8 ms·

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 whic

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

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