3 ms·

- Remote video surveillance - The driving algorithm will need to be capable of causing a 911 call to be made for various reasons, including that - When there

- Remote video surveillance - The driving algorithm will need to be capable of causing a 911 call to be made for various reasons, including that - When there is no human driver, a carjacking is not actually that bad. There is insurance for this kind of problem, and it will be up to insurance companies to figure out if it's even worth attempting to mitigate.

jjoonathan 11y ago
> - Remote video surveillance So the robbers wear masks and shoot / paint over / jam the video equipment. They can do this at a distance because there is no risk of hitting a human. > - The driving algorithm will need to be capable of causing a 911 call to be made for various reasons, including that So the robbers choose a section of road far away from the nearest police and otherwise conducive at making them difficult to follow. > - There is insurance for this kind of problem If it gets to be too frequent of a problem, the insurance will become expensive enough that it will be easier just to keep a human around on more dangerous routes.
- Crito 11y ago
  > "So the robbers wear masks and shoot / paint over / jam the video equipment." Doing any of that would create a very distinct MO. You want to avoid that if you want to avoid being caught. Also, have you seen how small cameras are these days? Maybe you could load up a crop-duster with paint and cover the whole truck, but there is no way you could hope to successfully shoot out every camera an insurance company could stick on a truck. > "So the robbers choose a section of road far away from the nearest police and otherwise conducive at making them difficult to follow." A problem not made any worse by driverless vehicles. If anything, you can program a truck to always follow approved routes while with human drivers you have to account for insubordination.
  - jjoonathan 11y ago
    > Doing any of that would create a very distinct MO. Crime is all about risk management. Sloppy purchases could leave a trail, yes, but video evidence can also leave a trail. One trail is easier to cover than the other: lots of people buy paint and guns, not many rob trucks. > have you seen how small cameras are these days? This isn't hide-and-seek. The game is not over for the perp if a shitty miniature camera buried in the truck's frame catches a few blurry frames of a masked man. I was responding to the "just do machine learning on LIDAR data" proposal that got thrown out elsewhere in the thread. Equipment that can reliably identify people who control the physical situation and don't want to be identified is probably expensive and vulnerable. Making it relatively invulnerable makes it even more expensive. > A problem not made any worse by driverless vehicles Yes, precisely. They never were a deterrent and "just call 911" was/is not going to stop robbers. The deterrent is sitting in the cab.
    - Crito 11y ago
      > "Crime is all about risk management. Sloppy purchases could leave a trail, yes, but video evidence can also leave a trail. One trail is easier to cover than the other: lots of people buy paint and guns, not many rob trucks." The sort of MO that I am talking about is "Always shoots out the cameras after stopping the truck, using a rifle" (or whatever the specific details happen to be). The reason you do not want to establish this sort of MO is that it allows the police/FBI to connect different incidents, different truck hijackings, and figure out that they were all perpetrated by the same gang of criminals. Once they do this, they can begin analysing where and when you are likely to strike in the future. They can use information such as "This gang was out committing crime on April 15th, June 3rd and July 18th" to narrow down their list of suspects, eliminating people who might be matches for one date/location but not for the others. > "This isn't hide-and-seek." When you are talking about shooting out cameras, it really is. I mean, ignoring the hollywood silliness of it, chances are you are going to be in that cameras field of view before you shoot it, and any footage that camera already shot will not be destroyed by the bullet smashing the lense. The LIDAR is really not going to be the primary source of information about the thieves anyway, the cameras will be. > "They never were a deterrent and "just call 911" was/is not going to stop robbers." Calling 911 is about catching robbers, not deterring them. The sooner the police arrive on the scene, the more likely the criminals will be caught. How fast does the average truck hijacking happen? How fast does it happen when the truck that is being robbed has been immobilized? Maybe you can get the trailer off and onto another truck, but that takes time and could be hindered any number of ways. Immobilizing the truck isn't a good idea when there is a human driver that could be harmed, but with a self-driving truck there is no reason why it wouldn't be done.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Why bother? Just set every truck up with a small fleet of drones that watch from a safe distance, and fly back down to the roof of the truck to recharge when the power runs low or somesuch. Of course, the hypothetical robbers could detonate an EMP, but that in itself would be noteworthy and bring law enforcement rushing to the vicinity.
- superuser2 11y ago
  >easier just to keep a human around on more dangerous routes. On the contrary, payouts for a driver taken hostage, injured, or killed on company business would be immense. Insurance companies would probably be quite happy about crimes taking place without humans getting hurt anymore.
  - jjoonathan 11y ago
    "Save money on the average payout and you save money overall" is a decent argument if and only if the number of payouts remains fixed, which it most certainly won't. Having a human present is a significant deterrent against robbing in the first place and against liberal use of firearms because if things go south with a human present then the charge is murder. A robotic truck presents no such deterrent. Lower the risk of knocking off a truck, and more trucks will get knocked off. I'm not saying it can't be solved, I'm just saying that the solution won't be "buy insurance."

jjoonathan 11y ago

> - Remote video surveillance So the robbers wear masks and shoot / paint over / jam the video equipment. They can do this at a distance because there is no risk of hitting a human. > - The driving algorithm will need to be capable of causing a 911 call to be made for various reasons, including that So the robbers choose a section of road far away from the nearest police and otherwise conducive at making them difficult to follow. > - There is insurance for this kind of problem If it gets to be too frequent of a problem, the insurance will become expensive enough that it will be easier just to keep a human around on more dangerous routes.

Crito 11y ago
> "So the robbers wear masks and shoot / paint over / jam the video equipment." Doing any of that would create a very distinct MO. You want to avoid that if you want to avoid being caught. Also, have you seen how small cameras are these days? Maybe you could load up a crop-duster with paint and cover the whole truck, but there is no way you could hope to successfully shoot out every camera an insurance company could stick on a truck. > "So the robbers choose a section of road far away from the nearest police and otherwise conducive at making them difficult to follow." A problem not made any worse by driverless vehicles. If anything, you can program a truck to always follow approved routes while with human drivers you have to account for insubordination.
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  > Doing any of that would create a very distinct MO. Crime is all about risk management. Sloppy purchases could leave a trail, yes, but video evidence can also leave a trail. One trail is easier to cover than the other: lots of people buy paint and guns, not many rob trucks. > have you seen how small cameras are these days? This isn't hide-and-seek. The game is not over for the perp if a shitty miniature camera buried in the truck's frame catches a few blurry frames of a masked man. I was responding to the "just do machine learning on LIDAR data" proposal that got thrown out elsewhere in the thread. Equipment that can reliably identify people who control the physical situation and don't want to be identified is probably expensive and vulnerable. Making it relatively invulnerable makes it even more expensive. > A problem not made any worse by driverless vehicles Yes, precisely. They never were a deterrent and "just call 911" was/is not going to stop robbers. The deterrent is sitting in the cab.
  - Crito 11y ago
    > "Crime is all about risk management. Sloppy purchases could leave a trail, yes, but video evidence can also leave a trail. One trail is easier to cover than the other: lots of people buy paint and guns, not many rob trucks." The sort of MO that I am talking about is "Always shoots out the cameras after stopping the truck, using a rifle" (or whatever the specific details happen to be). The reason you do not want to establish this sort of MO is that it allows the police/FBI to connect different incidents, different truck hijackings, and figure out that they were all perpetrated by the same gang of criminals. Once they do this, they can begin analysing where and when you are likely to strike in the future. They can use information such as "This gang was out committing crime on April 15th, June 3rd and July 18th" to narrow down their list of suspects, eliminating people who might be matches for one date/location but not for the others. > "This isn't hide-and-seek." When you are talking about shooting out cameras, it really is. I mean, ignoring the hollywood silliness of it, chances are you are going to be in that cameras field of view before you shoot it, and any footage that camera already shot will not be destroyed by the bullet smashing the lense. The LIDAR is really not going to be the primary source of information about the thieves anyway, the cameras will be. > "They never were a deterrent and "just call 911" was/is not going to stop robbers." Calling 911 is about catching robbers, not deterring them. The sooner the police arrive on the scene, the more likely the criminals will be caught. How fast does the average truck hijacking happen? How fast does it happen when the truck that is being robbed has been immobilized? Maybe you can get the trailer off and onto another truck, but that takes time and could be hindered any number of ways. Immobilizing the truck isn't a good idea when there is a human driver that could be harmed, but with a self-driving truck there is no reason why it wouldn't be done.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
anigbrowl 11y ago
Why bother? Just set every truck up with a small fleet of drones that watch from a safe distance, and fly back down to the roof of the truck to recharge when the power runs low or somesuch. Of course, the hypothetical robbers could detonate an EMP, but that in itself would be noteworthy and bring law enforcement rushing to the vicinity.
superuser2 11y ago
>easier just to keep a human around on more dangerous routes. On the contrary, payouts for a driver taken hostage, injured, or killed on company business would be immense. Insurance companies would probably be quite happy about crimes taking place without humans getting hurt anymore.
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  "Save money on the average payout and you save money overall" is a decent argument if and only if the number of payouts remains fixed, which it most certainly won't. Having a human present is a significant deterrent against robbing in the first place and against liberal use of firearms because if things go south with a human present then the charge is murder. A robotic truck presents no such deterrent. Lower the risk of knocking off a truck, and more trucks will get knocked off. I'm not saying it can't be solved, I'm just saying that the solution won't be "buy insurance."