Bowsite.com

One objection to the idea is that truck drivers would be unemployed, but the interviewee said that there would still need to be a "driver."

He did say that there would be a lot of unemployed attorneys as the number of tort cases would plummet.

This could be the start of an entirely new field of law.

I'm glad you brought this up Henry because I saw an ad on TV this week and it made me think of this very topic. Ford is now selling cars that will parallel park themselves in REALLY tight spaces. Now if you have one of these and the sensors or whatever that control the operation of the car when doing this eventually fail and you damage someone else's car, who pays for it??? Initially your insurance would pay for any damage, but would the insurance company them go after Ford? I mean it's certainly NOT the driver's fault if they weren't in actual control of the car at the time, right?

Never for get the old saying......... "If it has t*ts or tires you WILL have problems with it!"

Can you imagine if the programmer for that feature was a PETA type? YIKES!!!!

I don't think I'll ever own a vehicle that drives itself.

Matt

And who takes liability for safety and system checks on unmanned vehicles? My company won't assume liability for a gashed tire that is going to blow 100 miles later just because the road tractor is automated.

As for back up cameras. They are very helpful. Since I spend a great deal of time on gravel roads or muddy roads I am always cleaning the camera lens. It takes longer to get out of the truck and walk back there then to actually clean the lens.

Nascar fans have been seeing this effect for decades.

Lots of talk about the subject on the interweb. Included one from slate.

Short answer: Since there aren't fully automated cars/trucks yet (beyond test environments), the rules for liability haven't been invented.

They point to drunk driving as one area where an automated vehicle can save a lot of lives. Possibly make the drunk driving laws tricky also (i.e. were you in control of the vehicle at the time of the crash or was it in automatic mode?).

These same type of questions probably were asked when cruise control first came out.

"Level 0: This one is pretty basic. The driver (human) controls it all: steering, brakes, throttle, power. It's what you've been doing all along.

Level 1: This driver-assistance level means that most functions are still controlled by the driver, but a specific function (like steering or accelerating) can be done automatically by the car.

Level 2: In level 2, at least one driver assistance system of "both steering and acceleration/ deceleration using information about the driving environment" is automated, like cruise control and lane-centering. It means that the "driver is disengaged from physically operating the vehicle by having his or her hands off the steering wheel AND foot off pedal at the same time," according to the SAE. The driver must still always be ready to take control of the vehicle, however.

Level 3: Drivers are still necessary in level 3 cars, but are able to completely shift "safety-critical functions" to the vehicle, under certain traffic or environmental conditions. It means that the driver is still present and will intervene if necessary, but is not required to monitor the situation in the same way it does for the previous levels.

Level 4: This is what is meant by "fully autonomous." Level 4 vehicles are "designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip." However, it's important to note that this is limited to the "operational design domain (ODD)" of the vehicle—meaning it does not cover every driving scenario.

Level 5: This refers to a fully-autonomous system that expects the vehicle's performance to equal that of a human driver, in every driving scenario—including extreme environments like dirt roads that are unlikely to be navigated by driverless vehicles in the near future."

For levels 0-2 it seems clear that the driver is still in control. For levels 3 and above, liability is a lot less certain. I don't believe there's a lawsuit associated with the Tesla crash in Florida that killed the driver while on autopilot last year, but the NTSB laid some of the blame at Tesla's feet.

It goes beyond just finding fault in the crash. Are you still liable for a DUI if you get behind the wheel of a fully autonomous car? What about other traffic tickets? Lots of questions that no doubt will be answered at some point but clearly not yet.

And all these questions aside, there is no doubt the technology will make the roads safer. Cost of vehicle ownership are also likely to decrease, both from cars being operated far more efficiently and due to significantly decreased insurance costs.

I do a lot of my hunting out west and the trip always involves a drive of at least about 20 hours. Having a self-driving vehicle to get me there would be incredible. That said, even without full autonomy, the other safety features associated with the Level 2 cars are well worth it IMO. The last two cars I purchased had lane assist, adaptive cruise control, and automated emergency breaking and I absolutely love them. IMO, full autonomy shouldn't become a requirement, but these types of safety features should become mandatory on cars (especially the automated emergency breaking).

I was at a computer conference 3-4 years ago and the universities had done that already. At that time the car they 'hacked' had 26 computers all attached to the same bus (communication line in the vehicle). Once they found an opening in one of the computers, they could get control of all 26 computers. Remote control braking, accelerating airbag deployment, etc.

They were working with the manufacturers to close up the entry points.

I bet there are some folks that would be able to hack that "full proof" system in minutes not months.

But what the hell do I know... I can barely Control my TV!

BTW, we have way more regulations for the trucking industry than we did in 1985 when I started. Laws are passed without congress voting on Federal laws. Yet, the highways are a lot more unsafe than 30 years ago. Truck drivers are a whole new breed overall. Not all, but drivers drive worse than ever today in spite of all the regulations. Problem is they keep passing stupid laws that will not effect the safety aspect of the highway like more log book regs, ect, which will never work because you will never regulate whether a driver actually sleeps or the quality of sleep they will get...aint gonna happen.

They should focus on writing tickets for high speed, tailgating, erratic driving. After so many of those kinds of tickets they would lose their license. That would get rid of a lot of the bad drivers, not all but a lot. It is sad what they've done to the trucking industry.

I would be curious to know how you came to that conclusion?

"...but these types of safety features should become mandatory on cars (especially the automated emergency breaking)."

This appears to simply be another vote for government control of our lives. You might feel safe with machines doing everything for you, while I feel much safer being in control of my own actions.

Call it what you want. There's plenty of people that have no problem with the government stepping up and controlling who enters this country in the name of safety. Car accidents are a far bigger threat to our daily existence.

Many other things to consider as well: traffic violations, municipal revenue, police, etc, etc. Things such as computers keeping speed within legal limits could actually increase costs.

I am not sure what controlling aliens has to do with government control over it's own citizens?

It's a lot cheaper than you think. Level 2 autonomy is already there and does not add significant costs to base models. Full level 4 autonomy is pretty expensive today, but forecasts show these costs will come down drastically as the technology is adopted (like any technology).

"IHS Automotive forecasts that the price for the self-driving technology will add between $7,000 and $10,000 to a car’s sticker price in 2025, a figure that will drop to around $5,000 in 2030 and about $3,000 in 2035"

"I am not sure what controlling aliens has to do with government control over it's own citizens"

Of course you don't. Wouldn't expect you too. Regulations all fine and good when you think it benefits you, right?

Once they can get a PC to work effectively for more than 5 years, they might then be able to look at producing computers that will be controlling 1 ton, or larger, missiles down the highways. The only way to make it work in every State, there would need to be sensors and readers buried in every road across the U.S., lane recognition will not work on snow covered roads, poorly or non-painted paved back roads or gravel roads.....not to mention construction zones.

Example: 2 drivers leave point A both in seperate trucks, they drive 11 hrs and both stop their trucks for their break. One driver gets in his sleeper birth and sleeps for 9 hrs. The other driver gets in his sleeper for 9 hrs but he watched his TV for 5 hrs and sleeps for 4. Both drivers are legal according to the law. The log book law served no real purpose to ensure the drivers actually slept.

I havent drove in 10 yrs but there were many times I could not sleep when my break was due..I would lay there or get up and drive and then I would stop and sleep whwn I was actually sleepy.

You telling me that something is going to be cheap in the future does not really mean anything either. Is IHS Automotive a NFP? Do you know for a fact that all associated costs were incorporated into those figures? As with nearly all technology, yes you are correct that it gets cheaper with time, but in many cases it is still more costly than not having the technology at all. Implementing the technology in the vehicle is likely the easiest and cheapest part. It gets even cheaper if you think the government has an open checkbook to fund R&D.

Now if we could just get the weatherman that type of computer.

What I'd rather see than a car that drives itself is one that FIXES itself!

They most certainly are. ALL regulation comes with a cost, be it regulation on immigration or regulation on vehicle safety requirements. That cost can be at the expense of our wallets, or at the expense of our freedoms (usually it's both). Because you fail to see the cost of restrictive immigration policies doesn't mean they aren't there. And again, if I'm going to put regulations in place in the name of safety, I'd prefer they actual make citizens of this country safer.

Terry

Yes. and when something like this DOES eventually happen WHO'S liable???

Or will it be that if as the driver of the vehicle you CHOOSE to have it on auto-driver so in fact it's YOUR fault?

They also have these rigs on the road in FL.

There's just too many factors involved with running longer distances, including climbing grades and going down 'em, dealing with snow, wind and a jillion cars going every which way to get around the slower semi.

It does take skill to get that rig down the road safely every time, not just the ability to operate the truck, but watching for issues before they become a problem. An experienced driver feels the road with his ass..it tells you what's going on underneath you...a computer hasn't got that instinct.

So, what does an 80,000 lb. driverless vehicle do when it's traveling 70mph. down the interstate, and there's an Elk standing in the road 100 yds in front of it? Mash the brakes? Try to go around? Plow it down like it wasn't there? If you can't safely avoid it, the best bet is to take it right down the middle of the hood, hoping it goes under. It'll rip out your crossover line, so first thing after stopping you get under there and shut off the valves before all your fuel runs out. Then, you clean the rest of it out of your grill (if it's not trashed), and carry on. Doubt an autonomous vehicle can do that, or make the correct decision every time.

First time one of them has a ginormous wreck that people die in, the cost for insurance will go so high it will not be profitable to run them.

IMO it's bad, bad idea.

I don't doubt there will be issues. The big question is the number of issues that can be solved with the automation. If you can get rid of 90% of drunk driving deaths (remember that some are the drunks and the rest are the innocents) by putting them into an automatic car, they the overall effect will be acceptable - as long as you don't cause 90% deaths by having the automatically driven semi plow into elementary schools.

I really like the Google Maps concept that is available now. You put in your ending address and it determines the fastest route - all of it based on other drivers who are using Google Maps at the same time on your route. You combine an automated trucking fleet with an automatic mapping utility and you avoid semi traffic during rush hours in the big cities.

All of this was tested/proceeded by the DARPA Grand Challenge (see link).

I hear what you’re saying, but have to disagree. Traction control systems were one of the first forms of automation in vehicles, and they are all about feeling the road. Computers are far more effective at feeling and reacting to the road than humans are - they can detect and correct wheel tires slipping WAY faster and WAY more consistently than humans and they can be programmed to make the right decision with this information far faster and effectively than humans can just about every time. A computer is far better equipped to deal with challenging road conditions - ice, rain, grade, etc - than humans are.

Perfect road conditions, etc. it might get away with it; unfortunately road conditions and weather are never perfect. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

I understand that you have a lot of experience to form that opinion, but you’re also only approaching it from your perspective. When it comes to reacting to road conditions quickly and effectively, it’s really no contest. A computer will win just abou every time. Our brains just aren’t that good, even though we’d like to think so.

Plus there’s a much smaller learning curve with computers. Sure, the gap between someone with millions of miles under their belt and a computer might be smaller, but compare how long it takes to bring a person up to that level of competence versus a computer.

A bigger question might be how autonomous vehicles deal with mechanical failure, but I could see a scenario where the truck is programmed to pull over and call out a mechanic.

Based on my experience with traction control systems that is not necessarily a correct statement in all cases (in instances it may be). One example: When driving through deeper snow and all your wheels are losing traction, a decent driver knows you need more power, whereas the systems I have seen all cut power. I regularly turn off the system in those situations. I'm not saying they couldn't be programmed differently or just shut the vehicle down in bad conditions, but there are going to problems regardless of programming.

I say all this because there are a lot more hurdles to overcome prior to this technology becoming widespread, and it isn't really all that close. Of course those that are developing the technology are going to set themselves up for success with basic examples of how the technology could be used. Even in the OP link, the robotruck was only taking on the most direct, easy portion of the route, with human drivers taking over near the terminals. I sat in a short presentation for autonomous vehicles not too long ago, and from my recollection having autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles simultaneously on the roads was an enormous hurdle that the industry was nowhere near overcoming. I have no idea whether or not he was a leading expert in the industry though.

The DARPA Urban Challenge was somewhat intriguing, but only 6 vehicles even finished the course and from what little reading I did it appeared that the vehicles were very slow and likely accrued lots of error penalties. I didn't dig too deep to figure out the difficulty of the course in comparison with a true urban environment. Of course that was 10 years ago as well (from link above), thus technology has certainly improved. Of course the 'ol govt. blank check was covering the tab.

For many years, every automobile had a driver and a mechanic whenever they went on a lengthy trip.

In former days, farm tractors required the driver to drive, now he is just an observer for most of the time.

It wasn't fully implemented on that track yet, but if speed was the only factor in the crash, it sounds like it could really have been useful.

There are also clearly specific operations that aren’t going to lend themselves to automation. That said, seems to be a lot of transport services are.

That's not driving. We are talking about trucks that drive themselves not robots that do the human part....but that's coming too.

Repeated tasks in a controlled environment is going to be easier to automate with robots/computers than getting a semi cross-country with all the unknowns pointed out by people above. Just look at an automotive assembly line in 1917 and one in 2017.