
Self-driving trucks begin mail delivery test for U.S. Postal Service - sonabinu
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tusimple-autonomous-usps/self-driving-trucks-begin-mail-delivery-test-for-u-s-postal-service-idUSKCN1SR0YB
======
linsomniac
Back in 1987, at my first job at Hewlett-Packard, they had a little robot that
would deliver mail. This was their plant in Loveland, CO, I believe it was the
first non-California site HP opened.

Along the main hallways there was some sort of retroreflective tape laid down,
and the robot, which looked like and equipment cart, would follow that tape.
At every stop it would sound a chime and the secretary for that section would
come out and retrieve a bundle of mail and distribute it to their people.

Super simple implementation, but it worked quite well for what it did.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
IIRC the movie Space Camp (80s?) features a mail-robot, perhaps the kid hides
in it?

~~~
mrbgty
Flight of the Navigator
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4v-dMfzp3E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4v-dMfzp3E)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Ah, thanks, I didn't think it was quite right.

------
noer
>TuSimple and the USPS declined to disclose the cost of the program, but Frum
said no tax dollars were used and the agency relies on revenue from sales of
postage and other products.

Really? This is exactly the kind of thing we _should_ be spending tax dollars
on. I have no idea why people think the USPS is this giant wasteful pit of
money in the federal budget but they provide a lot of valuable services in
addition to steady employment for a lot of Americans.

~~~
freehunter
>I have no idea why people think the USPS is this giant wasteful pit of money
in the federal budget

A concentrated disinformation campaign funded by people who stand to benefit
from privatizing mail delivery. It started with the mandate to pre-fund
pension and healthcare benefits for the next 75 years, funding pensions for
retired employees who aren't even born yet. That means by federal mandate, the
USPS is sitting on $400 billion that they can't touch [1]. That's not all bad
in and of itself, but they're also limited by law on what they can charge for
stamps, and the federal review board doesn't always let them increase prices
to keep up with costs [2].

The same group of people who forced the USPS into an precedented fiscal
nightmare are the same people going on TV and telling you that the USPS is
fiscally irresponsible and a waste of money and should be privatized. Not a
big surprise that Rep Tom Davis III was the author of the bill passed in 2006
but in 2004 FedEx was one of his biggest campaign contributors.

[1] [https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-
assume](https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume)

[2] [https://www.cnbc.com/id/39439918](https://www.cnbc.com/id/39439918)

[3]
[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407)

[4] [https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-
congress/contributors...](https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-
congress/contributors?cid=N00002045&cycle=2004&type=I)

~~~
fjp
This is happening everywhere with all kinds of government services. "Slash
budgets" and by firing full time employees and cutting investment, piecemeal
it out to the lowest-bid contractor, the quality of service deteriorates, not
much money is actually saved, but someone gets rich(er)!

~~~
freehunter
And when the service fails, you can point to it as the reason government
solutions don't work and how regulation is bad, which provides convenient
reasoning to strip more regulations and privatize more government services.

~~~
the-dude
And it has a name as well : Starve the beast.

~~~
mindslight
Like every political push, the intent was noble. But it only gains legs when
some entrenched interest can profit.

~~~
freehunter
Noble? Maybe... I'd say it's dishonest at best. If the USPS failed on its own,
there might be a point to the argument that the government is inefficient. But
when lawmakers destroy something and then claim that it destroyed itself and
therefore we must destroy everything else, it doesn't quite seem right.

It's like smashing a window with a baseball bat to prove glass is easily
breakable. Yes the glass broke, that's why you don't hit it with a baseball
bat. Rather than replacing the windows with brick, how about just not hitting
it with a baseball bat? If you want to prove how easily breakable the glass
is, let is break (or not) on its own.

~~~
mindslight
You're responding on a completely different level than what I actually said.

> _If the USPS failed on its own, there might be a point to the argument that
> the government is inefficient. But when lawmakers destroy something and then
> claim that it destroyed itself and therefore we must destroy everything
> else, it doesn 't quite seem right._

To be clear, I agree with this. I like the USPS, and think they do a great
job.

The point is that grassroots support for "starve the beast" didn't start out
focused on the USPS. The USPS was just one of the more vulnerable targets,
plus some business stood to gain, so politicians directed the ire there. It's
similar dynamic to how in these "government shutdowns", national parks close
but the TSA keeps right on going. Or locally, how trying to keep real estate
taxes down ends putting the screws on teachers and firefighters, rather than
shrinking the town bureaucracy.

The larger point is to avoid simplistically ascribing the worst intent to the
"other team". It's an easy answer, but prevents understanding that they
actually have legitimate points. And it drives adherence to the agenda of your
familiar team, which is also busy manufacturing consent for corporate agendas
in a similar manner.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> A safety driver will sit behind the wheel to intervene if necessary and an
engineer will ride in the passenger seat.

This is how you know a vehicle is self-driving: there are two people sat in
the front.

~~~
esilver
The in-vehicle monitor will likely be a standard part of autonomous and semi-
autonomous trucking for the foreseeable future.

A monitor can be paid less than a driver, as they’re doing less work, and can
respond to onsite issues more promptly and accurately than could a remote one.

~~~
lm28469
> A monitor can be paid less than a driver, as they’re doing less work

People working full time still need to live you know, even if it's "less
work". Last time I checked the "amount" of work doesn't really correlate with
the pay too.

You can't tell a professional truck driver "Ok man, you'll be in the same
seat, on the same road, for the same amount of time but you get $500 instead
of $1500 because it's less work, oh and also if there is a crash and you
weren't 100% focused you'll be liable for the damage"

~~~
esilver
What drivers are paid for a given load reflects market conditions like e.g.,
weather, truck availability, and load availability, more than anything else.

Automating large parts of the driving process would make the job easier and
more desirable. More people would be willing to work as monitors, which would
increase truck availability and lower rates.

There’s also the possibility that a monitor could do other work while the
truck drove. Team drivers already do this; the passive driver occupies herself
when not driving by reading or even dispatching other loads.

~~~
MegaButts
How can the monitor do other things if he is expected to have full situational
awareness at a moment's notice in case something goes wrong, when you have no
idea if or when that might happen?

All the studies say this is actually _more_ dangerous, which is why Waymo
abandoned L3 development years ago when they discovered their safety drivers
were falling asleep at the wheel. And there's the infamous Uber death which is
well documented and analyzed.

~~~
esilver
That's the difference. In an autonomous urban driving environment a monitor is
expected to have full situational awareness at all times because driving in
cities is a hugely complex process. A truck driving 1,100 miles on I-80 would
not need to be monitored as closely, if at all, because that driving process
is far simpler. This kind of highway driving accounts for the majority of
over-the-road freight.

"Monitor" might be a misnomer, here, in that the monitor isn't expected to be
actively watching what the truck is doing; rather the monitor would be
expected to respond to infrequent issues and maybe handle off-highway driving
to and from shipping and receiving facilities.

~~~
MegaButts
I understand the idea of having drivers take over in dense urban areas, and
letting the truck drive itself along the highway between cities. But this
assumes the truck is capable of safely navigating along the highway with zero
human intervention. An inattentive driver/monitor is no better than no driver
when something unexpected happens and requires a sub-second reaction. _If_
they can do that then they're in business, but I am skeptical.

------
melling
Solving even limited self-driving truck driving would be a huge win.
(Geofenced to certain roads)

There’s an immediate need and it would save companies a lot of money.

------
ru999gol
I always wondered why it seems we've get automated trucks pretty soon
everywhere, but there is almost no one talking about self driving trains?

~~~
Spooky23
Trains are super efficient. My uncle is a locomotive engineer. He has one or
two conductors with a train that is a couple of miles long. They pay a premium
to keep staffing at a minimum -- he can be called with 30 minutes notice to
come in and drive a train for a 24 hour period.

You'd probably be able to run more smaller trains with automation, but
competing with trucks is tough, because the efficiency gains associated with
getting rid of people and adding automation are blown away by the need to
cross-dock and do the last mile via local truck.

~~~
kaybe
So I was a bit incredulous at the claim of miles-long trains.

If anyone else is - turns out, there's a wikipedia page which has more
information on very long trains (it's true):

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

~~~
b_tterc_p
Yep! This is where the western / action movie trope of racing to cross the
train tracks comes from. If you can get the train between yourself and your
pursuer, it’s going to be a long time before they can do anything to catch up
again. Often times in these movies, whoever is fleeing will take a few casual
moments to look back at their blocked pursuer because there’s so much time to
spare.

------
strikelaserclaw
"possible solution to the driver shortage and regulatory constraints faced by
freight haulers across the country" \- mmm, every industry is facing worker
shortage huh -.-

~~~
throw20102010
Unemployment is very low right now. However, the most accurate statement is
always, "shortage of people that have the qualifications we want that are
willing to work for the payment we're offering."

~~~
salawat
Note: Unemployment is measured through participation in various workfinding
government programs or receipt of unemployment benefits.

It doesn't really paint an accurate picture of how many are out of work, but
getting by through alternative or illegal-quasi-legal means.

It also in no way measures the number of jobs a defined unit of work can
supply, or whether the job itself creates enough of a return to be
economically feasible to the doer.

It also in no way reflects that many jobs mow push for pre-acquired
qualifications, which cost money, and lock out potential workforce.

No one wants to measure _any of that_. That leads to awkward questions.

~~~
zerocrates
The US federal government uses a monthly survey to compute unemployment
statistics; it doesn't just tally up people receiving unemployment benefits.

~~~
MegaButts
It also ignores people that have not been working for more than a year, so
basically if you're chronically unemployed (and are likely the type of person
that need the most help) you're conveniently ignored for the sake of
bureaucracy.

------
rmason
I think it might be better if the post office went totally to using robots.
I've heard too many stories first hand about its toxic culture.

There was a woman who worked in Lansing, Michigan sorting mail. She worked in
the back, never had an contact with customers. Every Halloween she'd wear a
different costume to work. Three years straight she'd get disciplined for it.

Local TV asked if the employees she worked alongside had a problem with it but
they didn't. Only management had a problem with her wearing a costume every
Halloween. She said they are determined to stamp out all individuality in the
employees. What a horrible place to work.

------
vital_sol
I wonder how are they going to fuel up self-driving trucks? You can not drive
2100 miles on a single tank of fuel.

~~~
0xffff2
Trucks follow well-defined routes that are already well served by several
truck stop operators. I would expect the first truly self-driving trucks to
partner with Pilot or Loves to offer some kind of full service option where
the truck pulls in and someone comes out to fill it up and scan a tag to
charge the fuel to the right account.

------
stubish
I hope we see an article in two or three weeks about how this trial went.
Started on Tuesday, which is kind of exciting, but I'm certain I've seen more
articles about trials started than articles about how the trials went.

------
RenRav
This is exactly the kind of job suited for automated driving. I wonder if
there will be automatic-only highways soon spanning these stretches of the
countryside, or whether such a thing would even help.

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
Mandatory computer-control will happen when a critical threshold of traffic is
already operating that way, and risk/liability will make the restriction
inevitable.

------
skookumchuck
Inter-city mail should be by rail, which is far more environmental and much
less costly. The only reason highways appear to be "cheaper" is the real costs
are paid by other people (passenger cars).

~~~
0xffff2
Is it really cheaper? I would expect rail to be somewhat cheaper but an order
of magnitude or more slower.

~~~
skookumchuck
Rail is cheaper in just about every dimension - fuel, track, track
maintenance, labor, etc. The downside is it's slower.

------
HillaryBriss
damn. shit is real. guess i'll vote for Andrew Yang.

------
skykooler
How is the package actually delivered if there's no driver?

~~~
rement
Read the article. It's about delivering packages from one USPS facility to
another not residential delivery.

~~~
OrgNet
yeah this could have been made clear in the title but they chose the clickbait
approach

------
jerkstate
Headline is misleading IMO. This is for long-haul mail routing from post
office to post office, not last mile delivery.

~~~
jsnider3
It's still delivering mail, just from one post office to another.

~~~
jsymolon
eh, USPS sortation facility would be better.

------
BubRoss
Automating postal workers out of their jobs first is a pretty bold play.

~~~
0xffff2
Does the post office employ long-haul truckers? I was under the impression
that this kind of hauling was contracted out.

------
skizm
Curious, are these pilot programs sending the trucks out completely
driverless? Or are there going to be humans in the "cockpit" sort of managing
things and taking occasional naps?

~~~
egwynn
Did you read the first paragraph?

> San Diego-based startup TuSimple said its self-driving trucks will begin
> hauling mail between USPS facilities in Phoenix and Dallas to see how the
> nascent technology might improve delivery times and costs. A safety driver
> will sit behind the wheel to intervene if necessary and an engineer will
> ride in the passenger seat.

~~~
skizm
Oops. I did skim it, but apparently my skimming skills are terrible. My bad.

------
nathan_long
The company making these self-driving trucks - enormously complex products
which could kill people if they go wrong - is called "TuSimple"?

Really?

