8 ms·

Driverless lorries to be trialled in UK

81 points by sjcsjc 11y ago

arasmussen 11y ago
I think the term "self-driving" is preferable to "driverless" because it's not like there's no driver, the car is the driver. It's also less scary-sounding which could help speed up adoption. :)
- richardwhiuk 11y ago
  These aren't really driverless either, as their is a driver in the leading truck. It's almost like they are articulated with software
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Some jurisdictions have rules to restrict convoying, many trucks following each other as a group. I'm not sure I want to see road trains just to save a few bucks on that second/third driver.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      It's not just saving the cost of a couple of drivers (although that's a significant cost). It's more fuel efficient, and it's safer.
      - sandworm101 11y ago
        >> It's more fuel efficient, and it's safer. Not having a driver in the cab supervising the robot is safer? I don't see any call to remove pilots from airplanes. And I doubt the extra 200lbs of driver makes much different given these are trucks.
        DanBC 11y ago
        The robots drive closer to each other. This provides "slip stream" advantages.
        sandworm101 11y ago
        Again, how does having or not having a driver in each cab affect this? I would add that allowing multiple trucks to operate this way will require some changes to the law. And the redesign of many roads. Imagine trying to merge into traffic or onto a bridge when some vehicles are longer than merging lanes. It sounds like a great idea but isn't practical.
        aianus 11y ago
        > Again, how does having or not having a driver in each cab affect this? Because computers have much faster reaction times and coordination mechanisms than any human and so can drive proportionally closer together.
        DanBC 11y ago
        aianus mentions reaction times. As well as that there's the lack of visibility. [five]> [four]> [three]> [two]> [one]> Truck five, if it has a human driver, needs to leave plenty of space so s/he can see what's going on with truck four and three. (Repeat this for all the lorries and they end up spread out) The computers don't need that visual space, because they're all linked with radio shuffling data back and forth. > Imagine trying to merge into traffic or onto a bridge when some vehicles are longer than merging lanes i) When the lorries pass approach a merging lane they either add some space between each truck, or they use a different lane of the motorway (because this article is talking about England) which allows people to move from the merging lane onto the motorway. ii) Lorries will already drive in an informal ad-hoc convey. They'll keep a safe distance from each other. That safe distance isn't enough for a car to get into if the car is trying to merge from the entrance ramp. So if this isn't already a problem I'm not sure why it would be a problem with robot drivers. What's changed that suddenly makes it a problem?
- Orthanc 11y ago
  Autos! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
SeanDav 11y ago
I cringe at the idea of self-driving trucks. If a car gets it wrong, it is probably a small bump in your door, if a truck gets it wrong, it can easily drive right over your car.
- sjcsjc 11y ago
  This already happens far too often. Just google "car crushed by truck". Given Google's results so far, driverless trucks are likely to reduce the incidence of this hugely.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  The flip side is that the cars will not be prone to exhaustion caused by unrealistic deadlines levied on human drivers -- speed will be regulated at the law (i.e., 55mph max). Right now you have truckers driving for 18+ hours at 10-15mph over the legal limit. I'd much rather the road be trucked by software that won't speed and will defer to the side of safety always. The fact that it is carrying freight, too, is a plus, as the truck driving software can always make the decision in favor of the other drivers on the road (whereas passenger self-driving cars will be focused both on the safety of the car itself and other drivers, a much more difficult decision tree). e: my references to law are to US law, which isn't exactly applicable to this specific story, but the arguments stand (I'm sure there is a similar max-speed limit for trucks in the UK)
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    >>> "speed will be regulated at the law." That doesn't need robot drivers. That is and can be deployed today. Why it isn't ... that's an open question. >>> "the truck driving software can always make the decision in favor of the other drivers on the road" I've really wondered about this. Wouldn't software that acts like a jerk (ie not letting people in etc) be more valuable if it gets from A to B faster? Why think that the same pressures that force drivers to act like jerks won't also be applied to software?
    - anexprogrammer 11y ago
neom 11y ago
https://medium.com/basic-income/self-driving-trucks-are-going-to-hit-us-like-a-human-driven-truck-b8507d9c5961 https://medium.com/basic-income/self-driving-trucks-are-goin... Hmm. :o
monk_e_boy 11y ago
Regarding the issue of 10 lorries blocking an exit, our exits are very long, OK, not 10 lorries long but they wouldn't be block for more than a few seconds. If the convoy broke up into 3 or 4 while going past an exit then merged back together, or if they all pulled into the middle lane -- no worries. Lorries drive up each others asses anyway, usually you just pull alongside and indicate and they'll make a little space for you to pull through. So pretty much business as usual.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  The article says these will be 10-truck convoys with one driver. So I don't think splitting is likely. HGVs regularly have blow outs and there are parts of the network where they're frequently rolled by high winds. It's bad enough when that happens to a single truck. If it takes up to nine others with it, it's going to be carnage. Convoys may not be the best way to make automation happen.
- anexprogrammer 11y ago
  30 yards a second at 60mph. Doesn't take more than a couple of lorries to cause a rolling roadblock, so 10 could easily start causing chaos. And accidents. You don't expect anyone to stop on the slip road, unless you see gridlock.
- IshKebab 11y ago
  What? There are loads of short exits. And in rush hour you need every space you can get. Here's an example: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5096714,-2.515484,3a,75y,181.56h,73.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2uoU9NAW_bMPMTB1lnCLLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5096714,-2.515484,3a,75y,1... Now imagine you're in a continuous stream of rush-hour traffic and there are 10 contiguous lorries in the way. Actually even the existing lorries have to pull out into the middle lane there.
zeristor 11y ago
trains A tad flummoxed by this. I know rail freight has diminished, and there is the issue with transferring load from rail to train, but surely with clogged roads that is a better idea.
sschueller 11y ago
I like this underground autonomous cargo system better [1][2] (sorry in German, but you get the idea from the video images) It's autonomous, clean and inexpensive to build. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSSO_QPgQTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSSO_QPgQTw [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r11X-zMF_pc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r11X-zMF_pc [3] http://www.cargosousterrain.ch/de/ http://www.cargosousterrain.ch/de/
- travelbyphone 11y ago
  This looks very cool, but maybe too complicated to implement.
- harigov 11y ago
  That definitely looks expensive to me. All those underground tunnels need huge amount of money and effort.
  - brbsix 11y ago
    Maybe not, if they're able to borrow RAND's NTBM (nuclear tunnel boring machine) from Area 51.
    - IshKebab 11y ago
      Why would a TBM need to be nuclear? That makes zero sense.
      - Twirrim 11y ago
        easy power, low pollution?
      - brbsix 11y ago
        At least from all the preliminary studies I've seen, electric power is not really practical for all but the smallest diameters. FYI I'm referring to the use of a rock-melting penetrator rather than a traditional cutting head. This is maybe just science fiction at this point, but it came to mind as the sort of technology that would make these sorts of projects economically feasible. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4687637 http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4687637 http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4444905 http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4444905
tim333 11y ago
I wonder why they need 10 truck convoys? You'd think you could test the system fine with 2 or 3.
hacker_9 11y ago
Well as someone who uses the motorway to go to and fro from work everyday; I welcome these 'driverless' lorries, as the human lorry drivers really do not know what they are doing most of the time and I have to constantly watch out for them.
- mathnode 11y ago
  Hopefully driverless lorries wont overtake each other on dual-carriage ways.
- viraptor 11y ago
  Is that really the case they don't know what they're doing, or more that they drive it all the time, so they know the limitations under normal conditions. (which of course can be fatal if anything unexpected happens, so an accident by definition) People do it all the time in all kind of jobs. They also do it with their own cars. (think how big the parking space had to be the first time you drove a car compared to space after a few years) Either way, automated lorries will be better. Unless the designers + lawmakers say: hey they don't get into accidents see, now we can improve throughput by letting them go faster...
  - mvid 11y ago
    What's wrong with that?
    - viraptor 11y ago
      What's wrong with increasing the speed? I'd rather the speed stayed constant and accidents went down than see speed going up and accidents staying constant.
      - aianus 11y ago
        > I'd rather the speed stayed constant and accidents went down than see speed going up and accidents staying constant. By that logic we should all be driving cars around at horse speeds.
yxlx 11y ago
Driverless lorries might be more susceptible to hijacking IMO, because the risk for the attackers will be lower, both with regards to the act itself since they won't meet opposition from another human and also if they're caught because theft of an object is a crime less severe when the attackers didn't cause direct (physical or emotional) harm or threat to a human.
- mikro2nd 11y ago
  I'd suspect the opposite: It's pretty damn hard to take control of a vehicle that lacks human-accessible controls. Furthermore, I'd expect autonomous vehicles carrying any sort of valued load to also include tamper-detection; the truck would be calling for help within milliseconds of an unauthorised entry attempt.
  - nacs 11y ago
    Also, the truck carrying valuable load could have a security guard sitting/napping in it.
- brbsix 11y ago
  Seems pretty straightforward to stop one of these with an impromptu roadblock. However they've also got an array of sensors with which to record the hijackers and alert the authorities with, precise location and all.
  - jasonjei 11y ago
    In a way, your point about authorities and highway patrol being alerted is actually a good thing. These trailers can go in lockdown and wait for authorities to arrive. Even if a human were on board, a silent alarm could be triggered without the human making any obvious moves for distress (perhaps a hidden panic button in case sensors don't trigger, assuming a human driver is required to be with the trailer). Also, trailers today aren't immune from hijacking/piracy if the driver isn't armed.
    - 11y ago
adaline 11y ago
Im not sure why George Osborne is going to talk about self-driving trucks in the Budget speech... Is he dropping phat-stacks of the budget on this programme to make the two related somehow?
sholanozie 11y ago
No comments about the millions of jobs this technology will destroy in the near future?
- pm90 11y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11232781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11232781 It must really suck to lose your livelihood like that, but its kinda inevitable. On the flipside, there will be jobs created for people to fix these machines, write the programs that run them, all the sensors and safety features that will be required before they can hit the road.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  The UK is currently 50k short of drivers, same as much of Europe. There is a fear in logistics circles of this getting worse with fewer new entrants into driving - even with good pay.

81 points by sjcsjc 11y ago

I think the term "self-driving" is preferable to "driverless" because it's not like there's no driver, the car is the driver. It's also less scary-sounding which could help speed up adoption. :)

richardwhiuk 11y ago
These aren't really driverless either, as their is a driver in the leading truck. It's almost like they are articulated with software
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Some jurisdictions have rules to restrict convoying, many trucks following each other as a group. I'm not sure I want to see road trains just to save a few bucks on that second/third driver.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    It's not just saving the cost of a couple of drivers (although that's a significant cost). It's more fuel efficient, and it's safer.
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      >> It's more fuel efficient, and it's safer. Not having a driver in the cab supervising the robot is safer? I don't see any call to remove pilots from airplanes. And I doubt the extra 200lbs of driver makes much different given these are trucks.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        The robots drive closer to each other. This provides "slip stream" advantages.
        sandworm101 11y ago
        Again, how does having or not having a driver in each cab affect this? I would add that allowing multiple trucks to operate this way will require some changes to the law. And the redesign of many roads. Imagine trying to merge into traffic or onto a bridge when some vehicles are longer than merging lanes. It sounds like a great idea but isn't practical.
        aianus 11y ago
        > Again, how does having or not having a driver in each cab affect this? Because computers have much faster reaction times and coordination mechanisms than any human and so can drive proportionally closer together.
        DanBC 11y ago
        aianus mentions reaction times. As well as that there's the lack of visibility. [five]> [four]> [three]> [two]> [one]> Truck five, if it has a human driver, needs to leave plenty of space so s/he can see what's going on with truck four and three. (Repeat this for all the lorries and they end up spread out) The computers don't need that visual space, because they're all linked with radio shuffling data back and forth. > Imagine trying to merge into traffic or onto a bridge when some vehicles are longer than merging lanes i) When the lorries pass approach a merging lane they either add some space between each truck, or they use a different lane of the motorway (because this article is talking about England) which allows people to move from the merging lane onto the motorway. ii) Lorries will already drive in an informal ad-hoc convey. They'll keep a safe distance from each other. That safe distance isn't enough for a car to get into if the car is trying to merge from the entrance ramp. So if this isn't already a problem I'm not sure why it would be a problem with robot drivers. What's changed that suddenly makes it a problem?
Orthanc 11y ago
Autos! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

SeanDav 11y ago

I cringe at the idea of self-driving trucks. If a car gets it wrong, it is probably a small bump in your door, if a truck gets it wrong, it can easily drive right over your car.

sjcsjc 11y ago
This already happens far too often. Just google "car crushed by truck". Given Google's results so far, driverless trucks are likely to reduce the incidence of this hugely.
mmanfrin 11y ago
The flip side is that the cars will not be prone to exhaustion caused by unrealistic deadlines levied on human drivers -- speed will be regulated at the law (i.e., 55mph max). Right now you have truckers driving for 18+ hours at 10-15mph over the legal limit. I'd much rather the road be trucked by software that won't speed and will defer to the side of safety always. The fact that it is carrying freight, too, is a plus, as the truck driving software can always make the decision in favor of the other drivers on the road (whereas passenger self-driving cars will be focused both on the safety of the car itself and other drivers, a much more difficult decision tree). e: my references to law are to US law, which isn't exactly applicable to this specific story, but the arguments stand (I'm sure there is a similar max-speed limit for trucks in the UK)
- sandworm101 11y ago
  >>> "speed will be regulated at the law." That doesn't need robot drivers. That is and can be deployed today. Why it isn't ... that's an open question. >>> "the truck driving software can always make the decision in favor of the other drivers on the road" I've really wondered about this. Wouldn't software that acts like a jerk (ie not letting people in etc) be more valuable if it gets from A to B faster? Why think that the same pressures that force drivers to act like jerks won't also be applied to software?
  - anexprogrammer 11y ago

neom 11y ago

https://medium.com/basic-income/self-driving-trucks-are-going-to-hit-us-like-a-human-driven-truck-b8507d9c5961 https://medium.com/basic-income/self-driving-trucks-are-goin... Hmm. :o

monk_e_boy 11y ago

Regarding the issue of 10 lorries blocking an exit, our exits are very long, OK, not 10 lorries long but they wouldn't be block for more than a few seconds. If the convoy broke up into 3 or 4 while going past an exit then merged back together, or if they all pulled into the middle lane -- no worries. Lorries drive up each others asses anyway, usually you just pull alongside and indicate and they'll make a little space for you to pull through. So pretty much business as usual.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
The article says these will be 10-truck convoys with one driver. So I don't think splitting is likely. HGVs regularly have blow outs and there are parts of the network where they're frequently rolled by high winds. It's bad enough when that happens to a single truck. If it takes up to nine others with it, it's going to be carnage. Convoys may not be the best way to make automation happen.
anexprogrammer 11y ago
30 yards a second at 60mph. Doesn't take more than a couple of lorries to cause a rolling roadblock, so 10 could easily start causing chaos. And accidents. You don't expect anyone to stop on the slip road, unless you see gridlock.
IshKebab 11y ago
What? There are loads of short exits. And in rush hour you need every space you can get. Here's an example: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5096714,-2.515484,3a,75y,181.56h,73.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2uoU9NAW_bMPMTB1lnCLLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5096714,-2.515484,3a,75y,1... Now imagine you're in a continuous stream of rush-hour traffic and there are 10 contiguous lorries in the way. Actually even the existing lorries have to pull out into the middle lane there.

zeristor 11y ago

trains A tad flummoxed by this. I know rail freight has diminished, and there is the issue with transferring load from rail to train, but surely with clogged roads that is a better idea.

sschueller 11y ago

I like this underground autonomous cargo system better [1][2] (sorry in German, but you get the idea from the video images) It's autonomous, clean and inexpensive to build. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSSO_QPgQTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSSO_QPgQTw [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r11X-zMF_pc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r11X-zMF_pc [3] http://www.cargosousterrain.ch/de/ http://www.cargosousterrain.ch/de/

travelbyphone 11y ago
This looks very cool, but maybe too complicated to implement.
harigov 11y ago
That definitely looks expensive to me. All those underground tunnels need huge amount of money and effort.
- brbsix 11y ago
  Maybe not, if they're able to borrow RAND's NTBM (nuclear tunnel boring machine) from Area 51.
  - IshKebab 11y ago
    Why would a TBM need to be nuclear? That makes zero sense.
    - Twirrim 11y ago
      easy power, low pollution?
    - brbsix 11y ago
      At least from all the preliminary studies I've seen, electric power is not really practical for all but the smallest diameters. FYI I'm referring to the use of a rock-melting penetrator rather than a traditional cutting head. This is maybe just science fiction at this point, but it came to mind as the sort of technology that would make these sorts of projects economically feasible. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4687637 http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4687637 http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4444905 http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4444905

tim333 11y ago

I wonder why they need 10 truck convoys? You'd think you could test the system fine with 2 or 3.

hacker_9 11y ago

Well as someone who uses the motorway to go to and fro from work everyday; I welcome these 'driverless' lorries, as the human lorry drivers really do not know what they are doing most of the time and I have to constantly watch out for them.

mathnode 11y ago
Hopefully driverless lorries wont overtake each other on dual-carriage ways.
viraptor 11y ago
Is that really the case they don't know what they're doing, or more that they drive it all the time, so they know the limitations under normal conditions. (which of course can be fatal if anything unexpected happens, so an accident by definition) People do it all the time in all kind of jobs. They also do it with their own cars. (think how big the parking space had to be the first time you drove a car compared to space after a few years) Either way, automated lorries will be better. Unless the designers + lawmakers say: hey they don't get into accidents see, now we can improve throughput by letting them go faster...
- mvid 11y ago
  What's wrong with that?
  - viraptor 11y ago
    What's wrong with increasing the speed? I'd rather the speed stayed constant and accidents went down than see speed going up and accidents staying constant.
    - aianus 11y ago
      > I'd rather the speed stayed constant and accidents went down than see speed going up and accidents staying constant. By that logic we should all be driving cars around at horse speeds.

yxlx 11y ago

Driverless lorries might be more susceptible to hijacking IMO, because the risk for the attackers will be lower, both with regards to the act itself since they won't meet opposition from another human and also if they're caught because theft of an object is a crime less severe when the attackers didn't cause direct (physical or emotional) harm or threat to a human.

mikro2nd 11y ago
I'd suspect the opposite: It's pretty damn hard to take control of a vehicle that lacks human-accessible controls. Furthermore, I'd expect autonomous vehicles carrying any sort of valued load to also include tamper-detection; the truck would be calling for help within milliseconds of an unauthorised entry attempt.
- nacs 11y ago
  Also, the truck carrying valuable load could have a security guard sitting/napping in it.
brbsix 11y ago
Seems pretty straightforward to stop one of these with an impromptu roadblock. However they've also got an array of sensors with which to record the hijackers and alert the authorities with, precise location and all.
- jasonjei 11y ago
  In a way, your point about authorities and highway patrol being alerted is actually a good thing. These trailers can go in lockdown and wait for authorities to arrive. Even if a human were on board, a silent alarm could be triggered without the human making any obvious moves for distress (perhaps a hidden panic button in case sensors don't trigger, assuming a human driver is required to be with the trailer). Also, trailers today aren't immune from hijacking/piracy if the driver isn't armed.
  - 11y ago

adaline 11y ago

Im not sure why George Osborne is going to talk about self-driving trucks in the Budget speech... Is he dropping phat-stacks of the budget on this programme to make the two related somehow?

sholanozie 11y ago

No comments about the millions of jobs this technology will destroy in the near future?

pm90 11y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11232781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11232781 It must really suck to lose your livelihood like that, but its kinda inevitable. On the flipside, there will be jobs created for people to fix these machines, write the programs that run them, all the sensors and safety features that will be required before they can hit the road.
SixSigma 11y ago
The UK is currently 50k short of drivers, same as much of Europe. There is a fear in logistics circles of this getting worse with fewer new entrants into driving - even with good pay.