Officially approved, limited Level 3 driving. "First automotive company in the world to meet the demanding legal requirements of UN-R157 for a Level 3 system1." ... "provided that national legislation allows it"
Press release.
Press release.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Mercedes-Benz receives world's first internationally valid system approval for conditionally automated driving
- Thread starter MrBadger
- Start date
Tam
Well-Known Member
The word "international" is confusing because Germany is only 1 country and not 2 or more countries.
Honda has already leased its L3 cars but it's in Japan and not international either.
Erm. Its the UN-ECE regs that its passed compliance with, so international in scope even though several countries do not follow the UN-ECE regulations, including the US which have opted out it would seem even though being part of the scope of UN-ECE.
Passing these regulations allows various countries to adopt these systems.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
You left out the most important part, the tiny ODD. Basically TACC with a bit of lane keeping but below 40mph - but on freeways !
This is why the first customers will be able to buy an S-Class with DRIVE PILOT in the first half of 2022, enabling them to drive in conditionally automated mode at speeds of up to 60 km/h in heavy traffic or congested situations on suitable stretches of motorway in Germany.
Tam
Well-Known Member
If you want to see the system in action on US roads, check this out @ about 32:00
If they can get this approved for higher speeds and then expand the ODD, I think they'll have a big highway winner
If they can get this approved for higher speeds and then expand the ODD, I think they'll have a big highway winner
So, basically the same AP functionality I've had since I bought my Model 3 in 2018. Neat!
Similar functionality but allowing you to stop paying attention via that Level 3 certification (in Germany so far), which is a massive distinction in real use
I won't pay for a system that I still need to pay attention to, but I will pay for something that I can stop paying attention to and trust
But he did have to pay attention. The car started an emergency pull over because he wasn't touching the steering wheel. I don't see any difference.
The regulation Mercedes was just granted approval under is adopted by the EU, Great Britain, Japan, Korea, and Australia, and the video I posted was filmed in the Bay area at least two months ago. Just imagine the functionality being the same but not needing hands on the wheel and eyes forward. This move paves the way for further adoption of systems/legislation that actually allow you to stop paying attention while your car drives itself until it prompts you to take over.
To add some clarity to this thread as well, it's also the regulation currently limiting the operating speed under Level 3 certification.
Yeah it seems like if the bar is this low, Tesla could turn off NOA features and wheel-based nags and rely on cabin monitoring and claim current base Autopilot is Level 3
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Don’t they have different levels ? Mercedes only applied for the level that allows hands free during traffic jams in a freeway - thus the low speed. I guess it won’t change the lane too.
I am not getting it. This is what Autopilot has done for years.
Mercedes Benz can't do a lane change? It can't take an off ramp?
Welcome to 2018.
Mercedes Benz is the self-proclaimed leader in ADAS and GM is the self-proclaimed leader in EV sales!
Last edited:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Truly, this “level 3” isn’t any better than AP1. Except AP1 supported higher speeds etc.
This is the reason these SAE levels are so misleading.
This is the reason these SAE levels are so misleading.
Are we talking different levels as in Level 3 vs 4, or different levels within each level? I'm not sure about the latter, but this regulation only came into effect at the start of 2021 so I wouldn't be surprised if more don't yet exist.
If we think the bar is being set low, following is a link the standard
Do we think Autopilot could currently satisfy paragraphs 5-9? If so, I can't imagine why Tesla wouldn't be pushing for this and pushing to sell a Level 3 certified system if only as a branch of the current Level 2.
I think we need to be careful not to confuse capability with what the manufacturers are allowing. Tesla allows the vehicles to do all kinds of stuff while calling the system Level 2 and making the driver responsible for anything bad that might happen. You can be sure the Mercedes system is capable of attempting far more, but they (and the other brands generally) are much more conservative in what they'll allow in the vehicles -- these are fundamentally different approaches.
For a consumer who I think has no bias and would just like a vehicle that will add value by driving itself safely under conditions that I understand while allowing me to focus on other stuff, I don't really care if my vehicle will attempt more complex maneuvers if I'm ultimately responsible for them and need to always be paying attention and in control. If I need to do that, may as well drive the vehicle myself on regular cruise control.
I drive somewhere around 3,000miles a month right now and 95% of it is straight lines and slight curves on highways. I'd pay a good chunk of money for a system that could do that 95% of the driving while I focus on anything else, but I wouldn't pay a red cent for a system with the same or better capabilities where I still need to apply wheel torque or have my eyeballs constantly pointed out the windshield.
Taking responsibility for the driving task in a consumer vehicle held to international standards, even under limited conditions like these, is a massive step and something that Tesla has not yet attempted.
Last edited by a moderator:
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
If it requires supervision then it's not Level 3. It's not the SAE's fault if people misuse the definitions.
Yeah I don't think there's anything wrong with the SAE levels, people just mistakenly think they're defined by whether a car will attempt (and potentially fail) an unprotected left turn or whatever else.
I think you'd find many of these systems share surprisingly similar capabilities, but the other brands are going in a different direction where they want to define an ODD, take responsibility for the DDT, and make their vehicles perform a narrower range of actions to a higher SAE level rather than attempt everything to a lower SAE level while making the driver ultimately responsible.
They're very different approaches, and the more competition the better IMO
I think you'd find many of these systems share surprisingly similar capabilities, but the other brands are going in a different direction where they want to define an ODD, take responsibility for the DDT, and make their vehicles perform a narrower range of actions to a higher SAE level rather than attempt everything to a lower SAE level while making the driver ultimately responsible.
They're very different approaches, and the more competition the better IMO
Tam
Well-Known Member
I'm not familiar with UN rules but the law for Japan and EU have been clear for L2 VS L3 and above.
Globally, drivers are responsible for the entire operation of an L2 car both technologically and legally.
Not so for L3 and above in Japan and EU:
The automation system/car manufacturers are responsible for the entire time when L3 and above is active. Drivers with active L3 and above are not responsible while the automation is in charge.
The issue in the US legal system has not decided who is responsible for L3 and above if things go bad. Without the law, manufacturers can dictate the terms of use for consumers who want to buy L3 and above such as drivers accept all the risk by clicking this button to use the features.
Thus, because EU and Japan laws, L2 and below have inferior crash avoidance technology (pass the bucks to consumers) and L3 and above have more advanced crash avoidance technology because the manufacturers (engineers) stand behind their products and are willing to take responsibility.
That's the big difference between Tesla L5 FSD and Japan/EU L3.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
The entire idea of SAE L2/L3 is stupid - because ODD is left to the manufacturer to decide. Is a tiny ODD L3 better or worse than L2 with large ODD ? We can't obviously tell ...
The UN regulation UN-R157 has such a small ODD that it is just a marketing gimmick. May be there are other regulations by UN with larger ODD (for eg. all freeways upto the speed limit) ?
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
It seems like you can tell. What’s your proposed solution? Regulatory body defined sets of roads? Weather conditions? Speeds? There are so many combinations. Or should there not be any consumer self-driving vehicles until safe L5 is possible?
Similar threads
