The problem with that campaign is that it instilled a false sense of confidence. The technology was "an in-between": certainly better than nothing, but not as effective or safe as traditional mine-clearing methods.
Cruise is in a similar position. They have a chance to improve people's lives and prevent serious injuries. At the same time, they're toeing a delicate line between improving drivers' safety and causing them to become complacent.
We understand the delicate balance you describe and it's our top priority to make sure our product actually does improve drivers' safety. That's why we're using independent third party testing by the same companies who test products for the major automakers, even though there is no law or regulation requiring us to do so.
Let's say you're a teenager using Cruise to keep your car within the white lines on a 5-hour, highway road trip. The device is capable of steering the car this way on your behalf.
In that situation, do you stare at the white lines for 5 hours without touching the steering wheel? Or do you text and talk to your friends? What compels you to be just as vigilant about steering and being aware of your surroundings?
I'd heard of this kind of fatigue before, and just now pulled up an article abstract in search results. It says "analytical results indicated that 80 min was the safe limit for monotonous highway driving." Highway driving would be even more monotonous with this product. I'l grant that this may not be very solid scientific citation and reasoning here, but it seems like nearly common sense, that a driver can't remain alert for hours on end with a computer doing all his work.
But let me tell you: When the "collision avoidance alarm" fired mistakenly once, I was VERY AWAKE for the next half hour.
Assuming the sensors are good, and that they include failsafes that will let you know right away when they AREN'T working, it absolutely would be a net positive to have something else watch during the "boring" times and then let out a loud "Red Alert!" buzz as soon as something unexpected came along.
So no, I don't think the driver would be "impaired even more," at least not if the sensors worked well enough to throw an alarm if something unexpected happened. A set of sensors on top of a car should have a better view of the surroundings than a human, and wouldn't suffer from that kind of fatigue at all.
More, the human is not going to be hypnotized by the road if they aren't actively driving. As a passenger my eyes frequently check out the scenery; as a driver you're forced to watch the road nearly 100% of the time.
P.S. in my drive, I tend to pull over at the halfway point, so after about 90 minutes. And last night that did feel like about 10-15 minutes too long.
Even an audio-only version of Duolingo that taught and tested you so you felt productive rather than as though you were wasting time with a prattling AI?
You have to be sure that whatever it is doesn't engage any "spacial" thinking, however. I remember reading about studies that demonstrated that giving people visual descriptions or 3d puzzles was more distracting than other kinds of thinking while driving.
While I sometimes just want to relax, there are times when I'm feeling I COULD be productive if there were something I could do that didn't involve my hands or eyes. :) One thing I've done is to talk into a voice recorder. But there is only so long I can talk about an idea in a useful manner.
There may be lessons to learn from pilots here. There are countless reports of pilots falling asleep in the cockpit while the autopilot is in control of the plane.
I suspect it would actually be the opposite. If you can take your eyes off the road for say 15-20s every 15 minutes or so, the drive is much less monotonous, and likely safer.
It seems like at some point there would be a qualitative change in the mental processes, where you're effectively not alert to driving, even if you think "I'm only looking away every few minutes." At least if you have been driving for years, where "driving" = "re-evaluating road and vehicle conditions every 3-5 seconds and reacting appropriately." Maybe it should be thought of as learning a new skill, passive driving.
I don't think I would. I think that's the point of the naysayers in this sub-thread. Doing X% of driving for bad drivers, might just make them even worse at the remaining (100-X)% of driving.
In fact, since human reaction time is on the order of 200ms, the car could likely see what's going on, double-check, and then hit the brakes before he noticed what was going on, even if he were paying rapt attention and expecting you to slam on the brakes.
What is the reaction time of these systems? There are papers on the Internet but they are behind paywalls (that I could probably get through if I were an automotive engineer).
I guess as always, we'll figure it out as we go, but I'm not the only one who's a bit nervous.
All major car brands have their version of automatic braking already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_avoidance_system
If you lower the bar to entry then you get more accidents, technology alone will not help with that unless you cut the driver out of the loop completely.
Interestingly, average cars age is 8.7 years in Germany and 11.4 years in USA (in 2013) which is 1.3x:
Comparing on a miles driven basis for the entire country doesn't show the full picture because the miles driven per road type are likely vastly different, traffic density varies extremely in the US but not so much in Germany, and there are 50 different sets of traffic laws and educational requirements across the US.
I live in Slovenia, where it takes at a minimum 30 hrs of driving with instructor (but usually around 40) until he lets you take the test.
Additionally young drivers need(i think its mandatory now, used to only be recomended) to go to school for safe driving (slippery road etc.).
And jet most foreigners from USA, who come here say we are one of the worst drivers they have seen. (guess they haven't been to south of Italy or Turkey)
We used to have high accident rate. The only thing that helped is expensive ticekts.
Its easy to get 500+ EUR ticekt if you are not careful.
But I suspect that your average Romanian or Slovenian driver would have a hard time passing a Dutch license test.
Quality of the education is just as important as quantity and should be paired with suitably stringent examinations.
Expensive tickets are just a way for rich assholes to do whatever they want to because they can afford it. (There are interesting schemes where the tickets get progressively more expensive as you earn more, those are more effective).
I'm kidding but also serious. This seems like it'd be incredibly difficult to test, and also like that testing would make an incredibly interesting series of articles/blog posts.
(I'm not typically this pedantic... I just think viruses have particularly interesting information dynamics and it's really weird to me when applied as a metaphor outside of where that would make sense.)
I'd say it's more like cancer: lots of stuff influences it, and you can make yourself a lot safer, but it's ultimately fairly random and anybody can fall victim to it. You can't catch it from other people, you can't get vaccinated against it, surviving it doesn't give you any immunity for the next time, better surgical and other medical techniques are making it more survivable.... One big difference, of course, is the age factor.
You might catch memes (drunk driving, reckless driving, street racing) that significantly increase the likelihood that you suffer from it. Still not quite the same thing, of course.
"you can't get vaccinated against it"
The opposite memes from the above would seem to serve a role not too far from inoculation.
"surviving it doesn't give you any immunity for the next time"
Except to the degree that it changes your behavior.
All of that said, I agree. "Disease" is a much better term.
I don't think you understand the word "virus".
So you want me to pay you $10,000 to loose my freedom to drive my own car? Not a chance in hell. Look, I am sorry that 3,000 people die everyone month, but I would rather live in a world where 3,000 die in car accidents and people have the freedom to drive then live in world where computers drive everyone around.
Nothing but the best wishes!
Are you honestly saying there's no laws around safety requirements in vehicles?
Also, there's the fear of lawsuits.
I don't know if you've ever been in that situation, but it's possible to fall all the way asleep while driving. It's such a common thing that they carve rumble strips into the sides of highways.
Being so sleepy is a tricky thing. You can fall asleep even with the radio going full blast. I can't imagine any alarm system that would stop someone being lulled to sleep by the engine and movement of a car doing 90% of the driving.
I think that self driving cars are coming and that. Even cars that drive on built-for-human roads are just a bridging technology. Eventually roads will be built for robocars. I think it's a big important technology. All transport revolutions are.
To get on that road we need to start getting this tech into consumer land, a beachhead. I don't know if this specific product is it, but it could be. It's got a nice gradual path from cruise control plus to auto-drive for 80% of the ride.
There might be other beachheads. Long haul trucking is often mentioned. This seems like a very similar problem. They both need to deal with highway driving only. Maybe robocar friendly road networks will be extended into built up areas.
I'm happy to see a company take what's working now and put it in a consumer product. We'll see if people like it. If they do, it seems like a good a place to start developing this stuff outside of research labs.
3 years back, I met with the poundpay team. They knew zero about handling fraud, and they said so. They said they'll figure it out over time. The cofounder said he was "reading a bunch of machine learning papers over the weekend" on combating fraud. I found that amateurish & scary.
2 years back, I met with the interviewstreet founder. The founder did not have any technical chops to speak of, and was actually quite misinformed about scalability challenges, algorithms & programming languages. I couldn't see how this guy could take on topcoder.
Today, 3 years hence, Balanced has processed over a half billion in payments, & Hackerrank has signed up a half million developers & both are well on their way towards a billion dollar market cap. Both are great companies to work for - in terms of actual tech & the potential for ipo riches.
What Cruise is right now is a useless datapoint. Think about what it'll be 2 years from now. Use your imagination. There are tons of low hanging features they could iterate on & completely dominate the space. Enough said.
- 1) release an MVP
- 2) get actual feedback
- 3) pivot
- 4) repeat 1, 2 and 3 until you find the actual pain point to solve, or run out of cash
- 5) profit :)
But it's been there for years! All of the high-end car manufacturers offer this technology, in their current cars, well-integrated, well-tested, and for less money than what this company charges!
Remember, they're not offering self-driving, they're only offering lane assist and adaptive cruise control.
But the vehicle manufacturers are also working on self-driving, it's not just Google! BMW and Volvo have both committed to having self-driving cars on the roads by 2017.
Actually, to be more concrete, I definitely see the utility of this as an extra line of safety (a fallback if/when the driver does lose focus). But as something that is "between cruise control and self driving cars"... nope, not convinced. I wish it were pitched more conservatively.
Also FWIW, the Audi in question has adaptive cruise control as an option. That seems to be a much better bang for your buck.
That being said, I think this could be a great idea for more closed environments. Honestly, I'm not really sure where they are. Maybe huge airport parking lots (as "drop offs" at specific locations), or in large corporate parks or something of that nature.
 Not the same, but it's a bit analogous to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
It has been super impressive to watch the Cruise team of just 4 built a car that can drive down the freeway in just 7 months.
Even Audi themselves offers active lane keeping assist and adaptive cruise control systems. I'm not sure if this is available in the A4, but they offer it in their more expensive models. Mercedes-Benz also has both systems available in the S-Class.
I couldn't find any detailed information on their site as to what they cover, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see their additional value right now.
About a year ago, my family had a car crash that shook up my 3-year-old daughter so much that she still talks about how scary it was. This technology is important.
Congrats to Kyle and the Cruise crew. I'm very impressed, and you guys should be very proud.
Yes they do. Mercedes, BMW, Audi and Volvo (and probably many others) offer this technology in their cars, and adding that option is much cheaper than $10k, comes fully integrated, and appears to offer the same benefits.
Meanwhile, this Cruise thing only works on Audi S4/A4, sits on the top of the car, costs more than the manufacturer charges for it, and doesn't appear to be better than that version.
It's really impressive to offer an after-market adaptive cruise-control system, kudos for that, but who is the customer here? Who would buy this thing?
If you have an Audi A4/S4 and $10k, why not trade to one that has the option installed?
Cruise is meant to operate hands-free for nearly the entire highway segment of your trip and over a speed range of 0-80 mph. No product on the market does anything close to this.
- BMW active cruise control will automatically adjust if you get too close to the car in front of you
- Infiniti cars will stop themselves if they detect obstructions in the direction of motion (rear and forward)
- Ford cars can perform the motions of parallel parking
- Mercedes-Benz cars warn you when you drift into the next lane
Other car manufacturers have related technologies.
I wonder if that can be disabled? Otherwise, an Infiniti would be a poor choice of vehicle for escaping a zombie apocalypse, or more realistically for making some types of emergency maneuvers (e.g. "I need to get away from a threat, and to do so I need to go over the median or through a small barrier"). Sure, it's the one-in-a-million case, but nonetheless it'd be ridiculous if there was no way to override it even for emergencies.
EX: A high end Acura with adaptive cruse control will also automatically break if it detects an unavoidable collision.
Still, I think we are better off focusing on assistive driving systems like blind spot warning, stability assistance, etc than slightly better forms of cruse control.
I worked on the systems for both JLR and Ford, the former even have an option where cameras read signposts to adapt the speed (falling back on GPS info if none were visible).
So yeah, it's not some apocalyptic, universally-agreed failure that happens every day, but people have actually been killed because the machine did something the driver wouldn't have done if they were in full control. (Maybe it's "compensated" for by deaths that were prevented by having cruise control -- I suppose we can't know for sure.)
 Here: https://firstname.lastname@example.org,-117.225045,3a,25.3y,... (note the bottom of the Bike Route sign says 'use I-5 shoulder')
Making the computer react to a cyclist ahead who is indicating a lane change or turn with his arm will be extra tricky.
No idea how Cruise deals with this, but it does appear to be possible anyway.
Proponents of self-driving cars predict ~90% reduction in fatalities. What this means is that over 3000 people per year will be killed by self-driving cars. This is way better than what we have now, but in fatal car crashes, often the driver at fault is killed, and juries tend to assess much lower damages against dead people than against large corporations.
Combine that with the fact that there typically aren't any damages at all awarded for single-occupant single-car collisions where the driver is at fault, and it seems entirely possible that the total damages awarded for traffic fatalities could stay at the current level, or even go up, leaving the manufacturers of self-driving cars to foot the bill.
Now, I generally think that laws to cap damages are not good policy, as it does make it harder to discourage negligence or even malfeasance.
I appreciate this point, but there are two big assumptions hidden in there.
1. That number turns 30,000 accidents into 3,000 accidents, but that's assuming all cars are self-driving.
2. It assumes that in those 3,000 accidents, the self-driving cars are "at fault." But those last 10% of accidents are things in which driver error is not a factor. If a cinderblock falls off a bridge onto my self-driving car, it would take an incredibly aggressive jury to blame that on the car.
What is the cause of those last 10% of accidents? Is it things like manufacturing faults, in which case the manufacturer is already absorbing the risk? (And a computer-driven car could handle a blowout better than a human could.)
Oh, I found an NHTSA paper that gives that "90% due to human error" figure, and puts 4 to 13% on "vehicle factors (brake failure, tire problems, etc.)." So I think my point in the preceding paragraph holds: a big company is already on the line, the automatic car could do better health checks to prevent them, and it could have a better way of dealing with mechanical failure.
 Not that such a thing is impossible.
I'd really like to get a sampling of those 3000 non-driver-error fatalities.
I think the term of art is "vehicle factors." Using that I found http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17916886 which suggests that manufacturers could address "the majority" of them, and I don't think I'm being crazy by suggesting self-driving vehicles already include a lot of them, since they aren't exactly Geo Metros.
I've long said that people would rather a human kill 1000 people than a computer kill one.
I don't see many people that own modern enough cars (having the required electronics/mechanics already installed so all that's needed is a sensor and some data processing to send out control signals) investing into a retrofit device instead of just buying the next model which comes with the same thing out of the box.
But I have to say that I'm impressed that they have made it this far, and almost certainly without any support from Audi.
Have you thought about selling your system directly to manufacturers for integration? I'm certain that there are chances if you're able to deliver a working component that can simply be integrated into existing models. Most of the current assistance systems aren't developed in-house but come from one of the big third party suppliers.
We don't touch any of the existing drive-by-wire controls, even if they're present. It's too dangerous to send signals down a CAN bus without a full understanding of the safety implications, and that kind of proprietary information isn't available to us.
I'm afraid of the interaction between laypeople, a retrofitted cruise control that was designed on a kickstarter budget and several tonnes of hurtling steel.
This was actually available as a factory option in my car, but I didn't order it because I thought (incorrectly) that it didn't work in stop-and-go traffic. I've been kicking myself for that ever since.
Perhaps Cruise could consider developing an ACC system for the benefit of customers who would welcome some automation but who aren't quite ready to surrender the steering wheel yet.
Since Cruise works on any Audi A4/S4, I'm guessing Audi uses the same base control component for all 4 series, so that even for a vehicle that does not have ACC or Auto Parking enabled, Cruise can still interface with the vehicle and adjust steering wheel and speed. This suggests that upgrading your car to support ACC might be feasible?
Most cars with active cruise control don't comply with any standard - while the commands to accelerate, decelerate, or steer may be available over a CANbus which is exposed on the OBD-II port, there's no standard like there is for OBD-II diagnostic information and the protocols are often obfuscated or encrypted (either for "security" or manufacturer protectionism).
The font here is illegible. Some weird anti-aliases very-thin white-on-black. Highlighting doesn't help.
Here's how it looks: http://imgur.com/SSMV8j6
For Mercedes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSXUApikcOk
For Audi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8sJwuZyVAY
Similarly from other high-end car producers.
I don't think it's quite as autonomous as Cruise - as noted by others in the thread, Cruise seems to be trying to reach a somewhat scary "good enough that you could read a book but please pay attention because it doesn't work just right yet" plateau, while the Audi system is simply supposed to be a gentle helper of sorts.
But the Audi system also works on any highway rather than just pre-mapped areas, and is (for better or for worse) integrated with OEM brake and steering actuators and the car's throttle-by-wire system rather than relying on retrofitted physical systems.
It's perfect. A real world problem with world changing impact. It's hard. Its orders of magnitude harder than anything else startups are doing around here! The opportunity is almost infinite, and there are potentially billions of dollars to be made. I wish I was working on it!
I really hope these guys go all the way – although I'm sure there will be a ton of offers along the road. I wouldn't be surprised if Google X hadn't already made an offer, but if it comes down to it, I hope they go with Tesla over Google X. I got an inside look at their autopilot project a few months ago, and I'm really excited about it!
Honestly though, there are probably a lot of other big players who could be interested – Amazon especially. Again though, I really hope they take this all the way to a mass market consumer product, preferably with multiple iterations, while expanding the capabilities toward what Elon described as the 99% Autonomous autopilot.
I believe we need to totally remove the driver to really stop the number of deaths on the roads. As indicated below by others, there are plenty of bad drives in the day.
When I came to the valley few years ago I was shocked to see the number of drivers failing to use indicators (blinkers). As a pedestrian this was alarming. How do you cross the road not knowing intent of so many cars on the road. As a driver it was tough to gauge the intent of drivers around you. The human behind the steering wheel is the problem and that is where most of the disruption should be focused on.
Once we replace the human driver from the machine we will see less deaths on the road, faster commutes and more efficient use of resources.
It seems more likely to me that this kind of highway driving system would be installed and work on tractor-trailers. It's a good compromise; drivers keep their jobs but get less stress, and when these are legalized with less issues, the next stage where driverless trucks are introduced can come into play easier legislatively.
Legislation will likely be the biggest issue with these things in the United States. Taxi drivers already oppose Uber and Lyft; what do you think they'd do with an invention that removes their profession entirely? And their legislative pull pales in comparison to the teamsters'.
So, this kind of staging is a good idea for introduction to driverless vehicles. It just won't work for an Audi.
For example, are the redundancy systems space and time separated? What kind of methods were used to ensure that? Are there any overall hardware, software, communications development standards used and audited? Does anyone on the team have demonstrated experience in these areas?
If this system were to be audited, what organization would be responsible?
Thanks guys, great work so far and excellent vision!
This system is not a self driving system -- it's basically a smarter cruise control. You still have to pay attention and be at the wheel. At least for now.
It seems to me that self-driving cars has to be a all-or-nothing deal.
That's the combination that lets the car drive itself on well-marked roads like highways: EPS/ALK allows it to turn the wheel to keep you from crossing divider lines, and ACC maintains a minimum distance from any cars in front of you. Many of them also have automatic crash avoidance that will stop the car if the car in front of you suddenly slows and you don't hit the brakes yourself.
As for ensuring the driver can react fast enough if any of the systems become unavailable, AFAIK all the cars that have this set of features also have systems that will beep at you annoyingly if you take your hands off the wheel. It's one of the unwritten purposes of those "driver drowsiness detection" systems these same luxury cars now come with.
That's great, 'cause that's one of my concerns with this kind of thing. Still, I wonder if it just might be better to leave everything to be handled manually, since then you have more things to keep you busy and thus awake. I imagine that I could end up like I sometimes do when watching a boring movie late at night - it's very hard to stay awake because I'm not invested in what I'm watching and I am not doing anything but watching it. Of course, it might just be best to pull over and sleep for 15 minutes at that point.
Oh, and other systems to notice if you start getting drowsy:
I do wonder what it takes to block all the sensors at once, though. It has both cameras as well as radar systems. How independent are those?
It's easy enough to build an automated vehicle, but, wait, what? It has to coexist with human drivers? Mmmm, I'll get back to you on that.
A little Googling uncovers the fact that airbags killed some 158 people in a recent year -- in low-speed accidents where the occupants would have been unharmed without the airbags. But airbags continued to grow in popularity (though now they're mandatory in the US, IIRC); automobile manufacturers just consider a certain amount of money paid out in liability a cost of doing business.
To help protect the manufacturers, they should make sure to have a good black-box recording of all the sensor data in the case of an accident. If there was a bug, they need to pay out the damages and fix the bug. If the accident was caused by someone else behaving dangerously, though, they should be protected from liability.
Bad press, however, is likely no matter what. The recent "Teslas can catch on fire!" media storm shows that; as I'm sure most HN readers know, a smaller percentage of Teslas caught fire than gasoline cars, and no Tesla owners were harmed, making the Tesla fires a non-story. Or it should have been a non-story, anyway.
Wikipedia puts it at 175 fatalities between 1990 and 2000 (source: http://web.archive.org/web/20080226234316/http://www.nsc.org...). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Airbag_fatality_statist...
Also, most of the fatalities occurred from being sitting too close to the airbag or not wearing a safety belt. From the wikipedia source again: "These fatalities have predominantly occurred when the children and adults were positioned precariously close to the compartment where the air bag was housed. Most of the children killed were not secured by safety belts and were thrown forward during pre-crash breaking, placing their heads just inches from the air bag when it deployed. Therefore, the best defense during an air bag deployment is to be wearing a safety belt."
Regardless, my point isn't that airbags are a problem. They clearly save lives on balance.
The point is that car manufacturers are happy to add features to cars that buyers want even when those features might kill people. On the other end, manufacturers have removed critical safety features to save a dollar or less on production costs, and those decisions also have killed people. 
In this case, though, it's more like airbags, where, on balance, more lives are saved than lost as a result of the feature. At least in theory.
>automobile manufacturers just consider a certain amount of money paid out in liability a cost of doing business.
Actually for airbags its federal law and I believe liability issues there are handled by the federal government. I believe the government pre-empts "common law" liability here and can more or less wash its hands of it.
There's this great scene in Silicon Valley where one the characters gulps nervously before entering a self-driving car. I think there's going to be an element of fear here that's undeniable. I can't imagine riding in one at expressway speeds. Frankly, I think considering all the issues like weather, accidents, etc the self-driving car might be our generation's jetpack. Sure, sounds great on paper, but in reality its horrifying.
And I said:
>>(though now they're mandatory in the US, IIRC)
You also say:
>liability issues there are handled by the federal government
Considering law firms exist that specialize in suing car companies over airbag accidents , I'm going to say [Citation Needed].
>Frankly, I think considering all the issues like weather, accidents, etc the self-driving car might be our generation's jetpack. Sure, sounds great on paper, but in reality its horrifying.
Cars with some of these features already exist, and are already on the road. Specifically auto-breaking collision avoidance, as well as auto-follow-distance cruise control (not to mention auto-parking).
These features are not only not horrifying, but they're starting to be standard on high-end cars. People will get used to them, and when the next innovation becomes commonplace, they will get used to it as well.
It's not only unlike jet-packs, it's almost inevitable at this point.
The article states they plan to sell directly to consumers, not "big industry players", so it is a real issue. It also states that this is being released under the aegis of new CA law that goes into effect in the fall. I would imagine this law makes at least some provisions for liability, but the reality will probably be played out in the court systems for the rest of most of our lifetimes.
I can find someone to drive me around for a month for way less than 10K
Computer cars will lower the bar on what's valuable to put into the road. I can see the point in 30 years where computer driven cars are even simpler than today, because it made so much sense to add the automatic road markers, which made automating cars easier, which make all cars automatic, which led to roads being updated only electronically, which is now a simpler problem than today (driving on roads with only other computer-driven cars actively broadcasting beacons of their location and position, and road markers/signs/lights being trivial for computers to read).
The homepage video play button doesn't work in Firefox (latest stable release)...
[imagining RP-1 driving me off a cliff the moment I venture onto an unsupported road]
Now, this is missing many of the features of autonomous cars like the ones Google is developing and the driver will need to remain at the wheel and ready to take over in case of emergency...
(ok, let the down votes commence. I couldn't resist. It's great people are working on things, and I hope something comes of it but this seems like a case of all or nothing to me).
This on the other hand is something that could show up in cars in 5 years, and provide meaningful benefits far before Google is ready.
At the same time, I simply don't see much benefit and substantial risk in the system as presented. It works on one kind of car in one state. It only works under certain conditions. And it doesn't really do that much. Oh... and it seems a bit risky. I do understand the need to raise capital though, so if they sell some of these and it funds future development, great! I won't be buying one but hopefully someone does.
Incidentally, I saw a device similar to the "brick" for sale in a truck-stop once. It was an adjustable pole that pushed down on the gas pedal and locked into place so the truck driver didn't have to use his foot (big trucks don't have cruise control I guess?). It seemed a little iffy to me to and I can't believe it would be legal.