4 ms·

It's simply too risky and will be for the foreseeable future. The liability cost for a semi-accident is huge, not just in lives but in cargo and in the truck it

It's simply too risky and will be for the foreseeable future. The liability cost for a semi-accident is huge, not just in lives but in cargo and in the truck itself. Highways have decent network coverage but nothing close to the levels of reliability necessary to satisfy the actuaries. From a risk perspective, failure mitigation strategies like slowing or stopping are largely hamstrung by the same reliability concerns that prevent the vehicle from simply driving on its own, the vehicle may simply not recognize that the situation is dangerous until it's too late, that's without factoring in the reality that stopping or slowing can actually be extremely dangerous and can't be relied upon as a catch-all fallback. Additionally, I think you're greatly underestimating the practical problems involved in operating a remote emergency-on-call driver system, there's also some questionable economics around the idea of paying to keep someone on call when you could just pay them to drive the truck. On top of all that there are various other hard problems that need solving like fueling and security. You can be sure that automated trucks hauling valuable cargo will find themselves regularly waylaid by sophisticated criminals who will be greatly encouraged by the lack of a human element to resist their efforts. Truck drivers don't really get paid that much money, the risks just aren't worth it.

mediaman 6y ago
These concerns are unlikely to surface in ways that are important enough to overcome the advantages of automated long-haul trucking. Network coverage? On most big interstates it's perfectly fine, even through mountain ranges, and it's known in advance which highways don't have it. But even then, you can just use satellite systems such as Starlink as a backup. Questionable economics for keeping people on-call? No, it's quite economic, because one on-call person can provide coverage for a wide area. Criminals? This is an unserious idea that's always brought up in these discussions. Why not break into containers at ports? Why not break into dry vans stored at the back of warehouses overnight? If the idea is just that criminals will break into unattended cargo vans, there are manifold opportunities to do this already, and the small amounts of property crime isn't a serious issue. Anyway, it's covered by insurance. Conversely, the advantages are numerous: * Much faster cross-country freight. No sleeping, no work-rules, no need for team drivers. * A safety profile that may even be better (no falling asleep). * Lower costs. * Better availability. At times, it is very difficult to schedule a truck to arrive, depending on how tight the market is. It's easier to flex equipment availability up and down than truckers. Many large shippers will see this as an important area to focus on and money is being poured into this today.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  Most real cross-country freight (say, from west coast ports to Chicago or other major hub cities) goes by intermodal rail already. There are of course some odd lots that go by truck but most over-the-road trucking is already medium/short range today.
- root_axis 6y ago
  The problem is that long haul trucking isn't just "most big interstates", the only advantage of long-haul trucking is the logistical flexibility, if you're constrained to "most big interstates" you might as well use a train. The remote on-call strategy doesn't scale, yes it'll save some money relative to drivers, but there's a delicate balancing act involved in mitigating risk of multiple simultaneous failures, yes this might be rare, but it'll also be costly. See my response to wpietri for more about security, but with respect to warehouses and the like, they are frequently staffed by armed guards or dogs, it's also orders of magnitude easier to secure a stationary facility compared to a mobile autonomous vehicle traveling across the country. Insurance will only cover it if they can tolerate the risk. Increased availability is definitely a win, but the other advantages you listed are just alternative ways of saying "lower cost". Yes, the costs are lower, but truck driver salaries aren't that high to begin with and the cost of building out and maintaining automated trucking infrastructure will be passed on to any trucking companies that decide to adopt the technology.
wpietri 6y ago
I would like to see your math on the risk. It's not like human drivers are perfect; for decades, long-haul truckers have been known for drug use just to keep awake. [1] And trucks break down for all sorts of reasons, so "robot has issues and pulls over" could plausiblly be just another one of those. I think the economics of remote backup drivers is working for Waymo, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for truck drivers, which are higher value. And for the you-need-somebody-on-site problems, there's already a network of tow and repair services that will surely be willing to send someone out. Fueling seems similarly surmountable. Semis have very long ranges, and fuel up at specialist facilities that are just off the highway. I don't think it will take much persuasion for truck stops to offer full service fueling on a $500 fill-up. And it's not obvious that security will be worse. An automated truck is going to have a lot of high-quality cameras and be in continuous contact with a staffed operations center. The vehicle may be effectively impossible to steal, and transferring a semi's worth of cargo is not a fast process. I think it's also important to note that to start it doesn't actually have to be better. It just has to be a) within shouting distance, and b) exciting enough that some exec thinks they'll get a promotion out of it. [1] e.g. this from 1973 https://genius.com/Jim-croce-speedball-tucker-lyrics https://genius.com/Jim-croce-speedball-tucker-lyrics and this from the Trucking Alliance: https://truckingalliance.org/new-study-supports-projection-of-drug-abuse-in-the-trucking-industry/ https://truckingalliance.org/new-study-supports-projection-o...
- root_axis 6y ago
  Waymo is an extremely specialized closed system that can't be generalized to the needs of cross-country long haul trucking, if it could we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fueling concerns are pretty trivial from an engineering perspective, the problem is one of infrastructure. Yes, industry could prop up some fueling stations, but nothing approaching the coverage necessary to make it more practical than e.g freight by rail. Security concerns are very real, there is no such thing as "impossible to steal" and the threat of cameras are trivially defeated by way of masks under cover of darkness. Transferring a semi's worth of cargo is only slow if you're not prepared to do it in advance. I also want to reemphasize the shift in psychology associated with removing the human element, criminals are absolutely going to be emboldened by the fact they are dealing with a harmless predictable computer and not a human person that might resist their efforts, cause them injury, or otherwise complicate the risk involved. It's also well known in criminal psychology that people are much more willing to justify criminal behavior they perceive as victimless. Setting aside my practical objections, yes, it's true that it doesn't have to be better to start, but I think there's no chance it gains momentum since there is a lot of up-front cost and complexity for relatively small financial gain vs just e.g. freight by rail.

mediaman 6y ago

These concerns are unlikely to surface in ways that are important enough to overcome the advantages of automated long-haul trucking. Network coverage? On most big interstates it's perfectly fine, even through mountain ranges, and it's known in advance which highways don't have it. But even then, you can just use satellite systems such as Starlink as a backup. Questionable economics for keeping people on-call? No, it's quite economic, because one on-call person can provide coverage for a wide area. Criminals? This is an unserious idea that's always brought up in these discussions. Why not break into containers at ports? Why not break into dry vans stored at the back of warehouses overnight? If the idea is just that criminals will break into unattended cargo vans, there are manifold opportunities to do this already, and the small amounts of property crime isn't a serious issue. Anyway, it's covered by insurance. Conversely, the advantages are numerous: * Much faster cross-country freight. No sleeping, no work-rules, no need for team drivers. * A safety profile that may even be better (no falling asleep). * Lower costs. * Better availability. At times, it is very difficult to schedule a truck to arrive, depending on how tight the market is. It's easier to flex equipment availability up and down than truckers. Many large shippers will see this as an important area to focus on and money is being poured into this today.

throwaway201103 6y ago
Most real cross-country freight (say, from west coast ports to Chicago or other major hub cities) goes by intermodal rail already. There are of course some odd lots that go by truck but most over-the-road trucking is already medium/short range today.
root_axis 6y ago
The problem is that long haul trucking isn't just "most big interstates", the only advantage of long-haul trucking is the logistical flexibility, if you're constrained to "most big interstates" you might as well use a train. The remote on-call strategy doesn't scale, yes it'll save some money relative to drivers, but there's a delicate balancing act involved in mitigating risk of multiple simultaneous failures, yes this might be rare, but it'll also be costly. See my response to wpietri for more about security, but with respect to warehouses and the like, they are frequently staffed by armed guards or dogs, it's also orders of magnitude easier to secure a stationary facility compared to a mobile autonomous vehicle traveling across the country. Insurance will only cover it if they can tolerate the risk. Increased availability is definitely a win, but the other advantages you listed are just alternative ways of saying "lower cost". Yes, the costs are lower, but truck driver salaries aren't that high to begin with and the cost of building out and maintaining automated trucking infrastructure will be passed on to any trucking companies that decide to adopt the technology.

wpietri 6y ago

I would like to see your math on the risk. It's not like human drivers are perfect; for decades, long-haul truckers have been known for drug use just to keep awake. [1] And trucks break down for all sorts of reasons, so "robot has issues and pulls over" could plausiblly be just another one of those. I think the economics of remote backup drivers is working for Waymo, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for truck drivers, which are higher value. And for the you-need-somebody-on-site problems, there's already a network of tow and repair services that will surely be willing to send someone out. Fueling seems similarly surmountable. Semis have very long ranges, and fuel up at specialist facilities that are just off the highway. I don't think it will take much persuasion for truck stops to offer full service fueling on a $500 fill-up. And it's not obvious that security will be worse. An automated truck is going to have a lot of high-quality cameras and be in continuous contact with a staffed operations center. The vehicle may be effectively impossible to steal, and transferring a semi's worth of cargo is not a fast process. I think it's also important to note that to start it doesn't actually have to be better. It just has to be a) within shouting distance, and b) exciting enough that some exec thinks they'll get a promotion out of it. [1] e.g. this from 1973 https://genius.com/Jim-croce-speedball-tucker-lyrics https://genius.com/Jim-croce-speedball-tucker-lyrics and this from the Trucking Alliance: https://truckingalliance.org/new-study-supports-projection-of-drug-abuse-in-the-trucking-industry/ https://truckingalliance.org/new-study-supports-projection-o...

root_axis 6y ago
Waymo is an extremely specialized closed system that can't be generalized to the needs of cross-country long haul trucking, if it could we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fueling concerns are pretty trivial from an engineering perspective, the problem is one of infrastructure. Yes, industry could prop up some fueling stations, but nothing approaching the coverage necessary to make it more practical than e.g freight by rail. Security concerns are very real, there is no such thing as "impossible to steal" and the threat of cameras are trivially defeated by way of masks under cover of darkness. Transferring a semi's worth of cargo is only slow if you're not prepared to do it in advance. I also want to reemphasize the shift in psychology associated with removing the human element, criminals are absolutely going to be emboldened by the fact they are dealing with a harmless predictable computer and not a human person that might resist their efforts, cause them injury, or otherwise complicate the risk involved. It's also well known in criminal psychology that people are much more willing to justify criminal behavior they perceive as victimless. Setting aside my practical objections, yes, it's true that it doesn't have to be better to start, but I think there's no chance it gains momentum since there is a lot of up-front cost and complexity for relatively small financial gain vs just e.g. freight by rail.