10 ms·
Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights
- getwiththeprog 3y agoThat is a very calming colour, I feel better already.
- throw03172019 3y agoIs this purely for marketing reasons? Why would any driver need to know someone else is using auto-pilot?
- Faaak 3y ago> So Cops Won't Pull You Over For Watching A Movie
- flohofwoe 3y agoMost of the article is about answering exactly that question.
- TheJoeMan 3y agoIt would certainly change the dynamic of the "chicken" game at 4 way stop sign intersections. I remember previously reading that Tesla tried to add the "roll forward slowly to assert your turn" function but was snubbed by NHTSA. Now one could know they can just cut off the Mercedes and it will stop?
- gnicholas 3y agoHypothetically, yes. But Mercedes’ tech only works on certain roads, which may not have stop lights or stop signs.
- worthless-trash 3y agoGreat, so now we need to think about how AI is going to act.
- gnicholas 3y agoThis is inevitable. With human drivers, I check to see if they are looking at me, or at least in my direction, before turning across them. There will need to be some way for autonomous vehicles to signal to other drivers, pedestrians, etc. that the vehicle know they’re there.
- ungamedplayer 3y agoThis cuts right to the crux of the problem. I love the way that you phrased it. I do not think that a single light can portray the complexity that we look for in the current situation.
- gnicholas 3y agoYou're right, especially because a vehicle has to engage with a number of drivers simultaneously. I can tell where a driver is looking, and I can see that he's looking at me. While a vehicle could have some sort of indicator that say "I see you", it's somewhat harder to imagine how this would work when there are many other cars around (including a mix of AVs and human-driven vehicles). I would guess that at some point cars will communicate directly with each other, and a light might appear on the dash to indicate that a vehicle is aware of your presence/intention. That way human drivers would know that it's safe to maneuver around the AVs whose paths he might cross. But it will probably be a decade before this sort of stuff is worked out, at the earliest.
- creer 3y agoGood point. A robot head then. Sticking up from the hood. With a bunch of arms and making pistol signs at all the pedestrians around him. See Johnny Cab except of course one inside to chat the passengers (turned toward the passengers then in chat mode, and deflated in privacy mode), and one on the hood to make pedestrians feel safe.
- karmakaze 3y agoI hope it doesn't engage at night, as we don't have turquoise LEDs so the blue ones will ruin night vision.
- Already__Taken 3y agoyou don't have night vision with headlights and full beams on... they look just like daytime running lights, not terribly bright.
- adhesive_wombat 3y agoYou can get LEDs in many wavelengths. Around 500nm is "cyan", 505nm is described as "Verde" or "mint green", 510nm is called "blue green" by LED manufacturers. And those are just single-wavelength examples. You could add a yellow led, say, to move the colour off the locus of pure-wavelength colours. I'd be pretty surprised if those lights aren't already LEDs.
- dist-epoch 3y agoWhite headlights and street lights will ruin your night vision before these lights.
- KMnO4 3y agoThe idea of preserving night vision is based on rod cells being insensitive to light with a wavelength >640nm (ie red). Halogen bulbs found in headlights produce a lot of light under that wavelength, and are going to be at a much higher intensity than turquoise indicator lights.
- oarsinsync 3y ago> Halogen bulbs found in headlights produce a lot of light under that wavelength, and are going to be at a much higher intensity than turquoise indicator lights. Tangential, but holy shit, this is great to know, and explains why I generally feel blinded every time someone with those horrible headlights drives by. I wonder if there’s anything that can be done (to my windshield? to some glasses?) that can reduce the impact of this at night?
- satiric 3y agoBlue lights are banned on cars in lots of places (so that you don't look like a cop car). I'm assuming SAE has thought of this already? It doesn't look too similar to the bright blue lights on cop cars, but still.
- Hamuko 3y agoQuite a lot of headlights already have a blue tint to them and I don't think there's really any confusion regarding those. The fact that the lights don't flash are already quite different to emergency lights.
- jessriedel 3y agoIt's a light, slightly green shade of blue (turquoise), which looks very different than the deep dark blue of emergency lights.
- rad_gruchalski 3y agoBlue flashing lights are not allowed.
- takumo 3y agoI think this idea makes some sense, in a mixed-traffic world where some vehicles are autonomous and others are not, some indication that a vehicle is driving autonomously is useful information to everyone around them. Additional situational information, provided it is not overly intrusive or overwhelming is generally beneficial. As for the colour, clearly Mercedes requested Turquoise for brand reasons. I wonder if there is a better colour to be adopted as a standard? External indicator lights of any kind seem like something that needs to be standardised before we end up with a whole mess of different colours on the roads causing confusion.
- thedougd 3y ago“The turquoise color for Level 3 driving was chosen by SAE, so other brands beyond just Mercedes will use it for their own cars.”
- dehrmann 3y agoStandardization on this will be good.
- vic-traill 3y ago> some indication that a vehicle is driving autonomously is useful information to everyone around them I'm genuinely curious - what are you thinking when you say this? I don't know what I'd do with that information. It shouldn't make me drive differently - e.g. not be aggressive to see if I can invoke reaction(s) in the autonomous system, and I should already be driving w/ due care.
- jfoster 3y agoIt shouldn't make you drive differently, but in the real world human drivers do drive in unsafe ways, so a cue might help. Might also be ignored or not understood, of course.
- nicoburns 3y agoHuman drivers and autonomous systems drive differently. So if you’re trying to predict how the car will behave in order to e.g. anticipate possible hazards (which I think we all do when driving?) then you may wish to take it account whether it’s being autonomously driven or not.
- nomilk 3y agoSurprised to learn it's not tesla or comma with the first level 3 driving system approved for sale in the US. Would never have guessed Mercedes would beat them to it.
- Hamuko 3y agoGiven Tesla's haphazard approach, even if they had a level 3 driving system available, they probably would just launch it without any approval.
- GuB-42 3y agoLevel 3 means that the driver is not at fault if something happens when the system is on. Tesla could conceivably launch a level 3 system without approval by taking full responsibility for any accident that happens when the system is running even when the driver is inattentive. Even Tesla is not crazy enough to do that.
- wilde 3y agoSlow and steady won this race.
- airstrike 3y agoAlso slow is smooth and smooth is fast
- yareal 3y ago[dead]
- nixass 3y ago> Surprised to learn it's not tesla Actually anyone even slightly interested in automotive industry isn't surprised by this. Tesla's tech is all smoke and mirrors for years now
- idopmstuff 3y agoI find this to be such a weird take - I just drove from San Diego -> LA with my Tesla doing 90+% of the freeway driving (I only have the free autosteer, so I have to handle exits, etc.). I have been in multiple rides through SF in friends' Teslas where they did not have to intervene at any point. Is Tesla FSD ready to replace human drivers? It is not. Is it smoke and mirrors? No - there is a mountain of evidence that it is a very capable product in many situations.
- simondotau 3y agoAn autonomous driving system is either good enough to drive on our roads without supervision — or it's not. If it is good enough, it shouldn't matter whether others know if the driver isn't human. Any unsupervised driving system is likely to be around two orders of magnitude safer than a human driver.[0] So effectively they're special lights to tell others that a car is extremely safe. This will backfire horribly. While there is some residual benefit to law enforcement, these lights will signal to human drivers and pedestrians that this vehicle can be bullied with impunity, and with no risk of angry retaliation. Human drivers will cut in front of them mercilessly. Pedestrians will step onto the road in front of them. Maybe not in classy affluent suburbs, but definitely in rough neighborhoods. -- [0] I think it's obvious that anything less than two orders of magnitude (100X safer) is socially unsustainable. Think about it. 40 thousand people die on roads in the USA each year. Replace all drivers with an AI that's "only" 100X safer and we'll initially marvel at the 39k lives saved every year. But that will quickly be forgotten. What's left is the brutal carnage of 400 people mercilessly killed by robot cars annually...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- aaomidi 3y agoIt’s literally there so cops etc don’t pull you over for watching a movie while driving.
- Havoc 3y agoSurprised they picked something that looks fairly white-ish for the back side too.
- nottorp 3y agoWhat's turquoise? I know about 8 colour names and that ain't one of them.
- riedel 3y agoIt is an extended color [0] :) [0] https://www.w3.org/wiki/CSS/Properties/color/keywords https://www.w3.org/wiki/CSS/Properties/color/keywords
- rabbits_2002 3y ago“blanchedalmond” thats a new one for me lol
- Ambroos 3y agoBright light blue / cyan with a touch of green.
- pvaldes 3y agoIs a color named by the gemstone called turquoise. A particular shade of blue-green provided by copper. Can vary from light blue with a hint of green to jade green mixed with blue. Easily recognizable once you see it. In this context it means basically light cyan. A much less marketable name.
- cromulent 3y agoPrevious discussion on the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38699707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38699707
- Waterluvian 3y agoIs this a colour blindness issue? Check out that last photo. Isn’t that red/green?
- port914 3y ago[flagged]
- port22 3y ago[flagged]
- nixgeek 3y agoMercedes will cover accidents where DrivePilot is at fault; your insurance will cover your faults. Would expect DrivePilot equipped vehicles to store insane amounts of telemetry from all their sensors, which will make it far easier for Mercedes to prove that you’re at fault than you to do the opposite.
- gruez 3y agoWhy? All the recorded telemetry is going to show up in discovery anyways
- nixgeek 3y agoProbably 99% of accidents between two parties where insurance has to decide who’s at fault (and therefore who pays) don’t go to court so “show up in discovery” probably doesn’t apply? Insurance companies typically view litigation as additional cost over and above paying out the policy coverage, and to be avoided whenever possible.
- gruez 3y agoAnd is the drivers' insurance company just going to accept a "just trust us bro" from Mercedes? Even absent litigation I'd expect voluntary disclosure, otherwise the drivers' insurance companies are going to be on the hook for much more of the payout.
- nixgeek 3y agoThat’s fair and yes I’d expect in the event of a claim, short of litigation, you’re going to see telemetry data shared to support determining who’s at fault. It would be interesting to see how that’s handled in the agreements you have to enter into to activate this system in these vehicles… But back to the original comment - this won’t be a lottery ticket for anyone because the Mercedes probably has millimeter-accuracy data on proximity of it to other vehicles from LiDAR, its movement, their movement, so outside of ADAS failure (which you’d expect to be rare in these conditions - known highways and under 40mph; why else would Mercedes take on liability?) it really will mostly be “the other party was at fault and must pay”, and repairs on 2024+ Mercedes with all this technology won’t be cheap either.
- jgalt212 3y ago> Mercedes-Benz is the first automaker to gain approval to sell a Level 3 automated driving system in the United States; Yet, Telsa continues to market FSD. Where is Lina Khan on this?
- Aloha 3y agoPreviously discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38699707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38699707
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y agoSo I can add turquoise lights to my car and nobody will think I'm texting and driving?
- coolspot 3y agoYou can also add red blinkers and everyone will think you’re firetruck.
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y agoNo. That doesn't make sense. Turquoise lights are the new standard to identify self driving cars. That means in the near future there will be more models with self driving capabilities than the average person will be able to keep track of. If I put turquoise lights on my newer Subaru, it isn't unreasonable to think that other drivers will think that I have a self driving car. I can't imagine there will ever be a Subaru Impreza used to help fight fires.
- TrickyRick 3y agoHow about "If you put blue lights everyone will think it's an unmarked police car" then? The argument works the other way around too, if you put turquoise lights on a 1999 Subaru nobody will think it's self driving.
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y agoWhere did I mention anything about a 24 year old vehicle?
- ComputerGuru 3y agoI can’t see how the front light would be visible once the headlights are turned on.
- nateb2022 3y ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38699707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38699707 (3 days ago, 85 points, 109 comments)
- data-ottawa 3y agoAs mentioned in the previous thread, I'm not pleased with this colour. For red-green colourblind people (both types), this colour is at the neutral point where both available cones are saturated and the brain can't differentiate it from white light. In their study paper they used a much more blue turquoise, decided it was confusing, and then moved it to a more green version (thus saturating the non-blue cone for dichromats) but did not reassess the new green-turquoise colour. The net effect is that for something like 8% of men this light looks exactly the same as the white reversing lights and is placed exactly where reversing lights are.
- pas 3y agowhat would be a better alternative color? to me the placement seems substantially different from the reversing light (which is usually more toward the middle of the back) of course these pictures probably don't tell much about how it will actually look like in traffic, but some kind of pattern seems to be the way to go (that's recognizable from 2-3 cars afar in a traffic jam, for example if folks are curious WTF that particular car is doing, why is it stopped or going slow)
- lopis 3y agoThe alternative is a light in a predictable position or with a standard shape. I really hate that EVs are trying to be all modern about light systems redesigns. Specially in the US, car manufacturers are being very creative with their new designs in ways that are not even legal in Europe. I hope international standards for human-friendly lights can be agreed upon soon.
- s3p 3y agoOP's complaint was about the color.
- 48r9ridjjd 3y agoThe point of the light is primarily for specific people like law enforcement to be able to identify that the vehicle has self-driving mode engaged so that they don't pull the operator over erroneously. Is it actually an issue if Joe Colorblind can't tell that the person he's passing has automated driving enabled?
- lightedman 3y agoGreat, more blue light to screw with our vision and worsen eye problems.
- supermatt 3y agoI forsee an increase in the number of accidents involving these cars as the asshats among us will see the lights as a signal to take additional risks when driving dangerously around these vehicles.
- kibwen 3y agoAFAIK Mercedes is the only automaker with the nads to take legal liability for their autopilot. That's the table stakes: legal liability. I don't want to hear any other automaker, Tesla or otherwise, crow about their "self-driving" tech if they don't take legal liability for it, because it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don't have faith in their system. Kudos to Mercedes.
- dehrmann 3y agoIt's called putting your money where your mouth is.
- acd 3y agoI propose a robot lane
- opless 3y agoReally what should be a standard is red larson scanners at the front of the car. 80s kids should know what I mean. IYKYK
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoWould orange have been better? Avoids red/green colorblindness, doesn't interfere with human nightvision, distinctive color...