The problem with Level 3 is that is requires much of the same abilities and sensors as Level 5 in order to determine if the conditions are safe, react to unexpected events, and deal with the driver not taking over.
I'm not even sure it counts as level 3, it's more like a high-end Level 2 system.
Level 3 requires the car to detect "all" conditions when something is going wrong, and provide the driver "sufficiently comfortable transition time".
If there is any class of event (such as a 1m overhang) which the vehicle can't safely cope with (perhaps coming to a complete stop before requiring the driver to take over), then the driver really has to be paying attention all the time, making it a Level 2 system.
And there is basically no way to deliver on that promise on today's highways without a suite of sensors and computers that are capable enough to do full Level 4.
Level 3 is actually a level where the responsibility is still with the driver.
It means that can mostly drive itself but the driver still has to be alert and ready to take over at a moments notice.
Which is the worst off all worlds, and I believe all manufacturers have said they will skip level 3 in their offerings.
I personally believe that level 3 is completely useless. It requires the driver to be completely aware and ready to take over the driving with a second notice whenever the car gets in over it's head.
It seems like level 3 is more dangerous than a 100% manual car.
Even high-end level 2 seems dangerous.
Until we get self driving cars to level 4, were they don't require the driver to play attention, I don't think self driving cars should be on the road.
A level 4 car would, by definition, never require you to take over while the vehicle is in motion. This level of automation operates safely with nobody in the driver's seat.
A level 3 car requires a driver to pay full attention and "zoning out" would be unsafe behavior on behalf of the driver. Level 3 is considered by many to be dangerous given the human propensity to zone out despite being responsible.
Level 3 is supposed to be smart enough to disengage and ask the driver to drive. Level 2 is not required to be that smart, and most level 2 cars are not.
Level 3 requires that a human be available to take control in a certain amount of time.
Whether that's a mistake depends on how long that amount of time it.
For example, 10 seconds is perfectly safe. It's fine to completely ignore the road until you hear the beep, because 10 seconds is plenty of time to look around and figure out the situation and take control.
I would argue that any system that requires constant human concentration is not actually level 3.
Level 2 is the one that's dangerous by design.
Edit: Though since the main difference between level 3 and level 4 is the ability to pull over, I wouldn't be surprised if level 3 gets quickly left behind or skipped entirely by many developers.
I think this indicates where level 3 is a slippery concept: it looks like it could be useful in this case, if you think only of the times when it works properly, but the only reason for a system to be level 3 is that it cannot qualify for level 4, meaning explicitly that it cannot be considered safe enough without having an alert human to fall back on.
I took a look through the level descriptions for a level where the human is driving but is being monitored by the system, but they all seem to be versions of having the system drive while being monitored by a human. Maybe we can do more in the way of collision avoidance as the technology progresses towards true autonomy.
What you're describing is more like Level 4 which is basically Level 5 with a bit of hedge for weather and/or other specific environments.
"Level 3: Within known, limited environments (such as freeways), the driver can safely turn their attention away from driving tasks, but must still be prepared to take control when needed."
L3 on the other hand may be a good and useful system to, say, automate freeway driving but it's basically useless as a system for replacing taxis.
I'm not sure level 3 is any safer than level 2. Level 3 still requires a driver to intervene if the car requests it. But going from not paying attention to driving isn't something that can happen instantly. Imagine you are playing some game on your phone and alarms start going off in the car. You need to be able to process what those alarms are saying, assess the situation, and take control of the car. How quickly can people do that? Likely not fast enough to avoid any urgent issues. A driver in a level 2 system should already be paying attention so they should be able to respond quicker.
And yes, I understand that drivers can get lazy with a level 2 system. But if the selling point of Mercedes is taking over liability from the driver, I am mostly concerned how the system would benefit me as a driver and I regularly use my car's level 2 features while paying attention.
Not if the system is designed to achieve a minimal risk condition by itself or give the driver sufficient warning to take over. Level 3 includes systems that can handle an emergency situation but require the driver to respond within some limited time.
Level 2 systems require the driver to remain alert. I'm not sure how you can generalize from a production level 2 system to a hypothetical level 5 system.
I think you're being a little selective with your quoting there, as the article goes on to say
> One big issue for Level 3 vehicles is that a crash might occur in the 10 seconds the driver spends taking over, so Level 3 vehicles will probably need to include an ODD [operational design domain] where 10 seconds is reasonably safe (e.g. low-speed highway traffic jams).
So basically by your definition, level 5 will never ever happen? Seems a bit useless then TBH.
Also, as pointed out in another comment, Level 4 does require driver changeover, it's just that the car is supposed to safely handle the event of driver not responding to that request (e.g. by stopping in the middle of the road).
> Levels 3-5 are considered Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) in which the driver does not need to pay attention to the road.
I'm going to say that's patently wrong.
as the article points out at level 3, the control system is likely to drop out and punt hard decisions over to the driver at any time. This is exceptionally dangerous because there is almost never enough time to react properly (unless the driver was actively paying attention)
at level 3 you really still need to pay attention.
I thought it allowed the car to require some parameters (such as road type or weather). If my car can handle the hours-long uninterrupted highway sections of a road trip, yet still require manual driving on city streets, that is still a huge value proposition for time & safety.
TBF, this is what level 2 and 3 are supposed to do. It's a shade more driver friendly than driving headlong into an obstacle and hoping the driver wrests control away from the computer.
By my reading of the article, stale2002 is correct. Pratt is clearly talking about the difference between Level 4 and Level 5 in his first two answers. Level 4 doesn't require driver attention, it just requires the driver to be (instantly?) available if the system has a problem, and this change-over is the situation that Pratt worries about in his fourth answer.
(NB: When he says "The article was talking about level 5", it's clear from context that stale2002 means that the article was talking about level 5 in terms of technological difficulty and timelines.)
reply