Self-Driving Waymo Trucks To Haul Loads Between Houston and Fort Worth (arstechnica.com) 91
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Thursday morning, Waymo announced that it is working with trucking company JB Hunt to autonomously haul cargo loads in Texas. Class 8 JB Hunt trucks equipped with the autonomous driving software and hardware system called Waymo Driver will operate on I-45 in Texas, taking cargo between Houston and Fort Worth. However, the trucks will still carry humans -- a trained truck driver and Waymo technicians -- to supervise and take over if necessary.
"This will be one of the first opportunities for JB Hunt to receive data and feedback on customer freight moved with a Class 8 tractor operating at this level of autonomy. While we believe there will be a need for highly skilled, professional drivers for many years to come, it is important for JB Hunt as an industry leader to be involved early in the development of advanced autonomous technologies and driving systems to ensure that their implementation will improve efficiency while enhancing safety," said Craig Harper, chief sustainability officer at JB Hunt. "We're thrilled to collaborate with JB Hunt as we advance and commercialize the Waymo Driver," said Charlie Jatt, head of commercialization for trucking at Waymo. "Our teams share an innovative and safety-first mindset as well as a deep appreciation for the potential benefits of autonomous driving technology in trucking. It's companies and relationships like these that will make this technology a commercial reality in the coming years."
"This will be one of the first opportunities for JB Hunt to receive data and feedback on customer freight moved with a Class 8 tractor operating at this level of autonomy. While we believe there will be a need for highly skilled, professional drivers for many years to come, it is important for JB Hunt as an industry leader to be involved early in the development of advanced autonomous technologies and driving systems to ensure that their implementation will improve efficiency while enhancing safety," said Craig Harper, chief sustainability officer at JB Hunt. "We're thrilled to collaborate with JB Hunt as we advance and commercialize the Waymo Driver," said Charlie Jatt, head of commercialization for trucking at Waymo. "Our teams share an innovative and safety-first mindset as well as a deep appreciation for the potential benefits of autonomous driving technology in trucking. It's companies and relationships like these that will make this technology a commercial reality in the coming years."
Time to start charging for road damage. (Score:5, Interesting)
Heavy trucks have been exploiting our road and highway system for decades (in the name of trucking jobs) and now with total autonomy, it's only going to increase. Since this innovation is already putting millions of truckers out of a job, it seems only fitting that corporations start paying for the damage that their heavy trucks are doing to our roads and bridges. Frankly, trains are underutilized because trucking is subsidized which is a shame. Additional benefits of trains include less pollution, less traffic and roads that last longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time to start charging for road damage. (Score:4, Informative)
If we were doing a fair yearly registration tax, it would be based solely on curb weight and tires, not value or age or location within a state.
Here in NSW, Australia it is exactly how it works. Registration fees are weight based and tolls are significantly more for trucks (eg one toll road near me is $8 for a car, or $16 for a truck). There is also the fuel excise which is based on consumption so heavier vehicles using more fuel pay more.
I surprised that this isn't standard everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it works in the USA too basically. Large commercial vehicles have to pay for a different class of license and fuel is taxed, etc.
Some people just like to blame their problems on someone else.
Re: (Score:3)
They do pay more here, but not in proportion to the damage that they do to the roads. If a car pays $8 do you really think the toll for a big truck should only be $16? Does it put only twice the wear and tear on the highway as your car does? The toll really should be closer to $80 for the truck, but companies like Walmart, ADM, and JB Hunt make sure your legislatures don't charge them appropriately.
Re: (Score:2)
Proportionate to their weight, but not proportionate to the wear and tear they put on the road. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Damn you burger flippers are dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
You really don't know that large corporations corrupt politicians with campaign contributions, insider information and other favors? Yeesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Registration fees are weight based and tolls are significantly more for trucks (eg one toll road near me is $8 for a car, or $16 for a truck).
If you mean a pickup, that's not fair; cars have grown in weight to the point where the pickup doesn't do much more damage. If you mean an actual truck, it's still not fair, because trucks do way more than twice as much damage as cars.
Re:Time to start charging for road damage. (Score:5, Insightful)
In aggregate, the full size SUV does more damage than trucks.
You think that a 6000 lb SUV does more damage than a 70,000 lb truck? I'd like to see how you support that claim.
The Fourth Power Rule [cyclelicio.us] says the per axle weight of the truck will do over 400 times the damage as the SUV. Also, the 30psi tires of the SUV aren't nearly as destructive as the 100psi tires of the truck.
I agree an SUV can do more damage than a Honda Civic, but the heavy trucks do orders of magnitude more damage than either of them.
--
Re: (Score:3)
In aggregate, the full size SUV does more damage than trucks.
You think that a 6000 lb SUV does more damage than a 70,000 lb truck? I'd like to see how you support that claim. The Fourth Power Rule [cyclelicio.us] says the per axle weight of the truck will do over 400 times the damage as the SUV. Also, the 30psi tires of the SUV aren't nearly as destructive as the 100psi tires of the truck. I agree an SUV can do more damage than a Honda Civic, but the heavy trucks do orders of magnitude more damage than either of them. --
Ever seen what a 10-pound woodchuck can do to a tree 400 times it's size?
Volume matters. There are a hell of a lot more SUVs on the road, than heavy trucks. (And therefore a hell of a lot more taxes that can be extracted from consumers of said roads.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever seen what a 10-pound woodchuck can do to a tree 400 times it's size?
Cars aren't woodchucks, and roads aren't trees.
Volume matters
It actually doesn't matter much at all when the disparity is so great. The light autos don't even make a dent in road sections that heavy trucks absolutely demolish.
There are a hell of a lot more SUVs on the road, than heavy trucks. (And therefore a hell of a lot more taxes that can be extracted from consumers of said roads.)
That's the actual reason it's done. It has nothing to do with road damage.
However, there are a hell of a lot of people behind the packages loaded onto those heavy trucks. If you tax all the heavy trucks equally, nobody has an advantage (unless it's a natural one that actually improves conditions, li
Re: (Score:2)
Tax vehicles by their ability to cause road damage, which means that the chart of who's paying what rises sharply as the weight goes up — as it should.
I wonder how bad the pollution problem would be today if we had made heavy trucking illegal for smaller goods, and forced that to be some massive number of smaller transport vehicles instead. Then again, I'm hoping that we alleviate some of this burden by taking it to the air (drone delivery).
You bring a fair point regarding taxing based on the ability to cause road damage, but you would have Corporate Greed arguing that down to the per-use pound. Ironically, new taxes would have to be raised just to pay
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how bad the pollution problem would be today if we had made heavy trucking illegal for smaller goods, and forced that to be some massive number of smaller transport vehicles instead. Then again, I'm hoping that we alleviate some of this burden by taking it to the air (drone delivery).
I'm hoping we partially alleviate the emissions problem by moving to EVs for delivery vehicles. They operate on predictable routes and/or within predictable limits, and as such are ideal candidates for electrification. Drones aren't going to carry much bulk any time soon.
You bring a fair point regarding taxing based on the ability to cause road damage, but you would have Corporate Greed arguing that down to the per-use pound.
It would lead to more lightweight stuff, which in general means it's made out of less stuff. More aluminum honeycomb or what have you. It does need to be coupled with some kind of recyclability requirements to not go awry, however.
Ironically, new taxes would have to be raised just to pay for the additional bureaucracy of weighing and charging for every single vehicle and every single trip.
Probably
Re: (Score:2)
In aggregate, the full size SUV does more damage than trucks.
You think that a 6000 lb SUV does more damage than a 70,000 lb truck? I'd like to see how you support that claim.
The Fourth Power Rule [cyclelicio.us] says the per axle weight of the truck will do over 400 times the damage as the SUV. Also, the 30psi tires of the SUV aren't nearly as destructive as the 100psi tires of the truck.
I agree an SUV can do more damage than a Honda Civic, but the heavy trucks do orders of magnitude more damage than either of them.
--
The difference is that the lorry weighs so much because it is carrying goods that need to go from point A to point B so we can have food and luxuries. We don't charge them more because doing so will just make food and other goods more expensive.
Someone who buys at 2.5t SUV to cart their one kid around, if that, is just a tosser.
Be kind to professional drivers on the road, some of them are complete arses, but most are just trying to do a job made harder by people who don't understand a 30t loaded lorry won't
Time to start minding your own business. (Score:1)
My family fit perfectly well in a Honda Civic.
Mine doesn't. I'm about 196 cm tall, and 100 kg. My brothers are more like 190 cm tall, and about the same weight. We don't fit in a Honda.
Another problem is that our tools and equipment don't fit in a Honda. I will have to carry with me test equipment, some power tools, network routers and switches, UPS batteries, and on occasion an office printer that can weigh more than I do. My brothers will have to move furniture, construction materials, and once in a while pull a trailer with a small tractor. A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My dad ran a remodeling business in Michigan for 13 years with a Dodge Dakota with the smallest 6-cylinder it was sold with, and that was all the truck that he ever actually needed. We pulled a tool trailer crammed to the gills with equipment and supplies and junk trailers full of roofing and broken concrete, and generally the back of the pickup was full of materials while doing it. He sometimes served customers who lived a mile or more of dirt two-track off the highway in the middle of winter. If he had
Re: (Score:2)
People are trying to solve a problem that does not exist. I have no problem, you all have a problem. I need to do nothing different. You all offering suggestions need to mind your business. Mind your business and your problem is solved.
I like to see problems solved. I just solved your problem.
Re: (Score:2)
"I like to see problems solved."
No, you like being a dick. Mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Time to start charging for road damage. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're just wrong. In the real world, the variables you mention don't vary that much. The variable well correlated with road damage is weight per axle, and the common correlation is that damage is proportional to the weight raised to about the 5th power. And truck axles carry much more weight than your full-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heavy trucks have been exploiting our road ... and now with total autonomy, it's only going to increase.
Nope. It will decrease.
With a human-driven truck, the major cost is the driver's wages. So there is an incentive to make the trucks big and load them as full as possible.
With self-driving trucks, the load can be spread out on smaller vehicles.
Road damage goes up as the 4th power of the axle load, so even a small reduction in weight is significant.
Re:Time to start charging for road damage. (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt that. The MBAs running our companies will see their costs go up with more trucks rather than fewer. The savings in personnel will, by that time, be declared history and already factored into the year-end bonuses given for how many fewer employees the trucking companies must support.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that. The MBAs running our companies will see their costs go up with more trucks rather than fewer. The savings in personnel will, by that time, be declared history and already factored into the year-end bonuses given for how many fewer employees the trucking companies must support.
This.
For years we've been able to automate rail, most haven't because if the automation has a fit and it takes 2 hours to get out there that can cost thousands, millions in the case of a fully loaded ore train. There are mines in the north west of Western Australia, 500 KM inland from the nearest port. Only one train runs on this track and it's completely automated however there is still a driver who's sole job is to press a button every 90 seconds (solely to prove he's still awake). The driver is still
Appearance of significance (Score:2)
As you describe it, the requirement on the driver to prove they are awake is redundant if they are truly automated, but is a make work so that everyone can pretend they are doing something significant. This is, at least in part, about the power of the unions in Australia but also the need for that not to be too blatant.
If your description is correct, the right answer is to move to the drivers being free to sleep / study / whatever without restriction. Then they are still available if something does go wrong
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
An autonomous truck prioritizing fuel economy is likely to outperform a human driver on saving fuel.
It won't, because you have to optimize for trip time as well, and therefore trucks aren't going to move at the speed which gives optimal MPG. Shipping companies compete on delivery times. The vehicles are already and long have been semi-autonomous; big rigs have long been throttle by wire (Since roughly 1999; e.g. that's when it happened to Cummins-powered rigs, when they went to the CAPS fuel system) and the PCM is in charge of fuel delivery. So it frankly will not improve fuel economy — that's been
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Human drivers aren't as patient as robots, and they tend to get a lead foot when they decide to pass someone, for example.
Independent owner-operators, who are now far in the minority, may do so. Even their motors are governed by limits based on how much horsepower they've paid for, however. Fleet drivers' progress is monitored centrally and their engines even tuned remotely in realtime for differing conditions along the route. Not to mention, when 18 wheelers pass it usually takes fucking forever.
Re: (Score:3)
An autonomous truck prioritizing fuel economy is likely to outperform a human driver on saving fuel.
This is especially true when you consider that groups of 'platooning' automated trucks will save large amounts of fuel by drafting each other.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
this innovation is already putting millions of truckers out of a job
There's a shortage of truck drivers [cnn.com]. With retirees outnumbering workers in the U.S., autonomous trucks is the solution for that problem.
Re:Time to start charging for road damage. (Score:5, Insightful)
The other solution is support for training. If you are already doing a job then you probably don't have the time (or money) to do the training courses required and if you don't have a job then you probably have the time, but less likely the money. It creates a barrier to entry, so even when unemployment is significant (I'd look at workforce participation excluding retirees not the unemployment rate - these figures are available) it may not be possible to fill jobs. The questions is should support for training be offered, and if so how.
These are questions that crop up with regularity as the needs of the economy change, and the cost of training needs to be balanced against the cost of having be people unproductive and the knock-on effects in the economy. For example, if a change in the economy means that widget tappers are no longer required then this might mean a drain on the economy to support unemployed widget tappers and the reduction in growth because widget tappers, even with unemployment benefits, aren't spending much. In that context even the government stepping in and training widget tappers to be reiki healers might be worth it if there's a demand for that, it gets them supporting the economy again and there is a sufficiently long-term demand for that. It might not be appropriate to train then as long-distance truck drivers, though, if it looks like there would be insufficient demand for that long-term as you'd need to train them again.
Yes, you can make the argument that people should have personal responsibility and ensure they have skills that are up-to-date, but the reality is for many that they don't have the money to take courses, or not the time to do that if they are doing things like raising children at the same time, or be prepared to give up all their free time to guess at what skills might be required in five years' time should they need a new job. People have conflicting demands on time and money and to expect everyone to be able to do it is unrealistic, so there will always be a need for an element which is in reaction to changes that have or are occurring rather than personal, proactive steps. I'd agree that taking steps yourself makes sense, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a shortage of truck drivers. With retirees outnumbering workers in the U.S., autonomous trucks is the solution for that problem.
The obvious short-term solution is more pay. Trucker life tends to lead towards a variety of maladies and the only owner-operators who can really make money are teams, usually husband-wife from what I've heard. They can make trips fast enough to get bonuses. People aren't going into trucking because they can't make a living at it.
Obviously, automation is the long-term solution, and it may not even be all that long. Even if you only automated the long straight trips, it would be a huge win in terms of requir
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if the claim is true, but if you design routes and driving times intelligently, you can reduce the amount of needed drivers without autonomous trucks.
Simple example, we have city A and B and both have cargo that needs to be delivered to other city. Traditionally we hire 2 drivers, both drive the cargo and return back with empty truck. Smart solution would be that we have one driver that drivers first from A to B and then takes new cargo and takes it back to A.
Re: (Score:2)
EXPLOITING? Everything moves by truck! (Score:3)
Everything we eat, use, the components of our homes, our cars, our computers and phones?
Trains are utilized heavily and move an enormous amount of freight but they don't do last mile and you cannot have that. Therefore almost everything that moves by train later moves by truck!
There is no room for more railroad rights of way. The US is "full" in that respect.
https://railroads.dot.gov/rail... [dot.gov]
I'm quite a railfan (but not a "foamer") but rail is far more limited than trucking and since EVERYONE benefits from t
Re: (Score:2)
There is no room for more railroad rights of way. The US is "full" in that respect.
https://railroads.dot.gov/rail [dot.gov]...
Your link contains zero support for that assertion.
There's plenty of ROOM for them. What there is not is WILL. The railroads were built at a time when the land could simply be appropriated. That's a lot harder today.
The US road net accumulated mileage beyond the ability to maintain it all so the solution drivers adopted is truck/SUV style vehicles with appropriate suspension.
Nope. Luxury cars smooth out the road WAY more than trucks and SUVs. WAY, WAY MORE. I've owned an Audi A8 (1998) and I now own a F150 (2006) and despite my pickup having a well-designed IFS and a long wheelbase, and also MUCH larger tires, the ride was a lot smoother in the older luxury car. And
Re: (Score:2)
Trains are utilized heavily and move an enormous amount of freight but they don't do last mile and you cannot have that. Therefore almost everything that moves by train later moves by truck!
I'm not suggesting they do otherwise. In fact, that's exactly what I want them to do. You seem to be under the notion that that long haul trucking doesn't exist when in fact it's quite common.
There is no room for more railroad rights of way. The US is "full" in that respect.
Instead of making an assertion without evidence, here's a map of freight rails. [imgur.com] Clearly the midwest has many locations with at least a hundred miles from freight access.
since EVERYONE benefits from trucking the highway maintenance cost is everyone's rightful burden and they'll pay for it or not either way.
It only benefits everyone if everyone buys things that are made in far off lands. What I'm suggesting would give more localized products an edge ov
Re: (Score:1)
There is no room for more railroad rights of way. The US is "full" in that respect.
Not true. If anything, you have fewer track miles, but you still have room to add an additional track. Back in the day most railroad mainlines and branch lines were 2-4 tracks. Now 1-2 tracks is the norm - so you can just relay the tracks in most cases. There are also many miles of 'out of service' or abandoned but easily restored. However, with advances in technology (GPS, PTC, distributed power, etc...) - you are seeing longer trains spaced closer together. So now it isn't so much not enough tracks
Six Days on the Road (Score:3)
I see that this is an "autonomous" truck with a trained truck driver behind the wheel "just in case". I'm pretty sure truck drivers are gonna have job security for quite a while to come. Plus, the Houston-Forth Worth run might not be a good test case. Let's say if it starts from up in the Woodlands area it's pretty much a straight shot through to DFW. If it trip starts in the First Ward or around NRG Stadium or near Sugarland, there's not an autonomous system in the world that could navigate that traffic going North.
In fact, at the moment truck drivers are in extremely high demand. Companies are paying big bonuses to get drivers and will even train up newbies. All the transport companies are staffing up, not down, and looking at the money being offered to drivers, I'm getting tempted to dust off my CDL and get a big ol' wallet on a chain and a meshback cap and my "Truckin' and Fuckin'" t-shirt and hit the road myself. It would get me out of the house, which would please my wife, I'm sure. Giddyap Go, Daddy.
It's been almost a decade we've been hearing about autonomous cars being "right around the corner". They have become the automotive equivalent of cold fusion reactors.
Re:Six Days on the Road (Score:5, Insightful)
People focus too much on jobs that are being eliminated. Instead you should focus on jobs being simplified to the point where you can drop the wages to at or below minimum wage. Or where productivity increases make it possible for a company to get by with one half or even one fourth the number of employees. One of the things that's making this automation boom so problematic is that it's not just jobs being replaced out right. It's a much more subtle displacement of duties and skills. Similar to one skilled Craftsman or replaced by the assembly line but without the massive increases in wealth being spread around so that we all benefited from it. If this keeps up we're going to end up in some sort of neo feudalism.
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing happened in the 1400s when firearms spread to Europe.
It took many years to train an archer.
It took a few weeks to train a musketeer.
Minimum wage (Re:Six Days on the Road) (Score:1)
to the point where you can drop the wages to at or below minimum wage.
No worries. The Democrats will just raise the minimum wage.
The minimum wage will always be zero. We are already seeing people find ways to get around minimum wage laws. Some good ideas, some not so good.
What may be a good idea is paying people by the unit of work. Such as, if you mow my lawn I'll give you $60. If you bring these boxes across town then I'll give you $60. If you dig me a ditch then I give you $60. For a job that takes all day that's about minimum wage. If someone works faster and smar
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That would explain why america has more criminals and gang violence because of low wages, while Australia with significantly higher minimum wages and workers rights has far less crime and far less people in jail. Australia has only state police, and yet america where free economics works has how many law enforcement forces, what is it 5 or 10 all running around at the same time?
Sometimes when you try and be smart and save money by screwing the
Stay out of the USA, it is awful (Re:Minimum wage) (Score:2, Insightful)
You are right, the USA is an awful place. Mexico should build a wall to keep Americans out and protect their citizens from all the crime that they will fall victim to if they cross the border.
The crime is just out of control. There are guns wandering the streets. There's no jobs. There's all kinds of diseases. The food tastes bad and the water is poison. If the cops don't shoot you dead for having the "wrong" skin color then they will arrest you for no reason, and the corrupt courts will put you in pr
Re: (Score:2)
"What may be a good idea is paying people by the unit of work."
That works for some things, but not all.
Would you pay someone at McDonalds for each hamburger they make? If so, does that mean they don't get paid when its slow? And do they make $50/hour during lunch rush? Guess what, everyone will want to work at lunch and not the 3am shift.
Would police get paid by the number of people they arrest or give tickets to? I think most would agree that could be problematic.
Would the nuclear safety inspector get paid
Straw men everywhere. (Score:2)
From this we can conclude that the main factor influencing unemployment is not the minimum wage.
Who claimed it was? The minimum wage is not the primary cause of unemployment but where there is unemployment and a minimum wage the unemployment can be lowered by lowering the minimum wage. Because there are many factors to employment rate we can see more people find work even when wages increase. Wages will naturally increase as more people are needed for work, raising the minimum wage at this time isn't doing anything because people were going to get that pay rate anyway. If the minimum wage is low e
Re: (Score:1)
You're replacing a skilled truck driver with somebody there whose job is just pulled the truck over or hit the brakes in an emergency.
You're replacing a skilled truck driver with somebody there whose job will be... to occasionally take over - i.e. drive - at the worst possible times. If a human's truly required, "skill" is required.
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing the point. The safety driver in that autonomous truck gets paid more that normal driver and he/she used to be a professional driver. But most importantly, the driver is there just temporarily. Here is a roadmap for how this goes:
[Situation where humans drive] -> [chaos] -> [situation where humans are not needed]
We are currently in the [chaos] phase. This is where we experiment new things, try them out, have extra safety rules etc. Once we have everything solved, we take away the safety
Re: (Score:2)
It's been almost a decade we've been hearing about autonomous cars being "right around the corner".
Yes and have you seen the progress that's being made?
The first credible experiments were in the 80s and it was remarkable that they worked at all.
These days mid-range cars and up all seem to come with all sorts of driver assist tech. It's not full autonomous sure, but it's the same tech dialed back a bunch and has come from the same research lines.
And as for "round the corner", they are indeed getting better
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the adage that the last 20% of the work takes 80% of the time, I'd say we're a long way from truly general-purpose full self-drivin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I heard that particular leg of freeway was well-repaved since I had last been there, which is good because at that time (which was, let's be fair, 20 years ago) that particular journey involved probably the worst stretch of highway in Texas. The one time I made it, my car threw three wheel weights and ate a set of tires.
Dunno if it's true, but they might have chosen it just because the road wasn't totally fucked off
Cold sweats from short haulers (Score:3)
This automation is primed to upset the short haulers and with some changes/innovation it could destroy this job sector.
A couple points:
1) Highway driving is very predictable. People don't usually do weird stuff on the highways in the same way they do when driving around town looking for a store, stopping for stoplights or stop signs, avoiding pedestrians, etc. Predictability is what car automation works well with.
2) Short haul jobs are already pretty low tier labor. Its better than flipping burgers or stocking shelves, but not by a whole lot [cdljobs.com]. Plus, short haulers need a CDL the same as long haulers.
3) Tying into point 2. If you can create a theoretical limitless number of drivers for hauling loads, then you don't need large semis. My understanding is that semi size is generally the result of an optimizing function in terms of available drivers and cargo amount. You could switch to loading up more Uhaul sized trucks to deliver goods. The benefit with this is that you could monitor your fleet using regular licensed drivers instead of with CDL drivers.
After constellation ISPs started to come into service, I've imagined some trucking companies switching to automated cabs connected to the internet via those sats. If a problem occurs, they alert an on-call "support driver" that could basically take over from a call center like facility -- the private sector version of "remote drone pilots" but with trucks carrying cargo.
Re: (Score:3)
Tying into point 2. If you can create a theoretical limitless number of drivers for hauling loads, then you don't need large semis. My understanding is that semi size is generally the result of an optimizing function in terms of available drivers and cargo amount. You could switch to loading up more Uhaul sized trucks to deliver goods. The benefit with this is that you could monitor your fleet using regular licensed drivers instead of with CDL drivers
That's an excellent point.
My company ships most of our products via UPS/Fedex/USPS, but multiple times a week we will ship out a pallet or two (or sometimes several to Amazon). We ship exclusively LTL (less than truckload).
People have a glorified image of how distribution centers work, but the reality of it for many many companies is a banged up, dirty old trailer backs into our warehouse (hopefully hitting the dock buffers and not the dock). Someone manually lifts up the ramp levelers, and the truck driver
Re: (Score:3)
You do not need a driver... (Score:2)
... but you need an armed security guy to protect your load from road pirates.
Welcome to the future!
Re: (Score:2)
While your post was deliberately absurd you don't need a human for guard duty (they're actually a liability because they feel fear and can easily be disabled). Remote operated less-lethal weapons for high value cargo would be far superior.
Trucks are already tracked so remote monitoring is easy and convoy security is old news. Should "road pirates" become a thing it will be easy to kill them. Overhead drone surveillance is old news (Gorgon Stare), drones taking out people and vehicles are old news, and Holly
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, nobody will care. Insurance will pay for the minuscule percent which don't make it where they're going. It's only the large scale gangs or the people police need to make a statement about who will get in trouble for pirating shipping containers.
For every shipment of TVs there are a thousand shipments of potatoes. And yeah, maybe you can get inventory records or stake out delivery routes, etc., but you're still at the mercy of trying to hijack a truck and open a bigass shipping container which might end
Well this is going to end well (Score:3)
Will wonders ever cease? (Score:2)
A job only fit for a masochist (Score:1)
The future is here (Score:1)
While I don't see autonomous trucks being used for local deliveries - I can see them being driven by a human to a start point next to an interstate highway, human gets out, truck drives 100's of miles to another service point or terminal either to be refueled, serviced or taken over by a human driver for local / last mile routing. The truck's computer would optimize the truck's speed for legal compliance, safety and fuel economy. Since fuel is the major cost center of a truck owner - it no longer needs to