5 ms·

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 rig

by 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
    UK trucks, at least, have had mandatory 60mph limiters for probably 30 years. Was lowered to 56mph (90 kmh) to match speeds with Europe at some point.
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      But are they also automatically limited to 10/20/30 depending on the road? That tech has also been around for decades. Manufacturers haven't even attempted to market it.
  - toyg 11y ago
    > That doesn't need robot drivers. You're right, it needs robot enforcers :) > Why think that the same pressures that force drivers to act like jerks won't also be applied to software? They will; but a human can improvise and lie, whereas software can (in theory) be audited and tested. The software will be built by manufacturers, not lorry owners; and they don't want to end up on the wrong side of car regulators -- see the recent VW affair.
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      >> ..see the recent VW affair. You mean shrewdly duping regulators year after year so they can sell more cars, make more money, enrich shareholders, and become a market leader? No matter what the cost today, I think VW shareholders would rather they have done what they did as opposed to giving up the market to competitors. (They all seem to have been playing tricks imho.)
  - mmanfrin 11y ago
    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? Because with human drivers, a human is liable for failures. With software, the company is liable. If the software thinks "this is a dangerous situation", it will be written to defer to not causing injury, because there's really no way the contents of a truck are going to be worth more than the cost of paying out $x millions in the case of killing a human.
- timthorn 11y ago
  UK truck drivers are usually better drivers than most of the cars on the motorway. They don't like sudden changes in speed and their skill shows in traffic jams or roadworks, where the lanes of truckers will tend to keep moving. My major bugbear is trucks overtaking one another on 2 lane roads, when there'll often be a really small speed differential and so the overtaking manoeuvre will block the road for longer than needed.
- mjlee 11y ago
  Not only does the UK have a speed limit for vehicles over 7.5 tonnes (60mph, enforced by a speed limiter) but we have drivers' hours limits. It is somewhat complex (https://www.gov.uk/drivers-hours/overview https://www.gov.uk/drivers-hours/overview) but the gist is we take human factors into account. The driver is personally liable and the fines could easily be more than income from the day's driving.
  - viraptor 11y ago
    Did the speed change recently? I remember most big trucks doing precisely 70mph on M4. (everyday commute)
    - Svip 11y ago
      No, if a lorry is doing more than 96 km/h (older) or 90 km/h (newer), then they are messing with the limiter and basically putting it out of function. A lot of lorry companies do this, unfortunately, to "comply" with the driving hours (or beat competition). So to ensure their drivers get further, they install magnets on their transmissions to prevent the Tachograph (and thus the limiter) from correctly reading the lorry's speed. Indeed, this tactic is also used to trick the Tachograph into thinking the driver is taking a rest while he is actually driving. The driving hours are strictly enforced by police across Europe, and if the printout doesn't match the law, the driver and his employer stands to pay a huge fine. And both may also stand to lose their licence, depending on the scope of the crime. (If they find magnets on the lorry, you can bet they are losing their livelihood.)
  - Svip 11y ago
    That's actually a EU standard. Modern lorries are limited to 90 km/h (55 mph) today, to comply with EU standards. In most European countries, lorries are limited to 80 km/h on motorways, with a few (including the UK) going fully to the limiter. Technically, the speed limit for lorries is 96 km/h on UK motorways, but newer lorries won't be able to drive that fast because of their limiter.
astrange 11y ago
A self-driving truck wouldn't have a blindspot, unlike a human-driven truck that you can't even safely pass on the right. It'll have a much easier time being able to see you in the first place.
sandworm101 11y ago
I cringe at the breakdown rate. Loaded trucks cannot be moved nearly as easily as cars. But at least when they do there is a human driver to manage the situation. I've heard that the google cars are pretty slow at intersections. Lord help those stuck behind Optimus Prime when his gps fails.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Those concerns seem really mundane compared to the problem of a vehicle that can safely drive itself. Just have humans be available to go deal with the trucks. Fine companies (a lot!) if they are too slow to deal with their trucks. This will encourage them to have arrangements in place. As far as navigation, it's a technology product. They tend to get better over time, at least until some point where improvement becomes difficult is reached.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    >> Those concerns seem really mundane compared to the problem of a vehicle that can safely drive itself. Not specifically. Those concerns are to do with a driver-free truck, not necessarily one that is just driving itself. Autopilots still have pilots. I'd be all for an autopilot unit for a car/truck/plane alongside the driver. The difference is that these trucks seem to rely on the autopilot, at least to the extent that they are very distant from any human supervision. So the only real issue between autopilot+driver and autopilot solo is cost.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      I don't trust people to pay attention, so I don't want them on the road if they require an attentive driver. I guess for testing requiring a driver is fine, but they should be taking video of the test drivers and evaluating their level of attention. Planes don't really have so many things to collide with, so I don't think the choices made about autopilot there are instructive.
      - sandworm101 11y ago
na85 11y ago
I'm not sure that trucks with drivers are any safer, at least here in Canada.

by 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
  UK trucks, at least, have had mandatory 60mph limiters for probably 30 years. Was lowered to 56mph (90 kmh) to match speeds with Europe at some point.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    But are they also automatically limited to 10/20/30 depending on the road? That tech has also been around for decades. Manufacturers haven't even attempted to market it.
- toyg 11y ago
  > That doesn't need robot drivers. You're right, it needs robot enforcers :) > Why think that the same pressures that force drivers to act like jerks won't also be applied to software? They will; but a human can improvise and lie, whereas software can (in theory) be audited and tested. The software will be built by manufacturers, not lorry owners; and they don't want to end up on the wrong side of car regulators -- see the recent VW affair.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    >> ..see the recent VW affair. You mean shrewdly duping regulators year after year so they can sell more cars, make more money, enrich shareholders, and become a market leader? No matter what the cost today, I think VW shareholders would rather they have done what they did as opposed to giving up the market to competitors. (They all seem to have been playing tricks imho.)
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  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? Because with human drivers, a human is liable for failures. With software, the company is liable. If the software thinks "this is a dangerous situation", it will be written to defer to not causing injury, because there's really no way the contents of a truck are going to be worth more than the cost of paying out $x millions in the case of killing a human.
timthorn 11y ago
UK truck drivers are usually better drivers than most of the cars on the motorway. They don't like sudden changes in speed and their skill shows in traffic jams or roadworks, where the lanes of truckers will tend to keep moving. My major bugbear is trucks overtaking one another on 2 lane roads, when there'll often be a really small speed differential and so the overtaking manoeuvre will block the road for longer than needed.
mjlee 11y ago
Not only does the UK have a speed limit for vehicles over 7.5 tonnes (60mph, enforced by a speed limiter) but we have drivers' hours limits. It is somewhat complex (https://www.gov.uk/drivers-hours/overview https://www.gov.uk/drivers-hours/overview) but the gist is we take human factors into account. The driver is personally liable and the fines could easily be more than income from the day's driving.
- viraptor 11y ago
  Did the speed change recently? I remember most big trucks doing precisely 70mph on M4. (everyday commute)
  - Svip 11y ago
    No, if a lorry is doing more than 96 km/h (older) or 90 km/h (newer), then they are messing with the limiter and basically putting it out of function. A lot of lorry companies do this, unfortunately, to "comply" with the driving hours (or beat competition). So to ensure their drivers get further, they install magnets on their transmissions to prevent the Tachograph (and thus the limiter) from correctly reading the lorry's speed. Indeed, this tactic is also used to trick the Tachograph into thinking the driver is taking a rest while he is actually driving. The driving hours are strictly enforced by police across Europe, and if the printout doesn't match the law, the driver and his employer stands to pay a huge fine. And both may also stand to lose their licence, depending on the scope of the crime. (If they find magnets on the lorry, you can bet they are losing their livelihood.)
- Svip 11y ago
  That's actually a EU standard. Modern lorries are limited to 90 km/h (55 mph) today, to comply with EU standards. In most European countries, lorries are limited to 80 km/h on motorways, with a few (including the UK) going fully to the limiter. Technically, the speed limit for lorries is 96 km/h on UK motorways, but newer lorries won't be able to drive that fast because of their limiter.

astrange 11y ago

A self-driving truck wouldn't have a blindspot, unlike a human-driven truck that you can't even safely pass on the right. It'll have a much easier time being able to see you in the first place.

sandworm101 11y ago

I cringe at the breakdown rate. Loaded trucks cannot be moved nearly as easily as cars. But at least when they do there is a human driver to manage the situation. I've heard that the google cars are pretty slow at intersections. Lord help those stuck behind Optimus Prime when his gps fails.

maxerickson 11y ago
Those concerns seem really mundane compared to the problem of a vehicle that can safely drive itself. Just have humans be available to go deal with the trucks. Fine companies (a lot!) if they are too slow to deal with their trucks. This will encourage them to have arrangements in place. As far as navigation, it's a technology product. They tend to get better over time, at least until some point where improvement becomes difficult is reached.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  >> Those concerns seem really mundane compared to the problem of a vehicle that can safely drive itself. Not specifically. Those concerns are to do with a driver-free truck, not necessarily one that is just driving itself. Autopilots still have pilots. I'd be all for an autopilot unit for a car/truck/plane alongside the driver. The difference is that these trucks seem to rely on the autopilot, at least to the extent that they are very distant from any human supervision. So the only real issue between autopilot+driver and autopilot solo is cost.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I don't trust people to pay attention, so I don't want them on the road if they require an attentive driver. I guess for testing requiring a driver is fine, but they should be taking video of the test drivers and evaluating their level of attention. Planes don't really have so many things to collide with, so I don't think the choices made about autopilot there are instructive.
    - sandworm101 11y ago

na85 11y ago

I'm not sure that trucks with drivers are any safer, at least here in Canada.