
Uber self-driving truck just made history - Futurebot
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/10/25/uber-self-driving-truck-just-made-history-with-120.html
======
iamatworknow
I'll be looking out for the story in two or three months when they attempt
this trip over snow/ice covered roads.

Actually, I'd love to hear about ANY autonomous vehicle technology that can
safely traverse winter roads.

~~~
clort
Why should they try to do that on snow/ice covered roads? I mean, if its
difficult and dangerous (as you imply) then they can just start with the
easier trips and make loads of money. The hard stuff can come later..

This whole self-driving technology is worrying me a bit actually - I fully
support this future, but I was thinking the other day that what will happen is
that transport in the major hubs will get cheaper, but for rest of us it will
get more expensive. For now, I'm ok but I am expecting a massive upheaval in
the next 20 years

~~~
iamatworknow
>Why should they try to do that on snow/ice covered roads?

Because, "Over 70 percent of the nation's roads are located in snowy regions,
which receive more than five inches (or 13 cm) average snowfall annually.
Nearly 70 percent of the U.S. population lives in these snowy regions."
([http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/weather/weather_events/snow_ice....](http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/weather/weather_events/snow_ice.htm))

If they're able to nail down "the easy stuff" that's all well and good, but it
sounds to me like most of the country is only going to benefit from the
current technology indirectly (maybe a third of the supply chain will be
automatically driven). But this "in a few years nobody will own a car because
we'll just rent from fleets that will come right to your doorstep!" thing I
hear a lot still feels like a pipedream to those of us who are currently
prepping for 6 months below freezing.

Who knows, maybe global warming will take care of this problem for us?

------
user5994461
Summary:

> a human driver accompanied the beer delivery, but his driving services were
> only used to get on and off the highway. The driver rode most of the way in
> the back of the truck, away from the controls.

> A 120-mile Colorado beer delivery, 45,000 cans of Budweiser beer

> Budweiser paid the market rate of $470 for the historic beer run

------
vannevar
"The driver rode most of the way in the back of the truck, away from the
controls."

Pretty disturbing that the Colorado DoT was so willing to experiment with the
lives of other people on the road.

~~~
travisp
What are you basing this on?

According to the DoT, they "took detailed measures to reduce any risks
associated with the self-driving delivery project including testing
validation, ride alongs and escorting the delivery" (source:
[https://www.trucks.com/2016/10/25/ubers-otto-hauls-
budweiser...](https://www.trucks.com/2016/10/25/ubers-otto-hauls-budweiser-
beer-across-colorado-first-commercial-use-self-driving-truck/) )

~~~
vannevar
The article clearly states that no one was in a position to take over if the
system failed. They were testing on public roads, and if something had gone
wrong, we're talking about a loaded 18-wheeler: having escort vehicles would
do nothing to mitigate a serious accident. Other people were on the road as
well, none of whom volunteered to be part of the experiment. Short of closing
the highway, there was no safe way of doing this. We're not talking about a
mature technology here. We have no idea what the real, operational failure
rate is. It was an irresponsible decision to put people's lives at risk for a
corporate publicity stunt. FTA: "I think real implementation of technology
like this is still five years off." Then so should this kind of experiment on
public roads.

As a side note, I appreciate that you took the time to articulate your
argument, rather than mindlessly downvoting. It makes the site much better
when there's actual discussion.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
FUD. At some point in development you do a public road test. What evidence
that it wasn't time for that? Just ranting.

~~~
vannevar
Sure. Close down the road, get a bunch of professional drivers to simulate
traffic (including poor driving), and have it at for a few hundreds of
thousands of miles.

Let's be clear, this was not a "road test". This was a publicity stunt.

And I don't have a problem with you ranting, at least you made an effort to
share your view.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
They (Uber) already had trials in Pittsburgh. Presumably after the closed-
track trials. This sound like a careful progression of testing and trials to
me.

And every "Technology Demo" is of course a publicity stunt by definition.

~~~
vannevar
I think you're badly underestimating the amount and nature of the data
required. Think about space travel: after 60 years, the catastrophic failure
rate is still about 1 in 200. This is due in part to the very low volume of
flights over the decades. The Shuttle underwent what passed for extensive
testing before its first "operational" flight, but was retired before it
accumulated even as many hours as the average test flight program for a
commercial airliner.

Before we run vehicles as potentially destructive as a fully loaded 18-wheeler
autonomously on public roads, we should log tens of thousands of test hours
under simulated real-world traffic conditions. That's expensive, hence Uber's
willingness to roll the dice with other people's lives.

The burden is not on the public to show that an autonomous truck is unsafe;
the burden is on the promoters to show that it _is_ safe. That burden is not
even close to being met, as the article acknowledges when they say the
technology won't be ready for another 5 years. This was a stunt to help Uber
maintain its valuation, and the DoT should've been looking out more for the
public.

