Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

https://jalopnik.com/mercedes-turquoise-automated-driving-lights-level-3-1851110043

by Stratoscope • 3 years ago

160 172 3 years ago

jalopnik.com

getwiththeprog• 3 years ago

That is a very calming colour, I feel better already.

throw03172019• 3 years ago

Is this purely for marketing reasons? Why would any driver need to know someone else is using auto-pilot?

Faaak• 3 years ago

So Cops Won't Pull You Over For Watching A Movie

flohofwoe• 3 years ago

Most of the article is about answering exactly that question.

TheJoeMan• 3 years ago

It 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?

gnicholas3• 3 years ago

Hypothetically, yes. But Mercedes’ tech only works on certain roads, which may not have stop lights or stop signs.

karmakaze• 3 years ago

I hope it doesn't engage at night, as we don't have turquoise LEDs so the blue ones will ruin night vision.

Already__Taken• 3 years ago

you don't have night vision with headlights and full beams on... they look just like daytime running lights, not terribly bright.

dist-epoch• 3 years ago

White headlights and street lights will ruin your night vision before these lights.

adhesive_wombat• 3 years ago

You 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.

KMnO4• 3 years ago

The 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• 3 years 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• 3 years ago

Blue 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.

Hamuko2• 3 years ago

Quite 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.

jessriedel2• 3 years ago

It's a light, slightly green shade of blue (turquoise), which looks very different than the deep dark blue of emergency lights.

rad_gruchalski3• 3 years ago

Blue flashing lights are not allowed.

takumo• 3 years ago

I 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• 3 years 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.”

dehrmann2• 3 years ago

Standardization on this will be good.

vic-traill• 3 years 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• 3 years ago

It 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• 3 years ago

Human 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.

flutas2• 3 years ago

My understanding is the actual goal of the indicators is more for police than other drivers.

I.E. If you're watching a TV show on the center screen it could be illegal if you don't have the system (not like that stops anyone today anyways -_-).

tveita• 3 years ago

I assume you would drive differently if you noticed the driver you were overtaking was looking at their phone and their hands were not on the wheel?

Like the article hints at, a true self driving car lets the driver behave in ways that would normally be reckless and illegal. Best to avoid ambiguity.

coffeebeqn• 3 years ago

If they get deadlocked in a intersection or something and can’t make a decision I know I should go around them

dylan604• 3 years ago

For the same reason they have the signs that say Student Driver. It lets everyone else know that this car might do something totally unexpected as the car is being controlled by a totally inexperienced operator.

jessriedel2• 3 years ago

FTFA:

if you see the teal lights, you know the car is using automated driving, so it’s less likely for other motorists to be shocked and concerned when they see the occupants looking away from the road, plus emergency services have a better understanding of what to do if medical assistance is needed. It will also be super helpful for law enforcement, so cops hopefully won’t pull you over for watching TikToks on your infotainment screen when it’s perfectly allowed by law.

throw__away7391• 3 years ago

Humans are pretty good at pattern recognition. Any experienced human driver learns to predict the behavior of other drivers using subtle cues. With time I'm sure they'll all learn to use this information in many nuanced ways as well. Self driving cars likely will as well.

trimbo• 3 years ago

I'm genuinely curious - what are you thinking when you say this?

As a pedestrian, I always try to make eye contact with drivers before crossing in front of them. It would be nice to know that the car is doing the driving.

toast02• 3 years ago

I've driven near Waymo vehicles, which are distinctive. Their behavior is quite a bit from the norm, and I'll make more room for them if they signal a lane change, because they wait for an engraved invitation before coming over. And if behind one, I know they won't use the shoulder to get to an offramp, so I'll need to be more patient, if we're both heading to the same exit on a congested freeway. Etc.

Being able to distinguish between a mercedes driven by a mercedes driver and one driven by a mercedes automation is going to help predict behavior of the car. Of course, one needs to be ready for anything, but when I can predict behavior of other cars, it increases my planning window.

unethical_ban• 3 years ago

That is literally half the content of the article. Explaining the answer to the question you're asking.

ajsnigrutin2• 3 years ago

It shouldn't make me drive differently - e.g. not be aggressive...

It's quite the opposite... if there's a tiny gap between two cars in the other lane, you usually don't squeeze in between them, becaus the rear driver in that lane could be distracted and wont brake and let you in in time, or might intentionally not widen the gap, to net let you squeeze inbetween. With automated cars, you can slowly swerve into the too-narrow gap, and the safety mechanisms on the self-driving car will automatically make room for you :) There are many dangerous maneuvers that agressive drivers can't do now, because there will be a crash if the other drivers don't notice them and brake in time, and the self-driving cars will always notice and make room for the either bad or intentionally agressive driver.

LASR2• 3 years ago

If someone is watching a movie when driving, yeah I would probably want to know before I call the cops.

nomilk• 3 years ago

Surprised 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.

Hamuko2• 3 years ago

Given 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• 3 years ago

Level 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• 3 years ago

Slow and steady won this race.

airstrike• 3 years ago

Also slow is smooth and smooth is fast

nixass• 3 years 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

idopmstuff4• 3 years ago

I 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.

lynndotpy2• 3 years ago

This is common knowledge among AV researchers too (who generally wouldn't be considered part of the automotive industry).

Tesla's self driving was always neat, but it made a joke of itself by announcing "fully self driving" capabilities when it was clear nobody had the tech there. (Even when generously assuming their camera-only sensor kit could be sufficient. It would be counterintuitive but not unthinkable.)

kube-system• 3 years ago

Tesla has probably the best level 2 system on the market. It’s just that it’s only level 2.

Which has pros and cons. Because these systems have a wider margin of error, they can operate in more situations. The con is that they make more mistakes so a driver must babysit them.

The problem is they take “fake it till you make it” too far in their marketing, by implying it is more than level 2.

treypitt• 3 years ago

It's tough when you dogmatically refuse to use lidar! For Elmo, since the human eye doesn't have lidar, camera arrays are sufficient to achieve L3

internet101010• 3 years ago

Semi-related but how do lidar-based systems handle nearby cars that have lidar jammers installed?

1920musicman• 3 years ago

I know almost nothing about cars and so assumed LiDAR sensors are just prohibitively expensive for Tesla to install in every car. But then years later I learned that every modern iPhone has a LiDAR camera.

Still don't know how to think about this - how is it possible for a phone to have LiDAR (barely utilized) but it's too expensive to have them in such a critical setup as an autonomous vehicle.

infecto2• 3 years ago

It’s not too surprising given the very specific conditions Mercedes runs in.

flutas2• 3 years ago

Yeah Currently

- Only in CA and NV

- Only below 40mph

- Only on specifically mapped freeways ("only available on freeways that have been mapped by Mercedes")

- There MUST be a vehicle in front of your car

- "reasonable road conditions with readable markings and lines"

- "clear weather"

- Daytime only ("Drive Pilot can’t be used at night or in the rain, and the headlights and wipers must be set to auto for it to work. ")

- Can't be in a construction zone

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/27/23892154/mercedes-benz-dr...

asylteltine2• 3 years ago

I’m not surprised in the least. Mercedes is a company that actually knows how to make cars!

sologoub• 3 years ago

Mercedes has a long history of innovation in driver assistance tech. For example: “ 1999: Mercedes introduced "Distronic", the first radar-assisted ACC,[8] on the Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W220)[9][10] and the CL-Class.[11]” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_cruise_control#:~:t....

It was not as well marketed/hyped has the Tesla of today, but you could buy an S-class that would do much of the work for you in traffic well before you could buy a model S.

newsclues• 3 years ago

"Mercedes has a long history of innovation"

Period. They are one of the companies that develops massively expensive flagship products that change the industry.

moogly• 3 years ago

Mercedes have always been at the forefront of car tech (except EVs), they're just very low key about it.

simondotau6• 3 years ago

An 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...

aaomidi• 3 years ago

It’s literally there so cops etc don’t pull you over for watching a movie while driving.

nerdponx3• 3 years ago

They should still pull you over for that. Pilot's don't get to watch an in-flight movie just because autopilot is on.

j4yav• 3 years ago

Unless it's only visible to cops, that doesn't really invalidate what the post you are replying to is saying about unintended consequences.

simondotau6• 3 years ago

This is precisely why L3 is dangerous and unworkable and should be banned. Playing high speed tag-team with vehicular responsibility is insane and I can't believe anyone takes it seriously.

If the vehicle has a driver's seat and you're sitting in it, you should be considered responsible for the car's actions. If you want to watch a movie, that's fine, don't sit in the driver's seat. If you want your car to drive your drunk ass home, that's fine, don't sit in the driver's seat.

hasmolo3• 3 years ago

what does this fear come from? the logic doesn’t hold up with any automated mass transit i’ve seen. why aren’t people standing on the train lines at airports? why aren’t people trying to hit the distribution robots in Japans airports?

do you really think there’s a future where people in ‘rough neighborhoods’ (this is very poorly hidden classism/racism) where they are jumping out in front of cars? there’s very little evidence that people in a mentally sane state, read not incapacitated, will self harm to spite technology.

i know living in the bay i’d mess with the self driving cars, but never by getting in the right of way and risking my damn life, only by signaling a left and forcing them to slow down behind me. i never once tried to get infront of the car at the last moment to see if i could be menaingfully maimed. i strongly suspect the desire to not be hurt will trump your concept of how ‘poors’ live

simondotau6• 3 years ago

what does this fear come from?

For starters, dash cam footage of how drivers and pedestrians are willing to interact with vehicles with human drivers. If that's what they're willing to do when it's an unpredictable human in control, I can only imagine what they'll do when it's an extremely predictable computer in control.

people in ‘rough neighborhoods’ (this is very poorly hidden classism/racism)

I think it's racist to assume that rough areas implicitly means a different racial demographics. That might be the case in your country, but it isn't in mine.

In cases where there are different racial demographics in rough areas, the fact of this disparity is a fact. Your dispute is with reality, not the person who might dare to point at reality. It's my opinion that systemic improvement is made harder when we cloak reality in double-speak.

i strongly suspect the desire to not be hurt

I'm not necessarily talking about jumping into the path of an autonomous car so that it's forced to perform an emergency brake. I'm talking about jaywalking without concern for the car having to slow down well ahead of you to maintain a safe distance.

ginko• 3 years ago

Pedestrians will step onto the road in front of them.

Pedestrians SHOULD be able to just step onto the road on a crosswalk without having to worry if drivers will stop as they're legally required to.

simondotau6• 3 years ago

I didn't say crosswalk.

BHSPitMonkey2• 3 years ago

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.

The risk of angry retaliation is identical to what we have already. The driver of this car can just take manual control at any time and react as they would in a non-AV.

If what you're claiming is true, the behaviors you're describing would already be common with traditional cars.

Havoc• 3 years ago

Surprised they picked something that looks fairly white-ish for the back side too.

nottorp• 3 years ago

What's turquoise? I know about 8 colour names and that ain't one of them.

Ambroos• 3 years ago

Bright light blue / cyan with a touch of green.

riedel• 3 years ago

It is an extended color [0] :)

[0] https://www.w3.org/wiki/CSS/Properties/color/keywords

rabbits_2002• 3 years ago

“blanchedalmond” thats a new one for me lol

pvaldes• 3 years ago

Is 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• 3 years ago

Previous discussion on the topic:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38699707

Waterluvian• 3 years ago

Is this a colour blindness issue? Check out that last photo. Isn’t that red/green?

jgalt212• 3 years 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• 3 years ago

Previously discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38699707

zoklet-enjoyer3• 3 years ago

So I can add turquoise lights to my car and nobody will think I'm texting and driving?

coolspot• 3 years ago

You can also add red blinkers and everyone will think you’re firetruck.

zoklet-enjoyer3• 3 years ago

No. 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.

ComputerGuru• 3 years ago

I can’t see how the front light would be visible once the headlights are turned on.

nateb20223• 3 years ago

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38699707 (3 days ago, 85 points, 109 comments)

data-ottawa2• 3 years ago

As 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• 3 years ago

what 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)

lopis2• 3 years ago

The 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.

greggsy• 3 years ago

In Australia, cars have red rear lights on at all times, so it’s easy to distinguish a reversing car or a headlight.

Also, aren’t all cars now required to have front on driving lights in most jurisdictions, separate to headlights?

nullhole• 3 years ago

Do you mean that the daytime running lights for all new cars include both front (white) and rear (red) lights?

If so, that's a good precedent for other jurisdictions. A longstanding gripe of mine has been that, in Canada at least, new cars are only required to have front lights illuminated in daytime, afaik. The practical effect is that it is a regular occurrence to have dangerous situations where cars with no rear lights illuminated are driving in dim / rainy conditions.

thrixton• 3 years ago

Are you referring to when the headlights are on?

Distinguished from Daytime Running Lights.

Because otherwise this is just wrong.

joseph4521• 3 years ago

I’ve always had an excellent vision both near and far, except for one flaw that I can’t distinguish some shades between green and blue. All the turquoise colors give me a strange feeling of not knowing if it’s green and blue. When I was younger I used to ask if it was green or blue and would only be satisfied once someone told me which one it is. Over the years, I’ve learned to recognize the feeling and attach turquoise to it, but it’s still slightly annoying for my brain. I know it’s selfish of me, but I hope that driving won’t require the ability to distinguish turquoise well… I never thought that this minor impairment could one day be a problem.

toast02• 3 years ago

I don't think this should be an issue... At least in the US, only law enforcement is authorized to use blue lights and they don't use them in this way. If you see lights that might be blue solidly lit around all edges of the car, it's self driving. If you see a flashing light that might be blue, it's police. If you see a solid light that might be blue, and is only on one side, or only in the middle, it's most likely police, but might be self driving with a lot of broken lights.

lightedman• 3 years ago

Great, more blue light to screw with our vision and worsen eye problems.

supermatt• 3 years ago

I 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• 3 years ago

AFAIK 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.

dehrmann2• 3 years ago

It's called putting your money where your mouth is.

acd• 3 years ago

I propose a robot lane

opless• 3 years ago

Really what should be a standard is red larson scanners at the front of the car.

80s kids should know what I mean.

IYKYK

CatWChainsaw• 3 years ago

Would orange have been better? Avoids red/green colorblindness, doesn't interfere with human nightvision, distinctive color...

Mercedes gets approval for turquoise automated driving lights

Related Stories