7 ms·

An interesting thought experiment: when we have AI driven electric vehicles used to transport goods (and thus no human labor costs in the equation), will drivin

An interesting thought experiment: when we have AI driven electric vehicles used to transport goods (and thus no human labor costs in the equation), will driving behaviors for some types of shipments be optimized for fuel economy at the expense of slower speeds? Will some trucks be driving the minimum speed limit on highways to save electricity?

codyb 11y ago
That'd be interesting and it seems to make sense. Since business's optimize for cost and AI driven trucks don't need breaks and won't have limits on driving for extended periods of time (presumably) it seems it'd make sense to optimize for electricity use and delivery times. I don't see why they wouldn't drive as slow as they needed if that would produce greater profits for the shippers while not reducing the end consumer experience with late deliveries.
aetherson 11y ago
Seems unlikely. The cost of electricity is pretty low, while the cost of utilizing your truck is probably much higher.
elihu 11y ago
I also wonder if we're going to see an increase in traffic due to zero-occupant traffic. Supposing that the car of the future can drive itself home when I'm at work and pick me up at the end of day, will that mean that there's going to be a lot of cars on the road just transporting themselves and nothing else? This might be particularly common in cases where a single car is shared by multiple people.
- wrsh07 11y ago
  In bigger cities, if you compare this to cars looking for parking spaces, I think you'll actually see a net decrease in traffic.
- chx 11y ago
  I think individual car ownership will disappear. You will commission a car to get from point A to point B (with the options of lower costs if you are willing to pick up passengers en route) and then the car will go on and do other trips. Your own car just sits there almost all the time, that's really inefficient and expensive.
  - alogray 11y ago
    And this is why Uber has such a crazy valuation.
    - chx 11y ago
      The switching cost between apps is practically zero so if someone else manages to figure out a better routing / experience with picking up people (some people use UberPool for dating, really creepy shit!) etc then Uber will become a footnote in history quick. It's now hard to disrupt Uber in its own market but when it's a new market?
    - Someone1234 11y ago
      How did you reach that conclusion? If driverless cars are a "thing" in the future then what is Uber's USP? Why would you use Uber rather than one of a dozen other companies? Is it just their capital advantage? Their network of now unemployed drivers? Just the name and nothing else? What is it exactly that keeps Uber in business with driverless cars?
    - tdylan 11y ago
      Uber raised their funding on the basis of their current business, not autonomous vehicles not any other delivery/logistics plays.
  - verisimilidude 11y ago
    Eliminating car ownership makes a lot of sense in any urban area, but I bet people will continue to hang on in rural and some suburban areas. In rural areas, an autonomous vehicle would need to travel long distances to pick up and drop off folks. It could be prohibitively expensive or inconvenient. People also use vehicles for other things in these areas, both work and play, which do not fit into the taxi model. In suburbia, the taxi idea could work, but there might be advantages to owning your own vehicle. Maybe a family will own one autonomous vehicle, just one, but it would be in constant use throughout the day: mom goes to work, dad picks up donuts for coworkers, son goes to school, daughter goes to soccer practice, son goes to track practice, dad goes to get groceries, mom goes to get dinner, son goes to friend's house, daughter goes to football game, mom goes out to gym, etc. You'd have your one family car zipping back and forth between all these events in the family, picking people up, dropping them off, going off to do something else, and coming back again. Having an autonomous car in the family could make sense depending upon the costs.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 11y ago
  * Why would it have to go home? It could just drive out of town to any cheap loitering lot. * Why not put it to work. It could transport people or packages during that time. * Mostly, in such a future, you probably won't own a car. You'll rent or lease access, and the price to take a nice autonomous mini-bus will be super low while remaining convenient.
wrsh07 11y ago
Or because the warehouse they're driving to hasn't made space for its cargo yet?
kbenson 11y ago
Minimum speed limit? As far as I'm aware, in the US you are supposed to go the posted speed. You could get a ticket for going slower if you are impeding traffic trying to safely go the posted speed. Are there roads in the US that specifically allow a range of speeds (beyond the variation seen because human drivers don't follow the law)?
- njharman 11y ago
  Some states (forget which I was driving through) have posted minimum speeds on highway. Others I'm sure there is a generic lower limit "clause". I've never seen a state that didn't have a "at a speed safe with current rode conditions". So, that you can still get a ticket going 65 in a 65 but there happens to be a blizzard going on. I doubt any state requires you to go exactly the posted speed limit.
- davio 11y ago
  In Missouri, we have signs posted where the Speed Limit is 60 or 70 and the Minimum is 40.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Minimum speed limit? As far as I'm aware, in the US you are supposed to go the posted speed. The posted speed is usually an upper bound (though in some cases only a presumptive one, not a conclusive one, the way the law is actually written.) > You could get a ticket for going slower if you are impeding traffic trying to safely go the posted speed. You can get a ticket for impeding traffic, but usually going slower than the limit is not sufficient for that. (And may not even be necessary.) > Are there roads in the US that specifically allow a range of speeds (beyond the variation seen because human drivers don't follow the law)? Every highway (which is much broader than freeways) in California that doesn't have an expressly posted minimum speed limit, plus every one that does have an expressly posted minimum speed limit that isn't identical to the posted maximum limit. (California Vehicle Code Sec. 22400 allows a minimum speed limit to be established and posted -- which is still, where established, a soft limit -- and provides a violation for impeding traffic with or without such a limit, but does not set the posted maximum speed limit as a minimum speed limit, soft or otherwise, where no minimum speed limit is posted.)
mikeash 11y ago
This is already done, effectively. Freight trains often move pretty slowly because it's efficient, even though obviously the technology exists to make trains go really fast. According to this (if I understand what it's talking about correctly), the average speed of a freight train in the US is barely over 20MPH: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2008/html/chapter_03/table_03_04_08.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub... I don't know what, if anything, this implies for autonomous truck speeds, but it's something.
- Symbiote 11y ago
  Is that because the slow speed is efficient, or because it's cheaper to avoid improving the track to support higher speeds? Freight trains in Europe are much faster[1] -- but that could be because they often need to fit in with the schedule of passenger trains using the same lines (which themselves require the track to be maintained to a high standard). [1] Citation needed, I only have observations of them going at a decent pace through stations I'm waiting at.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Good question, I'm not sure how much speed plays a role in train efficiency. It's no doubt some of each of your alternatives, I imagine. Even the higher speed ones are more like 60-70MPH. Nobody seems to be the least bit interested in building a TGV freight version, for example, even to run on existing TGV lines.
    - Symbiote 11y ago
      [1] has rolling resistances for railways and cars on roads, which are almost an order of magnitude apart. Intuitively, I'd expect that once the train has accelerated, it will keep its momentum very nicely, and (if electric) can easily return energy if it does need to slow down. I can't find a real-world coasting distance for a train on level track, only reports during accidents/near misses -- 5km under emergency braking on a slight downhill slope, for one! [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411020/111117_R182011_Stonegate.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
protomyth 11y ago
A lot of cargo ships have been doing half-speed for a couple years to save money and produce less pollution.
Someone 11y ago
Oil tankers optimize for both fuel consumption and timely (= at the right moment for the spot market) arrival. If prices are low, tankers can get 'parked' for months. If that's the case at one's destination (or rather: possible destinations), there is no need to rush there. I also think truck drivers already adjust their speed depending on economic reality. If, say, you are transporting fresh flowers towards an airport, arriving in time is more important than when you are transporting furniture to a furniture shop. That certainly is true at the extreme ends. Drivers who drive to be transplanted organs between hospitals get special training to drive fast, while drivers driving garbage to a landfill likely will not be pressed for a timely delivery (although I do not rule out that someone who knows the latter business will tell me that missing one's reserved spot for delivery at a landfill can cost a lot of money)

codyb 11y ago

That'd be interesting and it seems to make sense. Since business's optimize for cost and AI driven trucks don't need breaks and won't have limits on driving for extended periods of time (presumably) it seems it'd make sense to optimize for electricity use and delivery times. I don't see why they wouldn't drive as slow as they needed if that would produce greater profits for the shippers while not reducing the end consumer experience with late deliveries.

aetherson 11y ago

Seems unlikely. The cost of electricity is pretty low, while the cost of utilizing your truck is probably much higher.

elihu 11y ago

I also wonder if we're going to see an increase in traffic due to zero-occupant traffic. Supposing that the car of the future can drive itself home when I'm at work and pick me up at the end of day, will that mean that there's going to be a lot of cars on the road just transporting themselves and nothing else? This might be particularly common in cases where a single car is shared by multiple people.

wrsh07 11y ago
In bigger cities, if you compare this to cars looking for parking spaces, I think you'll actually see a net decrease in traffic.
chx 11y ago
I think individual car ownership will disappear. You will commission a car to get from point A to point B (with the options of lower costs if you are willing to pick up passengers en route) and then the car will go on and do other trips. Your own car just sits there almost all the time, that's really inefficient and expensive.
- alogray 11y ago
  And this is why Uber has such a crazy valuation.
  - chx 11y ago
    The switching cost between apps is practically zero so if someone else manages to figure out a better routing / experience with picking up people (some people use UberPool for dating, really creepy shit!) etc then Uber will become a footnote in history quick. It's now hard to disrupt Uber in its own market but when it's a new market?
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    How did you reach that conclusion? If driverless cars are a "thing" in the future then what is Uber's USP? Why would you use Uber rather than one of a dozen other companies? Is it just their capital advantage? Their network of now unemployed drivers? Just the name and nothing else? What is it exactly that keeps Uber in business with driverless cars?
  - tdylan 11y ago
    Uber raised their funding on the basis of their current business, not autonomous vehicles not any other delivery/logistics plays.
- verisimilidude 11y ago
  Eliminating car ownership makes a lot of sense in any urban area, but I bet people will continue to hang on in rural and some suburban areas. In rural areas, an autonomous vehicle would need to travel long distances to pick up and drop off folks. It could be prohibitively expensive or inconvenient. People also use vehicles for other things in these areas, both work and play, which do not fit into the taxi model. In suburbia, the taxi idea could work, but there might be advantages to owning your own vehicle. Maybe a family will own one autonomous vehicle, just one, but it would be in constant use throughout the day: mom goes to work, dad picks up donuts for coworkers, son goes to school, daughter goes to soccer practice, son goes to track practice, dad goes to get groceries, mom goes to get dinner, son goes to friend's house, daughter goes to football game, mom goes out to gym, etc. You'd have your one family car zipping back and forth between all these events in the family, picking people up, dropping them off, going off to do something else, and coming back again. Having an autonomous car in the family could make sense depending upon the costs.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 11y ago
* Why would it have to go home? It could just drive out of town to any cheap loitering lot. * Why not put it to work. It could transport people or packages during that time. * Mostly, in such a future, you probably won't own a car. You'll rent or lease access, and the price to take a nice autonomous mini-bus will be super low while remaining convenient.

wrsh07 11y ago

Or because the warehouse they're driving to hasn't made space for its cargo yet?

kbenson 11y ago

Minimum speed limit? As far as I'm aware, in the US you are supposed to go the posted speed. You could get a ticket for going slower if you are impeding traffic trying to safely go the posted speed. Are there roads in the US that specifically allow a range of speeds (beyond the variation seen because human drivers don't follow the law)?

njharman 11y ago
Some states (forget which I was driving through) have posted minimum speeds on highway. Others I'm sure there is a generic lower limit "clause". I've never seen a state that didn't have a "at a speed safe with current rode conditions". So, that you can still get a ticket going 65 in a 65 but there happens to be a blizzard going on. I doubt any state requires you to go exactly the posted speed limit.
davio 11y ago
In Missouri, we have signs posted where the Speed Limit is 60 or 70 and the Minimum is 40.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Minimum speed limit? As far as I'm aware, in the US you are supposed to go the posted speed. The posted speed is usually an upper bound (though in some cases only a presumptive one, not a conclusive one, the way the law is actually written.) > You could get a ticket for going slower if you are impeding traffic trying to safely go the posted speed. You can get a ticket for impeding traffic, but usually going slower than the limit is not sufficient for that. (And may not even be necessary.) > Are there roads in the US that specifically allow a range of speeds (beyond the variation seen because human drivers don't follow the law)? Every highway (which is much broader than freeways) in California that doesn't have an expressly posted minimum speed limit, plus every one that does have an expressly posted minimum speed limit that isn't identical to the posted maximum limit. (California Vehicle Code Sec. 22400 allows a minimum speed limit to be established and posted -- which is still, where established, a soft limit -- and provides a violation for impeding traffic with or without such a limit, but does not set the posted maximum speed limit as a minimum speed limit, soft or otherwise, where no minimum speed limit is posted.)

mikeash 11y ago

This is already done, effectively. Freight trains often move pretty slowly because it's efficient, even though obviously the technology exists to make trains go really fast. According to this (if I understand what it's talking about correctly), the average speed of a freight train in the US is barely over 20MPH: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2008/html/chapter_03/table_03_04_08.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub... I don't know what, if anything, this implies for autonomous truck speeds, but it's something.

Symbiote 11y ago
Is that because the slow speed is efficient, or because it's cheaper to avoid improving the track to support higher speeds? Freight trains in Europe are much faster[1] -- but that could be because they often need to fit in with the schedule of passenger trains using the same lines (which themselves require the track to be maintained to a high standard). [1] Citation needed, I only have observations of them going at a decent pace through stations I'm waiting at.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Good question, I'm not sure how much speed plays a role in train efficiency. It's no doubt some of each of your alternatives, I imagine. Even the higher speed ones are more like 60-70MPH. Nobody seems to be the least bit interested in building a TGV freight version, for example, even to run on existing TGV lines.
  - Symbiote 11y ago
    [1] has rolling resistances for railways and cars on roads, which are almost an order of magnitude apart. Intuitively, I'd expect that once the train has accelerated, it will keep its momentum very nicely, and (if electric) can easily return energy if it does need to slow down. I can't find a real-world coasting distance for a train on level track, only reports during accidents/near misses -- 5km under emergency braking on a slight downhill slope, for one! [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411020/111117_R182011_Stonegate.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

protomyth 11y ago

A lot of cargo ships have been doing half-speed for a couple years to save money and produce less pollution.

Someone 11y ago

Oil tankers optimize for both fuel consumption and timely (= at the right moment for the spot market) arrival. If prices are low, tankers can get 'parked' for months. If that's the case at one's destination (or rather: possible destinations), there is no need to rush there. I also think truck drivers already adjust their speed depending on economic reality. If, say, you are transporting fresh flowers towards an airport, arriving in time is more important than when you are transporting furniture to a furniture shop. That certainly is true at the extreme ends. Drivers who drive to be transplanted organs between hospitals get special training to drive fast, while drivers driving garbage to a landfill likely will not be pressed for a timely delivery (although I do not rule out that someone who knows the latter business will tell me that missing one's reserved spot for delivery at a landfill can cost a lot of money)