Mercedes concept "mobile living space"

  • Thread starter Thread starter phinds
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Concept Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Mercedes concept of a "mobile living space," focusing on the implications of self-driving technology and its safety features, particularly in relation to wildlife encounters and accident responsibility. Participants explore both the innovative aspects of the concept and the potential risks associated with it.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express enthusiasm for the forward-thinking nature of the mobile living space concept, suggesting it may redefine what cars look like in the future.
  • Concerns are raised about safety in head-on collisions and the effectiveness of self-driving technology in avoiding wildlife, particularly deer.
  • One participant argues that self-driving vehicles will likely have advanced sensors that can detect deer earlier than human drivers, potentially reducing accidents.
  • Another participant counters that deer can appear suddenly, and automated systems may not be able to react quickly enough to prevent collisions.
  • There is a discussion about the limitations of current technology in detecting animals and the need for improved sensory systems.
  • Participants debate the issue of responsibility in the event of an accident involving self-driving cars, questioning whether manufacturers or drivers would bear the blame.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for automated systems to prioritize passenger safety over the safety of animals in collision scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are multiple competing views regarding the safety and effectiveness of self-driving technology in the context of wildlife encounters and the responsibilities associated with automated vehicles.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions about the capabilities of self-driving technology, the unpredictability of animal behavior, and the complexities of accident responsibility, which remain unresolved.

Astronomy news on Phys.org
I think the concept works. Future real world models may end up not looking very much like cars.

Here is the photo
mercedes-f015.jpg
 
The real question is what happens in a head-on collision. I know, I know, it's a concept and ideally the systems on board should avoid/mitigate it, but I can't help think that this "living room" concept is a bit unsafe if you happen to hit a deer at 70 mph.
 
A deer hit is not the same as a true head-on. Head-ons will be quite rare with self driving vehicles. As for deer - good question, however the sensors in these vehicle will likely see the deer long before a typical person will - the best defense is seeing them early, although most people do not slow down aggressively enough even when they see the deer - they just watch as they go by and hope it does not jump in front of them- this behavior would be different in a Self-driver. Secondly - these will likly have some vehicle to vehicle communications - so the vehicle in front will communicate to ones behind it that it is slowing(avoiding rear ends) - and vehicles can communicate to each other about the presence of deer.
Reading up on the Google vehicles challenges - Stop Lights back lit with the Sun, snow, rain and temporary / new traffic controls are the major hurdles today,
 
Windadct said:
... the sensors in these vehicle will likely see the deer long before a typical person will
Yeah, but I'm guessing you've never had a deer jump out from a tree line right in front of you. I think you are badly underestimating how quickly it happens. As for the vehicle in front warning your vehicle about it ... fugedaboudit ![/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
I live where they have deer hunts (lots of deer) - I have never hit one and I do not drive slow, though largely attributed to luck ( i.e my wife was hit BY a deer - ran into the side of the car while she was going 25MPH). IMO with thermal sensors - expected because they would be best for seeing people - and much better low light vision / motion detection etc - and truly focused attentive driver, the deer strikes will be reduced - thus the work "likely" - not completely eliminated. Your reply seems to imply that just because you did not see it is was not visible, I do not mean this a s a personal criticism, my point being that humans are really not good observers.
 
Windadct said:
I live where they have deer hunts (lots of deer) - I have never hit one and I do not drive slow, though largely attributed to luck ( i.e my wife was hit BY a deer - ran into the side of the car while she was going 25MPH). IMO with thermal sensors - expected because they would be best for seeing people - and much better low light vision / motion detection etc - and truly focused attentive driver, the deer strikes will be reduced - thus the work "likely" - not completely eliminated. Your reply seems to imply that just because you did not see it is was not visible, I do not mean this a s a personal criticism, my point being that humans are really not good observers.
I agree that humans are not always good observers and that a car will likely be more adept at avoidance than a human but I've seen them jump into the road far enough ahead of me that I was not in danger of hitting them and I was amazed at how quickly it happens. Not there ... there. Almost like a cat's ability to materialize out of thin air (I know physics has no explanation for the cat thing but I've seen it happen :smile:)
 
A grey deer in the woods- adapted for low visibility in low light to avoid predators, standing still - esp when it hears a noise... we have all driven by far more deer we never saw than the ones we saw. We need somethng like this LINK
 
Windadct said:
A grey deer in the woods- adapted for low visibility in low light to avoid predators, standing still - esp when it hears a noise... we have all driven by far more deer we never saw than the ones we saw. We need somethng like this LINK
Yeah, I think that sort of technology will be common on "mobile living spaces" when they happen.
 
  • #10
The problem with self-driven vehicle is not the technology (I think Google proved that). the problem is a question of responsability: When there will be an accident or a mechanical failure (and there is always one), who is responsible? Who is to blame? Even worst, What if a driveless car go over the speed limit or park itself into a no-parking zone?

In a car that was sold with the promise of driving itself, the responsability could go back to the manufacturer. In a car with a driver, the driver has some control, so a share in the responsability.

The auto manufacturers are not ready to assume that level of responsability yet and that is why in every automated system, they will probably always let some control to the driver.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/upshot/when-driverless-cars-break-the-law.html?_r=0
 
  • #11
having seen a Moose jump a 7 ft fence and hop right in front of the vehicle we were in. I'll say automated systems will be useless against some threats no matter how well they see the animal. the variety of behavior is simply too great to make a common reaction to potential work often enough to be truly safe.

whats worse is anti collision is limited in its effectiveness as long as the passengers are little more than eggs in a shoebox. you can not stop so suddenly you kill the passengers and that means you have to increase the reaction time based on speed and safe breaking distance to the threat. having a car moving at 80 MPH and a deer jumps into the roadway 1 second ahead means an assured accident for one or the other. the car simply can't stop in time to avoid hitting the deer without risking the passengers inside.(we simply don't shake that well. think whiplash.) so what will be the programs primary choice? the passengers inside or the outside living being?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
928
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
8K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K