From my understanding it's initially meant for use e.g. in slow moving traffic jams on highways. They're working towards getting it approved for up to 130kmh.
> From my understanding it's initially meant for use e.g. in slow moving traffic jams on highways.
I'm guessing the feasibility of this is very city-dependent. in LA, the usual traffic pattern is "drive 60-70 mph for 20 seconds, slow down to 5 mph for 60 seconds, repeat". (Granted that that's because of poor drivers, it would be better to have a consistent speed of 30 mph, but there's nothing Mercedes can do about that either way.)
I don't see how 'approval' is required for _anything_. Not for lane-keeping at high speeds, and not for Mercedes to take liability for accidents while their technology is active at high speeds.
Luckily, the law disagrees in most countries and you need to get a type approval before you can sell a new car type or new assistive technologies. I would not want to live in world where this is not the case.
> limited-access divided highways with no stoplights, roundabouts, or other traffic control systems
Yeah I don't understand where exactly this would be usable, at least around where I live. If it's a divided highway, it would have to have stoplights. Are there places where divided highways have stop signs?
My guess is that it's intended to be used in the entire State of Connecticut, between the hours of 8AM and 10AM and 4PM and 6PM. i.e. situations where the highway is doing its best impression of a Dunkin' Drive-Thru.
Signed, slightly-jaded person who drives the Boston<>NYC track enough to be slightly-jaded.
---
Or, Wareham -> Barnstable on Cape Cod, on any weekend morning for 6 months out of the year. Or 101 in the CA Bay Area during rush hour.
Basically, any time+place where the the thought of driving elicits an audible moan from the people then and there.
So it's basically adaptive cruise control with lane keeping? I guess they don't have to worry about turns that are too sharp (which an be troubling for lane-keep systems) because they're limiting it to freeways that are meant to be driven at 70 MPH, but only when the speed of traffic is half that.
They are also trying to convince regulators that they, not you, are legally responsible for any incidents. As long as you are ready to take over with a ten second warning.
Limited-access divided highway in this context means freeways and toll roads with walls to roadsides. It is generally considered acceptable to operate dangerous robot machines in a fenced off areas with enough precautions, and that isn't much different in philosophy to a self driving car on such a highway.
If you are thinking of places like Hamburg then the terms and conditions forbid it because the motorways in the Hamburg area are all construction zones and have been for at least the last five years that I have driven through them.
A limited-access divided highway does not have stoplights or stop signs, or any intersections at all. Cars enter and exit the roadway exclusively via on- or off-ramps.
A stop sign is a traffic control system, FWIW. They're saying a freeway, more or less, although the low top speed means really a freeway during congestion.
Just to piggy back on the 40mph callout, but I would like to see self driving cars never really drive more than 5mph under the speed limit. It would have a great calming effect on traffic. If they combine that with very conservative acceleration, it would be even better, much less of that rushing and accordion effect that's causing so many crashes.
Instead, Tesla fsd, at least from the youtube videos, looks like it's driving like a BMW-driver. Way way way too aggressive.
The biggest contributors to car crashes is speed and not enough distance from car in front. If self-driving cars would exaggerate the basic premises of safe driving, low speed, low acceleration, long distance, ... it would be really good for traffic overall imho.
Driving significantly slower than the pace of traffic is dangerous. If the average pace of traffic is 5mph over but your car won't go faster than 5 under, you're now going 10mph less than everyone around you.
That's the cope people use for habitual speeding. 10mh is not significant differential. 30 vs 60 on a highway, sure, 55 vs 65, not at all.
You should actually try it once. Go five under the speed limit and keep generous distance with the car in front of you. You'll barely notice it. Traffic will be ahead of you, you won't pass anybody. The biggest thing to get over is the ego-thing.
As you are doing this, then also pay attention to your capacity to act on any emergency stop you may have to make (dog sprinting across, car slamming their breaks, ...) and how much much more time and capacity you will have to respond.
The other thing that peoples mind immediately go to multi-lane highways. Never the other 70-80% of driving, in town, single lanes, where going slower is always manifestly better.
I've seen it many times before. I got people bunching up behind me, riding my bumper, cutting me off, swerving around me, causing near misses in other lanes as they cut other people off trying to pass. It causes backups near ramps to get on and off highways, backups which often result in rear end collisions, partially because...ding ding ding speed differentials.
Also, acting in capacity to react in an emergency is more about following distance than speed. And yeah, as speed increases a driver needs to increase their follow distance. Something that I agree loads of people fail at doing and then complain about their ADAS systems always slamming on the brakes suddenly.
> where going slower is always manifestly better.
Just tell that to all the cyclists going < 20mph in 40-50MPH roads. They're way safer going that speed than those fools driving their cars near the speed limit. It's often not safe for them, partially because...speed differentials. To solve this, we shouldn't just restrict cars to only go cycling speeds, we should build infrastructure so similar speed traffic is grouped together and separate, reducing...speed differentials.
If I started driving my car 5mph in a 40mph road, I'd probably cause more accidents than if I just went along with traffic at 43mph.
Overwhelming majority of time I was driving on highway, the right lane went below speed limit. That makes up quite a lot of cars that go below it.
And I used to drive exactly speed limit (as measured by GPS) and that maded me among the faster cars on highway. Only few cars went faster then me.
I made effort to slow down lately and can confirm that the biggest and only issue to overcome is the ego and the knee jerk "being there faster makes you better driver" kind of thinking.
My typical speed on the highway is speed limit plus 10% (so 60 in a 55 for example). That puts me right at the sweet spot for the middle of three lanes where I live. My exit is the last one before the highway drops to 2 lanes and gets a lot of use as it quickly becomes rural after that.
I will regularly get passed by someone going 75mph or more (in a 55) in the left lane when traffic allows those speeds. It's about 50-50 whether I pass them back when we get to the stop light at the end of my exit ramp a few miles later.
On a typical commute or trip around town, driving way faster than everyone frequently doesn't get you to your destination any sooner. It does make things more dangerous and unpredictable though.
> Just tell that to all the cyclists going < 20mph in 40-50MPH roads
That's again a 20-30 speed deferential, not to mention a huge difference in weight. We're talking about a 5-10 one between cars.
Also, if it's a heavy freight truck going 20 in a 40mph single lane. yeah, no issue at all with that speed deferential isn't there? Maybe the problem is here the inattentive, impatient drivers plowing through the cyclist?
> acting in capacity to react in an emergency is more about following distance than speed
The cars in front are not the only hazards.
Overall, I think you're making it too extreme. I'm not saying you should be going 20 on a highway. I'm saying going 5 under a posted speed limit is actually very reasonable, and it's what self driving cars (and human drivers) should do. It will reduce crashes. I think we disagree there.
> Maybe the problem is here the inattentive, impatient drivers plowing through the cyclist?
It's not just cars that become inattentive, and I agree the ultimate fault of those accidents are with the operator not paying attention. I've have cyclists swerve in front of me pretty close seemingly unaware I was there as they cut over for a left turn at the last second without signaling. Or cyclists blast through an intersection without stopping despite me already properly starting to go through the intersection. It's not like only people in cars make mistakes. However, speed differentials still increase risks. Reducing speed differentials and encouraging everyone to go about the same speed is better than having a mixture of speeds in the same traffic flow. Mixed speeds cause friction, friction increases the likelihood of accidents.
> Also, if it's a heavy freight truck going 20 in a 40mph single lane. yeah, no issue at all with that speed deferential isn't there?
No, there's still the exact same issues with that speed differential. People bunching up, lots of changing lanes, differences in speeds, etc. Sure, sometimes equipment needs to take roads and just can't or can't safely operate near the posted speed limit. I'd still say that equipment is causing more traffic flow issues, and thus more chances for accidents, being a slow member in traffic compared to all the other cars going about the same speed as each other. But they do have a right to use the roads, and I do agree people just need to deal with the disruption and be better operators around those obstructions. In the end there's still little excuse for cutting people off and changing lanes without watching, but if they never had to change lanes...
> I'm saying going 5 under a posted speed limit is actually very reasonable,
Going 5 under can be reasonable, I agree. There are lots of instances where one can do it safely, and increase the safety of those around them. If I'm driving down a residential street posted at 30mph but there's a high likelihood of pedestrians popping out from around parked cars, I'll drive under the speed limit, often 5mph+
I definitely disagree that individuals should subject themselves to a hard rule of always driving 5mph under the posted speed limit though. It all depends on what's the reality of the situation at the moment. If everyone is already going well over the posted speed limit, going well under it isn't going to increase overall safety. If the roads would benefit from traffic going slower, the speed limit should be changed and the road should be modified to encourage lower speeds.
If the roads should be 5mph slower, we should redesign it so everyone goes slower, not just some small percentage of cars while everyone else blasts past without immediate consequence.
Could a lot of our roads be safer if we redesigned them to make people drive slower? Sure. If I cause traffic congestion and drive in a way that's outside other driver's expectations I'm not making things safer though, I'm causing problems.
