Mercedes-Benz debuts turquoise exterior lights to indicate the car is self-driving | A visual indicator for other drivers::undefined
If we need warning lights for self driving cars, the technology is not ready.
Eh, it’s probably good to have regardless?
It’s less about being careful around the car and more about how you might interact with it. For example, honking the horn or flashing your beams wouldn’t have the same effect. On that note, it might be nice to have some way of telling a self driving car to temporarily use elevated sensors or something, the same way a horn tells a driver that something is wrong. As long as there’s a way to prevent abuse of the system
I don’t know much about these lights, but we COULD use some new standards in general with how many things have changed with cars in recent years. Brake lights on electric vehicles being another thing to consider.
That “gentle horn” everyone wants being another
“Gentle horn” sounds like a 80s romantic pop song.
Here you go
A markedly less successful ripoff of Tubular Bells
You’re still the driver in the self-driving car. If someone honks, you have pedals and a wheel in front of you. It always comes down to driver neglect. It’s like blaming the cruise control for speeding, but giving cruise control more responsibilities.
The standard should endure past this stage. It’s not necessary now, but it would be good to start getting used to some kind of a symbol now
Eventually when cars move past this stage, then we’ll need it
Today, sure.
But in 20-50 years, switching to manual driving may be a whole process. It may even be illegal in a full self driving car. In an environment of mixed automated and manual driving, having indicator lights for the autos makes a lot of sense.
As a Level 3 system, the driver is permitted to take their hands off the wheel, their feet off the pedals, and divert their attention away from the road. […]
The turquoise markers will alert other drivers to the fact that your vehicle is driving itself, so hopefully they won’t be alarmed if they see you doing other things while behind the wheel.
Okay that is the first argument for it I’ve read that actually makes sense
warning lights
Lol, this is like calling the turn signals warning lights. Letting others know something about your driving isn’t a warning, it’s just an indicator.
To play the devil’s advocate: early cars needed a guy with a flag im front of them because people were used to horses and carriages and not automobiles. After a while that stopped being a thing.
But yeah, self driving cars are not really ready.
Id argue that motorized carriages back then werent ready for the public.
I havent seen a lvl 3 yet, have you? Id like to know your actual thoughts on driving one. I only see Teslas and such, and they don’t have them yet.
If we need signs saying student driver, the driver is not ready
If we need signs saying “Baby on Board”, the driver isn’t ready
*The baby isn’t ready. :-D
There are warning signs to indicate people learning to drive in ex-Soviet countries (such yellow triangles to put behind the glass), even though they are driving with an instructor.
Now when I think about it, it’s been some time since I’ve seen that sign.
Somewhat similarly in the Netherlands, in case you fail your practical driving exam three times you still get a license but you can only drive cars marked with special yellow number plates.
Omg that’s gotta be embarrassing lol
All cars in NL have yellow plates. The guy before you made a joke.
lol thanks for the info
They’re pretty common in the US as well, but it’s just a sign that says “student driver”.
I’ve also seen orange triangles used in vehicles like horse-drawn carriages that can’t go as fast as regular traffic, mostly in connection to Amish people.
deleted by creator
How about we:
- Don’t let random customers test it and instead use heavily trained, specialized test drivers
- Require permitting and, e.g., an obstacle course before letting a company’s software be randomly updated and thrown on the road?
Why is there this constant false dichotomy implying that the only way to test self driving cars is a wild west of no regulation?
And also who said that self driving cars are safer than humans? Tesla’s numbers are all statistical lies (in fact Teslas were recently shown to have the most accidents), Cruise just shutdown in SF because they were a liability, and Waymo is heavily limited in its time/weather/areas for driving.
deleted by creator
The teslas having the most crashes I did see pass by on my news feed too. It doesn’t mean that because teslas have self driving and teslas crash the most that this means the self driving tech is the reason for it though. Correlation does not imply causation.
You literally just presented that false dichotomy in a previous comment. Don’t try to gaslight us.
deleted by creator
The technology will never be ready if you don’t test it.
The refrain of the tech CEO demanding we allow it free reign as a test.
deleted by creator
Sure. But we’re jumping into the deep end by legally allowing the driver to be exempt from distracted driving laws. There’s a big difference between testing the technology and relying on the technology.
deleted by creator
California, Nevada, and Germany all have laws for it. The article this comment section is based on specifically mentions California and Nevada.
Well, theirs probably isn’t.
🤦
if we need warning lights for ANYTHING, the humanity is just not ready.
One could argue that brake lights are a warning light 🤔.
Turn signals are literally called warning lights in my language.
No, they literally are warning lights, warning you the car is slowing down. It has no other purpose than to provide information (warning) to others about what you are doing.
Best keep away from rail crossings then.
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
So we aren’t ready for anything. Got it. 🚨🚦🚒🚑🚓🚧
YOU ARE NOT PREPARED!
Same purpose as warning labels: to keep ding dongs alive so they can spend more money
Jesus Christ that’s the most pointlessly cynical thing I’ve read in a long time.
That’s actually a fantastic idea
Aye, credit where it’s due; this is a great way to differentiate between human and machine controlled devices. It’s detectable by both, and can help in cases where people blame the autodrive, or car companies claim human error.
tells me what cars i need to be extra careful around.
yes i know people are horrible at driving, but at least the average person is predictable.
Rule #1: constant foresight and respect to other drivers
Rule #2: Expect mistakes, illegal u-turns, and people taking right of way
I for one would like to know when another car isn’t being driven by a human.
Eventually the reverse will be equally important. So this will be a good idea for decades at least.
deleted by creator
because the’re mostly tested under extremely safe conditions, and current self driving regularly asks you to take back over (you also have to still pay attention and have your hands on the wheel) which makes it level 2. by definition, the human is driving.
Just seeing a turn signal on a Mercedes or BMW is enough for me to assume the driver isn’t the one in control.
That or it not being double parked.
deleted by creator
Woooooosh
Good idea I think, but these could be mistaken for reversing lights
On that note, can we talk about how shit a lot of reverse lights are? In addition to indicating that you’re backing up, they’re also supposed to function as a sort of rear-facing headlight so you can see what your backing up towards, but their size, placement, and brightness on a lot of cars makes them pretty much useless for that in a lot of cases.
I’m not saying they need to be as bright as your regular headlights, that would be serious overkill, but they should probably be noticeably brighter than a turquoise self-driving indicator light would ever need to be.
Found Alec’s Lemmy account
Whacking on the hazard lights can be helpful when reversing, for light.
They’re not supposed to be rear-facing headlights. You don’t even have to have 2 of them (1 is acceptable as long as it’s visible enough). And unlike every other light, there’s no restriction on where it goes. It’s almost like it was an afterthought when they were writing the regulations.
They’re not supposed to be rear-facing headlights.
Blindly backing up in the dark is how you hit/run over things. Back up lights are supposed to provide enough light so you can see where you’re going.
Well, I will concede. I was certain I read a NHTSA interpretation denying this purpose, but the definition in FMVSS specifically states the purpose to “illuminate the road to the rear”.
But, there’s nothing in the regulation specifying how this is supposed to work (except the brightness of the lamp), and there’s no maximum height for the mounting location like the other lamps.
Exactly, we left it mostly up to the manufacturers and they’ve kind of abused that freedom and made them kind of shit for their intended purpose.
Now in the modern era, with backup cameras being standard equipment on new cars, you can maybe make an argument for them being a little redundant since most if not all backup cameras have some night vision capabilities, but a little redundancy isn’t a bad thing, if your camera gets fucked up you still probably want to see where you’re going when you’re backing out of your driveway to get it fixed.
Maybe light placement is more important?
How about next to the brake lights?
Turquoise is also a shade of blue so I think that may make them illegal in the US since blue lights are only legal on emergency vehicles.
Bruh, the whole article is about the fact that they got permits for them
Fair enough… It didn’t really seem interesting enough to actually read the article but that answers that.
Even if this would be a good idea, you can’t just put some non regulated lights on a car. This would need a law change in Germany to be approved and would probably take years of burocrazy until she get beards figured out the exact hue these lights need to emit. But I guess Mercedes already wrote that law for our government to copy. How convenient.
Since it’s Mercedes-Benz doing it, they’ll just write the new law themselves and tell the German minister of traffic to push it through.
I dont understand, does benz have leverage in the german government?
Yes, the German economy still heavily relies on the car industry.
And it’s not just leverage, they literally employ “consultants” (lobbyists) who draft bills which are then introduced into the legislative process and voted on by members of parlament who have neither the time nor the technical know-how to understand them. German car makers effectively write their own regulations.It’s a bit of a meme because german politics is so heavily lobbied by our car industry.
But I guess Mercedes already wrote that law for our government to copy. How convenient.
How dare a company try to work with governments to create a new safety feature!
How is this a safety feature though? Are they saying we have to be extra careful around self-driving cars? If so then the car shouldn’t be considered to be self-driving. If not, then what’s the use?
I see a lot of people in this thread saying a car that needs any kind of indication of self-driving isn’t safe enough to be on the road, but that implies a single answer to questions like “is it safe enough?” In reality, different people will answer that question differently and their answer will change over time. I see it as a good thing to try to accommodate people who view self-driving cars as unsafe even when they are street-legal. So it’s not really a safety feature from all perspectives, but it is from the perspective of people who want to be extra cautious around those cars.
Personally I see an argument for self-driving cars that aren’t as safe as a average human driver. It’s basically the same reason you sometimes see cars with warning signs about student drivers: we wouldn’t consider student drivers safe enough to drive except that it’s a necessary part of producing safe drivers. Self-driving cars are the same, except that instead of individual drivers, its self-driving technology that we expect to improve and eventually become safer than human drivers.
Another way to to look at it is that there are a lot of drivers who are below-average in their driving safety for a variety of reasons, but we still consider them safe enough to drive. Think of people who are tired, emotional, distracted, ill, etc. It would be nice to have the same warning lights for those drivers, but since that’s not practical, having them only for self-driving cars is better than nothing.
Different regulations apply for the driver when the car is autonomous vs controlled by a driver.
These lights do not indicate driving assists like Tesla’s autopilot but full level 3 and above autonomy. In level 3 for example, Mercedes is responsible for any damages due to accidents - not the driver.
Also in level 3 the driver may legally use their phone, which is illegal for a car driver normally and give them a ticket.
So there IS a legal requirement to find out about the autonomy level of a car from outside.
Either way, it’s a useful starting point for the conversation to be had I guess.
Better for some proactivity then nobody ever progressing anything, right?
No law change needed, the StZVO is a mere decree. Also EU law takes precedence Mercedes probably isn’t even going to bother getting it through German bureaucracy but will go straight to Brussels.
So should companies not try to innovate or invent things until the German government tells them it’s ok?
The point is that innovation should always come with regulations. This is not the wild west over here. We like to be alive and companies usually don’t care about that but only care about profits. So it’s a good idea that they can’t just do whatever they want. If they invent something actually new I’m quite happy that a third party will have a look at it before it’s mounted to a vehicle that kills me. I know that in the us this is handled the other way around but I guess the statistics for car accidents agrees with me.
If Mercedes only cared about profits why would they be putting this light on their cars?
Ever see neons?
Not on German roads certainly not.
I’ve heard a lot about how Germans are strict with their driving laws, but I never expected them to be straight boring for no good reason.
It’s about traffic safety. Also rest assured German tuners have plenty of fun overtaking stock Porsches with their tuned Golfs on the Autobahn.
Yeah I suppose neon lights is marginally less safe than chugging my drink too fast.
They are illegal in most European countires
This would not be illegal in the US, except some states forbid blue lights because they’re reserved for law enforcement. I haven’t seen any state regulation that rigorously defines “blue” like the NHTSA references to CIE 1931.
They would also have to be distinct enough to not cause confusion with the existing lights.
Gosh how could the world function without legislature having long sessions to decide which color some safety lights should emit.
Seems like a bad idea - you know someone is going to figure out how to take advantage of that.
- Scofflaw - ai has no pride or ego so I can cut them off at will and they will always back down
- scammer - manufacturer has deep pockets - where’s my neck brace?
I’m sorry, but I can’t actually imagine that happening where I live.
Do people who cut others off care who’s driving?He’s referring to a group of people they intentionally cut others off and slam on the brakes to induce an accident that they can sue over. And it happens a lot. Dash cams are saviors.
I sure don’t
I’m sure some people take age, gender, and/or race into consideration when deciding who they can cut off
You might be giving them too much credit for thinking about what they’re doing.
Or you might be underestimating the lengths racists would go to just to inconvenience someone who looks like a foreigner
-
Scofflaw - Why does the person in the self-driving car care? They’re just chilling. Zooming ahead of other cars doesn’t get you more than a few minutes ahead. If that’s really important to you, you should have left your house a few minutes earlier.
-
Scammer - These cars are covered in cameras and radars. These are the opposite of the cars you want to jump in front of (except Tesla, which sucks). They’ll probably just film you launching yourself from the curb and stop before they hit you. I guess you can get on America’s Funniest Home Videos?
-
Do the same thing, but hook it up to a camera that detects if your eyes are on the road lol.
Most FSD cars have that. People just ignore the warnings and popups.
The car should pull over then. Lol
Should, but when has that ever stopped businesses from doing what is cheap/easy?
My aftermarket Openpilot setup does this with a camera pointed at the driver. I’m good about paying attention but apparently if it alerts too many times that you’re distracted it will disable itself until you restart the car.
The reason for these lights is that Mercedes has Level 3 autonomy, so the car can self drive without the driver taking attention - for example here in Germany it is illegal (and there are photo traps) to use your phone on while driving. The lights are a solution to the exemption that you are allowed to use your phone while your car is on Level 3 autonomy.
On level 3 you need to be able to take over again within 30 seconds after the car actively asks you to do so.
30 seconds is a LOT of time.
Yeah that last bit. That’s unacceptable for at least another decade. Drivers should be responsible for their vehicles at all times.
The level 3 autonomy is under extremely limited circumstances, which are basically on the bighway under 40 mph. These are basically the safest possible conditions to have level 3, and it is the right place to start.
I’m not against them starting it. I’m against them telling the drivers they can take their hands off the wheel, their feet off the pedal, and watch media on the center console. We aren’t there yet.
Level 3 autonomy is exactly that. Mercedes allows you to do other things than driving in specific situations like specific (!) highways etc.
BMW also has Level 3 on low speeds on specific highways.
This is not autonomy in all situations but only during the day, no rain etc.
For limited situations the car fully takes over and in case of an accident it is legally Mercedes’ or BMW’s responsibility not the driver.
That specific situation is indicated by the lights.
It will not drive autonomously in a city or so or where pedestrians are.
I was just thinking, gosh, it’s been awhile since a new car signal dropped. This is a super interesting idea - not sure if it’s a GOOD idea but seems worth exploring
I think it’s a pretty good idea, at least for this period of transition towards self-driving vehicles. I think it’s useful information for other drivers to know that the vehicle is being controlled by a computer and not a real human.
Agreed! I would welcome that bit of additional information about a car I’m sharing the road with.
My stupid ass car has brake checked people while self driving. I wish it had this…
Kinda disagree, at least in the US the trogs are going to purposely mess with these vehicles as they already do but easier to target. But at least other countries don’t have lowbrow coal rollers.
But at least other countries don’t have lowbrow coal rollers.
Every nation has its idiots, definitely not unique to the US
Brb, wiring up a set of these so I can blame the car for missing a speed sign
… the ticket would still exist. Are you thinking you would be able to send it to your car manufacturer so they can look into what happened?
Watch this turn into a status thing that starts trending.
As someone living in a country which haven’t seen any self-driving cars I’d just be a lot more cautious/careful if I’d ever get close to anything with those lights.
AI with all those sensors prob drives better than many city drivers I interact daily changing lanes and doing parallel parking.
California has had several high profile problems with self driving cars. This is going to be a disaster, physically and politically. This is literally just rich people buying a legal defense for hitting pedestrians. There’s going to be outrage the first time it happens and it turns out the driver wasn’t even looking at the road, or was drunk.
Ofc there are gonna be issues but I kinda asume drunk driver and person who lack observation has lower chance of hitting someone with car that has any kind of assistance. There are prob more times driving assistance helped than caused problem.
Sure, but that shouldn’t absolve them of responsibility. They should still be required to pay attention and apply the brakes or take control if required. These systems do not have a 100 percent safety record. So to say we don’t need the human as a check anymore is bonkers.
And don’t forget the human panic response. One of my primary reasons to only allow ai driving. People that kick on the gas in an emergency situation should not be allowed to drive ever, unless hitting the gas was the right choice of course. But seeing people not stop but hit the gas in a panic is the worst thing to see happening.
Years ago (maybe 2009ish) my mother got rear ended 4-5 times by the same person at a red light. They hit her, and kept accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brake over and over. It probably happens more often than we think… but there will always be people lying to themselves and others that they are good drivers.
“I have the turquoise checkmark light on my car, and you don’t.”
Wow I’ve been thinking about that for a while now. We should be able to tell when someone is driving or an Ai is.
This could be useful as a communication medium where the car transmits data through the light to the neighbours.
If only there was some kind of universal communication technology that didn’t require line of sight, worked over distances out to say 100m and was reasonably inexpensive to implement…then we wouldn’t need to communicate using the modern equivalent of semaphore.
dang, maybe something related with electricity and this crazy magnets we have?
Magnets? How do they work?
But what about the IOT? The 5G! Connect all the things!
Blue bubbles?
And I live in California. Of course we’re going to help rich people avoid all consequences of their actions. Because paying attention to where your 1 ton metal missile is going is too much to ask. But only if you can afford the turquoise lights.
I don’t think I understand how adding safety indicators to elevate awareness of self driving vehicles helps rich people avoid all consequence.
As a poor person, I’d like to know if a car I’m driving by is self driving.
Mercedes is a luxury brand. And as the article states, in California and Nevada drivers will get a legal pass on distracted driving if the system and lights are on.
So the drivers of these luxury cars are no longer responsible for what the car does.
The article says they are allowed to test the new indicators in those States, not that they get a legal pass…
In California, the permit will let Mercedes-Benz trial turquoise lights on test vehicles for two years. In Nevada, the automaker can start adding the feature to 2026 year production vehicles
Do you think it’s a better scenario for less awareness of self driving cars? If self driving is part of the future, this seems like a reasonable step imo.
Go read the article again then. There’s a whole section about distracted driving.
Ive read those 7 paragraphs a couple times now, and I don’t see anything about getting a legal pass. Maybe you could quote it for me?
I have missed things due to ads covering things up on mobile on the past.
As a Level 3 system, the driver is permitted to take their hands off the wheel, their feet off the pedals, and divert their attention away from the road. Most other driving systems require you to keep your hands on the wheel and pay attention. With Drive Pilot engaged, users are free to browse the Internet or watch videos on the vehicle’s central display.
To be fair I’ve had that happen with ads too and it’s infuriating.
Oh my bad. I somehow thought you were implying the light was going to give them the pass… You are talking about self driving cars in general though.
That’s been a thing though, would you like that progress to stop? I guess /fuckcars is a real popular movement online so we can have different opinions on that.
That isn’t at all what you were saying buddy
The article states no such thing.
As a Level 3 system, the driver is permitted to take their hands off the wheel, their feet off the pedals, and divert their attention away from the road. Most other driving systems require you to keep your hands on the wheel and pay attention. With Drive Pilot engaged, users are free to browse the Internet or watch videos on the vehicle’s central display.
Come on dude.
That describes how the system works. Does not describe liability implications. Which I am really interested in learning about, so if you know of some other source that goes into detail around liability after a crash while this system is engaged, please share it.
