This is limited to certain pre mapped roads, under 40 mph and requires a car in front to follow. This in no way compares to Tesla's Autopilot system.
Edit (because HN throttling replies): > Mercedes is being responsible about their rollout
You can always succeed if you define success. If rolling out something that doesn't do much of anything is success, success? Oh well. Less than 20 people have died related to Autopilot in ~5 billion miles of travel. Zero deaths is unattainable and unrealistic, so "responsible" and "safe" is based on whatever narrative is being pushed. 43k people died in US car accidents last year, roughly half a million deaths in the entire time Tesla has offered some sort of driver assistance system called Autopilot.
How many deaths would be be okay with Mercedes' system where is would still be "responsible"? Because it won't be zero. Even assuming 100% penetration of Automatic Emergency Braking systems, it's only predicted to reduce fatalities by 13.2% (China specific study), and injuries by a similar number.
TLDR "Safe" is not zero deaths. It is a level of death we are comfortable with to continue to use vehicles to travel at scale.
Mercedes is being responsible about their rollout, so people like you jump to the conclusion that their tech is worse. For my part, I see Mercedes taking liability for accidents that happen and think that they must have a lot of confidence in their tech to roll it out at all under those terms.
I would not be surprised to see Mercedes beat Tesla to safe fully automated driving because they took it slow and steady instead of trying to rush it out to legacy vehicles that don't have the right sensor arrays.
Edit: It's weird to reply to a comment by editing your own. It feels like you're trying to preempt what your interlocutor is saying, rather than reply.
It is in no way comparable to Tesla's Autopilot system. Mercedes has an actual feature while Tesla recklessly gambles with other peoples' lives to juice their stock price.
If Tesla believes that their feature is safe, then let them take legal liability for it.
The law does not require they take liability, so they shouldn’t. If you don’t like the law, change the law. If you don’t want to use a driver assist feature, don’t. But the data shows Autopilot is robust and regulators allow its continued sale and operation.
>If you don’t want to use a driver assist feature, don’t. But the data shows Autopilot is robust and regulators allow its continued sale and operation.
uhh,, this is a thread where the federal gov't just forced Tesla to patch the feature, and so far we don't even know what the patch does...
Edit (because HN throttling replies): > Mercedes is being responsible about their rollout
You can always succeed if you define success. If rolling out something that doesn't do much of anything is success, success? Oh well. Less than 20 people have died related to Autopilot in ~5 billion miles of travel. Zero deaths is unattainable and unrealistic, so "responsible" and "safe" is based on whatever narrative is being pushed. 43k people died in US car accidents last year, roughly half a million deaths in the entire time Tesla has offered some sort of driver assistance system called Autopilot.
How many deaths would be be okay with Mercedes' system where is would still be "responsible"? Because it won't be zero. Even assuming 100% penetration of Automatic Emergency Braking systems, it's only predicted to reduce fatalities by 13.2% (China specific study), and injuries by a similar number.
TLDR "Safe" is not zero deaths. It is a level of death we are comfortable with to continue to use vehicles to travel at scale.
https://www.tesladeaths.com/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7037779/