Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Transportation Technology

Google's Self-Driving Cars: 300,000 Miles Logged, Not a Single Accident 465

Posted by samzenpus
from the anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The automated cars are slowly building a driving record that's better than that of your average American. From the article: 'Ever since Google began designing its self-driving cars, they've wanted to build cars that go beyond the capabilities of human-piloted vehicles, cars that are much, much safer. When Sebastian Thrun announced the project in 2010, he wrote, "According to the World Health Organization, more than 1.2 million lives are lost every year in road traffic accidents. We believe our technology has the potential to cut that number, perhaps by as much as half." New data indicate that Google's on the right path. Earlier this week the company announced that the self-driving cars have now logged some 300,000 miles and "there hasn't been a single accident under computer control." (The New York Times did note in a 2010 article that a self-driving car was rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light, so Google must not be counting the incidents that were the fault of flawed humans.)'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's Self-Driving Cars: 300,000 Miles Logged, Not a Single Accident

Comments Filter:
  • Rear Ended (Score:5, Funny)

    by sconeu (64226) on Friday August 10, 2012 @12:33AM (#40941981) Homepage Journal

    The GoogleMobile was behaving properly, and was stopped. It had no possible way to evade the puny human that hit it.

    However, after the accident, the GoogleMobile was heard asking another car, "Hey, hot mama, wanna kill all humans?"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      We don't know if the Google car could have avoided it. I was in a similar situation one time, and happened to catch a glance of the idiot in my rear view. I cut out ahead of the adjacent lane into the empty crosswalk. The idiot screeched to a stop in what was previously my lane.

      There isn't always empty space; but if there is then the Google program should recognize it as available for evasive maneuvers. The Google car will not have a heart to go pitter-patter like mine did; nor a father who turned to me

      • Re:Rear Ended (Score:5, Insightful)

        by norpy (1277318) on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:14AM (#40942169)

        You are creating a straw man there, 99% of similar situations with human drivers would either have not noticed the exit or not reacted in time.
        Additionally you likely broke the law doing what you did and if you caused an accident or ran over a pedestrian because of it you would have been 100% at fault, whereas being shunted by the guy behind you lands 100% of the resposibility on him (unless you stopped too close to a car in front of you).

        I would put money on your driving record being way worse than 300k miles accident free. The actual pouplation-wide average is a LOT higher than that, and you are asking for us to give up reducing that number because we can't reduce it to 0.

        That's like people saying "Don't build gas power plants to replace coal plants because they still emit CO2", sure it's not perfect but at least it BETTER.

        • Re:Rear Ended (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Beardydog (716221) on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:20AM (#40942221)
          I don't think he's saying we should give up on reducing that number. I think he's saying it may technically have been avoidable in that case. It's not meant to be dismissive. It's meant to be food for thought.
          • by Cryacin (657549) on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:34AM (#40942291)
            I'm more wondering what it would be like for the driver who actually rear ended a robotic vehicle

            Uh, yeah, so I rear ended you. We should exchange insurance details.

            I'm sorry, Dave, but I can't do that.
            • Re:Rear Ended (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Chrisq (894406) on Friday August 10, 2012 @02:45AM (#40942597)

              I'm more wondering what it would be like for the driver who actually rear ended a robotic vehicle

              I imagine that you exchange details with the human in charge, with the full knowledge that there will be a complete 360 degree video of the accident with measurements of speed of both vehicles.

              • by jeko (179919) on Friday August 10, 2012 @04:05AM (#40943113)

                with the full knowledge that there will be a complete 360 degree video of the accident with measurements of speed of both vehicles.

                Only if YOU caused the accident. It's a pretty safe bet that if a glitch in their programming caused the accident, there'll be a tragic loss of data... :-)

              • Re:Rear Ended (Score:5, Insightful)

                by AmiMoJo (196126) <.ten.3dlrow. .ta. .ojom.> on Friday August 10, 2012 @06:23AM (#40943791) Homepage

                What about cars with no passengers though? Say there is no parking near your work so you send the car home, then tell it to come get you at 5PM. On the way it has an accident. There will have to be some kind of system in place for notifying the owner and allowing the other person involved in the collision to speak with them. Even if it is just a notice placed somewhere on the car it will have to be standardized.

      • Re:Rear Ended (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dunbal (464142) * on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:42AM (#40942325)
        But if everyone went around in automated cars, the point is there would be no "idiot" in your rear view because he also would have been in an automated car; one which would have stopped in time.
  • by FranTaylor (164577) on Friday August 10, 2012 @12:35AM (#40941993)

    It's hard to imagine being found at-fault when you are stopped and rear-ended.

    There's no shame in being involved in an accident if it's not your fault.

    We trust others all around us every day to avoid smashing into us. Even the best drivers get hit.

    • by mark-t (151149) <`markt' `at' `lynx.bc.ca'> on Friday August 10, 2012 @12:42AM (#40942023) Journal

      No shame, perhaps... but also no less pain, unfortunately.

      Sure, they can offer some monetary compensation, but having been in such an accident and received adequate monetary compensation for all my medical expenses, I can sure as heck tell you that I would have rather not have had the money, and had those two years of my life *without* the back pain.

    • by Animats (122034) on Friday August 10, 2012 @12:46AM (#40942041) Homepage

      It's hard to imagine being found at-fault when you are stopped and rear-ended.

      Especially when the self-driving car has full video, lidar, and radar coverage of the entire event. And really good lawyers.

      • by knuthin (2255242) on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:18AM (#40942201) Homepage

        The only accident that happened with the self driving car, was when it wasn't being self driven [wikipedia.org]. Just explains your point better.

      • by dontmakemethink (1186169) on Friday August 10, 2012 @04:05AM (#40943109)

        Wise man say, when crossing one-way street, look both ways. There are very many hazards that automated cars undo as well. I read an amazing essay about life with all fully automated vehicles, where you don't own a car, instead you punch your cargo and travel plans into a website, and the appropriate vehicle shows up and takes care of your travel needs. If it's a mile or so to the grocery store, a wagon shows up. If it's to the remote cottage an SUV shows up. If it's to a wedding a limo shows up. If it's to an airport a shuttle bus shows up with room for you and your baggage along with others etc. Think about how much time your car is parked and think about how many fewer automated vehicles it would take to service a large population. MASSIVE CO2 emission reduction, especially if most of them are fully electric, as they could easily recharge themselves automatically. The ramifications are really stupendous.

        I can't find a link to the essay (I'm unwinding after a long day and I get 3 hrs sleep before a 17 hr day tomorrow), but I'm sure other /.ers have heard of it.

        • by coofercat (719737) on Friday August 10, 2012 @08:32AM (#40944465) Homepage Journal

          In London we have "car clubs" that do this without the autonomous vehicles. Near my house there's a small car parked in a normal residential parking space. I can walk up to it, open the door and drive it around for a couple of hours. If I need to put fuel in, I can do that via fuel card (or reclaim money if I can't use the fuel card for some reason). If there's anything wrong with the car, or I have an accident, I push the "call" button and talk to an operator. All this by pre-booking online, and paying on my credit card after I return the car to it's normal resting place.

          It's an expensive way to replace a car you already own, but it's a cheap way to borrow a car for an hour or two a week. When we get autonomous vehicles, it'll probably become entirely more popular, and different vehicles will arrive at your house, as you describe. Can't wait ;-)

    • by Shavano (2541114) on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:03AM (#40942129)

      It's hard to imagine being found at-fault when you are stopped and rear-ended.

      There's no shame in being involved in an accident if it's not your fault.

      We trust others all around us every day to avoid smashing into us. Even the best drivers get hit.

      The best drivers DO NOT trust others around them to avoid smashing into us. If we did, we'd be the not-at-fault person in a lot more accidents.

      I believe it to be incorrect to compare the GoogeDrive cars to average drivers. They should be compared to professional drivers for two reasons:

      • GoogleDrive is an expert system: a computer system designed from the ground up to do only one thing and do it extremely well. One does not expect such expertise of people whose driving is incidental to what they do.
      • GoogleDrive will only be affordable (at any time in the next couple decades) to rich people to replace professional, expert drivers. So it has to be better than expert drivers to make the case compelling to people who might actually be able to afford it.
      • by geekoid (135745)

        " to rich people to replace professional, expert drivers."
        Mercedes has a history of being first t utilize new technology. Why you think rich people are professional drivers is beyond me. Hell, most 'professional drivers' are no better then any one else.
        The tech will take bout 4-6 years to go from high end, it low mid range. The idea that it will take 'decades' is laughable.

      • by knuthin (2255242)

        Google Drive [google.com]?

      • GoogleDrive will only be affordable (at any time in the next couple decades) to rich people to replace professional, expert drivers. So it has to be better than expert drivers to make the case compelling to people who might actually be able to afford it.

        I think you're either vastly overestimating the cost of GoogleDrive or vastly underestimating the cost of hiring someone to drive you around all the time... (or you live in a third-world country where labour such as drivers is cheap).

        I'm by no means "rich" by any stretch of the imagination and certainly can't afford a full time driver, but as long as these cars come in at under €80k, I'll happily consider one (I'll go up to €100k if it's also a pure electric, given the price difference between pet

      • by Dunbal (464142) * on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:46AM (#40942361)

        GoogleDrive will only be affordable (at any time in the next couple decades) to rich people to replace professional, expert drivers.

        Remarkably stupid if Google does this. They'll go the way of the "electric" car and all the other fancy cars targeted at, well, Beverly Hills. A few rich celebs will buy one and pose for the cameras, and then they will be forgotten. No, Google needs to bite the bullet and take an example from Henry Ford. Make pennies on the unit, but make millions and millions of units.

      • by timeOday (582209) on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:57AM (#40942417)

        The best drivers DO NOT trust others around them to avoid smashing into us. If we did...

        Ha ha ha... classic...

        Did you know 93% [wikipedia.org] of drivers consider themselves better than average?

      • by Firethorn (177587)

        I've calced out an autodrive system to be 'worth' around $20k to the 'average' person, with the following assumptions:
        1. The system is better than 90% of drivers. It may get into accidents that a human would have avoided, but it avoids accidents that a human would have caused. IE it might get into an accident where it didn't recognize the hazard that would have been very obvious to a human, but avoided an accident where the human wouldn't have been able to react fast enough. Whatever, it's somewhere aro

        • by Dr_Barnowl (709838) on Friday August 10, 2012 @03:35AM (#40942905)

          As the percentage of auto-drive vehicles on the road increases, the effect on traffic flow will be good as well.

          A lot of jams on the motorway are just because people have crappy feedback loops, and don't leave enough braking space, and this causes waves of braking to propagate back through the traffic, gathering magnitude, until you end up with a stop.

          Auto-drive cars will both leave sufficient stopping space and given a means of communicating with each other, can brake in perfect synchrony, anticipate each others lane changing and turning manoeuvres, etc.

          This will have more of an effect on fuel efficiency and the general throughput of the road network than anything else. The only downside to this is that it will become less easy to successfully argue that you should be working at home...

    • by Dunbal (464142) *
      Unless of course you happen to be stopped in the overtaking lane of a highway...
  • Interference? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10, 2012 @12:36AM (#40941997)

    I want to know about interference between cars. I've only see one self-driving car tested at a time. If there's hundreds within visual range of each other are their radar and laser sensors going to have much more noise?

    The little experience I have with robots is that laser range finders like to bounce off things and skew readings. How do the cars deal with that?

    • Re:Interference? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stephanruby (542433) on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:15AM (#40942183)

      I want to know about interference between cars. I've only see one self-driving car tested at a time. If there's hundreds within visual range of each other are their radar and laser sensors going to have much more noise?

      With hundreds of self-driving cars everywhere, then they may even be able to save on gas by flocking together and save on wind resistance and save on stopping time by sharing gas and Slurpees at high speeds.

      And of course, fewer sensors would have to operate that way, only the car in front would have to scan far off in the front, and only the car in the back would have to scan the rear.

    • Many questions arise (Score:3, Interesting)

      by qbitslayer (2567421)

      -What will Google's car do if it gets a flat tire on the road?
      -What will it do in case of an accident?
      -Can it back itself into the garage?
      -Can it parallel park?
      -Can it park itself at a commercial parking lot or structure?
      -Can it go through alleys?
      -Can it go where there are no roads?
      -Does it have to have a human on board?
      -Can I call it on my cell phone and tell it to pick me up at the airport?
      -Can vision-impaired grandma take it for a visit the doctor?
      -Can the kids use it to go to school?

      There are more but y

      • Your questions about whether it needs a human and if you can use your phone to request your car comes and picks you up: Soon.

        Google has golf carts doing just that to drive people around their HQ.
        You book it online or via your phone and it shows up outside your office, where you can either drive it yourself or let it take you somewhere.

  • But how smart? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    My understanding is that it cannot read signs, or deal with many types of unusual conditions like detours, nor can deal with a location without maps. Does anyone know about the limits of the Google car?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by peppepz (1311345)
      I also read that the automatic drive wasn't able to cope with simple situations such as another car coming from the opposite direction in a narrow street, requiring manual intervention. So alongside the triumphant tones, they should also explain how much these cars are really self driving; most car accidents don't occur in straight motorways.
      • Re:But how smart? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by vux984 (928602) on Friday August 10, 2012 @02:26AM (#40942507)

        Pretty much this.

        Google deliberately avoids the more challenging situations, and a LOT of those miles are highway.

        There's a reason insurance rates for someone living in a small town in the country are lower. Right now, google is pretty much "that guy".

        That's not to disparage what google has accomplished, but its premature to compare it to the safety record of a downtown urban commuter; driving through rush hour traffic to and from work in a major city daily.

        • by Thelasko (1196535)

          Google deliberately avoids the more challenging situations, and a LOT of those miles are highway

          I work in the auto industry and have seen miles used as a metric in a number of tests. The problem with using miles as a measurement in an automotive test is that highway miles are inherently different than city miles. A manager always says, "this vehicle needs to last X miles. Get the verification data as quickly as possible." The product validation team immediately goes out and puts X highway miles on the vehicle because highway miles are the quickest way to rack up miles.

          Later on in those programs,

  • Impressive, but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by punit_r (1080185) on Friday August 10, 2012 @12:49AM (#40942063)

    It is indeed an impressive statistic about the number of accidents by the self-driving car of Google. This does prove that their decision making algorithms are good.

    However, comparison to humans is probably not fair. Human mind is more prone to giving in to temptation. Exceeding speed limits, violating lane changing rules once in a while to get ahead, talking while driving, texting while driving, getting distracted by the hot chick/dude in the car in the next lane are all errors that humans would routinely make. Some of them would lead to accidents where the erring driver suffers an accident. Some lead to an innocent driver suffering due to the errors of others. It is the latter condition where the Self-Driving car's algorithms appear good --- handling exceptions generated by human drivers, pedestrians and traffic.

    • Re:Impressive, but (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mark-t (151149) <`markt' `at' `lynx.bc.ca'> on Friday August 10, 2012 @12:55AM (#40942101) Journal
      It's not supposed to be a fair comparison. That's the point. The idea is that cars that are driven by computer can be vastly safer than those driven by people, which will have the desired upshot of reducing accidents.
    • What exactly is your point? The idea of comparing it to humans is for the decision of whether it is going to be a good idea long term to start migrating cars to being more CPU driven instead of human driven. Unless you are implying that to make the cars more realistic, self driving cars need to start doing more stupid actions to fairly compeat with humans. The fact is they have this track record on roads driven by normal humans, meaning the transition period where some cars are self driving and some are hum
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10, 2012 @12:52AM (#40942079)

    So far I've never seen an explanation, but all these situations have occurred to me within the last year:

    (1) Construction zone, worker standing with a temporary "slow/stop" sign indicating when cars can proceed on a one-lane section shared between both directions alternately.

    (2) Baseball rolls out into street in residential area, followed soon by child who was initially invisible behind a parked minivan. I knew ball might be followed by someone, and slowed way down so this wasn't a problem. At normal speed, it would have been.

    (3) Nearly invisible ice around curve, one other car had slid off road. I knew to greatly reduce speed even below normal winter operating conditions.

    (4) Two lanes in each direction road. Noticed other car weaving around unpredictably, and later noticed driver occupied with cell phone. I then knew not to drive next to this vehicle even though that would have been fine in other conditions.

    How would google's car handle these situations?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:12AM (#40942161)

      I have seen a roadworks site where the speed limit sign showed 0 kph. There was no one working there at the time. I did wonder what Google's car would have done.

    • Currently who knows, long term, with enough data and analysis, probably significantly better than the average human. Eventually the algorythem will learn to recognize these things even if it doesn't already, and you also have to factor in from the sounds of it, you are miles above the average driver. In the real world there are likely more drivers matching the other guy in example 4, than there are people who would have slowed down for the ice in 3. For a long time even when they are released to the public,
      • by chebucto (992517) *

        The GP is just practicing defensive driving. Any sensible human can learn that. If the googlecar can't be made to do that, then I won't be driving in it.

        The progress so far is encouraging, but the problem is very difficult and it's hard to know whether self-driving cars will become a new fusion: always 5 or 10 years away.

        PS - It's algorithm, not algorythm.

    • by Y.A.A.P. (1252040)

      Another article about this milestone covered #1 & #3 of what you listed.

      The self-driving cars have been deliberately kept out of those situations as they are more difficult to handle, but it was noted that they would be using the compiled data to adjust the programming and have those among the tested conditions in the next phase.

      As to #2, I haven't read about it being specifically tested, but the programming for such a situation is already in the self-driving cars. They stop to avoid collisions with an

    • by Americano (920576)

      Not really sure, but if I'm the engineer putting these types of systems together, I'm thinking...

      (1) Construction zone, worker standing with a temporary "slow/stop" sign indicating when cars can proceed on a one-lane section shared between both directions alternately.

      Either:

      1) Bring the vehicle to a safe stop at the side of the road and revert to manual control until the problem area is cleared.
      2) give the worker with the slow/stop sign a transmitter attached to his slow/stop sign that provides relevant in

    • by medlefsen (995255)

      Here is the interesting thing in my eyes. My guess is that while most of those are actually pretty solvable it is almost certain that there will be situations that trips up the computer whereas a human would have no problems. Even still, the comparison isn't between computers and humans in particular situations, but computers and humans overall.

      Imagine if we lived in a world with computer driven cars and someone suggested humans start driving themselves. Imagine the itemized lists people would create tha

    • by Tom (822)

      how does it handle atypical situations?

      By driving with a human inside who can be notified and take over when the robot is confused. Autonomous driving does not mean that the car is out on its own.

      Next question?

  • The point is following the rules of the road like speed and proper distancing tends to annoy LA drives which can lead to violence, some gun related. Not all driving is text book and different areas have different social rules. In Washington State drivers that are the first to a four way stop will often wait for another driver to go first. This has got to confuse an AI system.
    • by mark-t (151149)
      Self driving cars don't have to follow the normal distancing rules, since they do not have to factor in human reaction time to control the vehicle. An automated car can safely drive *FAR* closer to a vehicle in front of it than would be safe for any human.
    • by geekoid (135745)

      " LA drives which can lead to violence, some gun related. "
      I leaned and drove in LA for years. No violence, very little road rage. Do you get all you information from games and over hyped news media.

      " In Washington State drivers that are the first to a four way stop will often wait for another driver to go first.".
      more evidence that they are the crappiest drivers in the country. Cant stand to drive in the inconsistent driver state. They drive like the automobile is some new invention.

    • by Americano (920576)

      Short term - all self-driving cars required to stay in the "Self driving car" lane on the highway.

      Long term - most people will be letting their car handle the bulk of the driving while they read the paper, make some phone calls, take a nap, or enjoy a cup of coffee. Why would they get angry?

    • In Washington State drivers that are the first to a four way stop will often wait for another driver to go first. This has got to confuse an AI system.

      This would confuse the hell out of me too, but a computer has patience, it could just wait the other driver out. At least, being in a self-driving car would free both my hands to open the window, give them the finger, yell at the top of my lungs, and throw things at the other car.

  • Google must not be counting the incidents that were the fault of flawed humans.

    "It can only be attributable to human error."

  • Politicians set the limits low to get votes from grandma and from people who think the street is a place for young/dumb/autistic/adhd kids to play without supervision. Except for a few corrupt small towns abusing power on a highway that passes through, nobody else expects or desires to have the speed limits enforced as posted.

    So... can I set the car to go 9% faster? Can I set it to go the fastest speed that keeps any violation from being a felony? Can I set it to accelerate in a sporty/aggressive fasion? Ca

  • by dyingtolive (1393037) <brad@arnett.notforhire@org> on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:16AM (#40942189)
    The moment even one accident does occur, no matter how mild the consequences or much more unlikely the circumstances compared to a human driver, hordes upon hordes of American luddites will man the lines to do their civic duty to shit upon the idea of cars that drive themselves.

    Mind you, this is being said by an American who owns a US made car.
    • by bondsbw (888959)

      True, but there is a limit at some point.

      Obviously if a self-driving car is as likely to kill you, you'll at least take your chances with your own driving so that you can be the deciding factor. But what if the self-driving car was only half as likely to kill you? 1/4? What if it provides a 99% reduction in traffic fatalities?

      At a certain point, the government would step in and force the use of self-driving vehicles, just like they require airbags in new vehicles and enforce seat belt laws.

  • More than 10% [wikipedia.org] of the 1.2M road traffic accidents in the world per year, occur in India alone: 133,938. Closet rival in that regard - China, with about half that rate. The Top Gear India special [youtube.com] last year ... if you saw the part when they are driving on the highways ... you'll see what I mean.

    The fatalities per 100K population and per 100K vehicles is low compared to other countries because the average is skewed by the high population [wikipedia.org] (1.2 billion!) and the vast areas of countryside where traffic density a

  • This will change once the cars get cell phones and can send and receive text messages. Later they'll get addicted to dirty electricity. Finally the cars will start to compete among themselves to see which among them can scare the most bios as dramatically as possible - with the inevitable occasional damage to paintwork and perhaps even bodywork.

    We have to let our cars skid their way through youth.
  • I love this idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EGSonikku (519478) <petersen.mobile@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:44AM (#40942345)

    I live in Reno, and Google's Self Driving cars are legal on road here (complete with cool plates with infinity logo: http://www.jumpthecurve.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/18164996_BG1.jpg [jumpthecurve.net])

    A few things:

    1) Has google partnered at all with any manufacturers to have this ability on a future car I can buy?
    2) or as an upgrade to existing cars?

    I'm hoping they don't get stuck in red tape legal limbo hell, and that more states other than my own Nevada jump on board. I regularly make 3.5 - 4 hour drive to friends in California. If I could just jump in the car, pop in an address, and take a nap, play on my iPad, or whatever while the car drove that'd be awesome. Or a ride home from a bar if I've been drinking and don't want to taxi and leave the car behind.

    Or imagine a friend asks for a ride someplace? No problem, I send the car over on its own, and he can just tell it to come back to my house afterwards.

    There are tons of ideas I can think of where this would be very damned useful.

  • by david.emery (127135) on Friday August 10, 2012 @04:33AM (#40943265)

    How many times has the Google-mobile pulled into and out of parking spaces at busy malls? Frankly, that's where I've had my accidents.

  • Rush Hour? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bensam123 (1340765) on Friday August 10, 2012 @08:09AM (#40944311)
    I would really question how these cars function in rush hour in a big city. Driving there is sketchy at best and in order to merge into another lane you sometimes literally need to start heading into the other lane even with traffic that isn't helping you merge. How would a car like this function bumper to bumper?

    In the future a bunch of these could eliminate traffic jams, but that isn't going to be a case for a long time.
  • I wish (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SpaghettiPattern (609814) on Friday August 10, 2012 @08:23AM (#40944397)
    I wish to be driven about in a self-driving car. For hundreds of kms at hundreds of kmhs. In tightly packed convoys to save fuel even at mind boggling speeds. Sleeping comfortably in safety.

    Except for the weekends. Then I wish to exhibit my driving prowess on mountain passes.

    Life gets sweeter by the day.

Time to take stock. Go home with some office supplies.

Working...