First driverless truck delivery in the US

[deltic]

Uber made the first reported self-driving truck shipment with a 120-mile beer run in the US. While a driver was on board the truck drove itself.

Interested to know whether in the UK being in the vehicle but not driving would count towards the drivers driving limit and if platooning of vehicles starts with just one driver looking after the whole fleet then this is a major threat to rail freight.

Another interesting article on driverless cars raises the issue that due to the cars safety systems treating every person as a "sacred cow" to be avoided at all costs driverless cars will end up being in a state of "deferential paralysis".

 

[Groningen]

How many passengers did it carry?

 

[talltim]

Wonder what happens when people start cutting up driverless cars and generally driving like they are lesser road users, knowing that they will always be driving with the utmost defensiveness?

 

[Chris999999]

Wonder what happens when people start cutting up driverless cars and generally driving like they are lesser road users, knowing that they will always be driving with the utmost defensiveness?

As driverless cars will have cameras and will record the reckless manoeuvres, I would guess these people will lose their driving licences.

 

[jopsuk]

the concept of human drivers disrupting robo drivers by "cutting them up" is a compelling argument for the abolition of human drivers

 

[Cowley]

the concept of human drivers disrupting robo drivers by "cutting them up" is a compelling argument for the abolition of human drivers

To me that is exactly the way it could go.
If you are in a vehicle that is able to be controlled by a computer in a way that is more competent than a human yet you decide to take the controls and crash the thing in an avoidable accident then perhaps your insurance would go up the more time you spend driving the thing yourself. Especially as every mistake made would be logged somewhere.

Also if driverless trucks, cars, buses etc can use sensors to push up with each other, close gaps and consequently increase dramatically the capacity on motorways so that they are effectively running as a sort of road train system, as well as there being more and more efficient power sources that are being developed now to power it all, does this look like the direction much of our future transport might go?

People could still have what many people seem to want which is an individual private vehicle for personal or family use, they wouldn't even need to necessarily learn how to drive.

Many cars are being built with technology now that isn't too far off this, I could see this happening in twenty years time. What do others think?

 

[jon0844]

I agree that one day human drivers will HAVE to go in order for these vehicles to drive about safely. And then we'll see the resistance!

I suspect a lot of people are deliberately avoiding talking about the inevitable future, because they know it would be very hard to sell the idea of self-driving vehicles if it means losing the ability to enjoy driving yourself now and then.

One way to soften the blow might be that self driving vehicles will only be able to operate on relatively safe, contained, controlled, roads like motorways. In towns, there are too many other factors - pedestrians, animals, other obstructions that could cause problems.. either accidentally, or maliciously.

Would that mean that one day, you'll have cars that won't be allowed on motorways unless they can self-drive, forcing people onto A, B and C roads? I guess the Government will have some thoughts on this, as to any impact on revenue that such changes will make.

 

[NSEFAN]

I agree that one day human drivers will HAVE to go in order for these vehicles to drive about safely. And then we'll see the resistance!

I suspect a lot of people are deliberately avoiding talking about the inevitable future, because they know it would be very hard to sell the idea of self-driving vehicles if it means losing the ability to enjoy driving yourself now and then.

We may not need to ban manually driven cars at all. Once people can see the benefits of having the car driving (safer, less fatigue for the human driver, etc) then people will start actively choosing them. In order to establish themselves, driverless vehicles will have to be made to work around the existing road infrastructure and driving culture, so if it can handle these there is no real need to ban manual drivers. As uptake of driverless cars increases, we should see a gradual reduction in road accidents and injuries.

 

[Cowley]

If you take modern cars, one of my customers has a new Volvo that can park itself which means it can already brake, steer, accelerate, sense what's around it etc, then move forward twenty years probably all vehicles would be able to do this then maybe all motorways/dual carriageways and many roads in cities also with a bit of adaptation could be run in this way.
Perhaps as you say not everywhere yet but it is a constantly changing and rapidly improving technology. Maybe then vehicles not fitted with the technology i.e classic cars etc may be forced off motorways and onto B roads, perhaps for a start just in peak times.

It's interesting to speculate. Reminds me of Tomorrows World!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We may not need to ban manually driven cars at all. Once people can see the benefits of having the car driving (safer, less fatigue for the human driver, etc) then people will start actively choosing them. In order to establish themselves, driverless vehicles will have to be made to work around the existing road infrastructure and driving culture, so if it can handle these there is no real need to ban manual drivers. As uptake of driverless cars increases, we should see a gradual reduction in road accidents and injuries.

Definitely. The way I see it it's the humans that make the majority of the mistakes not the computers.
I was on the Docklands Light Railway recently and obviously that's driverless but on one trip there was someone at the front who had the panel open and seemed to be controlling things. I don't know what he was doing but I had a niggling feeling that he'd probably made things run worse than if the thing had been left to it's own devices.

 

[PeterC]

I don't know what he was doing but I had a niggling feeling that he'd probably made things run worse than if the thing had been left to it's own devices.

He would have been driving the train, left to its own devices it would have just sat there.

 

[yorksrob]

We may not need to ban manually driven cars at all. Once people can see the benefits of having the car driving (safer, less fatigue for the human driver, etc) then people will start actively choosing them.

Or the insurance companies might just price human drivers off the road.

 

[BestWestern]

Being able to hop into your vehicle of choice, whenever you like and without interrogation or restriction, and go wherever you want, is one of the greatest liberties that we as a modern society still have. It makes me genuinely very sad that we may be on course to sell that liberty to the likes Google.

 

[Cowley]

He would have been driving the train, left to its own devices it would have just sat there.

Well I thought they normally drive themselves. I thought they were driverless?
Help, anyone?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Being able to hop into your vehicle of choice, whenever you like and without interrogation or restriction, and go wherever you want, is one of the greatest liberties that we as a modern society still have. It makes me genuinely very sad that we may be on course to sell that liberty to the likes Google.

I agree in some ways and living where I do there is still the opportunity to get out on a sunny winters day and still feel like you're driving in a car advert.
That isn't reality for a lot of people in this country though.
Also it's worth bearing in mind that it's one of the few areas in life that has such a risk of being killed or seriously injured in the blink of an eye these days, regardless of whether it's your own fault or not...

 

[Zamracene749]

I'm yet to be convinced. Yes, the cars can follow roads, sense other vehicles and objects etc but what separates drivers and machines is anticipating the road ahead. Hazard perception is key. Kids playing on bicycles, a fighting couple outside a pub, unpredictable horses, running animals, a skidding car on an icebound side road- to name but a few.

Someone mentioned perhaps not needing a licence to 'drive' one- what happens in times of trouble if so?

Then the road surface comes into question- can the car detect black ice? Diesel spills on corners? Leaf fall? Loose gravel or freshly laid chippings? Aquaplane risks due to standing water? Will it become a slow moving hazard itself in fog? Can it follow narrow country lanes, squeeze past other vehicles, give way to heavy vehicles coming uphill? Can it pull into passing places to let distant vehicles past? Will it let faster vehicles past?

More to the point, can u let it drive you home from the pub?

 

[Cowley]

I'm yet to be convinced. Yes, the cars can follow roads, sense other vehicles and objects etc but what separates drivers and machines is anticipating the road ahead. Hazard perception is key. Kids playing on bicycles, a fighting couple outside a pub, unpredictable horses, running animals, a skidding car on an icebound side road- to name but a few.

Someone mentioned perhaps not needing a licence to 'drive' one- what happens in times of trouble if so?

Then the road surface comes into question- can the car detect black ice? Diesel spills on corners? Leaf fall? Loose gravel or freshly laid chippings? Aquaplane risks due to standing water? Will it become a slow moving hazard itself in fog? Can it follow narrow country lanes, squeeze past other vehicles, give way to heavy vehicles coming uphill? Can it pull into passing places to let distant vehicles past? Will it let faster vehicles past?

More to the point, can u let it drive you home from the pub?

Excellent.

Good points too. Our road system is certainly pretty awkward and would probably be quite difficult to overcome. Some of the lanes around here are not to be taken too lightly that's for sure.

 

[deltic]

I'm yet to be convinced. Yes, the cars can follow roads, sense other vehicles and objects etc but what separates drivers and machines is anticipating the road ahead. Hazard perception is key. Kids playing on bicycles, a fighting couple outside a pub, unpredictable horses, running animals, a skidding car on an icebound side road- to name but a few.

Someone mentioned perhaps not needing a licence to 'drive' one- what happens in times of trouble if so?

Then the road surface comes into question- can the car detect black ice? Diesel spills on corners? Leaf fall? Loose gravel or freshly laid chippings? Aquaplane risks due to standing water? Will it become a slow moving hazard itself in fog? Can it follow narrow country lanes, squeeze past other vehicles, give way to heavy vehicles coming uphill? Can it pull into passing places to let distant vehicles past? Will it let faster vehicles past?

More to the point, can u let it drive you home from the pub?

The car can probably detect all those issues and more, far faster than you can - cars are being developed to "see" through the car in front and will certainly be far better to negotiate those windy roads and narrow gaps than we can. It will certainly get you home from the pub safer than you can.

There is still a long way to go but in 20 years times who knows. Automated vehicles will probably be the biggest change in transport since low cost airlines and its impact will be far greater.

 

[BestWestern]

The car can probably detect all those issues and more, far faster than you can - cars are being developed to "see" through the car in front and will certainly be far better to negotiate those windy roads and narrow gaps than we can. It will certainly get you home from the pub safer than you can.

There is still a long way to go but in 20 years times who knows. Automated vehicles will probably be the biggest change in transport since low cost airlines and its impact will be far greater.

I hope that world appeals to someone; I sure as hell don't wanna live there, thanks. Will anybody shed a tear when humanity finally renders itself utterly superfluous in its own habitat I wonder, or will the scientists rejoice at their success in creating a world where nobody ever leaves their bedrooms?!

As for the issues of computer anticipation, artificial intelligence will never acquire common sense. Two vehicles meet on a road not wide enough to pass, what happens? Let's say a narrow country lane. Who's reversing, and how far? A quaint, obselete, laughably inadequate human being might reverse up onto the verge and make room to squeeze past. A computer won't, because it isn't allowed on the verge. "Naughty computer, get down...." What about a major roundabout or a side road in rush hour? See a gap, edge out, foot down, go. Standard stuff. Your computer won't do that, it has to follow the rules to the letter. It'll wait. And wait, and wait.... Might be easier to walk. That'll help with congestion. How does an autonomous delivery lorry conduct a multi-point turn on a main road and reverse into a loading bay in a tiny side street? Maybe they'll still need human drivers. But then where will all the autonomous buses pull up when the lorries are blocking their bus stops? Tough luck, off to the next stop it is, computer isn't allowed to pull up just ahead or behind. Computer says no. Naughty computer.

Forgive my cinicism, I rather enjoy driving. I also have a PCV entitlement, which used to earn me a living once. I also have young children, and I'd quite like it if society might still function and offer some degree of human interaction, not to mention employment, during their lifetimes. I'll be joining a certain Mr Clarkson dropping pianos on these darn things if they ever do appear. Has anybody asked the public if they actually want, or want to pay, for all this crap?

 

[deltic]

I hope that world appeals to someone; I sure as hell don't wanna live there, thanks. Will anybody shed a tear when humanity finally renders itself utterly superfluous in its own habitat I wonder, or will the scientists rejoice at their success in creating a world where nobody ever leaves their bedrooms?!

As for the issues of computer anticipation, artificial intelligence will never acquire common sense. Two vehicles meet on a road not wide enough to pass, what happens? Let's say a narrow country lane. Who's reversing, and how far? A quaint, obselete, laughably inadequate human being might reverse up onto the verge and make room to squeeze past. A computer won't, because it isn't allowed on the verge. "Naughty computer, get down...." What about a major roundabout or a side road in rush hour? See a gap, edge out, foot down, go. Standard stuff. Your computer won't do that, it has to follow the rules to the letter. It'll wait. And wait, and wait.... Might be easier to walk. That'll help with congestion. How does an autonomous delivery lorry conduct a multi-point turn on a main road and reverse into a loading bay in a tiny side street? Maybe they'll still need human drivers. But then where will all the autonomous buses pull up when the lorries are blocking their bus stops? Tough luck, off to the next stop it is, computer isn't allowed to pull up just ahead or behind. Computer says no. Naughty computer.

Forgive my cinicism, I rather enjoy driving. I also have a PCV entitlement, which used to earn me a living once. I also have young children, and I'd quite like it if society might still function and offer some degree of human interaction, not to mention employment, during their lifetimes. I'll be joining a certain Mr Clarkson dropping pianos on these darn things if they ever do appear. Has anybody asked the public if they actually want, or want to pay, for all this crap?

"common sense" is often not common or sensical. Over 1m people are killed by road vehicles a year across the world. Many people dont like driving and many can't. I'm sure many people liked riding their horse to work but time moves on.

You raise an interesting point about cars meeting on a narrow lane - not seen that addressed anywhere but most other issues are readily resolved. Autonomous vehicles will edge out into slow moving traffic just like a car driver will do. The HGV manoeuvres can be readily done as vehicles can "talk" to each other and a HGV wont be blocking a bus stop because it will be programmed not to!

 

[talltim]

As driverless cars will have cameras and will record the reckless manoeuvres, I would guess these people will lose their driving licences.

On a less dangerous scale, will human drivers let driverless cars pull out in front of them at junctions etc,

 

[PeterC]

On a less dangerous scale, will human drivers let driverless cars pull out in front of them at junctions etc,

Will the driverless car understand that it is being let out or will it just sit there because there is a white line and another car within range on the main line?

I suspect that most vehicles are going to need manual intervention at some point during regular use. With a lorry this could mean picking up a "pilot" at the depot gatehouse rather than having a driver in the cab for the trunk haul.

 

[BestWestern]

Autonomous vehicles will edge out into slow moving traffic just like a car driver will do.

Are you sure? On what basis? So that one of their fellow robots will be nice and flash them out? I don't see that being at all likely.

And you can still ride a horse on the road, if you wish to do so. Many motorists might argue that should have been outlawed, for exactly the same reason that those in favour of driverless cars think humans at the wheel should be, but it wasn't. Will the rights of those who wish to drive themselves be valued in the same manner, I wonder.

What about those who currently run older, cheap cars. There are many of them on the roads, maintained just as well as new motors. Who will compensate people who cannot afford to buy a brand new, cutting edge and presumably not at all cheap autonomous vehicle? Perhaps these peasants should simply be banned from our wonderful high tec roads? Or they could buy a horse, I suppose...

 

[daikilo]

Re the question on whether the ability to platoon trucks could be competitive against rail, the theoretical answer must be yes, and whether or not the first truck has a driver. However, only to a limitted extent, as the vehichles must all be equipped and going to the same destination or "split" point (marshalling yard?).

As to the concept, I just cannot imagine what the Inside lane of a motorway would be like if "platoons" of "virtually connected" trucks chose to join or leave, not to mention the management of parking areas etc.

The technical concept is great, in theory, and could provide a competitor to trains, but it would be a bit like a busway, it only works for a few services, and in isolation.

Finally, if this can be done on the road, then why do freight trains need drivers anyway, and what about reinventing "slip sections" that could disconnect automatically and switch to a yard (with a local drive unit such as a flywheel).

 

[Lou92]

What about those who currently run older, cheap cars. There are many of them on the roads, maintained just as well as new motors. Who will compensate people who cannot afford to buy a brand new, cutting edge and presumably not at all cheap autonomous vehicle? Perhaps these peasants should simply be banned from our wonderful high tec roads? Or they could buy a horse, I suppose...

Or a bicycle and train ticket. But I expect the first autonomous vehicles will be part of car-sharing schemes, so no need to buy anything:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bu0QEmyakSI#t=1706

 

[NSEFAN]

And you can still ride a horse on the road, if you wish to do so. Many motorists might argue that should have been outlawed, for exactly the same reason that those in favour of driverless cars think humans at the wheel should be, but it wasn't. Will the rights of those who wish to drive themselves be valued in the same manner, I wonder.

What about those who currently run older, cheap cars. There are many of them on the roads, maintained just as well as new motors. Who will compensate people who cannot afford to buy a brand new, cutting edge and presumably not at all cheap autonomous vehicle? Perhaps these peasants should simply be banned from our wonderful high tec roads? Or they could buy a horse, I suppose...

Again, why would we have to ban manually driven cars? The current status quo is manually driven vehicles, so automatic vehicles will have to learn to cope with human-driven vehicles one way or another in order to operate safely.

As time goes on, it will get cheaper to build self-driving cars, until either self-driving options become compulsory for new vehicles (like seatbelts), or else they just come as standard because of customer expectations.

 

[BestWestern]

Again, why would we have to ban manually driven cars? The current status quo is manually driven vehicles, so automatic vehicles will have to learn to cope with human-driven vehicles one way or another in order to operate safely.

As time goes on, it will get cheaper to build self-driving cars, until either self-driving options become compulsory for new vehicles (like seatbelts), or else they just come as standard because of customer expectations.

Because the alleged benefits of autonomous cars only really stand up if they are the only machines on the road. The safety argument of one autonomous car on a stretch of road amongst thousands of human driven cars, is negligable. And furthermore, they will operate in a way which is incompatible with how humans drive. In our crowded cities, people do not obey every letter of the law. Speed limits, lane discipline, priority and a host of other issues are taken 'with a pinch of salt'. But, crucially, it works. That's how it is, everyone knows that, and it functions.

And now add your little plastic Googlebox, pootling along at 28.5 mph, sitting at a giveway line waiting for all eternity for a gap in the rush hour traffic. It isn't going to do the human thing of edging out, making a gap, because if it does and somebody piles straight into the side of it, it would be deemed at fault, and that's the whole thing dead in the water. People will overtake, undertake, cut them up, collide with them. The concept is a gimmic and is completely incompatible with the real world.

 

[NSEFAN]

Because the alleged benefits of autonomous cars only really stand up if they are the only machines on the road. The safety argument of one autonomous car on a stretch of road amongst thousands of human driven cars, is negligable. And furthermore, they will operate in a way which is incompatible with how humans drive. In our crowded cities, people do not obey every letter of the law. Speed limits, lane discipline, priority and a host of other issues are taken 'with a pinch of salt'. But, crucially, it works. That's how it is, everyone knows that, and it functions.

And now add your little plastic Googlebox, pootling along at 28.5 mph, sitting at a giveway line waiting for all eternity for a gap in the rush hour traffic. It isn't going to do the human thing of edging out, making a gap, because if it does and somebody piles straight into the side of it, it would be deemed at fault, and that's the whole thing dead in the water. People will overtake, undertake, cut them up, collide with them. The concept is a gimmic and is completely incompatible with the real world.

You claim that it's not possible to get an automatically driven vehicle to operate around human drivers, and yet the first post of this thread shows an example of where it can be done. The lorry drove amongst other human drivers entirely automatically. Granted this was on a modern highway compared to a winding Celtic road, but do you really think that self-driving cars and lorries won't get smarter as time goes by so as to be able to deal with more difficult driving conditions?

I agree that it will make little difference to safety whilst self-driving vehicles are in the minority, but as uptake of self-driving vehicles increases then we should see a reduction in manual driving and a significant reduction in accidents caused by human error. In fact, once automatically driven vehicles are in the majority, this will force the remaining manually driven vehicles to drive more safely, since the majority of vehicles will no longer be disobeying traffic lights and hatched boxes, or having liberal interpretations of speed limits.

On the point of pulling out into traffic, why could a machine not do the same? In fact, I would expect an automatic vehicle to be able to do this more safely than a human, as it will pull out when it knows it is safe to do so (i.e. it can calculate exactly when and how to move to prevent collision). Compare this with a human driver, who will gradually become impatient until they feel brave enough to chance it.

 

[BestWestern]

On the point of pulling out into traffic, why could a machine not do the same? In fact, I would expect an automatic vehicle to be able to do this more safely than a human, as it will pull out when it knows it is safe to do so (i.e. it can calculate exactly when and how to move to prevent collision). Compare this with a human driver, who will gradually become impatient until they feel brave enough to chance it.

You miss the point. Drivers currently rely on the goodwill of others, giving up their 'priority' to let them in. Sometimes this is achieved by seizing on a gap, for example moving part of the way out at a roundabout, or half way across the road, whereupon an approaching driver will slow to let you proceed. There isn't a complete 'safe corridor' to go, you take the opportunity to create one when others allow. Robot car won't do that, because it is against the rules. It will sit at the Give Way line until it has a big wide safe gap in which it can go, without running any risk of getting in someone's way. It will sit there for a long time. So will everyone else behind it. As I said earlier, the puppetmasters slowly buying ownership of our souls really don't want their latest machine of domination causing accidents, because then they'd have to go and dream up something else instead.

As for the truck thing, getting one to sit in a lane on a freeway plodding along in a straight line is barely even comparible with naviagting the streets of a busy city. My mate can fly a Cessna, but I wouldn't put him in a space shuttle.

 

[NSEFAN]

You miss the point. Drivers currently rely on the goodwill of others, giving up their 'priority' to let them in. Sometimes this is achieved by seizing on a gap, for example moving part of the way out at a roundabout, or half way across the road, whereupon an approaching driver will slow to let you proceed. There isn't a complete 'safe corridor' to go, you take the opportunity to create one when others allow. Robot car won't do that, because it is against the rules. It will sit at the Give Way line until it has a big wide safe gap in which it can go, without running any risk of getting in someone's way. It will sit there for a long time. So will everyone else behind it. As I said earlier, the puppetmasters slowly buying ownership of our souls really don't want their latest machine of domination causing accidents, because then they'd have to go and dream up something else instead.

As for the truck thing, getting one to sit in a lane on a freeway plodding along in a straight line is barely even comparible with naviagting the streets of a busy city. My mate can fly a Cessna, but I wouldn't put him in a space shuttle.

I agree that driving on a motorway and navigating urban roads are different problems, but then that was my point. Once the easier problems are solved, companies will start working on solutions to the harder problems.

I don't think anyone would expect self-driving cars to be fully automatic from the outset. They will still require a human driver to deal with difficult situations like the one you describe. However, as uptake increases (because of cost reductions), people will start to expect their cars to do more and more of the driving for them. There will be greater demand to solve problems like the one you describe. This may be in the form of self-driving cars collaborating to let vehicles out of side roads, as human drivers do now (only this can be more safe, since the cars can communicate properly to avoid confusion). Alternatively, dangerous junctions may have traffic lights added or turned into mini roundabouts, depending upon the circumstances. We generally have good road layouts in this country, however there are older junctions around that really aught to be modified, given the traffic levels on the roads these days.

Also, there's no conspiracy to get rid of manually driven cars, just market forces. You may derive pleasure from driving, but for many others it is a means to an end (just like any other transport). There will always be a need to permit legacy manually-driven vehicles on the roads, so if you really prefer driving manually then you will have that choice, at least for the forseeable future.

 

[jon0844]

It's interesting reading the earlier comment about DLR and how they drive themselves, in a very controlled environment. Yet when I was on one where it was thought there might be a trespasser in the area, manual control had to taken and the train driven on sight.

No AI to take over here, just a real person. Who if not present would have meant the service going nowhere.

 

[AlterEgo]

Because the alleged benefits of autonomous cars only really stand up if they are the only machines on the road. The safety argument of one autonomous car on a stretch of road amongst thousands of human driven cars, is negligable. And furthermore, they will operate in a way which is incompatible with how humans drive. In our crowded cities, people do not obey every letter of the law. Speed limits, lane discipline, priority and a host of other issues are taken 'with a pinch of salt'. But, crucially, it works. That's how it is, everyone knows that, and it functions.

And now add your little plastic Googlebox, pootling along at 28.5 mph, sitting at a giveway line waiting for all eternity for a gap in the rush hour traffic. It isn't going to do the human thing of edging out, making a gap, because if it does and somebody piles straight into the side of it, it would be deemed at fault, and that's the whole thing dead in the water. People will overtake, undertake, cut them up, collide with them. The concept is a gimmic and is completely incompatible with the real world.

The concept isn't a gimmick, it is actually happening and it will make driving a huge deal more accessible in the long run. Like all disruptive tech, there will be teething problems and issues with international standards, but I don't see the concept as fundamentally flawed.

I'd certainly buy a driverless car.