Will Mercedes jump to level 3 before Tesla? Looks like it.

[Daniel in SD]

New Mercedes L3 collision reports.

The subject Mercedes-Benz DRIVE PILOT test vehicle was traveling between 15 – 20 mph in the #2 northbound lane on the 605 Freeway in California in stop and go traffic with the L3 ADS activated by the driver. The vehicle’s ADS determined that a truck traveling in the adjacent lane had a trajectory towards the Drive Pilot’s lane, and so the Mercedes-Benz test vehicle autonomously applied the brakes to avoid a collision. After applying the brakes and bringing itself to a standstill, the Mercedes-Benz was then struck in the rear bumper by a trailing semi-truck that did not stop in time. No injuries were reported, no airbags deployed in either vehicle, and both vehicles were able to be driven from the scene of the incident. The Mercedes-Benz vehicle experienced minor damage to the rear bumper, and no damage was observed on the semi-truck at the scene. The CA Traffic Collision Report for the subject incident noted a violation of California Vehicle Code 22350 (unsafe speed for traffic conditions) by the semi-truck in the #2 lane that struck the rear bumper of the Mercedes-Benz.

The subject Mercedes-Benz vehicle was driving in stop and go traffic on the 405 south freeway in Gardena, California with the L3 ADS activated. The test route selected by the driver in the vehicle's navigation system indicated an upcoming exit, so the driver began to prepare for a lane change towards the highway exit by deactivating the L3 ADS and activating the turn signal. Once the vehicle was in conventional driving mode, the driver looked for a gap in the adjacent lane to merge towards the exit lane, applied the brakes, and slowed the vehicle down. The SUV following the Mercedes-Benz vehicle did not respond in time to the vehicle's braking and contacted the rear of the Mercedes-Benz approximately 10 seconds after the L3 ADS was deactivated. The Mercedes-Benz vehicle experienced minor damage to the rear bumper. No injuries were reported, no airbags deployed in either vehicle, and both vehicles were driven from the scene of the incident.

Autonomous Vehicle Collision Reports - California DMV

Manufacturers who are testing autonomous vehicles need to report any collision that resulted in property damage, bodily injury, or death within 10 days of the incident.

www.dmv.ca.gov

 

[powertoold]

The first one was in L3 mode, and the second one was manual driving.

 

[Daniel in SD]

The first one was in L3 mode, and the second one was manual driving.

But only 10 seconds after disengaging. Loss of situational awareness and how long it takes to regain it is a concern with L3 systems.

 

[Knightshade]

But only 10 seconds after disengaging. Loss of situational awareness and how long it takes to regain it is a concern with L3 systems.

In both cases the issue appeared to be ANOTHER driver operating with unsafe speed/follow distance and unable to properly brake.

Indeed both reports cite the OTHER drivers failure as the proximate cause of the accident, even citing the specific legal violation in the first case.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

In both cases the issue appeared to be ANOTHER driver operating with unsafe speed/follow distance and unable to properly brake.

Indeed both reports cite the OTHER drivers failure as the proximate cause of the accident, even citing the specific legal violation in the first case.

The first could have been phantom braking in response to an innocuous lane incursion by the truck in the adjacent lane - happens all the time, no need to stop.

The second could have been loss of sit awareness or the movement could have been too fast for the conditions.

Filing of video evidence should be mandatory for this reporting. It’s nonsense that it is not. Providing a written description allows too much massaging of the facts.

Anyway it was not the Mercedes fault in either case. But it is the duty of a driver to avoid accidents. Rear-end accidents are often the fault of the party in front (though of course they are never/rarely at-fault, nor should they be).

No one wants to be in an accident, at fault or not. So have to drive in a manner to minimize the risk of rear-end collision (leading vehicle needs to allow plenty of space to traffic in front, slow down gradually, use hazards if necessary, drive in a predictable manner, etc.). It’s an essential skill in LA traffic, which often has sudden slowdowns.

 

[Daniel in SD]

In both cases the issue appeared to be ANOTHER driver operating with unsafe speed/follow distance and unable to properly brake.

Indeed both reports cite the OTHER drivers failure as the proximate cause of the accident, even citing the specific legal violation in the first case.

The reports were written by Mercedes so they may be biased. Though I do agree that they appear to be the other driver’s fault. However with good situational awareness it is often possible to avoid collisions that would be the other drivers fault.
Since this is not a deployed system the test drivers are supposed to be paying attention anyway. It will be interesting to see the stats when the system is actually deployed.

 

[bradtem]

New Mercedes L3 collision reports.

Autonomous Vehicle Collision Reports - California DMV

Manufacturers who are testing autonomous vehicles need to report any collision that resulted in property damage, bodily injury, or death within 10 days of the incident.

www.dmv.ca.gov

This is a bit surprising. The Mercedes "L3" system is only officially active in Nevada (and Germany) as far as I know. So if Mercedes wrote this, it's confusing. Or were these Mercedes owned test cars?

 

[Daniel in SD]

This is a bit surprising. The Mercedes "L3" system is only officially active in Nevada (and Germany) as far as I know. So if Mercedes wrote this, it's confusing. Or were these Mercedes owned test cars?

They’re test cars. It’s not approved yet in California.

 

[emmz0r]

They’re test cars. It’s not approved yet in California.

It's officially active in Germany which is even more strict really.
Surprised that Tesla didn't try to beat them to the punch by making it a little bit better.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

It's officially active in Germany which is even more strict really.
Surprised that Tesla didn't try to beat them to the punch by making it a little bit better.

I’m not! Mercedes has had two accidents within a short time period, with who knows how few miles.

Why would Tesla want to have this distraction if they can just let someone else take the lead? It’s not like they are leading the industry in autonomous vehicles and have something to lose…may as well see what happens and learn from the mistakes of others.

There is no rush.

 

[Dewg]

I’m not! Mercedes has had two accidents within a short time period, with who knows how few miles.

Why would Tesla want to have this distraction if they can just let someone else take the lead? It’s not like they are leading the industry in autonomous vehicles and have something to lose…may as well see what happens and learn from the mistakes of others.

There is no rush.

You got me thinking Alan. In California, motorists are required to have a specific amount of insurance. Unfortunately, and fairly common in SoCal, people often drive without insurance. In those cases, even if not at fault, such as in a rear-end collision, the person not at fault has to rely on uninsured motorist insurance to cover the damage.

In the case of L3 Mercedes - does Mercedes pay for the damage if the at-fault person does not have insurance? My guess is that Mercedes would push that off to the driver's insurance to cover the damage as the car was technically not at fault. If so, people should be prepared for that contingency and not assume that Mercedes will pay for everything while on L3.

 

[emmz0r]

I’m not! Mercedes has had two accidents within a short time period, with who knows how few miles.

Why would Tesla want to have this distraction if they can just let someone else take the lead? It’s not like they are leading the industry in autonomous vehicles and have something to lose…may as well see what happens and learn from the mistakes of others.

There is no rush.

So you're saying that tesla is behind?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

You got me thinking Alan. In California, motorists are required to have a specific amount of insurance. Unfortunately, and fairly common in SoCal, people often drive without insurance. In those cases, even if not at fault, such as in a rear-end collision, the person not at fault has to rely on uninsured motorist insurance to cover the damage.

In the case of L3 Mercedes - does Mercedes pay for the damage if the at-fault person does not have insurance? My guess is that Mercedes would push that off to the driver's insurance to cover the damage as the car was technically not at fault. If so, people should be prepared for that contingency and not assume that Mercedes will pay for everything while on L3.

As the driver, you will definitely be providing your insurance info to the other party.

My brother works in the car insurance industry and he thinks that the issue of claims in accidents of this sort will be complicated. In spite of it seeming like it should be simple and Mercedes “assuming liability.”

So yeah, I want an automated car that does not get in rear-end accidents I would avoid if I were driving. Not worth the headache.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So you're saying that tesla is behind?

Yes. No harm in it, either. Not a big deal. No one cares about this AV stuff. (For now.)

Last mover status is a pretty valuable one in this case.

 

[EVNow]

No one wants to be in an accident, at fault or not. So have to drive in a manner to minimize the risk of rear-end collision (leading vehicle needs to allow plenty of space to traffic in front, slow down gradually, use hazards if necessary, drive in a predictable manner, etc.). It’s an essential skill in LA traffic, which often has sudden slowdowns.

Didn't you know ... phantom braking is an issue only if its a Tesla

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Didn't you know ... phantom braking is an issue only if its a Tesla

No, of course it is not. You just have to watch one video of a (properly instrumented) Cruise or Waymo or Mobileye ride to see it is the norm. I would assume Mercedes would be the same (I cannot think of a reason it would not be).

It is one of the joys of our autonomous future - and apparently people just put up with it.

 

[emmz0r]

Yes. No harm in it, either. Not a big deal. No one cares about this AV stuff. (For now.)

Last mover status is a pretty valuable one in this case.

It's harm in it for me, since I live in Europe but I see other brands get more features than Tesla , but Tesla doesn't bother.

 

[Daniel in SD]

No, of course it is not. You just have to watch one video of a Cruise or Waymo or Mobileye ride to see it is the norm. I would assume Mercedes would be the same (I cannot think of a reason it would not be).

I bet the bigger problem for Mercedes will be myopic braking, only looking at the car directly in front of them. Of course Tesla and some human drivers also have this issue.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I bet the bigger problem for Mercedes will be myopic braking, only looking at the car directly in front of them. Of course Tesla and some human drivers also have this issue.

Undoubtedly. One of the joys of establishing a reasonable following distance and using an offset lane position from the vehicle in front is you can see more brake lights. This is apparently too sophisticated for neural nets and computer vision to handle.

I guess a stop is a stop, and if you don’t care about people piling into the back of you, it doesn’t matter at all.

 

[EVNow]

It's officially active in Germany which is even more strict really.
Surprised that Tesla didn't try to beat them to the punch by making it a little bit better.

Because its foolish to try to beat someone to a stupid feature with high risk and low rewards.