Mercedes-Benz Slammed Over Misleading Commercial

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

A glitzy Mercedes-Benz commercial that touts the 2017 E-Class as a vehicle that “can drive itself” has consumer and safety advocates fighting mad.

A number of groups are calling on the Federal Trade Commission to take action against the automaker, saying Mercedes mislead the public. In a letter to FTC chairwoman Edith Ramirez, the groups claim the E-Class doesn’t come close to being a self-driving vehicle, and fine print doesn’t cut it.

The ad showcases the new Benz’s automated features. In it, an E-Class driver briefly taking his hands off the wheel during a nighttime drive, then uses the vehicle’s self-parking system. “Is the world truly ready for a vehicle that can drive itself?” the narrator states. “An autonomous-thinking automobile that protects those inside and outside. Ready or not, the future is here.”

2017 E-Class models are available with “Drive Pilot,” an automated system that uses adaptive cruise control and a lane-holding feature to make driving easier.

The letter bears the signatures of Consumer Reports, the Center for Auto Safety, the Consumer Federation of America, and Joan Claybrook, former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration administrator. In it, the groups say the automaker’s claim could give drivers “a false sense of security in the ability of the car to operate autonomously.”

Fine print appears at the bottom of the ad, warning consumers that the vehicle “cannot drive itself, but has automated driving features.” Still, Mercedes-Benz is telling consumers two very different things, the groups say.

“The E-Class does not meet the definition of either a fully or partially self-driving car, yet it is marketed in a way that a reasonable consumer would believe it does,” the letter reads, adding that the commercial could pose a safety risk.

Daimler’s advert lands at a stormy time for autonomous driving. Controversy spiked after a fatal May crash involving a Tesla driving in semi-autonomous Autopilot mode. The NHTSA and National Transportation Safety Board opened investigations into the crash, focusing on what role Autopilot played.

A Mercedes spokesperson quoted by Automotive News said the company didn’t intend to cause confusion. The spokesperson added that the technologies featured in the commercial are clearly identified as “driver assistance systems.”

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 33 comments
  • Testacles Megalos Testacles Megalos on Jul 28, 2016

    if people really are demanding transport in which they can sit rather than use their legs, yet don't need to be an active participant, isn't that a mandate for public transport? Not big busses and multi-unit light rail that arrives/departs every 30 minutes as is seen now, rather small single units that stop at your stop every 10 minutes. the local interstate is a traffic jam every morning with people going from one general area to another general area. Why not have large express busses or light rail connecting those general areas, and small (8-10 passenger) local frequent busses feeding those large transporters? Happens every day along the east coast....

  • JPWhite JPWhite on Jul 28, 2016

    Here's an idea. Mercedes should call it Autopilot :-)

    • Jpolicke Jpolicke on Jul 29, 2016

      Most likely they can't because Tesla copyrighted the name for their system. Although, the word is a generic term in the aviation world so I don't see why it shouldn't be the same thing when used in a car.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next