5 ms·

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.

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.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    >> With software, the company is liable. Check the fine print on your windows license. Then check the fine print on any aerospace autopilot. They disclaim everything. It's always the operators responsibility, never the manufacturers unless of a serious defect. >> 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. If that were true all sorts of other safety devices would already be on trucks, starting with gps-enabled speed regulators. There is always a cost-benefit analysis. That includes tradeoffs between utility and safety.
    - mmanfrin 11y ago
      You are missing my meaning. By 'software', I mean the software that runs the self-driving trucks; both the companies building and using self-driving trucks could and would be liable, no matter what is 'in the fine print'. There is no operator, so blame has to go somewhere. There are already safety devices on trucks, but since there is a human operator, much of the onus of using or installing those is on the human, not the truck manufacturer or trucking company; and again, you're missing my point that with no driver, the liability falls to the producers of the self-driving software.
      - sandworm101 11y ago
        >> with no driver, the liability falls to the producers of the self-driving software. Not really. The owner of the truck is also the operator. Trucking companies are sued for damages caused by their drivers every day. If a truck company chooses to use particular software, as they choose a particular driver, the trucking company will be liable. They are the one that decided to put the vehicle on the road. That's why they must carry insurance and why that insurance attaches to the vehicle regardless of who is driving it on a particular day. Swapping out an employee-driver for a robot won't change the situation. Even a truck that is stolen, a truck driven by someone the operator doesn't want behind the wheel, can result in liability should the operator not have taken reasonable steps to guard against theft.
- newjersey 11y ago
  > 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? This makes me think of VW. > Winterkorn blamed "the terrible mistakes of a few people," whom he did not name, for the international scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Winterkorn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Winterkorn Now, to be clear I am not saying that Google's or Alphabet's CEO should go to jail. Rather the CEO of the company who owns the fleet should. Claiming that they didn't know what their employees did should not be allowed as a defense. Yes, I am still mad at VW for throwing their software engineers under the bus here. I don't know what the solution is but it can't be to just say "well, the software engineers knew what they were doing and they should have said no when told to implement something illegal" (this is what I understand Uncle Bob suggested).
- misnome 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? Because the software - Isn't getting paid by the time taken, so isn't more expensive to take longer - Trucks can be more fuel efficient at slower speeds - Most truck shipping won't be so urgent that time matters beyond "Predictable arrival time".
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.

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.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  >> With software, the company is liable. Check the fine print on your windows license. Then check the fine print on any aerospace autopilot. They disclaim everything. It's always the operators responsibility, never the manufacturers unless of a serious defect. >> 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. If that were true all sorts of other safety devices would already be on trucks, starting with gps-enabled speed regulators. There is always a cost-benefit analysis. That includes tradeoffs between utility and safety.
  - mmanfrin 11y ago
    You are missing my meaning. By 'software', I mean the software that runs the self-driving trucks; both the companies building and using self-driving trucks could and would be liable, no matter what is 'in the fine print'. There is no operator, so blame has to go somewhere. There are already safety devices on trucks, but since there is a human operator, much of the onus of using or installing those is on the human, not the truck manufacturer or trucking company; and again, you're missing my point that with no driver, the liability falls to the producers of the self-driving software.
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      >> with no driver, the liability falls to the producers of the self-driving software. Not really. The owner of the truck is also the operator. Trucking companies are sued for damages caused by their drivers every day. If a truck company chooses to use particular software, as they choose a particular driver, the trucking company will be liable. They are the one that decided to put the vehicle on the road. That's why they must carry insurance and why that insurance attaches to the vehicle regardless of who is driving it on a particular day. Swapping out an employee-driver for a robot won't change the situation. Even a truck that is stolen, a truck driven by someone the operator doesn't want behind the wheel, can result in liability should the operator not have taken reasonable steps to guard against theft.
newjersey 11y ago
> 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? This makes me think of VW. > Winterkorn blamed "the terrible mistakes of a few people," whom he did not name, for the international scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Winterkorn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Winterkorn Now, to be clear I am not saying that Google's or Alphabet's CEO should go to jail. Rather the CEO of the company who owns the fleet should. Claiming that they didn't know what their employees did should not be allowed as a defense. Yes, I am still mad at VW for throwing their software engineers under the bus here. I don't know what the solution is but it can't be to just say "well, the software engineers knew what they were doing and they should have said no when told to implement something illegal" (this is what I understand Uncle Bob suggested).
misnome 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? Because the software - Isn't getting paid by the time taken, so isn't more expensive to take longer - Trucks can be more fuel efficient at slower speeds - Most truck shipping won't be so urgent that time matters beyond "Predictable arrival time".

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.