
The driverless truck is coming, and it’s going to automate millions of jobs - rottencupcakes
http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/25/the-driverless-truck-is-coming-and-its-going-to-automate-millions-of-jobs/
======
HorizonXP
My father is a truck driver. He made his living driving vehicles and doing
heavy lifting and menial work. Truck driving is just the latest evolution in
his "career" and I'm ever grateful to him for battering his body in various
ways to ensure I had every opportunity available to myself.

We talk a lot about his job. It's not fun. He works long hours, a lot of it is
mundane driving, and he sits idle a lot of the time.

I think he would be the first to agree that automation of his job is
inevitable and likely necessary, given the dangers of truck driving. Hurling a
multi-ton vehicle to and fro is a dangerous task at the best of times.

But therein lies the rub. We are just now reaching the point where we as a
society are getting comfortable with automated cars. I think people will be
less comfortable with the idea that the truck next to them has no human in it,
and could experience some kind of glitch with catastrophic consequences. HN
readers will understand that these cars are still a ways away, since the last
10% of the work required for true automation will take a lot longer to
develop.

Trucks are way more complicated to drive. Once they're up to cruising speed,
they're easy. But it's everything leading up to that point which is hard.
Dealing with gear changes, airbrakes, load shifting, other vehicles that will
inevitably cut you off, and much more.

And then when you get to your destination, manoeuvring a 50' trailer is no
easy task, even for a trained driver like my dad.

It will happen, and it should happen. But it won't be easy, nor soon. Of
course, I'd be happy to be wrong, and I'm sure my dad would be too.

~~~
ctvo
> Trucks are way more complicated to drive. Once they're up to cruising speed,
> they're easy. But it's everything leading up to that point which is hard.
> Dealing with gear changes, airbrakes, load shifting, other vehicles that
> will inevitably cut you off, and much more.

The mechanical aspects of controlling a large truck and accounting for the
variables is probably the easiest part of the problem.

Things involving humans (vehicles cutting you off, pedestrians, etc.) are part
of the general class of problems that I'm assuming all automated vehicles are
working on and are much harder.

~~~
peterwwillis
Yes. Truckers have to deal with a sort of standard "road safety dilemma" all
the time, which can be boiled down to this:

A trucker is driving a 40 ton truck at 65mph. A passenger car with a family of
four cuts in front of it, and the distance is closing fast.

A passenger car takes roughly 315 feet to come to a complete stop. A fully
loaded truck takes 525 feet. The trucker now has to make a decision.

A) Do I slam on the brakes and keep going straight, and completely obliterate
the car in front of me and the family inside it?

B) Do I cut off to the side, running over the rail, flipping the truck,
killing myself, and possibly any other vehicles or pedestrians around, behind,
or coming in the opposite direction of me?

The robot trucker could of course decide on B), but there are unknown
variables about the extent of the resulting damage. This risk increases with
merging between lanes or on/off ramps both by passenger vehicles, the truck
itself, and motorcycles.

A dedicated lane would make this fantastically safer, but who will pay for it?

~~~
JonoW
The article mentions driverless trucks would drive slower, at 45mph, wouldn't
this make a key difference in this scenario, eg a much shorter breaking
distance. Also, a driverless vehicle has one option a manned vehicle doesn't -
self destruction to save life, eg drive off the side of the road and crash
(assuming it could determine that no one was there)

~~~
mantas
That'd be a disaster on single-lane roads. Even with human trucks and their
help (signalling if road is clear, driving on the shoulder when possible etc),
it sucks to overtake them. If trucks were limited to 70km/h, there'd be much
more need to overtake them. Which would either cause either traffic congestion
or more drivers doing reckless things. Let alone that non-driverless
trucks/buses/campers/etc would be stuck behind them forever.

~~~
massysett
I imagine they would start out only on multi-lane, limited-access highways.
The small number of entry and exit points would make it much easier to program
the truck. Such roads carry the bulk of long-distance truck traffic anyway.

~~~
mantas
Once you get away from highly populated and developed areas, there're lots of
single-lane roads. Let alone that single-lane roads are used as backups when
inevitable accident happens on multilane. Of course, there's not as much
traffic in such areas as in those with multi-lane highways.

~~~
kuschku
Well, the current tests with self-driving trucks are almost exclusively by
european carmakers on German roads – where 2 to 3 lanes are common about
everywhere, and trucks are limited to 80km/h or 100km/h anyway.

------
ilamont
_The demonstration in Europe shows that driverless trucking is right around
the corner. The primary remaining barriers are regulatory._

What about the roads themselves? I'm curious how an autonomous truck will
handle a snow-covered highway, fog, potholes, and tight corners caused by
narrow roads, bad parking, snow banks, etc. This is a way of life where I live
(Boston area).

The article about the Russian driverless van (cited by @ommunist) talks with
the experts, who are by no means 100% convinced this is "right around the
corner": (1)

 _Industry players are aware that just one serious accident on the roads
involving a driverless car could set back their development by decades.

“Everyone has come to understand that the technology is 90 percent ready, but
even when it’s 99.99 percent ready, it still won’t be launched,” says Gol,
whose product is currently being tested in various scenarios and weather
conditions.

“Until we can teach [artificial] intelligence to learn the nuances of things
that can occur unexpectedly on the roads … what will happen if transparent
glass is being carried across the road, what if there’s a paper bag that the
system perceives as a rock,” the system isn’t ready, he said.

“We need a mathematical revolution to overcome that 0.01 percent,” says Gol.
“We all understand perfectly that to have just one accident involving
autonomous transport will have a huge fallout in society – the technology
could be closed down completely for another 50 years. It’s a huge
responsibility,” he added._

1\. [https://ninja.oximity.com/article/Russia-ready-for-
driverles...](https://ninja.oximity.com/article/Russia-ready-for-driverless-
bandwagon-1)

~~~
anoonmoose
Is there any evidence that a technology with billions of dollars in potential
would not be used if it was only 99.99% ready? I feel like lots of dangerous
stuff has been deployed when it was nowhere near 99% in the past, and I'm not
sure why this technology would be any different. People talk about it like
it's a lot different, but how safe are regular cars? Nuclear power? Coal
power? Honestly I don't even know what the state of the science is on cell
phones causing brain cancer anymore because I decided that I didn't want to
know.

Why does everyone think we'll be smarter on waiting to deploy driverless cars
until they are safe, given our history of doing the exact opposite for the
last couple hundred years?

~~~
hluska
Consider the politics of wiping out the biggest employer in 29/50 states. Can
you imagine the backlash that even one death would cause?

~~~
anoonmoose
Looks like on-the-job deaths for coal miners in the US are around 30 per year.
I imagine the backlash for even one death would be relatively minor. Anyways,
eliminating the biggest employer isn't necessarily a net negative. Unless
(until) these trucks can load/unload themselves, repair themselves, schedule
themselves, etc., there's a lot of work still to be done by people.

Hell, I can see ways that automated driving can result in a net increase in
jobs. Example: if a truck can drive more hours in a day, it'll do more miles
per year, requiring more frequent maintenance, requiring more repair mechanics
than we currently have. Another: if you're not limited by drivers needing to
sleep, you might be able to do a better job of scheduling deliveries to arrive
around the clock, requiring more people to be around around the clock.

I'm not saying either of these WILL happen, I'm just saying that automated
trucking doesn't HAVE to be a net-negative thing in terms of jobs.

~~~
positr0n
Yes but those 30 deaths are people knowingly working a job that society
understands is dangerous, not a family in a minivan driving to grandma's house
that was unlucky enough to be in the wrong part of the highway at the wrong
time.

That is a huge difference to most people.

~~~
lloyd-christmas
> not a family in a minivan driving to grandma's house.

 _A total of 3,660 people died in large truck crashes in 2014. Sixteen percent
of these deaths were truck occupants, 68 percent were occupants of cars and
other passenger vehicles, and 15 percent were pedestrians, bicyclists or
motorcyclists. The number of people who died in large truck crashes was 16
percent higher in 2014 than in 2009_ [1]

One incident would hardly compare to the ~3000 non-trucker deaths ever year
due to the trucking industry. I don't think it would be all that tough to find
the grandma of one of those 3000 to show up in court in defense of automation.
It will be MADD all over again.

[1] [http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/large-
trucks/fatalityfacts...](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/large-
trucks/fatalityfacts/large-trucks)

~~~
positr0n
I agree. I was just pointing out it's a fallacy to compare coal miner's deaths
to deaths caused by automated trucking. Whatever happens my only prediction is
that it will be messy and polarizing :-)

------
Homunculiheaded
A very useful visual to add next to this is "The Most Common Job In Every
State"[0] map from NPR's Planet Money. As soon as I was aware of the research
in autonomous driving I was pretty confident trucking would be the first
industry hit. Until I saw that map I had no sense of how major of a disruption
this could be.

[0]
[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-t...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-
the-most-common-job-in-every-state)

~~~
FussyZeus
Disruption nothing, this is going to be an economic apocalypse for huge
swathes of the country. We've never seen an automation wave like this one.
It's exciting times to be alive for sure but I'm also legitimately worried if
we're going to be able to handle it as a society, if anything is going to tip
us into needing basic income, this could be a serious contender.

It's not even just the trucking, it's truck stops, highway diners, tiny motels
all over the place, there is a massive amount of infrastructure that was built
because of and for truck drivers and their needs, and that's still not it
because there are tons of small town economies built on the last job that pays
well without a college education that more or less anyone can do.

~~~
TheLogothete
Yeah, it's not like this has happened ever before. We definitely need basic
income. It will solve all the problems.

~~~
FussyZeus
No it won't, and it will come with a few of it's own (getting American's past
the bootstrap narrative is probably the biggest single one) but it is a step
in the right direction.

That being said if you can think of another example where we put 3.5 million
people out of work nearly overnight along with an entire support system built
on their salaries and needs, I'd love to hear it. The only similar thing I
could think of would be the rise of automation in American factories, and even
then that didn't replace EVERY human with a machine, and carried with it a
certain PR cost for the companies involved, whereas I think a shipping company
removing humans from their trucks would have a PR boon, not bust.

~~~
zanny
UBI has nothing to contend with the boostrap narrative. You just shift the
target. Rather than pulling yourself up by your bootstraps to not starve or
die of exposure, you pull yourself up by your bootstraps to do anything at all
beyond basic survival with a roof and bread. You want a car? Go work for it.
You want TV? Go work for it. Etc.

UBI is only meant to reduce the demand for total income enough that people can
recreationally work for things they want, because there isn't enough work to
go around for all the things they need. If you wanted to live on a UBI without
additional income, you could spend your days at parks or libraries, but by
design you should not have the income to be purchasing luxury goods - if you
want those you can seek work for them, and because of the drop in labor demand
UBI causes, you should still be able to find something.

~~~
TheLogothete
No, people will just slack because they can buy bread. We already saw this in
the soviet block.

The human brain works on incentives. Remove the incentive the human is in free
fall.

~~~
zanny
I have a hard time believing under any economic system Americans would be
content with bread when their neighbor is eating steak. That is the whole
basis of the consumerist culture that powers a good portion of American
capitalism.

And the Soviets are a terrible example. Centrally planned economies of course
destroy all individual incentives to accel or improve.

But if you seriously think the only way economic systems like the US's can
function is by threatening starvation and exposure to incentivize working,
then what is the point of progress to begin with if we are stuck in the same
vicious cycle regardless? All progress is effectively meaningless if at the
end of the day you are still laboring to not die of hunger.

And the Soviet's didn't have bread to begin with. Their people starved not
because of "free" stuff, but because there was "no" stuff so long as the
central planning existed and was as inept as it was (that, or intentionally
restricted).

~~~
TheLogothete
>And the Soviets are a terrible example. Centrally planned economies of course
destroy all individual incentives to accel or improve.

Which economy is not centrally planned? We have more and more central planning
every year.

The Soviet Union did not collapse because of central planning. It collapsed
because everyone was lazy and stole shit from the factories. No productivity,
no quality. People were drinking at work and were utterly incompetent. This is
what happens when you remove the incentives for improvement. If you guarantee
people they can eat, no questions asked, they just stop caring after 10-15
years. They just forget to care, this is the new reality for them. No
repercussions, why even bother. Who are you to tell me to work harder? Why
should I work at all? I am ENTITLED to your money so I can buy food.

And when the proletariat smells they can get other people's money, will they
stop at just a pinch, so they can buy the very basic necessities? Or will they
go and protest and push for more money in 15 years? Those fucking 1%-ers! They
are not better than me. Who said they are better than me? Why should they have
all this money. I need to feed my kids! And for booze.

~~~
FussyZeus
The Soviet Union collapsed because they distributed everything to everyone,
the problem was it was all terrible and the supply was insufficient due to any
one of many things such as problems in distribution, corruption in the
suppliers, etc. People who were stealing were by and large doing so out of
desperation, which is already happening now in multiple areas around the US
and elsewhere.

The vast majority of people when given access to a basic amount of money (not
benefits, not stamps, just money) will spend it in such a way as to NOT cause
them additional misery via drugs, alcohol or by starving their children. Yes,
some will but the "welfare queen" is a myth perpetuated by people who stand to
benefit from the social systems being cut back. They exist but it's such a
vanishingly small percentage that they might as well not exist, in comparison
to the total welfare budget it's a rounding error.

I've never heard of one person protesting against the rich saying that we
should all be equal. I used to think that's what they were saying, but in
actuality people who want equality want equality of opportunity, not equality
of result, and to say that a kid growing up in rural Kentucky with the best of
circumstances available there has the same opportunity as a kid in the suburbs
of San Fransisco is laughable on it's face.

------
ghaff
>The demonstration in Europe shows that driverless trucking is right around
the corner. The primary remaining barriers are regulatory. We still need to
create on- and off-ramps so human drivers can bring trucks to the freeways
where highway autopilot can take over. We may also need dedicated lanes as
slow-moving driverless trucks could be a hazard for drivers.

So, right around the corner except for billions in infrastructure investment.

I'm quite certain that this--like many other things related to autonomous
vehicles--will happen. But they're decades further away than 75% solutions
lead many people to think.

~~~
DougWebb
Depots on the highway where loads are transferred to human-driven trucks, and
dedicated lanes for slow-moving driverless trucks? Might as well put the
trailers onto a train, and build out the rail network (where needed) to be as
extensive as the highway network. We've already got plenty of driverless
trains around.

~~~
diamondlovesyou
I wish. Unfortunately, even though that is the better option, it is more
risky: everyone (meaning businesses in this case) already pay taxes to support
roads, thus using them, even if it's less efficient, is "free". Plus, all
businesses are connected to a road. Compared to building _and_ maintaining
infrastructure for a rail network, where you're limited to customers you've
built rail to. So I'd wager the "last mile" would likely continue to be truck
based, even if rail use exploded.

To be fair though, the rail networks here in North America are seen as the
most developed _freight_ networks in the world (I wish we had more passenger
service though; my daily commute to KU and back is a pain): 2863 Gt-km (NA),
2451 (China), 2351 (Russia), vs 391 (EU).

------
WalterBright
Most of the truck freight carried on highways should be on railroads instead.
It's economically and environmentally far more efficient.

The reason it is still carried on highways is because the highways are heavily
subsidized while the railroads are not.

For example, most of the reason for expensive highway maintenance is the
fatigue damage cause by trucks. Fatigue damage goes up as the cube of the
weight, and the weight fees charged trucks don't remotely pay for it.

~~~
jessriedel
> the weight fees charged trucks don't remotely pay for it.

Source?

~~~
WalterBright
Don't have one. I just recall reading years ago that the fatigue damage cause
by trucks loaded to the legal weight limit was 9,000 times that of a passenger
car (and trucks are often overloaded). The flexing of the roadbed causes it to
crumble away after a while. You can feel the roadbed go down when a truck
passes.

The main damage passenger cars do is erosion from snow tires.

~~~
jessriedel
I was able to find this from the Congressional Budget Office

> Estimates of pavement damage by trucks, the largest per-mile external cost
> of truck use, range from about 5 to 55 cents per mile depending on the
> weight of the truck, the number of axles over which its weight is
> distributed, and where it operates....

[https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-
congress-2011-...](https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-
congress-2011-2012/reports/01-19-highwayspending_brief.pdf)

The fuel tax is 30 cents/gallon of diesel, which for an 18-wheeler getting a
typical 6 mpg is about 5 cents / mile.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States)

So at the absolute highest end of that estimate you need to increase fuel
taxes to $3/gallon, i.e., double the price of fuel to ~$6/gallon. That would
make trucking 40% more expensive (since that's the fraction of operating costs
devoted to fuel).

[http://www.thetruckersreport.com/infographics/cost-of-
trucki...](http://www.thetruckersreport.com/infographics/cost-of-trucking/)

And a more realistic number might be closer to 20% or 30% more expensive. This
would change things on the margins, but it's not clear to me that it would be
transformative in pushing transport to trains.

~~~
WalterBright
20 to 30% is quite a bit. And road repairs are only part of the cost subsidy
to trucks. Property taxes are assessed on the tracks, but not on the highways,
for another.

~~~
jessriedel
Certainly 30% is a big impact if it's your day job, but it's unlikely that the
transportation infrastructure of the US would be dramatically different.
(After all, gas prices had $2/gallon fluctuations that persisted over many
years without much impact.) Also worth pointing out that the OP article lists
labor as 75% of the cost (which is very different than the source I used).

I'd be very glad to see truck taxes/fees adjusted to better match reality. If
that means less truck and more trains, all the better. Still, it's not clear
to me that trains don't also get implicit subsidies (that are just less
discussed because trains don't inspire as much politics), or that the
_positive_ externalities of trucks are important, or whatever.

------
Pamar
One question (I didn't read the article, but it just popped in my mind while
thinking of driverless trucks).

Is anyone working on driverless trains? If not, why not? I understand that the
impact would be less huge, but at the same time the problem domain is arguably
more tractable. In my hometown we have a fully automated underground train
line which has been working flawlessly (i.e. no accidents) for almost 10 years
now, but according to Wikipedia it looks like ATO (Automatic Train Operation:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation))
is currently deployed only for urban transport, while proper railways, even
the Japanese ones, seems to use only ATC
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_control))
which from what I understand provides support to a human driver but still
needs one to operate.

(edit: typos)

------
duck
_" The average age of a commercial driver is 55 (and rising every year), with
projected driver shortages"_ and _" The loss of jobs representing 1 percent of
the U.S. workforce will be a devastating blow to the economy"_ don't really
add up. There is more and more jobs that young people don't want to do and
this is probably one of the best examples. They have to be automated or at
some point we won't have anyone to do them. In addition, this is going to take
more than 10 years to get both regulations and road improvements to make this
happen, so based on the current average age, a lot of them will be near/past
retirement.

~~~
thedogeye
Immigration is another way to solve this.

~~~
duck
Very true, but I guess my argument is that the author is wrong in terms of
this being a devastating thing to our current workforce.

~~~
ChartsNGraffs
If you were 55+ with your only qualification being that you could drive a
truck and that niche was automated away, this would absolutely be devastating
to you.

~~~
vlasev
Just a thought: What if they only replace retiring/stopping/dying drivers with
a driver-less alternative and close off the profession for others?

~~~
Infinitesimus
That would probably be better. In reality, however, a business will go for the
cheaper (or required-by-law) option and will more heavily towards humans or
automation

------
a3n
> Dealing with gear changes, airbrakes, load shifting, other vehicles that
> will inevitably cut you off, and much more.

Awhile back there was a post about the early experience of a young and
enthusiastic programmer. The take away phrase, in response to someone sending
nonsense input, was "Some people just want to watch the world burn."

I can see assholes trying to make sure that an automated truck can't change
lanes, or get to the exit it needs to reach, etc.

I myself have at times intentionally walked too close to the robotic carts
that move supplies to workstations at my work, just to hear them stop and beep
for a few seconds.

~~~
bglazer
It's an interesting thought, but I don't think this will be a significant
problem. The inevitable combination of laws, surveillance, and social norms
will, as it does now, keep the vast majority of people from doing random
asshole acts like this.

The self-driving trucks will, by definition, be equipped with omnidirectional,
high resolution 3d cameras. Who was that guy who kept cutting off our truck?
Well, we could 3d print his face and license plate if you'd like. Also, the
trucking industry will run to lawmakers the very first time this happens, and
they are a very strong lobby. Finally, it's just a shitty thing to do, and
everyone will understand that. Much like shining a laser at a plane is almost
universally reviled, there will be social consequences for being that guy who
torments driverless trucks.

By the way, "robotic carts that move supplies to workstations"? Is this a
common thing? Can you say where you work?

~~~
91bananas
This is a thing:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPj794EtJqU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPj794EtJqU)

------
tyingq
Mentioned in the article, but there's a pretty big trickle down effect that
will crush other businesses. Roadside motels, for example. And while trucks
will still need fuel, I don't think the current economics of truck stops work
if you just sell gas.

Maybe a surprise for the government as well, less tax revenue since the new
drivers will drive in a more fuel efficient way, and probably require a
smaller overall fleet (no need for sleep). Currently, an average truck pays
~$15k/year in road/registration/use taxes.

It's going to be a very visible adjustment for everyone.

~~~
randycupertino
It's basically going to decimate the blue-collar workforce. "short term
disability" is already increasingly the new stopgap between gaps in social
welfare for unemployed and underemployed blue collar workers.

If driverless trucks become the new norm, expect major jumps in SSDI rolls,
unless we institute some form of basic income.

[http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/](http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/)

------
ommunist
The author forgot to mention that it will be Russian, and produced by KAMAZ.
[http://sputniknews.com/science/20151006/1028104950/kamaz-
dri...](http://sputniknews.com/science/20151006/1028104950/kamaz-driverless-
truck.html) . Mind the muzzak on 0:51 in video.

UPD: it appears Russians also have Gazelle for small business already
driverless and capable to drive on Russian "roads" in rural regions.
[https://ninja.oximity.com/article/Russia-ready-for-
driverles...](https://ninja.oximity.com/article/Russia-ready-for-driverless-
bandwagon-1)

------
simonebrunozzi
I don't expect drivers to go away immediately. Instead, I expect their wages
to drop 50% overnight - but they will still be required to be on the truck: to
fill the tank, to clean something, to be there and guard it against theft,
etc.

------
krinchan
I keep saying this over and over and over to my more "the market will figure
it out" co-workers and I just can't seem to get through to them.

This is literally more than 20% unemployment in less than 5 years.

Society will either crumble or completely change how it views unemployment.

~~~
djrogers
> This is literally more than 20% unemployment in less than 5 years

First of all - what? It's not 20%, nor is it happening in 5 years... Neither
of those numbers make any sense.

Secondly, accuracy aside, the same arguments were made all through the 70s,
80s, and 90s about manufacturing automation. And guess what, those jobs are
gone now, but society didn't crumble.

It's not like his is all brand new people - it's happened over and over again
for the past 200 years. Read your history, and realize that we will repeat it.

~~~
mabbo
The 20% figure isn't actually that crazy.

A small town near where I grew up had a factory- Hershey chocolate- that
supported maybe 20% of the jobs in the town. But it represented how 50% or
more of the money entered the town. That money bounced around, creating jobs-
stores, restaurants, even gas stations and hotels.

When the factory closed, everything was hit. A small town with few sources of
external income can be devastated by the loss of a major one.

A huge percentage of America is small towns, and a large portion of them have
truckers as their income.

Yes, they economy will recover, but if this automation happens very quickly
there can and will be collateral damage.

I'm still for it happening, but the government would be wise to start
preparing for the fallout now.

------
JustSomeNobody
> Trucking represents a considerable portion of the cost of all the goods we
> buy, so consumers everywhere will experience this change as lower prices and
> higher standards of living.

No, consumers won't. The savings will be funneled directly to shareholders.

~~~
malz
Fuel is half the price it was two years ago. So we should already be enjoying
massive savings, right?

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Nope [1].

[1] [http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865646660/Why-food-
prices...](http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865646660/Why-food-prices-dont-
drop-when-gasoline-prices-decline.html?pg=all)

------
pm24601
This "Nirvana" of the driverless truck is focusing on long distance trucking.

There are a number of issues with this. The biggest one is that there is
already a solution to the long distance safe movement of goods with minimal
human involvement.

It is called a t-r-a-i-n.

Trucking companies already use long distance trains as alternatives to long
distance truckers. It is far cheaper and less technologically risky to simply
increase the amount of long distance freight that moves via railroad.

With driverless trucks, :

* each truck needs complex (expensive) electronics that need to be kept repaired and up to date * regulatory hurdles * liability issues

What happens when a computer has a memory corruption issue and shuts down
halfway across Nevada?

For driverless trucks to be a real thing, the very real competition from the
railroad industry needs to be addressed.

Based on past history, the railroad industry is going to be reminding all the
regulators of how dangerous trucking (and now unmanned trucks) can be --- and
how safe and proven the railroad alternative is.

~~~
icebraining
Trains may already be a solution, yet a very large percentage (as high as 75%+
in Europe) of freight is carried using trucks. There's plenty of business for
the driverless trucks to take over without having to tackle competition with
rail.

------
mixermf
Automation is driving humans out of jobs. Driverless trucks will layoff 1%+ of
the US population, because driverless trucks are far more economical. The
general trend is profits go up and employment goes down.

What to do with such an economy? Basic income. Tax the profits and give
everyone sufficient income to pay for the basic necessities. That's one of the
conclusions of the 2011 book Race Against The Machine, by two MIT professors.

~~~
themartorana
I'm a big fan of Alan Watts' "Money, Guilt, and the Machine" [0] as are many
people here. It's most poignant point IMHO is that we're screwed until we can
separate money and morality. As we move towards more political extremes here
in the US, that's going to be near impossible.

So we can either separate money from morality, or suffer greatly as jobs -
especially blue collar jobs - are automated away.

Alas I fear there will be great suffering...

[0]
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ssDY74nLuLg](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ssDY74nLuLg)

~~~
mixermf
I just listened to "Money, Guilt, and the Machine." I don't understand what
you mean "separating money and morality." Can you explain?

------
jdeibele
I'm surprised that I never see mention of having one human at the front and a
dozen slave trucks driving behind.

The trucks behind could be connected wirelessly. Or they could even use wires.
Some sort of machine vision could keep an eye on the truck in front, adjusting
distance as necessary.

Obviously that takes coordinating trucks going to the same direction but it
seems reasonable to have a hub-and-spoke layout where "trains" are broken
apart and re-assembled.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The Iowa Driving Simulator wrote a lot about that in the last decade. Trouble
is, as I see it, that you use trucks precisely when you want to go to a
destination uncorrelated with other trucks. Its hard enough to fill even one
truck for a trip - that's the hard nut of the industry's problem. Solve that
one, multiple trucks would be further down the list.

------
intrasight
I have read this prediction several times this year. I expect to be reading
the same prediction in 5 years.

~~~
aidenn0
I'm with you on that one, but much less skeptical about say 20 years.

------
n0tsofastpal
It's a super interesting subject, but I don't really buy the argument that
this will drive down costs for the consumer. Never mind that whole better
standard of living line...that's just cheerleading. Companies have shown over
and over again in the last two decades that they are capable of absorbing
those new profits from efficiencies.

~~~
thedogeye
How much did you pay for the super computer in your hand?

~~~
tyingq
How much did UPS/Fedex shipping prices go down when fuel prices dropped?
(hint, they went up).

~~~
the_economist
Ocean and air freight real prices are the cheapest they have ever been.

~~~
tyingq
That doesn't necessarily trickle down to consumers though. As mentioned, it
certainly doesn't in the case of UPS/Fedex. The high level question is what
happens with the cost savings driverless trucking brings? Does it turn into
profit or reduced pricing to consumers?

------
beat
When I worked at the Federal Reserve, our vault was managed by autonomous,
self-driving vehicles (more robots than trucks - basically smart forklifts).
They drove standardized boxes of money around from counting rooms where humans
touched the money, to storage where humans were not allowed to go. Warehouse
management software knew exactly how much money was in each box. Laser
scanning was used for guidance and security.

This was over a decade ago. I'm sure things are much better now.

------
jejones3141
At one point the author says something about convoys of trucks and taking
advantage of the speed for maximum fuel efficiency, 45 mph. I'm not sure that
people traveling on the interstate will appreciate being stuck behind convoys
of automated trucks all running at 45 mph.

~~~
jdoliner
Hopefully our convoy of self driving cars will learn to stay separate from the
convoy of self driving trucks.

~~~
themartorana
I cannot wait.

------
dmalvarado
Just going to say this before reading the article because it's been on my mind
since college. The end state of automation is unemployment and massive income
inequality, with wealth being concentrated amongst the owners of capital.

Now I'll go read the article.

~~~
randomgyatwork
Isn't that how its aways been, less the mass unemployment at least?

Maybe the inefficiencies make it less obvious?

------
kilroy123
My friend is some kind of logistics manager for a trucking company. He
literally manages dozens of trucks and truck drivers daily.

He says, it's so ridiculous, how far away we are from automatting truck
driving. There is a lot of manual work for loading and off-loading rigs. Plus
there is driving in every single possible driving condition possible, around
the world.

He said, he could see an auto-pilot system being installed in trucks in the
next 10 years, but the rest is all manually done.

~~~
thedogeye
Did he see that driverless trucks made a delivery in Europe last week?

~~~
andygates
That was platooning with a lead driver.

~~~
randallsquared
Sure, so it makes 5/6 long-haul truckers redundant instead of ~6/6.

------
ascotan
I'm skeptical. European roads are not American roads. According to google
there are over 4 million miles of road in the US and there is very little
standardization. I would venture to say that road quality is much worse in the
US. I'm skeptical that the sensors in self-driving vehicles are capable of
making long hauls on US roads.

> We may also need dedicated lanes as slow-moving driverless trucks could be a
> hazard for drivers.

I wonder if the author realizes the amount of money this would take in the US.
Even if the federal government put up the money to make this happen on
interstates, each state would have to come up with the money for state roads.
For most states, the transportation budget is a ongoing battle and I can't see
tax payer money going to automated truck lanes any time soon.

My guess is that driverless trucks will only be 'a thing' in very urban areas
over a short distance due to safety, maintenance, and financial concerns.
Therefore, the long haul trucker will still have a job at the end of the day.

~~~
losteric
Well even Germany isn't going to start with self-driving trucks driving
everywhere. Every country has standardization problems... in Germany there are
ancient towns with arches that trucks can't go under (and not all of them are
marked). In the US we have inconsistent/missing signs, dense urban areas built
for small cars, and all kinds of crazy human driving.

My guess is actually opposite of yours though. I think short distance trucking
will come last, with long-haul interstate trucking coming first. Short
distances don't really need an automated truck... the trucker just gets in,
drives, and arrives. Automating/standardizing loading/unloading would be great
but automating the driver is less of a win.

On the hand, take interstates. Trucker gets in and drives for upward a few
days with multiple mandated stops for naps/food... afaik, it takes 3 days to
safely drive from SF to NY because of those stops. Now imagine a self-driving
truck where the driver is only responsible for first/last-mile driving and
refueling... done in 48 hours flat. 30% shorter transit time, plus whatever
fuel/insurance savings the AI driver generates. Not bad.

~~~
usrusr
> ancient towns with arches that trucks can't go under (and not all of them
> are marked).

And that are routinely blocked by trucks with human drivers who keep
forgetting their required height clearance. If there was a way to make
shipping companies fully responsible for all the delays caused but stuck
trucks, laser-scanner assistance systems that stop the truck before it is
stopped by the arch would already be a popular retrofit.

~~~
losteric
Trucking as an industry is still firmly entrenched in the 20th century. Those
shipping companies do have to pay for delays, but the industry's mindset is
that delays are an immutable cost of doing business... get insurance against
delays, travel around areas that might pose risks (even if it takes longer),
train humans to predict/handle exceptional cases, pad out shipping schedules,
etc. There's plenty of room for disruption.

Truck manufacturers are onboard because they get to sell replacements for
every truck on the road... it's the shipping companies that are going to be
the hard sell. The market is ripe for disruption but both shipping customers
and shippers will be hesitant when faced with new fangled laser-
thingamajiggers.

------
munificent
The author proposes building special "slow lanes" for a tightly bound string
of trucks in a "peloton" where the trucks do not need to be individually
manually driven.

Isn't that a train?

------
bane
Many of the comments here are overestimating what's required for this to have
an impact. Driverless trucks only need to cover some large percentage of the
driving currently performed by humans to be major economic changers.

For example, let's say they can only run during daylight hours, in conditions
other than rain and snow, only on long-haul routes, and humans will do the
"last-mile" piloting on local roads.

Now let's suppose that for routes that fit those parameters driverless trucks
end up taking over 40% of those kinds of routes. That's _huge_. It would
absolutely transform the economies of all the states that are looking for
truck drivers here.
[http://media2.policymic.com/bf05a1c9e6b8a55095f8b4726e30b52f...](http://media2.policymic.com/bf05a1c9e6b8a55095f8b4726e30b52f.PNG)

~~~
Svip
Indeed. I find the binary view of self-driving/driverless/robot lorries
somewhat narrow.

Furthermore, a lot of these sort of technologies have already made it into
lorries and cars, just commonly called 'driver aids'. Such as radar controlled
cruise control, lane control, etc.

Most of lorry hauling takes place on motorways, where the process can be
easily automated. Only when trips from the origin to the motorway and the
motorway to the destination could remain in control of the driver.

And moreover, this sort of technology could be fitted to lorries _very_ soon.
Fully automated self-driving lorries are still decades off. Partly of all the
minor quirks and issues, but mostly because once more than 50% of the actual
lorry driving is automated, there will be less urgency for it.

~~~
minikomi
It doesn't even have to be all or nothing. Imagine a kind of road-train, where
the leading truck is driven in a heavily assisted manner but still has human
control in the mix. Another 5 - 10 fully automated "follow the leader" style
trucks could simply imitate the leader truck. All the while gathering data..

------
bsharitt
I hope they remember to write an algorithm so that when approaching a hill and
there are two lanes each direction, two trucks will pull up beside each and
race up the hill each at 55MPH despite the speed limit being 70MPH.

~~~
celticninja
no, one of them has to go at 55.25MPH to make it look like they have a chance
of overtaking before the top.

------
_nickwhite
Last week, my brother (27) was ran over and killed in a truck stop parking lot
by a distracted truck driver. I wholeheartedly embrace the prospect of
automating trucks, as a sensor would have prevented this.

~~~
pm24601
First of all I am sorry for your loss. I formed a group within my own city to
prevent traffic deaths from happening here.

I agree with you; drivers need more sensors to alert them and stop them from
killing people. However, computers can still fail - we need those sensors and
maybe automatic brake application to prevent this sort of tragedy - I doubt if
we want to trust a computer entirely for this sort of thing.

------
vermontdevil
I think it's better to put more of the trucking freight back on rail. But that
requires a lot of investment in various secondary rail lines.

That means public money. Something I don't see happening for a long time.

~~~
thedogeye
Why do you think that? What if the trucks were electric?

~~~
BufordTJustice
Trucks are very hard on the roadbed, especially given that road damage scales
proportionally to the fourth power of the axle weight. For the same reason we
don't ship all of our goods in tons of little cars, but use trucks with GVWR
potentially many times greater, similar efficiency is pretty simple with
trains in that they require less operators and prime movers to move more goods
in the same amount of time.

------
pinaceae
Why not operate trucks like drones?

Why does the driver need to sit _in_ the vehicle all the time? Have rotating
drivers, no need for rest times of the machine enforced by the limitations of
the human body operating it.

You can then gradually phase in auto-pilot modes on highways, so that one
operator is responsible for multiple vehicles. Already happening in combat
drone space.

As they're not transporting passengers it is an easier sell.

Semi-autonomous drones with remote pilots/drivers/captains should change the
game in trucking, shipping and freight trains.

------
spacemanmatt
I think land-pirates will start taking on driverless vehicles when they're
common and easy to find. A lot changes when harming a fellow human is no
longer on the table.

~~~
kailuowang
Or, even better, Robot land-pirates.

There are many many things out there that you can steal without harming a
fellow human now.

When robots are doing all the tedious jobs for humans, you either live for
free or work for fun. Not much need for breaking the law (unless that's just
fun).

------
mavhc
"A convoy of self-driving trucks recently drove across Europe and arrived at
the Port of Rotterdam"

Except it didn't. They were driven by drivers, only difference was software
controlled the speed so they could drive closer together.

[https://www.eutruckplatooning.com/News/495554.aspx](https://www.eutruckplatooning.com/News/495554.aspx)

------
fblp
Driverless trucks have been operating in the mining industry in Australia for
over four years. There are lots of long haul routes around the world that are
almost entirely truck traffic where automation makes a lot of sense.

Video showing how the mining trucks operate:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0RCSX95QmE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0RCSX95QmE)
(2012)

------
astannard
Maybe we will get hubs initially where humans make the small journey to their
local hub A with a some standardized container load, then the robots take over
loading it onto a robot road train as designated by the software for the long
haul and another human picks up the consignment from hub B and takes it to the
recipient? All the hubs are next to a highway.

------
1024core
_Further fuel efficiencies will be had as the self-driving fleets adopt
platooning technologies, like those from Peloton Technology, allowing trucks
to draft behind one another in highway trains._

Great. Now imagine trying to merge onto a highway, only to be cutoff by a long
train of trucks blindly following each other, inches apart.

------
andrewstuart
I wrote about this recently: "Get ready for our first civil war against robots
- here's what it will look like."

[http://fourlightyears.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/get-ready-
for-...](http://fourlightyears.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/get-ready-for-our-
first-civil-war.html)

~~~
tyingq
I agree. I think another difference with the trucker community (vs angry taxi
drivers) is that they are "tight". They have their own social circles, unions,
radio talk shows, cb radio, websites, newsletters, etc.

They already know how to organize, communicate, influence, etc. And then
there's the union history, tactics, etc.

------
sandGorgon
I'm thinking about India where politicians are clashing over train and road as
we speak. For a country building new infrastructure, I wonder which one is
more viable?

This has been a subject of long debate in India - autonomous cars are fairly
useless in Indian cities. At the scale of transportation needed, nothing other
than mass transportation (subways,etc) makes sense with last mile
connectivity.

The same question exists for freight - should we construct trains or trucks?
Taking into account offloading cost - which one is more efficient? I think
people overestimate the complexity of shipping items with time guarantees. A
hub and spoke model works great here - but what is doing the actual long haul?

And people don't understand the scale at which countries like India or China
need to operate. The transportation needs of all of Europe are dwarfed by how
much needs to be moved (quickly and economically ) in India.

------
chiph
This will work, until they realize that the drivers were responsible for doing
a pre-trip inspection of the truck and trailer (looking for bad tires, burnt-
out lights, worn air-hoses). The warehouse workers aren't going to do this, as
their boss is going to be telling them "Just get the thing loaded and don't
worry about that."

The result will be increasing accident rates, not only involving the trucks,
but also cars near them (when a truck tire blows, the explosion is
significant). Russian dash cam footage:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prTiFClMM0A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prTiFClMM0A)

------
f_allwein
I think it's a misunderstanding that self-driving trucks will not have drivers
on board. Or am I being naive? See this article on Daimler's recent trial in
Germany:

"While self-driving is the name of the game, Highway Pilot isn't about letting
those behind the wheel plonk their feet on the dashboard and snooze their way
to their destination. Daimler likens the system to the autopilot used in
aviation, in that the driver must be prepared to take control at any time."
[http://www.gizmag.com/daimlers-production-autonomous-
truck-d...](http://www.gizmag.com/daimlers-production-autonomous-truck-debuts-
public-roads/39701/)

------
37
I thought driverless trucks were already a thing.

From [1]:

>Driverless trucks aren’t new to the resource industry. Mining giants Rio
Tinto Group and BHP Billiton Ltd. use them at many of their operations and
oilsands producers see driverless trucks as an obvious way to boost
productivity.

I can definitely see it expanding, as automation has a tendency to do, and the
idea that _no technology will automate away more jobs_ is certainly
interesting.

[1] [http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/how-canadas-
oi...](http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/how-canadas-oilsands-are-
paving-the-way-for-driverless-trucks-and-the-threat-of-big-layoffs)

------
cdnsteve
Society will trust these automakers with autonomous vehicles? They can't even
get their gas milage right.

\- Mitsubishi Motors: We did false mileage tests since 1991

\- Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code

\- Volkswagon emissions scandal

On and on and on...

------
elijahparker
Here's an article about the self-driving trucks that were referenced in the
OP: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/07/convoy-
se...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/07/convoy-self-driving-
trucks-completes-first-european-cross-border-trip)

They still had drivers in them, but the trucks were automated (it doesn't
mention if the drivers had to override it at times or not).

------
ende
I've always thought trucks should have their own lanes due to very different
acceleration and lane changing patterns from other automobiles. I wonder if
the emergence of driverless vehicles ends up leading to a separation of
driverless and driver roads/lanes. At least early on. It could assuage safety
concerns of mixing both modes, and one can imagine efficiency gains from
chaining driverless vehicles in 'trains' on their own lane.

------
_RPM
I really don't think this will happen in my lifetime. Could the whole robot
drives car really evolve to replace the current state? I'm not sure that can
happen over night.

~~~
knieveltech
The technology already exists. We're there.

~~~
TheLogothete
Because of a single experiment in highly controlled environment :) Please come
back to earth.

~~~
knieveltech
Because of self-driving vehicles currently safely operating in the US, some of
the more impressive results various DARPA challenges have resulted in in
recent years, and of course a single experiment in a highly controlled
environment.

I never left. ;)

------
mmahemoff
"Where drivers are restricted by law from driving more than 11 hours per day
without taking an 8-hour break, a driverless truck can drive nearly 24 hours
per day. That means the technology would effectively double the output of the
U.S. transportation network at 25 percent of the cost."

This suggests each truck has one driver - the truck stops when the driver
stops. Aren't there systems that let drivers pool/share trucks so the trucks
can be on the road 24 hours a day?

~~~
jdoliner
I'm pretty sure the limiting factor for trucking throughput is drivers not
trucks. That's why labor accounts for 75% of the cost of shipping.

~~~
usrusr
I think thorstadt was talking about latency: just like express messengers
switched horses in the pre-telegraph age, trucks could be handed from driver
to driver to keep them running without mandated breaks.

With half-workday legs, a system like that could even allow many relay drivers
to get home every day despite driving long-haul loads.

My gut feeling is that this could work in theory, but would never evolve in
the framework of a free market economy (whereas a planned economy would tend
do everything by train).

------
ChuckMcM
This is one of those jobs that I can totally see being automated, and I really
worry about being automated. If we automate the long haul truckers out of a
job that is going to be a huge dislocation of workers. Further, what is their
alternative job prospects? Even with free retraining do we have enough things
for them to do?

I'm really interested in disruptive ideas that can soak up lots and lots of
human labor at a living wage.

------
Cshelton
How about we automate rail traffic first. They are close...but the electronic
system is still so far behind. They keep having to push back the requiremen.

~~~
arebop
I think there's less incentive for automating trains because of the
cargo:driver ratio. The cost of the human at the helm is a much smaller
portion of the cost of operating the railroad.

~~~
seansmccullough
Totally agree, they only need a handful of people to operate a multi-mile long
train.

~~~
Cshelton
Actually not true; the total number of people it requires to move a train,
with all the other trains on the track, and then taking in every safety
precaution, track monitoring, etc. The operation involves many people on a
highly coordinated level...they don't have a lot of room for error with the
number of trains on the small amount of track.

------
yoav_hollander
"Last mile" delivery may perhaps be done with much smaller, mostly-autonomous
vehicles (with remote operators getting involved only when needed).

See related article and thread in [1] - article also discusses some startup
ideas for mostly-autonomous systems.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11565601](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11565601)

~~~
yoav_hollander
See also [2] for a description of the verification challenges of a fictitious
(but informative) Amazon last-mile autonomous delivery vehicle.

[2]
[https://www.cs.york.ac.uk/ftpdir/reports/2015/YCS/496/YCS-20...](https://www.cs.york.ac.uk/ftpdir/reports/2015/YCS/496/YCS-2015-496.pdf)

------
dantiberian
The introduction of tractors and machinery into farming would have caused a
similar amount of job loss (if not more?). I really feel for all of the people
and communities that will be affected by the loss of trucking jobs, but in 100
years, we're unlikely to look back and say "I wish we kept human truckers",
just like no-one says "I wish we never introduced tractors".

~~~
jqm
no-one says "I wish we never introduced tractors"

The Amish?

~~~
icebraining
Only some of them: [http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/16/us/some-amish-to-use-
tract...](http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/16/us/some-amish-to-use-tractors-
those-opposed-may-move.html)

------
mahranch
My father is a truck driver; He says he's not worried. There's too much other
stuff to consider before robots replace him. Like the maintenance that needs
to be done during the trip. That can't be automated.

This might be good for short one day jaunts, but multiple day trips cross
country are another story entirely.

------
beat
24 hour trucking is already possible. You just need two drivers. My sister was
a 24 hour long haul trucker for a while, running routes from Virginia to
Seattle nonstop with a partner driver. They'd work nonstop for three weeks,
then take a week or two break, which is actually a pretty good schedule in
some ways.

------
sickbeard
One would think that ships would be the first to be automated but alas they
are not.. why? theft. Would you trust your driverless truck not to get hacked
and stolen? would you trust sensitive and expensive equipment to be moved by
driverless trucks? There's still a long way to go.

~~~
mdorazio
That ignores the economic factors. Much like trains, cargo ships haul a huge
amount of cargo while being manned by a small crew. Thus the labor cost as a
percentage of total cargo haul cost is quite low. A truck, though, requires a
human driver to move a single cargo container any distance, so there's a much
bigger economic incentive to replace the driver with a computer.

------
cowardlydragon
You still need security for these trains of trucks.

People can just "security guard" the trucks. Sleep, play video games,
whatever.

Get all the benefits of safety, constant movement, better efficiency, maintain
SOME of the jobs. Require mechanic training to make it a skilled job, etc.

------
fernly
Where will an autonomous truck (AT) refuel? On US highways, fuel stations are
not "full service", the driver is expected to operate the fuel filling and
pay. So will some stations provide attendants to fuel ATs?

If there is resentment against the ATs -- and that is just about a certainty
-- there will be cases of resentful attendants shorting the fuel delivery, or
even sabotaging trucks (water/sugar in the tank).

So, maybe the trucking companies hire min-wage attendants to work the pumps at
designated stations along the routes. The stations that permit AT refueling
would be obvious targets for Luddite retaliation.

Actually, the ATs themselves would be pretty obvious targets for vandalism.
They would be easy to identify -- driving at 45mph in platoons, as described
in the article -- and unprotected along the vast open stretches of US
interstate highways. I would expect many, many ATs would arrive at their
destinations with rifle bullet holes in them.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Luddite terrorists is already a problem we are facing.

[http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/25/french-anti-uber-protest-
tu...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/25/french-anti-uber-protest-turns-to-
guerrilla-warfare-as-cabbies-burn-cars-attack-uber-drivers/)

[http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/01/the-fight-against-uber-
is-g...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/01/the-fight-against-uber-is-getting-
violent-in-brazil/)

I don't think protecting trucks from terrorists is a major issue - providing
security is just a minor added cost, as is armoring the trucks.

The real issue is that for the most part governments seem to be siding with
the terrorists rather than shutting them down.

------
mcbits
The best way for this to play out is for drivers to buy their own automated
rigs and work as contractors. Regulations would need to be updated to allow
"drivers" to log the hours spent sleeping while the truck was moving.

------
alex_duf
I'm starting to think we should tax the value made out of automation.

I feel like it's the only way to redistribute the wealth accumulated by the
few actors that will control these giant automated industries.

~~~
stale2002
Let's not kill an industry before it even begins.

------
ajuc
Wouldn't it be much easier to assure security on roads if every car had to
have 50 USD short-range (500 m is enough) radio transmitter that sends its
velocity and position (from GPS).

It's obviously possible techincaly (see cheap tablets), and from law POV (see
seat belts requirement).

It would be useful (the device can have cheap black and white lcd screen and
show "radar"-like view with cars ahead and behind).

It would also increase security even if there are no automated cars
(overtaking tall cars will be much easier for one thing). Of course - if some
cars don't use it - it's actaully decreasing security, so there needs to be
adjustment period.

And when these things are in place - automated cars are much easier problem.

~~~
mantas
Would it require to have a backup device? Would cyclists and pedestrians have
to have it as well?

~~~
ajuc
Backups - yes I guess. It's cheap so why not.

Pedestrians and cyclists would surely protest.

------
dreamdu5t
Can someone explain why we're supposedly getting driverless cars and trucks
yet the simplistic task of ordering food isn't automated? Why does McDonald's
have order takers?

~~~
icebraining
McDonalds already has automated order takers around here. There are still
humans, but so will there still be manned trucks, just fewer.

------
gkilmain
I wonder what the net effect will be on truck brokerage? Since "75% of cost is
labor" I'm sure revenue will be impacted but not margin.

------
jakelarkin
navigating high-grade descents are the wrinkle - truck air brakes seem very
finicky. But I think there's no reason why long, sparse, flat freeway sections
could not be run by automated cabs relatively soon, for example CA-I5 from
Tejon Ranch to Stockton, or the I80 between Chicago outskirts and somewhere in
Wyoming.

~~~
bitwize
Truck air brakes are finicky because they are mechanically designed to
distribute brake pressure evenly across the wheels in response to one input --
pressure from the driver's foot on the brake pedal. An automated cab could
communicate more information: desired speed, tolerance, required stopping
distance, and general vehicle stability info, and a microcontroller at each
wheel could combine that with sensor info about road conditions and
temperature _at that wheel_ to determine how much brake to apply and where --
all with faster reaction times than a human driver would be capable of.

~~~
graycat
The old technique was, at a wheel, hit the brakes really hard to stop the
wheel rotating as fast as possible, hopefully less than one second, and then
fully release the brake. Then the stopped wheel starts sliding and, then,
starts rotating again, while still sliding some, until it is full rotating
again, and then hit the brakes again. So, the technique is automatically
sensitive to load, tread on the tires, traction on the road, etc. So, don't
want all the wheels stopped at the same time. Then on an 18 wheel truck,
should still be able to maintain directional control.

Of course, there is a lot that could be done, but most of that has one thing
in common -- money, for the engineering, manufacturing, original purchase, in-
service monitoring, problem detection, problem diagnosis, and repair. Money.

------
niels_olson
I think one thing people don't understand is that if truck drivers are out of
the equation, a huge amount of cargo will go back to rail. Roadways will clean
up nicely. And if rail becomes more efficient, we might start building more
rail. And put more passenger trains on said rail. That would empty out the
roads even more.

~~~
AdamTReineke
The trucks will still be there, just without their drivers.

------
shiftoutbox
This is bad for the 99.998% .

------
Bombthecat
According to my co workers it won't happen or be a problem.

Because!

The level of deny is really... Annoying..

~~~
thorstadt
Because lawyers.

------
perseusprime11
We need to create a new highway system for driverless cars/vans/trucks/etc.
The current road infrastructure with its potholes, tolls, traffic congestion
is not ideal. They need to conceive something similar to HOV lanes in order
for this to move forward.

~~~
ck2
lol - like politicians give a damn about infrastructure for living human
beings that suffer every day on broken roads and dangerous bridges

they'll get right on that

~~~
perseusprime11
How did we ever get to HOV lanes?

------
agumonkey
Musk allegedly talked about automated Buses in Norway not long ago.

------
nxzero
Are any startups working on the last mile of autonomous logistics?

~~~
lemiant
There are a few:

\- Dispatch [1]

\- Starships [2]

\- And at least one stealth mode company

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/06/self-driving-delivery-
vehic...](http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/06/self-driving-delivery-vehicle-
startup-dispatch-raises-2-million-seed-round-led-by-andreessen-horowitz/)

[2] [https://www.starship.xyz/concept/](https://www.starship.xyz/concept/)

~~~
nxzero
Interesting, not exactly the last mile I was imagining; meaning the last mile
from long haul to local distribution hubs.

------
_pmf_
Code generation and Computer Aided Software Engineering is also "coming" and
will make the lowly developer and programmer obsolete.

Too bad that the 80 / 20 split does not quite work for things people pay for
and rely on.

~~~
JabavuAdams
That's because we're trying to do more. If we were just trying to solve the
same old problems as in 1970, then we wouldn't need as many programmers as we
have now.

Once trucks can drive autonomously, once it's a solved problem, what more is
there to do within that vertical?

------
marknutter
Here come the bevy of calls for basic income..

------
vincefutr23
Driverless container carriers, traveling at medium speeds across the country,
in groups, with only last mile labor required...sounds like, Trains?

~~~
0xffff2
Sure, except that the Interstate + National Highway System alone have more
total millage than the US railroad system.

------
known
Why are we not seeing driver-less trains?

~~~
elsewhen
there are driverless trains at lots of airports, but i think the reason they
dont appear elsewhere is that the cost savings wouldnt be as great. a single
train conductor is managing a massive vehicle - sometimes two orders of
magnitude more than a truck. the labor component with trains is significantly
lower than in trucking. i think the same is true for ships. taxis are at the
other end of the spectrum, where labor is a very large part of the cost
structure.

------
jondiggsit
Great just what everybody wants. A mile-long platooning heard of driverless
trucks doing 45 in the middle lane =P

------
_Codemonkeyism
\+ AI is coming and it's going to automate millions of jobs (lawyers, call
center, ...)

------
tboyd47
Good riddance. Just because a job exists doesn't mean it's a fair contract or
even beneficial to the employee. If you drive cross-country and break down
your hourly rate according to how many hours you spend tied to your load, it
only comes out to be slightly more than minimum wage, _if even that_. I know a
guy who has spent an entire week, 24/7, stranded across the country and he
only received $200 for it from his company. That's less than $2 / hr. A pizza
delivery guy can make more than that _just in tips_. I'm not crying for the
trucking industry.

------
karmacondon
So many comments here are in the form of "People won't trust autonomous
vehicles." Well I'm people, and I trust them. And it's for one simple reason:
Whatever bugs they have can be fixed for _every_ autonomous car on the road at
the same time. That just can't be said for human beings. Every one of us has
to learn how to idle icy roads, fog and other hazards individually, with
wildly varying results. A computer program does it once, and is constantly
getting feedback from the millions of cars on the road all the time.

Sure, people want someone to blame for accidents. And people might not like
the idea of cars without drivers, or worry about contrived "Does the car kill
the driver or the pedestrian" situations. But at the end of the day,
statistics is overwhelmingly on the side of driverless cars. Saying "Yes, but
people aren't reasonable enough to see that" isn't helpful. The question is,
how quickly can we get people to do what's best after the technology has been
perfected?

~~~
skywhopper
You overstate what data is available. What self-driving cars are currently
operating in icy/snowy/rainy conditions on poorly maintained roads that aren't
radar-mapped to the inch?

In any case, avoiding hitting people and other cars is the easy part of
building self-driving vehicles. Navigating in ever-changing uncertain road
conditions reliably is a different problem altogether.

