Watchdog Group Wants Uber's Self-Driving Trucks Off the Road (usatoday.com) 113
New submitter Kemtores quotes a report from USA Today: A few months ago, the ride-hailing giant announced that it would begin testing self-driving Volvo SUVs in this hilly city, but a day later that process was halted after the DMV said Uber had not applied for the proper permits. Uber moved its fleet to Arizona. Uber cars laden with sensors still troll San Francisco, but the company said it is only for mapping purposes. Now a southern California non-profit that has long raised concerns about the safety of autonomous vehicles has asked the DMV to look closer at the operations of Otto, a self-driving truck company that Uber bought last year for $670 million. Otto made headlines in October when it completed a 120-mile beer run with a large semi-tractor in Colorado. But Consumer Watchdog's John Simpson charged in a letter to DMV director Jean Shiomoto that in fact Otto's testing here did violate the law by operating in autonomous mode, offering proof in the form of documentation Otto submitted to Colorado officials that described a process where the driver hit a button and let the truck do the work.
See, this application actually makes some sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Long-haul, on the other hand, makes a lot more sense for self-driving vehicles, especially if they're basically limited to the interstate highway system as a limited-access freeway model. There are less people on the roads outside of motor vehicles, and the rules for where cross-country hikers and bicyclists are supposed to be at on those roads are definable. If operators remain with the trucks, if the trucks can be made reliable enough to self-drive where the driver doesn't have to be involved at all then driver fatigue can be significantly curtailed on the over-the-road part, so the drivers are fresh for operating where manual control is necessary, like at warehousing depots, in cities, and on roads that do not lend themselves to autonomous mode. Lastly, from the trucking-company perspective, using the convoy model where perhaps twenty trucks are shepherded by a single driver, ostensibly playin follow-the leader, would significantly curtail labor costs and would allow the trucking companies to base more staff locally to depots and cities, so that convoy, moved city-to-city by one driver, would be distributed to numerous local-delivery drivers or warehousing-yard drivers once it's near its destination, those drivers wouldn't be stuck in a sleeper cab overnight away from home when they're off-shift.
Granted, there probably still needs to be some ground rules for companies experimenting with autonomous trucking, but it makes a lot more sense to start with trucks than with around-town passenger vehicles.
Re:See, this application actually makes some sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Commercial truck driving is almost as tightly regulated as taxi services. For many of the same reasons: people who have done it without being regulated have killed a lot of people. And an 80,000 pound truck can kill far more people than a 2,000 pound car, when driven poorly.
Uber's entirely business model is criminal, and they know it.
Re: (Score:1)
What isn't regulated is keeping the driver attentive on the road if his attention wanders or if he gets tired.
The nature of the equivalent of IQ for computers has been discussed in the context of autonomous vehicles. Following the road itself is easy- there are multip
Re: (Score:2)
I am no self-driving fanatic. I see value in it though. I can easily foresee using autono
Re: (Score:1)
"No cross-traffic"
It's human nature to make assumptions, assumptions that then get programmed into autonomous car systems. And then someone dies.
Tesla driver dies in first fatal crash while using autopilot mode | Technology | The Guardian [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I am well aware of that accident, and that's why I believe that the technology should be developed not that it's ready for prime-time.
For t
Re: (Score:2)
Why not have the drivers in full control, and the computers just observer and record what the would have done? Then compare the logs of the two, to spot the differences. Take the Teslas for example -- why not have the self driving part always running, but in "disconnected" mode, to build up the training data?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And no, I don't let the stand-alone talk to the outside world.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I recall the truck driver was ticketed for making an illegal left turn.
A human driver could have also failed to react in time if they were distracted for just a few seconds by an incoming text, changing the radio etc.
I'll be the first to agree that automated vehicles are not perfect yet but there are already indications that they are safer than many classes of human drivers. And by safer, I mean they have a lower accident rate and a lower fatality rate per 100,000 miles.
Automated vehicles are not
Re: (Score:2)
The driver failed to react because he was watching a video. The computer did not react at all, that's much different to not reacting in time, although I guess that some other sensors probably detected the truck when the car was 0.01ish seconds away from it.
It's the first time I've heard anyone say the turn was not legal, got a source? I read an article on it and it does not say the turn wasn't legal.Looks legal (road diagram): http://www.treehugger.com/cars... [treehugger.com]
I'm not sure if there are really good enough sta
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but due to the illegal left turn, the human driver would have had very little time to react as well.
I read the truck driver was ticketed for turning in front of the tesla on a divided highway.
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting point that we learn from this is that the Tesla vehicle is not looking as far ahead as the driver would be looking. I'm inferring that because the vehicle doesn't seem to have been recognised whilst it made the initial stages of the turn. Or it somehow forgot what it had seen.
This is what I don't like about autonomous vehicles, you don't know what their capabilities are or how they might react or what dangers they potentially pose, at least with humans you have a reasonable idea.
Re: (Score:1)
I also read (unconfirmed) that the tesla vehicle accelerated in the last few seconds. It couldn't see the truck and thought it had open road. That might speak to the optics systems.
Really tho, anything you say could be said in abundance with any younger driver, or any distracted driver (tired driver, driver arguing with passengers, driver glancing at cell phone after it beeped, eating driver who just dropped something in their lap): "you don't know what their capabilities are or how they might react or wh
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much agree with that, although I think with fully autonomous cars it makes more sense for the manufacturer to cover the insurance. Why? Because it makes no sense for the customer to have the insurance - why wold they want that pointless burden? And because of potential new precedents. In a new legal field the manufacturer would want to throw everything they have towards winning cases in order to avoid any bad precedents.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about the legality but, in an accident, the person who turns left into oncoming traffic is always at fault. I did it once. To this day I have no idea what I was thinking, until I was across the lane looking through my passenger door window at an oncoming car going to fast to stop. (I was then thinking "SHIT!") I got a nice big ticket on top of my repair bill and increased insurance rates.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think the "hours of operation" regulations are for, if not to prevent companies from working their staff to being over tired? I was taking the bus last weekend when the driver got caught by the 15 minute warning on his hours meter and only just managed to get off the motorway onto a lay by before he timed
Re: (Score:2)
In a metal vehicle? You've not actually had to do compass & distance dead reckoning, have you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And an 80,000 pound truck can kill far more people than a 2,000 pound car, when driven poorly.
Especially when driven by a muslim near a crowd of people.
Re: (Score:2)
There is already a way to fuel them. It's called a full service gas station. Assuming the truck can navigate to the appropriate spot, and if there is a market for it, I'm more than sure that truck stops will be willing to add a person to staff to handle the fuel dispensing (for a price).
Re: (Score:3)
They are REALLY efficient too... A whole lot more effect than that thing with 18 rubber tires flying down the road..
Re: See, this application actually makes some sens (Score:2)
Those things with 18 wheels also reach a lot of places that aren't practical for a train. This is quite similar to why your circulatory system has both capillaries and arteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Those things with 18 wheels also reach a lot of places that aren't practical for a train. This is quite similar to why your circulatory system has both capillaries and arteries.
Constrict capillaries!
(C'mon, *some*body was gonna say it!)
Strat
Re:See, this application actually makes some sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:See, this application actually makes some sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually rail is more efficient per ton pre mile that any form of ground transportation going. It's not because it moves a lot of stuff, but that the steel on steel rolling resistance is almost nothing compared to a truck with rubber on asphalt. This is why you CAN tow a mile long train with couple of locomotives....
Rail's problem is the infrastructure costs are really high. Keeping miles and miles of rails in useable condition is hard and labor intensive. Maintaining rolling stock costs money... Getting that ton of freight from point a to b doesn't cost that much in fuel, but in labor, logistics and infrastructure suck up a lot of cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Rail's problem is the infrastructure costs are really high.
Also the loading/unloading time and effort, unless both the source and destination has rail it's easier to get a truck to deliver door to door. You could also use a truck that transports a shipping container but they're heavy steel boxes made to be stacked on ships that add weight and you still need to get to and from the railway stations and wait for a crane to pick it up and drop it off. The rail system is best suited to extending the port system really, stuff arrives on shipping containers that you grab
Re: (Score:2)
They don't call those metal boxes "intermodal" containers for nothing...
Actually, now days those intermodal containers are being moved by boat, train AND truck all the time. I live 5 miles away from a rail intermodal depot and they put those containers onto trailers and deliver to that last mile regularly from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boxcars are not "intermodal" containers and for the reasons you specify are not used all that much anymore. Who's got time for all that trouble when you have trucks.
I'll bet you do receive intermodal containers, disguised as trucks... Especially if you import or export stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the infrastructure costs of rail are high but can generally be thought of as fixed. Running a train over a set of tracks does not do much, if any, damage to them. So if you can run a few extra trains in a period of time you are spreading the maintenance costs for the period over more runs. This allows the company to charge less per run for the maintenance costs and still make a profit.
If you load the train with shipping containers then you can quickly transition from ship/truck/train to train and back
Re: (Score:2)
Actually rail is more efficient per ton pre mile that any form of ground transportation going. It's not because it moves a lot of stuff, but that the steel on steel rolling resistance is almost nothing compared to a truck with rubber on asphalt. This is why you CAN tow a mile long train with couple of locomotives....
Rail's problem is the infrastructure costs are really high. Keeping miles and miles of rails in useable condition is hard and labor intensive. Maintaining rolling stock costs money... Getting that ton of freight from point a to b doesn't cost that much in fuel, but in labor, logistics and infrastructure suck up a lot of cost.
There are two big problems to adapting mass rail cargo.
1. You need rail to go everywhere. Track and rolling stock maintenance has a minimum price that is pretty high. Sure if you fully utilise it, its cheap per mile/per ton, but if you're not fully utilising it you can lose a lot of money very fast. If we're only moving a few tonnes to small towns, using a Double B is more cost effective. Rail cargo makes a lot of sense going city to city, which is how most of the world uses it, but little sense servicin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY The only difference is that one of the sets of maintenance costs (for the "rolling stock") is farmed out to millions of tax payers who've already paid the other half of the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the whole purpose of the Interstate Highway System is to facilitate commerce, right?
It wasn't built so you can drive to Vegas for the weekend.
- Necron69
Re: (Score:2)
But it IS a nice benefit of the system...
However, I do think the interstate system was intended to carry more than just goods on trucks over long distances if that's what you are saying. Enabling tourism, getting to grandma's house faster and commuting to/from work where considerations as it is currently built.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the ability to drive to Vegas for the weekend facilitate commerce?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually it was National Defense, but carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: See, this application actually makes some sens (Score:2)
The problem is infrastructure. Every single store you shop at has a loading dock in back for trucks, not rail. So why accept the time delays of putting intermodal trailers on train then back to truck when gas is so cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't always that way. Grocery stores used to have their own rail sidings [wikipedia.org], back when trucking wasn't so heavily subsidized.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:See, this application actually makes some sense (Score:5, Insightful)
"Long-haul, on the other hand, makes a lot more sense for self-driving vehicles, especially if they're basically limited to the interstate highway system as a limited-access freeway model. "
In particular, a robot trucker will be less concerned with penis size than its human counterpart. A robot driver, grinding up a grade at 21 mph, is not going to leave the dedicated Trucks Only lane to vainly try passing a 20 mph truck, thereby blocking a long line of cars which could have passed by.
Re: (Score:2)
Automated vehicles scrupulously obey speed limits and traffic signage, which is why human drivers find the current beta cars annoying in traffic. And I'm talking about situations where an upgrade on the Interstate has a clearly labeled climbing lane that trucks are restricted to. Examples are I-17 southbound from Camp Verde, AZ and northbound from Black Canyon City.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speed limits come in two kinds: mandatory and arbitrary. There's a section of the Mass Pike (I-90, Lee to Worcester) where it's safe to do 100 under clear conditions despite Speed Limit 65 signage. However, on I-290 shortly after getting off the Pike, you must do 50 or slower to avoid flipping over because of curved roads.
Automated driving must understand all of these situations... otherwise they'll cause accidents that back up everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem blocking this is that car controllers grabbed frequency FM 108.1 without the FCC's approval, and they're supposed be using that for 107.9-HD3s... sure, the police could grab a speeder based on a report from the car's computer, but on what frequency do they do that? Seems like they need to find something in the FCC chart to make that work.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a section of the Mass Pike (I-90, Lee to Worcester) where it's safe to do 100 under clear conditions despite Speed Limit 65 signage.
Some quick questions... Does that speed (safe to do 100) apply to a long-haul or truck? And if anything at all happens that requires you to sharply reduce the speed while you are driving 100 (assuming 100 mph), what would happen? And replace your car with a long-haul or truck, what would happen?
Re: (Score:2)
I was asked by MassHighway and WBZ(AM) Traffic on the 3s to drive 100 MPH in this zone in my Honda Civic Hybrid, and trucks carrying books from the Harry Potter series on release night did the same thing.
In this case, it was late on a clear night and I had the section of road all to myself so there was nothing to hit, and I was told to gently apply breaking four miles before my exit.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now the 'common speed' (including the windage cops give you in most states) is limited by human mental processing speed and reaction time. When automated cars take over and all the "manual" cars have aged off the road, I can see a Great Speedup taking place as traffic reaches the maximum rate that physics and passenger comfort will allow. We will have to hash over such questions as, will passengers tolerate 1G cornering if cars can be designed to safely do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Automated vehicles annihilating cyclists who blow through stop signs and signals? This tech continues to spark off unexpected benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, it will be more likely, as an economic optimum will be computed, instead of an hourly driver going "fuck it" and not passing.
HAHAHAHAHA no. The driver never says "fuck it" and doesn't pass.
Okay, "never" is hyperbole. But it's well-known that there's a shitload of poorly trained new truck drivers out there driving like dickholes.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect not one bit of clear information, and for a tough, political fight. Something like 12% of US men drive something for a living. There's going to be a ton of money and disinformation pouring into this area.
Re: (Score:2)
Paid for shills? (Score:4, Interesting)
Usually when a "watchdog group" appears, it tends to have been funded by someone in order to either derail some technology (as it can interfere with the profits of the company lining the "watchdog group"'s pockets), or it is made to suit some political agenda.
I wonder who runs the group in question. Some other state wanting people to test there, perhaps?
Buffet (Score:2, Informative)
Usually it's a Warren Buffet backed organization trying to mess with anything that could interfere with his rail investments. Automated trucks would fit the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually it's a Warren Buffet backed organization trying to mess with anything that could interfere with his rail investments. Automated trucks would fit the bill.
It will be easier to implement automated trains than automated trucks. And no more stoned train jockeys plowing through signals.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually it's a Warren Buffet backed organization trying to mess with anything that could interfere with his rail investments. Automated trucks would fit the bill.
Funny how it's the *other* guys that are the crony-capitalists, though, eh?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III
Heh, mine's a bit newer. An SGI Octane system running SGI's IRIX 6.5 desktop version of UNIX. :P
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Teamsters, I would guess. Don't they represent truck drivers and don't they have the most to lose?
No more truckstops with self driving trucks? (Score:2)
Re: Otto is not ready for the streets (Score:2)
Computers react mich faster than human drivers, so what's your point? I get it, you want job security, but I ain't ever seen a machine fall asleep at the wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Watchdog group's motto: (Score:2)
"We want the past!"
"When to we want it? NOW!"
Re: (Score:1)
They want one of those laws whereby a man carrying a red flag must walk ahead of any autonomous vehicle as it proceeds, in order to warn people that it is coming.
Re: Opposition (Score:2)
Technically this tech has arrived. PERIOD.
If that were even remotely true, you wouldn't have needed to state it, much less quite so desperately...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No One objects to being a Lab Rat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that most of these vehicles have undergone extensive testing on closed courses before they are put on public roads. Also, there is someone in the car while it is being tested, ready to take over if necessary.
IIRC, the only times that Google's self-driving cars have been in an accident is when the operator took over control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A Google car turned into a Transformer?
So, Luddites then? (Score:3)
...a southern California non-profit that has long raised concerns about the safety of autonomous vehicles
Have they long raised the concerns about human drivers who have a 100-year track record of abysmal failure? Accidents will happen with autonomous vehicles, but it's not going to be anywhere near the rate it happens with a human behind the wheel.
"No sir! I don't like it one bit! I don't want any new-fangled automo-contraptions making all kinds of noise on the streets. What's wrong with a carriage and good horse?"
Re: (Score:2)
but it's not going to be anywhere near the rate it happens with a human behind the wheel.
You say that like you know it for a fact. Care to be an expert witness for the injury lawsuit that Uber is bound to end up having?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We like tradition. Beep, beep [wikipedia.org]
That's why we can't have nice things! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Slashdot used to be the place where online conventions of the smart people happened... where did they go?
Tesla cars have an autonomous mode.. (Score:2)
Do tesla have this special autonomous license everywhere, or is it an oversight?
Uber doesn't play by laws.... (Score:2)
Uber seems to be relying on a "We're on the Internet, there's no laws here!" approach rather than complying with local taxi regulations. Most cities and states limit the number of taxis on the roads to prevent gas waste and traffic, but Uber and Lyft don't apply for such things, they just start up anyway.
Shadowing of real drivers by the automated system (Score:2)
Shouldn't it be possible to outfit one of these trucks to log not only the actions of the automated system, but also of the human driver? Have human drivers doing their usual routine for a year while also having the automated systems active—But instead of actually controlling the truck, they would merely log the actions they would have taken and any discrepancies between the human driver and automated systems could be analyzed to account for edge-cases.
Here we go... (Score:2)
Roll out the Luddites!
From inside the transportation industry (Score:1)
Until an autonomous system itself reaches an extremely higher level of maturity/sophistication it’s a long way from coming mainstream. The system, as it stands now cannot see an accident a mile down the road, it can’t see a police officer having pulled someone over on the shoulder of the highway, it can’t see debris in the road. In the 20 truck convoy scenario laid out, the shepherd riding in truck# 1 will not be able to respond/react quickly enough when truck# 17 blows a steering tire.
On