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

[Daniel in SD]

The whole point of L3 and above is that the car is driving and you don’t need situational awareness. IIRC L3 requires that you be able to take over in 10-15 seconds. That 10-15 seconds is to allow you to gain situational awareness.

Of course, but is 10-15 seconds enough time to regain situational awareness?
If you have a bunch of collisions occurring shortly after disengaging that could indicate a big problem for L3 systems.
Of course in this case the driver was supposed to be maintaining situational awareness anyway since the system is still only approved for testing. Just seems like quite a coincidence that one of the 5 total or so reported collisions occurred 10 seconds after disengagement.

 

[Knightshade]

That chart isn't quite right.

At L3 human "override" is not required.

A human to perform the DDT fallback task is required.

Ideally you should not need to ever "override" the L3 system performing the DDT... it's supposed to inform you, with some amount of notice, that it can not continue to perform that task (for example if a system was L3 highway it might notify you it's coming up on your highway exit) and then the DDT falls back to the human.


Also, L4 is wrong as well. Geofencing is not required. A limited ODD is. Which COULD be geofencing. Or it could be time of day. Or it could be a type of road (but anywhere on that type of road is fine). Or it could be a weather restriction not location. Or some combo of these. Or various other restrictions.


Really short version of the differences is this:

L3: Vehicle can perform the entire DDT for some (but not all) conditions. Human performs the DDT fallback task. Human MUST be in the vehicle- and MUST be ABLE to take over to perform the DDT fallback when requested with notice (more on that below).

L4: Vehicle can perform the entire DDT for some (but not all) conditions. And the DDT fallback task as well. Human is not required in the vehicle at all.

L5: Vehicle can perform the entire DDT for all conditions where a human could otherwise drive, and the DDT fallback task as well. Human is not required in the vehicle at all.

(a human being there doesn't prevent it being 4 or 5- they just can't ever be REQUIRED to be there to qualify)

IIRC L3 requires that you be able to take over in 10-15 seconds. That 10-15 seconds is to allow you to gain situational awareness.

SAE has absolutely no specific amount of time defined in J3016.

Which is one of the largest criticisms of L3s description.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Just seems like quite a coincidence that one of the 5 total or so reported collisions

And 1 of 3 of the collisions while in (or in the time window) L3 mode. Two were just clear manual driving cases.

Definitely sus.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That chart isn't quite right.

At L3 human "override" is not required.

A human to perform the DDT fallback task is required.

Ideally you should not need to ever "override" the L3 system performing the DDT... it's supposed to inform you, with some amount of notice, that it can not continue to perform that task (for example if a system was L3 highway it might notify you it's coming up on your highway exit) and then the DDT falls back to the human.


Also, L4 is wrong as well. Geofencing is not required. A limited ODD is. Which COULD be geofencing. Or it could be time of day. Or it could be a type of road (but anywhere on that type of road is fine). Or it could be a weather restriction not location.


Really short version of the differences is this:

L3: Vehicle can perform the entire DDT for some (but not all) conditions. Human performs the DDT fallback task. Human MUST be in the vehicle- and MUST be ABLE to take over to perform the DDT fallback when requested with notice (more on that below).

L4: Vehicle can perform the entire DDT for some (but not all) conditions. And the DDT fallback task as well. Human is not required in the vehicle at all.

L5: Vehicle can perform the entire DDT for all conditions where a human could otherwise drive, and the DDT fallback task as well. Human is not required in the vehicle at all.

(a human being there doesn't prevent it being 4 or 5- they just can't ever be REQUIRED to be there to qualify)

That's the Synopsys definition that a ton of people reference. It's partially why I say people may not necessarily mean the same thing when they say a particular level.

Will AI Chip Design Tools Take Your Job? | Silicon to Software

Ahead of Hot Chips 2021 we explain the rise of AI chip design tools, which are helping chip designers create larger, more complex & more efficient chip designs.

blogs.synopsys.com

SAE has absolutely no specific amount of time defined in J3016.

Which is one of the largest criticisms of L3s description.

SAE only says "several seconds". The ALKS / UN standard (which Mercedes follows in Europe) specifies 10 seconds minimum.

 

[Knightshade]

That's the Synopsys definition that a ton of people reference.

Why do they do that when SAE themselves provides a similar, but actually accurate, one?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Why do they do that when SAE themselves provides a similar, but actually accurate, one?

View attachment 912464

Because it's one of the top results if you google autonomous driving levels. It is also provides more graphical clues and is more readable by a layperson.

 

[Bouba]

The whole point of L3 and above is that the car is driving and you don’t need situational awareness. IIRC L3 requires that you be able to take over in 10-15 seconds. That 10-15 seconds is to allow you to gain situational awareness.

Except in a real world situation that doesn’t make sense...if a drunk driver is about to t-bone you...it isn’t going to happen in 10 seconds. That’s for an orderly takeover when conditions are above the L3 level. 15 seconds is enough to reacquaint yourself with the situation...unless you use that time to finish your text

 

[Mullermn]

Right now Mercedes disrupted the industry by being first out with a very limited, albeit official Level 3 system. Where's the disruption from Tesla here?
Tesla should have focused on normal freeways and highways where most of the mundane driving is.
If Tesla has made such huge progress and innovation, it should be no problem to enable a subset of features .

Mercedes' current L3 system disrupts the industry about as much as bringing out a new paint colour.

I'm sure there will be some drivers who spend enough of their time in the specific conditions it can handle that it will be useful, but as a general piece of driving technology it seems very much like they're bringing out an L3 system purely to be able to say they got there first.

 

[diplomat33]

Except in a real world situation that doesn’t make sense...if a drunk driver is about to t-bone you...it isn’t going to happen in 10 seconds. That’s for an orderly takeover when conditions are above the L3 level. 15 seconds is enough to reacquaint yourself with the situation...unless you use that time to finish your text

I think L3 would have to handle any safety critical situation without human intervention since the ~10s take over time would not be enough for the driver to avoid a collision. The ~10s take over time would only be for non-safety situations where there is no risk of imminent collision and the driver has time to take over (for ex, approaching a construction zone, taking an off ramp, leaving a traffic jam).

But if the system has to handle critical situations anyway, why not just go all the way to L4? That is why we see AV companies like Waymo and Cruise, not even bother with L2 or L3 and just focus on L4. They argue that while L4 is hard to do, it makes more sense to just design a system that does it all. That way you don't have to mess with tricky conditions of when the driver has to take over. Just take the driver out of the equation completely.

 

[emmz0r]

Mercedes' current L3 system disrupts the industry about as much as bringing out a new paint colour.

I'm sure there will be some drivers who spend enough of their time in the specific conditions it can handle that it will be useful, but as a general piece of driving technology it seems very much like they're bringing out an L3 system purely to be able to say they got there first.

at least they won't have nags while its working

 

[enemji]

How did they get L3 certified when their software only works in high density areas and under 40mph?

 

[Knightshade]

How did they get L3 certified when their software only works in high density areas and under 40mph?

Someone needs top reboot enemji, he stuck on "wrong premise repeat"

 

[enemji]

Who defines the “certain conditions” of L3? Is it the car manufacturer or SAE?

 

[Knightshade]

Who defines the “certain conditions” of L3? Is it the car manufacturer or SAE?

If you mean the ODD, the car manufacturer does.

SAE only cares about who is responsible for what element of the DDT-- not under what conditions they are- though SAE does give a number of examples of possible ODD restrictions throughout the document, but adds that that's not a comprehensive list and a car maker could certainly have more.

 

[ewoodrick]

L1, L2, L3....

I like that way that Elon seemed to be judging it. Number of interventions necessary.

The SAE levels are a way to philosophically do things.

Number of interventions is real life.
And it does a good job of mapping the concept to legal liability. If you are at 1 intervention in 100,000 miles (better than Cruise) then you would know how much liability you would need to cover.

 

[enemji]

Given the ultimate stupidity of SAE, I as a manufacturer can claim to say I have L3 as long it is driving in a parking lot.

 

[APotatoGod]

Given the ultimate stupidity of SAE, I as a manufacturer can claim to say I have L3 as long it is driving in a parking lot.View attachment 912812

Hmm, I'm not sure that's true for parked cars, as most users of parked cars aren't ready to take over within 10ish seconds of notice. Level 4, maybe, but not level 3

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I think L3 would have to handle any safety critical situation without human intervention since the ~10s take over time would not be enough for the driver to avoid a collision. The ~10s take over time would only be for non-safety situations where there is no risk of imminent collision and the driver has time to take over (for ex, approaching a construction zone, taking an off ramp, leaving a traffic jam).

But if the system has to handle critical situations anyway, why not just go all the way to L4? That is why we see AV companies like Waymo and Cruise, not even bother with L2 or L3 and just focus on L4. They argue that while L4 is hard to do, it makes more sense to just design a system that does it all. That way you don't have to mess with tricky conditions of when the driver has to take over. Just take the driver out of the equation completely.

For an AV company L3 doesn't have much revenue potential so I don't see any upside in them creating a system for it.

But, for a luxury carmaker traffic assist L3 is a pretty significant milestone that can help customers justify the high price of the car given that it literally gives them back time when stuck in traffic. Sure they can't sleep, and they have to stay somewhat attentive in order to take over when requested. But, even with those limitations its a pretty significant departure from L2 systems.

Going beyond traffic speed with L3 is something I don't think carmakers are going to want to risk. As speed increases the risk increase exponentially, and it's simply not worth it. As you said the take over issue can get pretty tricky when things happen so quickly.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Given the ultimate stupidity of SAE, I as a manufacturer can claim to say I have L3 as long it is driving in a parking lot.

With L3 you can't just claim something, but you actually have to do it. If the system always says "not ready" then customers are going to be pissed.

I dunno about anyone else, but I'd totally go for L3 in a parking lot. That means all the responsibility is on the car manufacture where all I have to do is take over the task if the system complains, and I'd have ample time to take over.

If it worked well in most conditions I'd totally pay for that.

In fact I'd prefer a parking lot L3 system versus a traffic assist.

L3 in a parking lot is a bit of a pipedream though, and I don't see it ever happening. It sure would be nice though.

 

[Tam]

Given the ultimate stupidity of SAE, I as a manufacturer can claim to say I have L3 as long it is driving in a parking lot.

By using that same logic Tesla smart summon should be an L3.

In reality, Tesla refuses to pay for collisions, damages occurred during the operation.

On the other hand Mercedes does if the driver is using its L3.