for two tons of metal flying down the road at 70 mph That's the thing - you're not. Once engaged, Mercedes takes liability, so you're no longer responsible.
    - jjav 4y ago
      > That's the thing - you're not. Once engaged, Mercedes takes liability, so you're no longer responsible. Legally (though surely to be tested in court). Morally though, I'd say the driver is still responsible if they kill someone. It doesn't feel right to say "Oh well, it's Mercedes' fault, shrug" after your car with you in it drives over someone else.
    - rsync 4y ago
      "That's the thing - you're not. Once engaged, Mercedes takes liability, so you're no longer responsible ..." I didn't say you were legally responsible. You are morally responsible.
      - akmarinov 4y ago
        So if I'm a passenger in a car and the driver hits someone - I'm morally responsible?
- INTPenis 4y ago
  If you work with technology, you don't trust technology. Like IBM said back in the 70s; A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision. Well you're letting it make decisions for you in a 2 ton murder weapon.
  - jupp0r 4y ago
    I trust technology at this point much more than the average driver (in normal conditions)
    - INTPenis 4y ago
      Bottom line is that no system is perfect. I feel less safe knowing there will be humans on the roads letting go of their steering wheels and handing over control to an imperfect system. Some day I'm sure we'll have automated traffic, but the road there will be lined with bodies.
dbuder 4y ago
People are so blase about these prototypes roaming free - do people really think the trolley problem is directly applicable to these technologies or is just greed like everything else?
sneak 4y ago
Do self-driving cars count as "another mode of transport"?

by rsync 4y ago

Please, please drive your car. More than zero hands should be on the wheel and your eyes should be on the road. If you can't be bothered to do this, perhaps find another mode of transport.

jupp0r 4y ago

Isn't the definition of level 3 that you don't have to do this? Is your point that the claim of level 3 readiness is false or that all autonomous driving is somehow inferior to non autonomous driving?

rsync 4y ago
We can't handle mode switching in this manner. If you are responsible for two tons of metal flying down the road at 70 mph you need to be fully engaged in that task. We can handle being passengers and we can handle being drivers but we can't switch in a split second. So my contention is that level-X where X is less than "I can fall asleep in the back seat" is a deadly valley between unassisted driving and passive passenger.
- slavik81 4y ago
  > If you are responsible for two tons of metal flying down the road at 70 mph The Mercedes system has a top speed of 40 mph. > We can handle being passengers and we can handle being drivers but we can't switch in a split second. That's why there is a 10 second handover. If the human fails to take control of the vehicle during the handover, the vehicle will slow to a stop.
  - azinman2 4y ago
    Slowing to a stop isn’t enough: https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1612848872061128704?s=20&t=9G41oBWpoN_NnXD_Q3cx2Q https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/16128488720611287...
  - akmarinov 4y ago
    > The Mercedes system has a top speed of 40 mph. That's up to 130 km/h starting 2023
- czzr 4y ago
  You’re correct, but this is the point of this announcement - 10secs to reorient yourself is a lot of time - it’s vastly different to “oops, you’re about to crash in 0.5s, sorry, you’re on your own”
  - lolinder 4y ago
    10 seconds may be a lot or a little, depending on what you were doing. Humans are bad at grayscale rules and time estimation, so it's far safer to say "you're either a passenger or a driver" than to say "you're either a passenger or a driver or a person doing something that can easily be switched away from in 10 seconds". A few examples of activities that could be hard to switch away from in time: * Eating breakfast with food in my lap and the spoon halfway to my mouth. * Typing an email. * Reading a book. Some of these could allow you to physically have your hands on the wheel in time, but then you still need to context switch your brain and then get up to date on the road.
    - cypress66 4y ago
      10 seconds seems like more than enough even if I were doing those things.
  - akira2501 4y ago
    Presuming it can always afford you that 10s interval. That's quite the assumption to give to drivers trusting theirs and others lives to this system.
- akmarinov 4y ago
  > If you are responsible for two tons of metal flying down the road at 70 mph That's the thing - you're not. Once engaged, Mercedes takes liability, so you're no longer responsible.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > That's the thing - you're not. Once engaged, Mercedes takes liability, so you're no longer responsible. Legally (though surely to be tested in court). Morally though, I'd say the driver is still responsible if they kill someone. It doesn't feel right to say "Oh well, it's Mercedes' fault, shrug" after your car with you in it drives over someone else.
  - rsync 4y ago
    "That's the thing - you're not. Once engaged, Mercedes takes liability, so you're no longer responsible ..." I didn't say you were legally responsible. You are morally responsible.
    - akmarinov 4y ago
      So if I'm a passenger in a car and the driver hits someone - I'm morally responsible?
INTPenis 4y ago
If you work with technology, you don't trust technology. Like IBM said back in the 70s; A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision. Well you're letting it make decisions for you in a 2 ton murder weapon.
- jupp0r 4y ago
  I trust technology at this point much more than the average driver (in normal conditions)
  - INTPenis 4y ago
    Bottom line is that no system is perfect. I feel less safe knowing there will be humans on the roads letting go of their steering wheels and handing over control to an imperfect system. Some day I'm sure we'll have automated traffic, but the road there will be lined with bodies.

dbuder 4y ago

People are so blase about these prototypes roaming free - do people really think the trolley problem is directly applicable to these technologies or is just greed like everything else?

sneak 4y ago

Do self-driving cars count as "another mode of transport"?