33 ms·

I could see there being a nice "hybrid" avenue, too: Have a human driver in the truck for managing all street level driving, overseeing loading/unloading, refue

I could see there being a nice "hybrid" avenue, too: Have a human driver in the truck for managing all street level driving, overseeing loading/unloading, refueling, etc. And then let them take a break, or work on their side hustle or master's degree or whatever, while the truck is on the highway. And either pull off the highway or have the human take over if conditions aren't favorable. Self-driving taxis, OTOH, feel like they've got a much longer way to go before they can generate any real profit.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Side hustle or masters degree? Pilots don’t work another job while autopilot is in use, and neither should truck drivers monitoring its autonomy system.
- loeg 8y ago
  A self-driving vehicle would be a step beyond current autopilot, and asking any human to constantly monitor an autonomous system is going to result in pretty catastrophic failure. An autonomous system needs to be fail-safe to be used. Plane autopilot only works because air is so empty and flying in the same direction at constant elevation is unlikely to result in any problem. There are repeated examples of both pilots falling asleep and planes over-shooting destination airports, for example.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > A self-driving vehicle would be a step beyond current autopilot, and asking any human to constantly monitor an autonomous system is going to result in pretty catastrophic failure. An autonomous system needs to be fail-safe to be used. I think the idea we’ll attain this in the next decade or two is borderline delusional, but to each their own. Commercial aviation is one of the safest transportation mechanisms in the world; aircraft can go runway to runway in mostly automated fashion (auto throttle/TOGA [take off go around] for takeoff, autopilot for cruise, autoland for landing). We (customers and regulators) still require human attention the entire time.
    - travisjungroth 8y ago
      > aircraft can go taxiway to taxiway fully automated. Source?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        My comment was unintentionally overgenerous. I’ve corrected my statement after reviewing the aviation stackoverflow site, and flushed it out with more details (specific aviation terms).
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  If it requires human oversight, what's the point? At that point you're getting no more bang for your buck, since the operator is going to be subject to the same limits on time behind the wheel as a driver of a non-autonomous truck. And you're not getting any more safety, because, as Uber and Tesla have been illustrating for us so vividly, a self-driving system that needs a human overseer can't drive safely, and a human who isn't physically in control of the car at all times can't oversee safely. (Edit: This is, naturally, not accounting for the need for a transitional period while getting the technology bootstrapped. But that's time invested in developing the tech, not time where the tech generates any profit.)
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > At that point you're getting no more bang for your buck, since the operator is going to be subject to the same limits on time behind the wheel as a driver of a non-autonomous truck. Human lives and property loss are expensive. The average cost of a fatal crash is well over $3 million. The average cost of a large truck crash that does not involve a death is approximately $62,000. Settlement payouts due to big rig accidents are roughly $20 billion per year. You don’t need to replace the driver to see significant upside.
noodle 8y ago
AFAIK this is the accepted path forward (minus the side hustle aspect). Automate that which is easier to automate: the long distance highway driving. For the first/last mile, let a human do the work.
- kozikow 8y ago
  > Automate that which is easier to automate: the long distance highway driving Long distance highway driving except that one highway exit on 101 that kills you. I'm just saying that when human lives are at stake, bottoms up approach may not be as feasible as with web software.
  - myrryr 8y ago
    But with driving human lives are at stake now. It just has to be better than the average driver.
    - slavak 8y ago
      In which case any driver of above-average ability would be insane to put their lives in the hands of one. How many people do _you_ know that consider themselves below-average drivers?
    - michaelt 8y ago
      I'm just spitballin' here, but perhaps they could make something that was better than the average driver, and wouldn't swerve or accelerate into stationary objects like highway barriers? That sounds like something a lot of people would want.
      - Piskvorrr 8y ago
        Looks easy, right? Too bad it's been looking easy for 50+ years now, with no solution in sight.
    - ultraluminous 8y ago
      That's one more of those "irrational exuberance" regarding the future of autonomous driving. It would never even come close to being legal if it's only better than the average driver. It will need to be better than the 95th percentile of human drivers at the very least. 48% of the human population are not going to accept a more dangerous, potentially deadlier, car ride because it's "safer on average".
privacypoller 8y ago
This is generally seen as the path to full automation - you can couple autonomous "easy" highway driving with a remote driver taking over for the final mile. How long until we have aircraft doing the same thing ? ;)
- 0xfeba 8y ago
  Well once airborne, aircraft already fly themselves and do everything except the last 100 feet of landing already.
  - astronautjones 8y ago
    With constant, vigilant monitoring
    - kosievdmerwe 8y ago
      For some definition of constant, planes aren't seconds away from disaster like cars/trucks are pretty much constantly.
      - Piskvorrr 8y ago
        Since the context here is "autoland", yes, that means "do not stop monitoring the bird, be always ready to take control." Landings are one of the trickier parts: you are moving at hundreds of mph, on an almost-collision course with the runway, by definition: the plane is supposed to stop flying very few feet above the concrete, AND not drop too hard.
  - brudgers 8y ago
    Aircraft have six degrees of freedom. But for the ground, birds, weather, and other aircraft there is nothing a plane can run into. At 20,000 feet that mostly reduces to other aircraft. And still humans on the ground orchestrate among the flights and provide specific direct oversight of each and every flight in real time. Watching for weather. Watching for birds. Don't get me wrong, I find aircraft automation impressive. But there is a massive human workforce that makes it possible for the cabin crew to run planes on autopilot. There's a mountain of rigid regulations, licensing and certifications that control every part of that workforce. Every part of each aircraft. Every piece of communication. That's not how the roads work.
Angostura 8y ago
You could have 'Pilots' like you do for the last part of sea voyages
sitkack 8y ago
> master's degree or whatever Are you trying to make people make fun of us?
- goatherders 8y ago
  Dont be so cynical. I took the comment as serious and agree.
gaius 8y ago
The model of truck to the railhead, rail for long distance, the back onto trucks for the final leg already exists. Trains have large economic advantages over trucks for well known routes. So what are the advantages of self-driving trucks in this scenario?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 8y ago

Side hustle or masters degree? Pilots don’t work another job while autopilot is in use, and neither should truck drivers monitoring its autonomy system.

loeg 8y ago
A self-driving vehicle would be a step beyond current autopilot, and asking any human to constantly monitor an autonomous system is going to result in pretty catastrophic failure. An autonomous system needs to be fail-safe to be used. Plane autopilot only works because air is so empty and flying in the same direction at constant elevation is unlikely to result in any problem. There are repeated examples of both pilots falling asleep and planes over-shooting destination airports, for example.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > A self-driving vehicle would be a step beyond current autopilot, and asking any human to constantly monitor an autonomous system is going to result in pretty catastrophic failure. An autonomous system needs to be fail-safe to be used. I think the idea we’ll attain this in the next decade or two is borderline delusional, but to each their own. Commercial aviation is one of the safest transportation mechanisms in the world; aircraft can go runway to runway in mostly automated fashion (auto throttle/TOGA [take off go around] for takeoff, autopilot for cruise, autoland for landing). We (customers and regulators) still require human attention the entire time.
  - travisjungroth 8y ago
    > aircraft can go taxiway to taxiway fully automated. Source?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      My comment was unintentionally overgenerous. I’ve corrected my statement after reviewing the aviation stackoverflow site, and flushed it out with more details (specific aviation terms).
bunderbunder 8y ago
If it requires human oversight, what's the point? At that point you're getting no more bang for your buck, since the operator is going to be subject to the same limits on time behind the wheel as a driver of a non-autonomous truck. And you're not getting any more safety, because, as Uber and Tesla have been illustrating for us so vividly, a self-driving system that needs a human overseer can't drive safely, and a human who isn't physically in control of the car at all times can't oversee safely. (Edit: This is, naturally, not accounting for the need for a transitional period while getting the technology bootstrapped. But that's time invested in developing the tech, not time where the tech generates any profit.)
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > At that point you're getting no more bang for your buck, since the operator is going to be subject to the same limits on time behind the wheel as a driver of a non-autonomous truck. Human lives and property loss are expensive. The average cost of a fatal crash is well over $3 million. The average cost of a large truck crash that does not involve a death is approximately $62,000. Settlement payouts due to big rig accidents are roughly $20 billion per year. You don’t need to replace the driver to see significant upside.

noodle 8y ago

AFAIK this is the accepted path forward (minus the side hustle aspect). Automate that which is easier to automate: the long distance highway driving. For the first/last mile, let a human do the work.

kozikow 8y ago
> Automate that which is easier to automate: the long distance highway driving Long distance highway driving except that one highway exit on 101 that kills you. I'm just saying that when human lives are at stake, bottoms up approach may not be as feasible as with web software.
- myrryr 8y ago
  But with driving human lives are at stake now. It just has to be better than the average driver.
  - slavak 8y ago
    In which case any driver of above-average ability would be insane to put their lives in the hands of one. How many people do _you_ know that consider themselves below-average drivers?
  - michaelt 8y ago
    I'm just spitballin' here, but perhaps they could make something that was better than the average driver, and wouldn't swerve or accelerate into stationary objects like highway barriers? That sounds like something a lot of people would want.
    - Piskvorrr 8y ago
      Looks easy, right? Too bad it's been looking easy for 50+ years now, with no solution in sight.
  - ultraluminous 8y ago
    That's one more of those "irrational exuberance" regarding the future of autonomous driving. It would never even come close to being legal if it's only better than the average driver. It will need to be better than the 95th percentile of human drivers at the very least. 48% of the human population are not going to accept a more dangerous, potentially deadlier, car ride because it's "safer on average".

privacypoller 8y ago

This is generally seen as the path to full automation - you can couple autonomous "easy" highway driving with a remote driver taking over for the final mile. How long until we have aircraft doing the same thing ? ;)

0xfeba 8y ago
Well once airborne, aircraft already fly themselves and do everything except the last 100 feet of landing already.
- astronautjones 8y ago
  With constant, vigilant monitoring
  - kosievdmerwe 8y ago
    For some definition of constant, planes aren't seconds away from disaster like cars/trucks are pretty much constantly.
    - Piskvorrr 8y ago
      Since the context here is "autoland", yes, that means "do not stop monitoring the bird, be always ready to take control." Landings are one of the trickier parts: you are moving at hundreds of mph, on an almost-collision course with the runway, by definition: the plane is supposed to stop flying very few feet above the concrete, AND not drop too hard.
- brudgers 8y ago
  Aircraft have six degrees of freedom. But for the ground, birds, weather, and other aircraft there is nothing a plane can run into. At 20,000 feet that mostly reduces to other aircraft. And still humans on the ground orchestrate among the flights and provide specific direct oversight of each and every flight in real time. Watching for weather. Watching for birds. Don't get me wrong, I find aircraft automation impressive. But there is a massive human workforce that makes it possible for the cabin crew to run planes on autopilot. There's a mountain of rigid regulations, licensing and certifications that control every part of that workforce. Every part of each aircraft. Every piece of communication. That's not how the roads work.

Angostura 8y ago

You could have 'Pilots' like you do for the last part of sea voyages

sitkack 8y ago

> master's degree or whatever Are you trying to make people make fun of us?

goatherders 8y ago
Dont be so cynical. I took the comment as serious and agree.

gaius 8y ago

The model of truck to the railhead, rail for long distance, the back onto trucks for the final leg already exists. Trains have large economic advantages over trucks for well known routes. So what are the advantages of self-driving trucks in this scenario?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]