A Robo-Car Just Drove Across the Country

Press2ToContinue writes with this news from Wired: Nine days after leaving San Francisco, a blue car packed with tech from a company you've probably never heard of rolled into New York City after crossing 15 states and 3,400 miles to make history. The car did 99 percent of the driving on its own, yielding to the carbon-based life form behind the wheel only when it was time to leave the highway and hit city streets. This amazing feat, by the automotive supplier Delphi, underscores the great leaps this technology has taken in recent years, and just how close it is to becoming a part of our lives. Yes, many regulatory and legislative questions must be answered, and it remains to be seen whether consumers are ready to cede control of their cars, but the hardware is, without doubt, up to the task." That last one percent is a bear, though.

Comments

I wonder

[justthinkit]

I wonder what long distance truck drivers are thinking right about now.

Re:I wonder

[DrunkenTerror]

"I bet no one will miss that ugly pale one. Damn, she kinda looks like a man. She'll do."

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

That they'll get plenty of sleep for 90% of the trip, until they need to hit city streets.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

What is best state to do hardtime in / where is the best prison for a doctor

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet Truck drivers will still be in service due to how often they get away with overloaded trailers.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

probably not much as they're busy dodging human fools in 4 wheelers

Re:I wonder

[slack_justyb]

Most truck drivers already know the writing is on the wall. The older ones could not care less, they'll be off the road for good before there is enough states stitched together to make any usable routes. The younger ones don't care either, they barely like their job to begin with and anything that makes their life less stressful all the better.

And all of that cycles around the fact that it'll be a long time before someone in some state's capital let's 80,000 pounds just roll down the road unsupervised. Most truck drivers are pretty convinced that their jobs will just turn into watching a machine roll down the road, and sign the paperwork when that machine runs into something.

Also, besides the obvious state law stuff that needs to get passed. Security will need to be addressed as well. There already is a problem with semis that are not automatic and they have a human watching the goods for a majority of the time. Imagine a semi just rolling down the street and someone decides to flatten the tires with a spike strip. Yeah, an alarm might go off, but the thieves will be long gone with the goods by the time anyone gets to the disabled machine.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Not much considering this supposed automated car drove a pre-mapped route on highways only, and in the southern part of the United States to avoid inclement weather. All non-highway driving was done by a human driver that could take control at any time.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

If they get away with that it's greatly at their own risk, the fines run into the thousands and the rig and it's load will be out of service.

Re:I wonder

[ShanghaiBill]

That they'll get plenty of sleep for 90% of the trip, until they need to hit city streets.

It would make more sense to have a separate driver for the few miles of city streets on each end of the route. Or if the route is usually the same, just ask Google to map it and put it into their navigation database.

Re:I wonder

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Yeah, its hard to believe fixed routes won't be entirely mapped soon. Aren't there city buses that can already do that? I believe so. Because its a small fixed route it can be completely mapped and analyzed to the point where there aren't any surprises except what normally isn't there, you can pick it all out, you already know all your navigation decisions, etc. It will still take a couple more decades for the whole thing to get routine. I doubt truck drivers are losing TOO much sleep yet.

Re:I wonder

[bunratty]

We'll need human drivers in the loop for quite some time. Here's a radio interview with a robotics researcher who actually works on autonomous vehicles to tell you the same: http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on...

Re:I wonder

[ShanghaiBill]

I bet Truck drivers will still be in service due to how often they get away with overloaded trailers.

The reason they overload trailers is to haul more cargo without paying more drivers. Once the driver is obsoleted, the incentive to overload the trailer is mostly gone too.

Re: I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking votes: is the parent a crazy person, preteen, or barely comprehensible bot? I vote crazy person...

Re:I wonder

[ShanghaiBill]

it'll be a long time before someone in some state's capital let's 80,000 pounds just roll down the road unsupervised.

America is criss-crossed by a lot of Interstate highways. If any state drags their feet too long, the trucks will be routed elsewhere, and that state will lose revenue and jobs.

Re:I wonder

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Hey, we're talking about the Teamsters' Union here; as in, "Where are you, Jimmy Hoffa?" They are continuously re-watching "Mad Max: The Road Warrior," and getting all leathered-up, with mini-crossbows on their wrists. When those robot trucks hit the roads, they will meet unfortunate "accidents".

Re:I wonder

[ShanghaiBill]

Here's a radio interview with a robotics researcher who actually works on autonomous vehicles to tell you the same

The guy with his nose in the mud is often not the best guy to ask what is coming over the horizon.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't quite work like that, but please explain why you think it would.

Re: I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure...could be all three...

Re:I wonder

[EvilSS]

It doesn't work that way with double trailer ban states so it probably won't work that way with this either. Not to mention the force business will bring to bear to make it happen.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

The driver would likely become more of a technician/maintenance position who then takes over during the city miles.

Re:I wonder

[Moridineas]

America is criss-crossed by a lot of Interstate highways. If any state drags their feet too long, the trucks will be routed elsewhere, and that state will lose revenue and jobs.

What revenue and jobs? I thought that was kind of the point of driverless trucks?

Besides, with no need for humans in the cab, the fundamentals of trucks can be redesigned. No need for bunk space, windshield, driver seat, etc. Change the design of the cab to dramatically increase aerodynamics. Program convoys of 3–4 (so as not to be a nuisance) trucks to draft off of each other going down the highway to dramatically increase mileage. I'm betting driverless trucks can be a lot more fuel efficient than your average driver by method too, so gas tax revenue from trucking may not be as high.

But, the real answer to your question is what governments do with ANYTHING new--tax it.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't be seen as accidents, as there will be significant levels of debugging information, logs, and video or plain digital images in place to record what actually happened. Won't be long before the FBI and NSA get involved in tracking them down, either.

It is a company's bottom line, you know.

Re:I wonder

[0123456]

The guy with his nose in the mud is often not the best guy to ask what is coming over the horizon.

True. The real story is that by the time a real, mass-market driverless car with no manual controls is possible, teleprescence and 3D printers will have made trucks and cars pretty much obsolete.

Re:I wonder

[Anubis IV]

Well, there are a few problems that crop up if you don't have someone along for the bulk of the ride:
1) Who refuels it?
2) Whose job is it to prevent the cargo from being stolen?
3) Who ensures that the cargo remains properly secured?
4) Who is legally responsible if the cargo is unsecured?
5) Who answers questions at weigh stations?
6) Who gives the okay to start driving again after someone crashes into it?

Some of those can obviously be dealt with easily, others not so much, especially when it comes to questions of legal liability and providing sufficient (dis)incentives to ensure the public's well-being.

Re: I wonder

[pitchpipe]

I think you forgot: Slashdot Troll. Since this site has fallen out of favor, they are an increasingly endangered species. Let's try to nurture them.

Re:I wonder

[ShanghaiBill]

1) Who refuels it?

The folks at the truck stop, who have a contract with the trucking company.

2) Whose job is it to prevent the cargo from being stolen?

Two people are responsible: The guy who puts the padlock on the back of the trailer, and the guy who checks the cameras when a breach is detected.

4) Who is legally responsible if the cargo is unsecured?

The insurance company

5) Who answers questions at weigh stations?

The guy at the other end of the phone call.

6) Who gives the okay to start driving again after someone crashes into it?

After a collision, I think a human would show up to deal with the situation.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

long time before someone in some state's capital let's

Before they let us .. what? Let us what?

Re:I wonder

[CODiNE]

Short term solution: experienced driver in the lead truck responsible for the 2-5 following him. Much simpler driving for the automatic ones, and a real human there for taking care of problems.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what long distance truck drivers are thinking right about now.

No Yipppppeeeeee!!!!

Re:I wonder

[Anubis IV]

So, I want to be clear about my intent here. I'm not trying to suggest that driver-less trucks are infeasible. On the contrary, I agree with what I would assume is your belief as well: that driver-less trucks will be the future. I'm merely pointing out that the problem is much harder than you're giving it credit for. Moreover, your latest response is trivializing a complicated situation by suggesting that a handful of trite answers are sufficient to address it.

For instance, we currently lack a nationwide network of stations that offer full-service for your trucks. It's certainly doable, but so far as I know it's not currently in place, and that's one of the simpler problems to address.

Your notion that a padlock and camera is sufficient to deter theft falls apart when we consider all of the flatbed trailers out there, or the fact that we live in a world where bolt cutters and masks exist. As it is, I see flatbeds loaded with lumber, steel pipes, and all manner of other material go by regularly, with the only things stopping me from stealing them being a trucker and my sense of what's right.

And I wasn't talking about who pays for lost cargo when I asked about unsecured loads (yes, that would be the insurer). I was asking who gets charged with manslaughter when the aforementioned steel pipes come loose and impale the passengers in the car following your truck. My family once had to swerve around one of these tires after it came loose from a flatbed. Trucks are pulled over all the time for violations in properly securing their loads, and that's despite the fact that the driver is currently held legally responsible for it. Heaven help us if it's a corporate drone three states removed who may or may not be traceable.

And what phone numbers would the folks at the weigh station call? Do we require trucking companies to register themselves in a national database, or do we just let them paint it on the side of the truck? Who do they call if the paint has faded? How do they tell the truck to pull off to the side of the weigh station while they wait for a human to arrive to deal with any problems that can't be answered over the phone?

Again, I agree that all of these issues are solvable, but suggesting that your trite answers are sufficient is doing a disservice to the people working on the technological, political, and economic issues surrounding the subject.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Not much controlling a semi is nothing like a four wheeler. I do believe that it will happen someday, but that day is still a long way off. I do believe it would be good in the long run because we're desperately in need of drivers. Most of the drivers on the road are new drivers and most never last because the job is extremely demanding. There are laws, but hardly anyone follows them and companies have no problem running someones ass to death. The fines are harsh I paid 10k for it twice in the last twelve years. I can live with that since I bring in just under 175k per year on average and all it does is go to the bank. Not much that I need living in my semi 99% of the time.

My average day is 18 to 20 hours usually 60 to 90 days straight. I'm fine with that because I suffer from extreme insomnia lasting days at a time. I haven't slept over 3 hours in the last 15 years. Drive, park and mess around online a hour or so, cat nap, and repeat.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

you really sound like a crybaby. where's your spirit man? we can do these things if we really want to. it's that simple. if we don't really want to because that would go against a monied interest or two, then we deserve the failure.

Re:I wonder

[Anubis IV]

I agree*. I said as much in my last post, had you taken the time to actually read it.

* I agree with everything besides the baseless and fallacious ad hominem attack.

Re: I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual cost is more than a driver and the responsibility being on driver's side means they can overload as much as they want. You thought line is flawed, replacement crew is coming to you shortly.

Re:I wonder

[Yetihehe]

This whole "who prevents cargo from being stolen" argument is moot in my opinion. If a someone wants to steal cargo, they can threaten driver with a gun. Maybe he will be able to draw a gun soon enough, maybe not. If cargo is expensive enough, he may even be killed. Also only in US drivers can have a gun. In europe there is also many trucks. What happens when driver hears something strange at night? He just pretend he's still asleep so that thieves don't threaten him. Cargo is insured and his employer will prefer to have alive driver.

Re:I wonder

[modmans2ndcoming]

Truck depots will just relocate to areas where they can be directly off the highway.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

"There already is a problem with semis that are not automatic"

They're semi-automatic, duh.

Re:I wonder

[Paradise Pete]

You're right, it will be more difficult than it appears at first glance. In my experience, this is true with every non-trivial endeavor*.
It's also inevitable. I don't think the issues you've raised will be major impediments. If there are any, and there always are, it will be something else that hasn't yet occurred to anyone.


*even when you take into account Hofstader's Law (heh).

Re:I wonder

[wonkey_monkey]

The reason they overload trailers is to haul more cargo without paying more drivers.

Really? You can't think of any other costs that could be cut by doing the same job with, say, 10% fewer trucks or 10% fewer journeys?

Re:I wonder

[Anubis IV]

Completely agreed.

The one caveat I might add, however, is that these issues may be significant enough that they won't be solved until we have truly driver-less trucks, i.e. ones that won't need drivers on city streets either. So long as we continue to need them on city streets, the cost to include them for the rest of the trip will be compared against the cost of overcoming these issues, and I suspect that balance will continue to lean towards the status quo.

Re:I wonder

[Jack Griffin]

But, the real answer to your question is what governments do with ANYTHING new--tax it.

And they keep your taxes in a gingerbread house in the woods and they eat little children. Fucking taxes...

Re:I wonder

[Jack Griffin]

This whole "who prevents cargo from being stolen" argument is moot in my opinion. If a someone wants to steal cargo, they can threaten driver with a gun.

Armed robbery, possibly murder if the driver puts up a fight could see you in jail for life or even the death penalty. Blocking a driver-less vehicle onto the road in the middle of nowhere and helping yourself to free stuff is the equivalent of a misdemeanor in most places. To think the two are the same thing is pretty misguided.

Re:I wonder

[Jack Griffin]

What about in the other 99% of countries in the world that have trucks but not Teamsters?

Re:I wonder

[dcw3]

That they'll get plenty of sleep for 90% of the trip, until they need to hit city streets.

It would make more sense to have a separate driver for the few miles of city streets on each end of the route. Or if the route is usually the same, just ask Google to map it and put it into their navigation database.

Possibly, but then how do you get to the pickup/dropoff points w/o being in that last 10%?

Re:I wonder

[MrL0G1C]

1) Garage attendant / robot / automated.
2) People who design the locks, police, security etc.
3) The people loading the cargo
4) The people who loaded it / vehicle manufacturers if bad design.
5) The owner of the truck/haulage co, phone them(?).
6) Emergency services or breakdown service.

Seems like pretty easy questions.

Re:I wonder

[dcw3]

Ummm, maybe. But not in our lifetime.

Re:I wonder

[drinkypoo]

Who refuels it?

An attendant at a fuel stop, eventually a robot.

Whose job is it to prevent the cargo from being stolen?

The cops. It's not the driver's job to fight crime.

3) Who ensures that the cargo remains properly secured?
4) Who is legally responsible if the cargo is unsecured?

Ah, finally a meaningful question. Cargo securing equipment will probably improve, with smart straps that know when they're coming loose and which it's easier to know are properly attached to begin with. The straps will eventually tighten themselves, just like engine head bolts are going to ere long.

Who answers questions at weigh stations?

Documentation.

Who gives the okay to start driving again after someone crashes into it?

Probably an enhanced insurance adjuster.

Some of those can obviously be dealt with easily, others not so much, especially when it comes to questions of legal liability and providing sufficient (dis)incentives to ensure the public's well-being.

All cheaper than drivers.

Re:I wonder

[drinkypoo]

As it is, I see flatbeds loaded with lumber, steel pipes, and all manner of other material go by regularly, with the only things stopping me from stealing them being a trucker and my sense of what's right.

Since truckers are vulnerable to firearms like everyone else, the only thing stopping you is your sense of what's right. Otherwise you could just shoot the driver and roll him into a ditch, at which point he won't be arguing with you about cargo.

Re:I wonder

[MrL0G1C]

Unsecured loads - there is no change, the person responsible is the person who secures the load prior to the vehicle setting off - same as before.

It doesn't matter if the truck is driven by a driver or a machine, an unsecured load is an unsecured load either way.

Lumber, you can't realistically just run off with somebodies trees, that is why they don't have a high level of security. How would you fence stolen trees? If you were mad enough to steal trees then the driver might not be able to stop you.

Drivers are not infallible, they go to the toilet, they sleep, they go to cafes to eat. Their loads could be stolen now, we have laws and security to prevent that. Why do they put locks on trucks now when those trucks have drivers? Can your front door lock be cut with bolt cutters?

Paint fading? Is a license plate allowed to fade - is that legal? Solution is not complicated, a database of license plates+telephone numbers could fit on a smartphone no problem.

Honestly, the questions you asked, they are easy to answer, you even answered some of the questions yourself when criticising me. You call my answers trite but they are no more trite than your questions.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello? Trains?

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

They wont care. Not a single one driving right now will lose a second's worth of work as genuine autonomous cars, let alone the vastly more difficult truck aint going to be here for 20 years.

What was done here has been possible for 10 years. The "1 percent" issues are much larger than they BS about and will not be even close to be solved for a while.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Will that be at the same time 3D printers replace hype?

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

But the drivers change the carriages. You transport the goods that are in someones trailer. The car and the trailer are a separate thing often. Car having one and trailer another licence plate. You drive the trailer from a to b, in b you get the new trailer to bring to c and so one ...

Licence plate based telephone numbers? Yeah ... way to go. Companies change numbers, people and so on. It will be completele hell. And who makes companies to list all new (mobile) numbers? Numbers from other countries. So you trie to catch some bloke in Mexico or Canada for overweight in Colorado? And you will wait 2 days for somebody to show up?

Re:I wonder

[baegucb]

I read this a few hours ago, and remembered a video of a Mercedes self driving semi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... is one of the videos (not sure if anyone had posted similar in the past few hours)

Re: I wonder

[jfanning]

Lawn ornament deer?!

Two words, infra red.

Re:I wonder

[rockmuelle]

The same thing train engineers are thinking.

Trains have solved the problem that driverless cars are trying to solve. Instead of cameras, GPS, and detailed maps, they simply use tracks to guide them. Guess what? After a few hundred years of using trains, we've found it helps to have a human on board. Same will be true of "driverless" cars and trucks.

-Chris

Re:I wonder

[tompaulco]

The same thing train engineers are thinking.

Trains have solved the problem that driverless cars are trying to solve. Instead of cameras, GPS, and detailed maps, they simply use tracks to guide them. Guess what? After a few hundred years of using trains, we've found it helps to have a human on board. Same will be true of "driverless" cars and trucks.

-Chris

This. And Pilots. So the truck ( or train or plane) can drive itself 99% of the time, but when an emergency happens or something routine which we don't trust the computer to do, the human is there to handle it. The same thing will happen with trucks if anything happens at all. Driving a truck will just become a job where you sit around in the cab watching instruments 99% of the time. You can't and shouldn't eliminate the human.

Re:I wonder

[drinkypoo]

After a few hundred years of using trains, we've found it helps to have a human on board.

Nope. We have humans on board trains because of unions. And we used to have more of them, but we deleted the guy in the back of the train and replaced him with a black box with a flashing light called FRED.

The only possible use for humans on cargo trains is to handle minor derailments, major ones requiring more personnel than you would reasonably keep on a train. That, and to shut any doors that fly open, assuming they care.

Re:I wonder

[StillAnonymous]

Haven't you seen Maximum Overdrive? It's the human's job to refuel their mechanical master's fuel tanks.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I laughed out loud. Only on /. could you read such out-of-touch drivel. You're going to 3D print your apples and milk?

Re:I wonder

[Joe_Dragon]

lot's of siding tracks are under manual control and they also need to hook and unhook cars as well.

Re:I wonder

[0123456]

I laughed out loud. Only on /. could you read such out-of-touch drivel. You're going to 3D print your apples and milk?

That's why I said 'pretty much obsolete'. Obviously some things will still need to be transported, but nothing like the amount that's currently rolling along our highways. People keep talking about how their driverless car will make their commute so much easier, while ignoring the fact that their job probably won't exist in twenty years, and almost certainly won't require them to commute if it does.

But, hey, keep believing the world will be just the same as it is today only with shinier cars, if you like. Doesn't bother me.

Re:I wonder

[bruce_the_loon]

There is a continuum of behaviour in play here. Most people would be unlikely to proceed with stealing cargo if killing someone was required. That's why having a bloke leaning against the van when you're unloading it keeps the yobbos from running off with your cargo.

Add a firearm to the bloke and you block another section of people who'd try threats and low to mid-end violence from taking the risk in the first place.

The sense of what is right might encompass nicking a crate of beer off an unattended van, but not hurting someone to do it. And I'd suspect that group is much, much larger than the group who would kill someone over it.

Re:I wonder

[Anubis IV]

In the long-term, absolutely. In the short-term, it may be cheaper just to keep the drivers on for the entire trip until we can get to the point where we don't need them for any part of the trip.

Re:I wonder

[drinkypoo]

lot's of siding tracks are under manual control

Solvable problem

and they also need to hook and unhook cars as well.

The best way to solve this problem is to distribute motive force across the train. The engines basically just become generators, and can be distributed throughout the train. Then portions of the train can be split off while in motion.

Re:I wonder

[drinkypoo]

The sense of what is right might encompass nicking a crate of beer off an unattended van, but not hurting someone to do it.

At what time do you imagine that self-driving trucks will be both unattended and immobile? It's only going to be when they're broken down, refueling, or at an endpoint. When a truck breaks down, a regional rep will be dispatched to perform service, and will be there in short order. Police can be notified of valuable cargoes by the side of the road by automated systems.

Re:I wonder

[ColdWetDog]

Yeah, but put too many of them together and then they start talking to each other, thinking thoughts not intended by their creators. All of this in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere, America.

Are you sure you want to leave this for your children?

Re:I wonder

[ColdWetDog]

Ah, you've just invented ... a train.

Re:I wonder

[ColdWetDog]

You do realize that you're the poster child as to why we need this particular technology?

Re:I wonder

[Anubis IV]

Just a funny aside (since I don't think a full response on my part would add anything of value to the discussion): when my family lived in California back in the '80s, sago palms were routinely stolen from yards that had been recently landscaped. People would drive up with pickup trucks in the middle of the night, grab the newly-planted palms, throw them in the back of the truck, and drive off to sell them on the black market. At the time, they were fetching around $500-1000, apparently, depending on how mature they were.

Wish I was kidding.

So yes, people can fence trees. But I had actual lumber in mind, like what you'd use in construction, and there are plenty of contractors willing to purchase materials from someone shady if it means saving a few bucks.

Re:I wonder

[bruce_the_loon]

SA Breweries had a major issue with beer trucks going up steep hills in sections of South Africa. Some of these trucks end up going at walking pace and the people living in the areas would walk alongside, jump aboard and pass beer crates down. They solved it partially by sticking armed guards on the top of the truck during slow hill climbs.

Re: I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Those would be shady trees.

Re: I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

We are thinking bring it on!

Re: I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I plan to print my apples. Milk is bad for your health so I will skip that. Humans will never fly, never go to space, never print apples. Printing apples is not easy, but we are already printing human organs.

Re: I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

9 years ago driving was used as an example of things that computers can not do, ever. At this point every big car company is trying to do it. If it takes more than 5 years for one of them they will lose the game and they know it. Money will drive this home much sooner than you think.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

And what phone numbers would the folks at the weigh station call? Do we require trucking companies to register themselves in a national database, or do we just let them paint it on the side of the truck? Who do they call if the paint has faded?

Being registered may be a requirement for operating a driverless truck. But they are already registered - there are licence plates! And if people at the weigh station cannot figure out who to call, they simply keep that truck. Soon enough, the owners of truck or cargo will be in touch.

What do the weighing people do today, when the driver don't speak any language they understand? When he don't even understand "papers, please."

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Since truckers are vulnerable to firearms like everyone else, the only thing stopping you is your sense of what's right.

There are lots of people who would happily steal stuff when nobody's around - especially if they know the cops will take a long time to appear on a deserted stretch of road. They have no problem disabling a robot car - possibly wrecking it completely in the process. But they don't want to be killers, oh no. If there is people around, they wait for the next robo-truck, or go burgling while people is at work.

Being a thief is easier than being a robber/murderer, and the prison sentences are shorter, and the cops put less effort in catching you.

They can lie to themselves that "they're only harming faceless insurance companies - not real people." That don't work if they have to shoot a few truckers per day.

Re:I wonder

[drinkypoo]

They solved it partially by sticking armed guards on the top of the truck during slow hill climbs.

That still won't save the driver's job... but they'll keep the gunman. For now. There's no reason they can't automate that guy away too, and just install sentry guns on the truck, or simply operate them remotely. Beanbags, anyone?

Re:I wonder

[argStyopa]

What long haul truck drivers?

The industry has been suffering a critical (and largely unreported) sub-replacement level of new drivers for a half decade, only getting worse with the administration's new rules in 2014 & 2015 that took roughly 20% of the drivable hours per week (i.e.pay) out of a driver's pocket. Something like 3000+ trucking companies have closed per quarter for the last 10 quarters, largely because they simply cannot find drivers.

The long term drivers have largely hung up their spurs; most of the drivers you see on the road are relatively new immigrants, don't speak a lot of English, and average about 30-50 hours or road experience. Yeah, about a week.

Re:I wonder

[gizmo2199]

Police aren't security guards. What incentive do they have to protect an out of state shipping container? It's like if I called 911 because I parked my BMW in a bad neighborhood. The laughter at the other end of the line wouldn't be very reassuring. As with all technological utopianism, you haven't thought this out too well have you?

Re:I wonder

[gizmo2199]

Let's face it, there's a a lot "yeah but's" when talking about driverless cars and automation in general. You shoot down someone's pie-in-the-sky idea with purely practical concerns that would occur to someone not vested in "teh futurzes" and you're met with, yeah, but... (insert overly-optimistic impracticable solution here).

I mean, remotely controlled weapons platforms to defend cargo, even if it were legal it'd be an insurance nightmare. "Yeah, but..."

Re:I wonder

[gizmo2199]

Maybe in 50 years, but not sooner. I mean, think about the kinds of mass-produced items people buy today, then think about why 3D printing doesn't yet solve the problem of making those things cheaper: Smartphones, consumer electronics, cars, furniture, etc.

A smartphone has hundreds of components of varying complexity.

Can you 3D print a cpu? a PCB?, the hi-res screen? We're decades away from making 3D printing of those components cheaply available.

Could you 3D print a car's engine? Not from plastic. And you know what they call a 3D printer that uses metal? A forge, which most people wouldn't have in their house any way.

Re: I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting this as AC, as I have to budget my posts, the conspirators ganged up on me and modded me to karma terrible, so I get 2 posts per day max. On the plus side the military may not want foreigners reading some of my comments, as, when I log out I often can't find my own comments even when showing all posts, but if I save the comment number link before logging out I can come as Anonymous Coward and post more under it. So, whatever, here we go:

There are many circumstances during driving where an intellect is required to assess the situation, predict most likely outcome and make a decision to modify present course in a way that's favorable to the self/driven object/human cargo. Sure, you can patch all issues little by little, like infrared for deer, air plane about to crash visual evaluator computing a swerve, a bridge about to collapse because it's swinging so badly in the resonant wind (youtube should have some bridge resonance videos), but through that process of more and more sophisticated automatic decision making capabilities you are creating a machine intellect little by little, aware about its environment, and computing/predicting behavior. In essence that's what you are too, a chemical machine fighting decay computing/predicting the future, like, need food, if I sit in this bush long enough and a "warm" deer walks by and I throw my spear at it thus I can live on that food for a couple days, rinse, repeat. That's what a monkey does, with the most superb vision only outdone by some predatory birds, but that vision and color acuity is required to spot a banana or other colored fruit on a distant tree, and from the color estimate how ripe it is, or it's energy content, and viewing the branches, assess whether it's an energetically good deal to hop like Tarzan from branch to branch, for the rewards presented. Similar tasks are involved in driving, or actually the forefront of this technology is pushed always on the military front, but evolution of machine intellect that surpasses humans may be pretty much the only danger that threatens the existence of humanity, biotech comes in 2nd, but it's possible to escape to isolate space stations from biotech but not from machine AI smarter than humans, and nuclear holocaust is pretty much piece of cake compared to these other two threats, because nuclear is predictable, computable, easily predictable, unlike machine AI or some biotech hacker generated disease that destroys all lifeforms, bacteria plants and animals, both of which can adapt and actively seek your destruction by outsmarting you, if you can't come up with answers faster than they can mutate or adapt to your defenses. Self sufficient fully habitable space stations with full internal recycling of materials are an answer to both a nuclear holocaust or a biotech holocaust getting out of hand down here, but not machine intellect getting out of hand. I can't emphasize enough the movie Screamers from 1996, which is kinda silly and funny, but serious at the same time. Remember, you are just a machine too, based on carbon chemistry with nerve impulse velocities based on sodium/potassium/calcium ion aqueous chemistry, velocities left in the dust far behind by gallium arsenide transistor switch frequency and vacuum-fiberoptic velocity transmission conduit technology. It is possible to surpass human intellect by machines at least guaranteed when it comes to reflexes and reaction times, which are important in the heat of a battle or a fight. You know, right?, that a computer can react faster to sensory input, under microseconds, compared to like 100 ms minimum reaction for a human, and if you have to make complicated decisions, like a ships captain, maybe 5 seconds to a couple days of meditation. A lot of drivers face complicated situations where the accident is caused more by the unavailability of enough time to think through what to do next, instead of haphazard quick reactions, but for now it's much better to have a human behind the steering wheel of even a UAV, and when a machine can fully take over, it's gonna

Re:I wonder

[zippthorne]

Same way shipping ports do it. You have professional a pilot meet the vehicle in a place it can reach on it's own, and take over driving to specific last-mile destinations.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

3D printers will still need materials moved to whereever you are going to print stuff. And there's a lot of chemistry going on that I don't think is going to be feasible to do truly locally.

And that's from somebody that believes that automation is going to move a lot of stuff to be local - way more than most people do.

Re: I wonder

[NotRightAway]

Great post. I think we do require trucks to register in a national database already; that's yer actual license plate, and I imagine that registration process includes declaring unladen and laden weights. The national network of service stations will have to be sorted out anyway when that shale oil you found runs out.

Re: I wonder

[NotRightAway]

Hooking and unhooking is done at stations. No need for someone to follow the train (road or rail.) Sidings? Take a look at the wildly branching routes on London's DLR. No drivers.

Re: I wonder

[Joe_Dragon]

not for rail freight cars

Re: I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

No more like your retarded 5 seconds of armchair thought is not going to derail tens to hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars of economic opportunities in industries with 100s if not 1000s of educated professionals paid to think about and solve these concerns in a manner consistent with thier economic incentive. Seriously shut the funk up.

Re: I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

No driver salary is the major expense. But thanks for participating in a topic about which you have no knowledge.

Re: I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Beyond license plates, all commercial trucks in the US have a UsDOT number on the cab. In this post OK City world, I think you could get someone on the phone in 3 minutes with that.

Re:I wonder

[pnutjam]

If I only had a mod point!

Re:I wonder

[pnutjam]

Yeah, they can crowd source it. You'll get a ping on you app when you need to go get the semi from the interstate. That should keep costs down and maximize poverty.

Re:I wonder

[Moridineas]

And they keep your taxes in a gingerbread house in the woods and they eat little children. Fucking taxes...

I don't understand your response. The GP talked about lost revenue. I suggested the way in which revenue will, without a doubt, be made up. Governments exist by taxing human activity. Do you disagree that in the near future there will be special taxes on driverless cars?

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually commercial truck drivers are not allowed to carry a firearm in the truck. Given the number of random inspections by DOT and the felony charge, it is unlikely you would find a firearm in a typical freight truck. (tow-truck, dump truck, etc might be willing to risk it, but anybody driving cross country running into weigh stations wouldn't risk it, thats what dogs and baseball bats are for)

Re:I wonder

[blackanvil]

And what will happen when someone blocks a truck to steal its contents? First off the thieves are going to need to identify the contents as valuable and resellable on the black market. That implies an inside job, as most trucks don't identify their contents, so an internal audit will probably show which employee is involved. As soon as an object is detected in the road, the truck itself will not just stop, but most likely immediately send and automated 911 call, notify the parent company of an unexpected stop, and start sending out for archive any camera footage of the area if it wasn't already. If the thieves can remove the desired contents without exposing a face or other recognizable feature, load it in their vehicle without it being identified, and escape before the authorities arrive. Admittedly, I'm thinking the less corrupt parts of the first world, in many areas of the world the authorities would be in on the plan, or so corrupt or poorly funded that they just aren't going to respond. Even on a remote area of the US highway system, though, you're talking less than half an hour for all but the most remote areas for response, and in those areas there's now probable cause to stop any vehicle large enough to have taken part in the theft that was seen in the area. For really valuable shipments, cash, gold, jewelry, guns, etc, you'd want an armed guard on board or escort, and of course for anything truly of interest to terrorists you'd definitely want appropriate security, but even for TVs or computers will take a while to move to a new transport. Still, I can see cargo-blocking becoming the new teenage cow-tipping.

Re:I wonder

[RyoShin]

For instance, we currently lack a nationwide network of stations that offer full-service for your trucks. It's certainly doable, but so far as I know it's not currently in place, and that's one of the simpler problems to address.

As I've thought about the problem of fuel for automated trucks, my mind turns to mid-air refueling: A plane stays aloft while another plane hooks up to it and adds more fuel. The other plane can go back to the ground and load up again, keeping the desired plane in flight for as long as refueling planes get to it.

Could the same thing be possible for trucks? Have a tanker (also automated) come in behind a truck, have a nozzle hooked up, and fuel it while driving. The tanker can then drive back to a refuel area specifically set up for them to reload. You could even have fuel lanes added to long, mostly-empty stretches of highway, where the truck being fueled can slow down without bothering traffic and the tankers can easily enter/exit to loop around.

Another possibility is that, without the need of a driver, the entire cab can be turned into a giant fuel tank. Not without its own problems, but something to consider.

the only things stopping me from stealing them being a trucker and my sense of what's right.

If someone is a thief, their sense of what is right is already out, so that just leaves the trucker as the only problem. A gun or a steel pipe can take care of that. Perhaps the thought of (potentially) hurting a human is a deterrent, but there non-violent ways to get the driver out of the picture. I imagine insurance for drivers is quite a bit, so companies will be happy to be rid of that cost as well. Various deterrents and anti-theft devices can be put in place, and without a proper cab (see above) the content would have to be unloaded on the spot, making it easy for a company that gets an alarm to call the local PD.

The weigh station one is easy, the trucks just have RFID tags that give the information as it passes through a weigh station or will automatically connect the officer at the station with whoever is monitoring the trucks through the cab. It can even have a basic LCD screen on either side to allow 'face to face' communication. The remote monitor can then instruct the cab to move into a designated space; if no one can be contacted, the cab can automatically go into a space until contact can be established or a representative can physically arrive.

There might be a standard (or five) created to allow the station to direct the cab itself, given proper credentials, without interaction from the trucking company. (This goes into things like encryption etc., but doable.)

Re:I wonder

[snadrus]

Makes sense. This moves to a train-car approach. You could have 100 "train-cars" this way since they're driving themselves. As long as they're all moving forward, who cares? When one is in touble, they all "pull off" while the human sorts it out.

Re:I wonder

[stoatwblr]

"Trucks are pulled over all the time for violations in properly securing their loads, and that's despite the fact that the driver is currently held legally responsible for it. Heaven help us if it's a corporate drone three states removed who may or may not be traceable."

There are ways of writing laws to hold corporations and their officers legally responsible for such things.

In one company I worked for (not in the USA), the CEO sent out a letter stating at the top: "I have no wish to go to jail for activities performed by my staff. Therefore any illegal activity will be dealt with swiftly and severely." it went on to say that culprits would be terminated on the spot and appropriate regulators notified., etc etc.

Re:I wonder

[stoatwblr]

"In the short-term, it may be cheaper just to keep the drivers on for the entire trip"

Indeed, but they may not be actually driving until they're in areas where it's _needed_

This is going to make a big difference to uptime hours and I can see "drivers" being abused by unscrupulous employers.

Re:I wonder

[Neil Boekend]

You have got no idea what the maintenance cost on a gingerbread house is.

Re:I wonder

[Anubis IV]

I couldn't agree more. I think we're going to see a bit of a rough transition time before things migrate to being fully automated, and that during those growing pains there may be a number of abuses going on.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Add in tech with the cameras where they could be observed through a security company that handles thousands of trucks and things change. Constant streaming video from these trucks is very much possible and small cost once you've removed the driver.

As for the full service setups, I imagine the automated pumps will just need to integrate a secure remote transaction system to allow these vehicles to pull up to automated pumps and fuel up with no human interaction. Stations may need attendants for handling certain situations, but that is still low in cost and could behave more like the self checkouts having 1 cashier for a whole group of checkout lanes.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll still need to ship the feed material for your 3-D printer, so while shipping will go down (it's a lot more space-efficient to ship materials than it is to ship finished products) you'll still have a lot of it. I'm also not sure teleprescence will take off as much as you think - most people actually like being around other people during the work day.

Re:I wonder

[tehcyder]

I wonder what long distance truck drivers are thinking right about now.

Finally, I can leave this soul destroying job behind and fulfill my destiny on the ballroom dancing floor.

Re:I wonder

[tehcyder]

How would you fence stolen trees?

I imagine you'd convert them into anonymous panels.

Re:I wonder

[tehcyder]

Have a tanker (also automated) come in behind a truck, have a nozzle hooked up, and fuel it while driving.

Why bother? There's a big time difference between a plane having to land, refuel, then take off again, and a truck stopping for a few minutes to get topped up.

Re:I wonder

[tehcyder]

This is going to make a big difference to uptime hours and I can see "drivers" being abused by unscrupulous employers.

Yes, here in the UK, I can picture the drivers basically working non stop Monday to Friday (at least) and being told to take their sleep in the cab as the rob-lorry drives through the night.

So, pretty much like now, but you wouldn't have to stop overnight at a service station to eat and pick up prostitutes.

Re:I wonder

[RyoShin]

But having multiple trucks maneuver through off ramps, through pumps to an available one, and back on seems more complicated to me than having a few trucks just drive back and forth on the highway.

Re:I wonder

[tehcyder]

You inadvertently a few punctuation marks to break up the solid wall of text.

Re:I wonder

[tehcyder]

Blocking a driver-less vehicle onto the road in the middle of nowhere and helping yourself to free stuff is the equivalent of a misdemeanor in most places.

It's robbery, and if you're caught with any weapons, armed robbery can get you pretty much as long a sentence as murder. .

Re:I wonder

[tehcyder]

My average day is 18 to 20 hours usually 60 to 90 days straight. I'm fine with that because I suffer from extreme insomnia lasting days at a time. I haven't slept over 3 hours in the last 15 years. Drive, park and mess around online a hour or so, cat nap, and repeat.

Two questions: first, do you think a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets, and second, who's your preferred presidential candidate?

Re:I wonder

[Jack Griffin]

Governments don't exist by taxing, they exist because we as humans have figured out that a central power working on behalf of the population works better than the alternatives. Tax simply is how we fund this enterprise.

Re:I wonder

[Jack Griffin]

Er, it's a fully automated robot truck, what fucking purpose would a weapon serve when robbing it? .

Re:I wonder

[Moridineas]

Governments don't exist by taxing, they exist because we as humans have figured out that a central power working on behalf of the population works better than the alternatives. Tax simply is how we fund this enterprise.

So, I take it since you have neither disputed the point I was made nor answered the question, you're not really interested in the discussion and just want to internet argue. Fine with me, but I'm not going to take you up on it. If you're looking for low-quality political flames, I might suggest a different forum.

Re:I wonder

[Jack Griffin]

You took the time to respond to say that? Pro tip: if you want to ignore someone, best strategy is to actually ignore them...

Also happened in 1995

[Anonymous Coward]

CMU had a car drive itself across America in 1995, 98% autonomously:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tjochem/nhaa/Journal.html

Re:Also happened in 1995

[Anonymous Coward]

Except in 1995, the drivers still had to control the throttle and brake. That's not autonomous.

Re:Also happened in 1995

[jaak]

The 1995 CMU vehicle was sponsored by Delco Electronics which, two years later, became part of Delphi (which engineered the car in this story).

Re:Also happened in 1995

[Anonymous Coward]

And in all that time they still cannot make a car that can drive itself in inclement weather and on all types of roads without a pre-mapped route. This is no better than the Google car, which suffers from the same problems.

Re:Also happened in 1995

[ShanghaiBill]

And in all that time they still cannot make a car that can drive itself in inclement weather

Not everyone has weather. I live in California. It doesn't snow here, and a few years ago, it stopped raining as well.

Re: Also happened in 1995

[Anonymous Coward]

But earthquakes! How will those fabulous robo cars handle earthquakes, eh? Not as well as a person would, I bet!

Re:Also happened in 1995

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that's the most difficult part and is why it took 20 years to implement.

Re: Also happened in 1995

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to up the fracking to produce some earthquakes! You know, for car testing.

Re: Also happened in 1995

[Anonymous Coward]

And volcanos! And meteor strikes! And UFO invasions! This technology cannot be permitted to be released until every possible scenario has been programmed into the system.

Re:Also happened in 1995

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly recommend you crack open a dictionary and look up weather.

If you lived in California, you would know it both snows and rains. Irrespective of the drought, it has both snowed and rained this winter. In fact, it is raining right now in many parts of the state.

Re:Also happened in 1995

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pyC7WnvLT4

Will robots become the new ignition interlock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine committing a serious dui offense and being assigned an automated assist system that will only take you to and from work, with a possible ration of once a week trips to the grocery store etc.

Re:Will robots become the new ignition interlock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? If the car's driving, first, what's the point of a DUI, and secondly, why restrict how much you allow a robot to drive you around for a drinking offense?

That would be like saying "Oh, you've been convicted of a DUI. You can only ride in a taxi twice a week."-- it makes no sense.

Re:Will robots become the new ignition interlock?

[Trax3001BBS]

Imagine committing a serious dui offense and being assigned an automated assist system that will only take you to and from work, with a possible ration of once a week trips to the grocery store etc.

That's is a viable option for this technology, and a damn good one. It allows the person to get around and the cost to rent it for the duration would be a penalty itself.

It's the phrase: "yielding to the carbon-based life form behind the wheel only when it was time to leave the highway and hit city streets. " if it commits a homicide with them in it, are they responsible?

Re:Will robots become the new ignition interlock?

[EvilSS]

Imagine committing a serious dui offense and being assigned an automated assist system that will only take you to and from work, with a possible ration of once a week trips to the grocery store etc.

They could do this today with GPS, and probably do. Who the hell knows (I haven't had a DUI in, oh, this lifetime). If you deviate from your allowed route it could shut the car down, or just call the cops when you stop to come scoop you up for a violation. If the driver is still required to not be drunk then the traditional interlock is also going to be required as well to make sure they are not supervising an automated vehicle while intoxicated.

Re:Will robots become the new ignition interlock?

[drinkypoo]

They don't even bother with all that, they just check your mileage to see if you've exceeded the distance you needed to travel to and from work. They don't need to punish you in realtime, and the goal is not to reduce profitable recidivism in any case, but to generate revenue.

That last one percent is a bear

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. It's where things get far more complex than leaving it in cruise mode on I-80

Re:That last one percent is a bear

[0123456]

Indeed. The last 1% is likely to be 99% of the work.

Many of the cars we test-drove last year already had systems to detect when the car was leaving the lane on the highway, and some had cruise control that would automatically slow down if the car in front did. Adapting that tech to drive on the highway by itself for a few thousand miles in good conditions shouldn't be particularly hard. It's dealing with the unexpected that's difficult, and that's where most human screwups happen, too.

Re:That last one percent is a bear

[GrahamCox]

To be fair, that last one per cent is a bear for human drivers as well. That's why there are so many crashes.

Re:That last one percent is a bear

[drinkypoo]

Many of the cars we test-drove last year already had systems to detect when the car was leaving the lane on the highway, and some had cruise control that would automatically slow down if the car in front did. Adapting that tech to drive on the highway by itself for a few thousand miles in good conditions shouldn't be particularly hard.

S-Class plus soda can equals autonomous highway cruiser.

It's dealing with the unexpected that's difficult, and that's where most human screwups happen, too.

Yep. What Delphi just did is showed that they're up to where whoever Mercedes is buying their telematics from was up to some years ago. Congratulations, Delphi, for only being a bunch of years behind.

Highway vs Surface Streets

[Hrrrg]

It seems that every week there is another headline trumpeting the imminence of self-driving cars. However, when I read articles written by researchers in this field, I get the impression that self driving cars are going to be here sometime between 10 years and never. I think the disconnect is that any car that drives itself will do so on the freeway, but a human will have to drive it on the surface streets.

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[wasted]

Consequently, it is likely that the "about to go on surface streets alarm" option will be very popular.

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[EvilSS]

It seems that every week there is another headline trumpeting the imminence of self-driving cars. However, when I read articles written by researchers in this field, I get the impression that self driving cars are going to be here sometime between 10 years and never. I think the disconnect is that any car that drives itself will do so on the freeway, but a human will have to drive it on the surface streets.

I don't think never, but I'd guess 10 years at the very, very earliest. However the technology will mature and it will become standard in the not too distant future, and probably mandated some time after that, most likely starting in Europe and eventually North America.

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[Dutch Gun]

Nearly every single major automaker on the planet is predicting that self-driving cars will be available for purchase by 2025, so I'm tending to give them the benefit of the doubt, since it would seem like they'd have the best information available to make such a bold prediction. I suppose it could be possible that they're just all stating the same exaggerated claims for fear of looking like they're behind in the technological race, but that would be equally speculative.

Also, keep in mind that "self-driving" probably won't mean "never have to touch the steering wheel again". For the first generation of self-driving cars, I'm betting that humans will likely have to take over for tricky parking jobs, extreme weather conditions, or going anywhere off the beaten path. However, I'm betting that they *will* be able to handle driving on most surface streets. From there it will just be a series of refinements and improvements to handle all the edge cases where humans currently have to take over.

Considering how far self-driving cars have come over the past decade, I don't see another decade to delivery being completely out of the question.

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[west]

Indeed, the difference between "can basically relax on the way to work" and "allowed to use driver-less car without a license" may indeed be 20 years.

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[Jack Griffin]

I find it hard to see how these will ever be standardised. Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean it will ever see the light of day. In 20-30 years maybe we'll have learnt that cars we're a terrible idea to begin with and go back to pedestrian/cycle friendly urban hubs connected by mass transit. I mean if we're dreaming of a transport utopia, I struggle to see why you'd bother with a car at all.

Re: Highway vs Surface Streets

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's the rub. If I'm "relaxing" by taking a nap and a situation pops up that requires my attention then I'll need at least 5 seconds to be able to respond, if not a lot more. This is a long time in cases that require fast response. But maybe worse, it is even a long time in cases that don't, which are much more common, such as road construction. How do you like it today when the cop signals the other car that it's their turn to go and they don't because they are busy doing something else?

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[f00zbll]

Anyone that has driven in New York or Boston will tell you just how screwed up driving is. Driving on the freeway is much easier than driving city streets by atleast 2 orders of magnitude. I think it's great they're working on it and making great progress, but all of this hype is a bit silly.

Having cars handle freeway driving would definitely improve things and help reduce congestion. If we're talking freeway only autonomous driving, that feels feasible by 2030. The other 10% is going to take much longer than anyone thinks.

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[drinkypoo]

Google has had successful tests on surface streets. Delphi is a fuel pump and gasket company, and they're not spectacular at that stuff. Obviously they're stunting to try to change that image, but the people they need to impress aren't going to be impressed, because what they're doing is far from state of the art.

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[ColdWetDog]

You will NEVER overcome the resistance to people wanting their 'own' transportation space. It may not be a horse, it may not be a car manually driven by a human but it won't be 'mass transit' and, get over it already, bicycles have a very limited role in the greater world.

Utopias are all well and good, but they are typically found only in the fertile human imagination.

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[ColdWetDog]

Delphi is a fuel pump and gasket company, and they're not spectacular at that stuff..

Actually, you're a bit behind the curve. Delphi is big business underneath the hood and chassis. They make crummy gaskets, but they have quite a bit more depth than you seem to believe.

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[Anonymous Coward]

Google can only drive surface streets that are pre-mapped. In other words, a human drives the course the day before and loads all the data into the computer system, while marking any variances. The self driving car cannot deal with the unexpected. Also, the cars have never been driven in inclement weather.

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[Jack Griffin]

You will NEVER overcome the resistance to people wanting their 'own' transportation space.

This is a new invention that only exists in the west, and only in the last 60 years. In another 60 it might just disappear again as a failed experiment.

but it won't be 'mass transit'

You mean like in Hong Kong and Singapore where it already is? Mass transit is the only transport solution that scales in large cities. Dream all you like, but that is the reality.

Utopias are all well and good, but they are typically found only in the fertile human imagination

Up there with flying cars, robot cars and personal privacy....

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[drinkypoo]

The self driving car cannot deal with the unexpected.

Well, it can't deal with unexpected routes, but it can deal with unexpected obstacles like bicyclists and other motorists. That's not too bad.

Also, the cars have never been driven in inclement weather.

Yes, that's a serious problem. But they're still well ahead of most of the competition in this particular area, AFAICT. Certainly they are well ahead of anyone who chooses not even to attempt it.

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[dave420]

Bicycles have a massive role in many cities. The US != world :)

Re:Highway vs Surface Streets

[Anonymous Coward]

A bike's all Dave420 has. Remember: He's an expert on everything!

When hype turn to Tripe.

[jklovanc]

Lane following is one of the simplest things for vehicle technology to do. All it does is follows the lane lines and keeps a speed/ or minimum distance from the vehicle in front. I bet every time they had to change highways the driver took over. Also notice it was not raining heavily, snowing or recently snowed in the trip. Current technology has problems in those cases. Comparing lane following to autonomous driving is like comparing algebra to calculus.

Re:When hype turn to Tripe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing lane following to autonomous driving is like comparing algebra to calculus.

That most people outside of engineering disciplines would never actually use it in real life?

=)

Re:When hype turn to Tripe.

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

It was probably way less than 1% that a manual person did the driving for. They probably only did the intersections which are barely 40 meters each, and swerving back on the road occasionally which again is less than 40 meters.

Re:When hype turn to Tripe.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Lanes could be solved with road imbedded sensors. Passive RFID technology would be up to the task.

Re:When hype turn to Tripe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell highway driving is probably what most of us would be happy with. As nice as it would be for the car to do 100% the 10 to 20 mins it takes to go from exit 12 to the destination is small compared to 3 hours to go from one city to the next.

Re:When hype turn to Tripe.

[0123456]

The problem with Lanes could be solved with road imbedded sensors. Passive RFID technology would be up to the task.

Until kids^H^H^H^Hterrorists move them so all the self-driving cars go driving into a ditch.

Re:When hype turn to Tripe.

[CurryCamel]

Just one car per terrorist attack, surely. An autonomous car involved in such an accident could surely inform others cars locally to yield control to their human overlords. Or just stop.

Still, probably easier to develop the AI of the cars to not rely on such lane markings in the first place. And cheaper in the long run.

Re:When hype turn to Tripe.

[jklovanc]

Which would increase the cost of roads and not work in construction areas.

Never heard of Delphi?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really are a bunch of spongiform office drone aren't you?

I see a problem here

[Trax3001BBS]

If this "RoBo" car were to run me off the road "yielding to the carbon-based life form behind the wheel only when it was time to leave the highway and hit city streets". There's nobodies a$$ to kick.

Re:I see a problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, the first time any hardware/software failure in an automated vehicle results in the death of a human being, the product liability litigation industry is going to have a field day.

Re:I see a problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

A nice, fat EULA ought to solve that.

Re:I see a problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

"By agreeing to this user license you understand that we will not be subject to any liability up to and including: death."

Seems simple enough. ;)

Do you know

[Giant Electronic Bra]

that 99.9% of the routes that cars drive today are on the same few miles of road? Do you know that its really easy for different computers to exchange information. In other words if its pre-mapped, its pre-mapped for EVERYONE, and you really don't need to pre-map a ton of routes hither and yon to get everyone doing 98% automated driving. That's 98% fewer accidents.

Re:Do you know

[0123456]

That's 98% fewer accidents.

Because, as we all know, a computer-controlled car will never have an accident. Even if someone steps out in the road right in front of it, the magic unicorns will save them.

Re:Do you know

[Giant Electronic Bra]

It won't even amount to a statistic. Yes, there's plenty of work to continue to do, but even today cars can drive well enough to avoid the vast majority of accidents that humans get into because they're attentive and alert at all times, and they have much better adapted sensors, deployed in more and better locations, etc. The driving record of the existing autonomous systems is really incredibly good. Yes, they may only drive in conditions they're already prepared for, but as I said, most driving is of that sort anyway. Given another 5 years of polish and good heuristics on when NOT to use autonomous driving I think the accident rate of these vehicles will be a fraction of a percent of what it is for humans.

Re:Do you know

[0123456]

Most humans drive fine in 'conditions they're already prepared for'. It's the other fraction of one percent where most of the accidents happen.

Re:Do you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Most accidents happen due to human drivers being stupid, usually distracted. A small minority of accidents are truly exceptional events. Even if computers eliminate the first category of accident it will be a huge insurance win.

Re: Do you know

[Anonymous Coward]

We neec no magic unicorns - magic thinking of /. Simpletons will do it.

Re:Do you know

[Jack Griffin]

You seem to vastly underestimate the attitude of most drivers in traffic. If I knew the car next to me was computer controlled, I'd emergency brake it into the gutter just for laughs. I'm not sure if you've ever driven a car in any major town or city anywhere, but it's war out there. Once other drivers realise those fancy pants in the new robot car next them can be manipulated, they'd never see their destination. There are just far too many non-functional complexities that seem to be overlooked by the robot car crowd.

Re:Do you know

[itzly]

If I knew the car next to me was computer controlled, I'd emergency brake it into the gutter just for laughs

And the camera footage will quickly lead back to you.

Re:Do you know

[dcw3]

5 years? I'll take bets against any company having autonomous trucks on our interstates for anything more than experimental purposes within the next five years. I'm not saying it won't happen, but there's a huge optimism bubble with some of the posters here thinking this will be commonplace real soon. Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

Re:Do you know

[evilbessie]

You may be correct, but humans deal with death by humans pretty well, death by machine, autonomous machine, I'm not so sure we'll cope with this too well. One death and the media will be immediately on it's back. So it might be the future but don't expect the statistics to help you, we view non-typical events caused by outside actors with much higher relevance than everyday events caused by humans. So while we don't hear anything much about car crashes everyday in the media (unless they are big ones) we'll hear about every single autonomous car accident, no matter how small.

It's also easier to deal with to have a person to blame, so are we going to push this on the manufacturers or programmers or will we just have to accept that the machines chose your fate.

Also you are ignoring the moral decisions that the computer would have to make, whether to swerve and hit a single person over going straight and hitting a family type dilemmas.

Re:Do you know

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Those are all considerations, but 50,000 people are killed in automobile accidents in the US alone every year. When that carnage is reduced to 2500 the naysayers will have zero ammunition, especially since the COST is huge and thus the savings also huge. Just as people accepted the hazard of cars over that of horses to gain advantages so will they accept driving by machines. The more economically sensible alternatives pretty much always win out over time.

Re:Do you know

[evilbessie]

Wow US roads are unsafe, there are like 3k in the UK. The economically sensible solution is socialised medicine yet this has not won out in the US, see how you spend 3x what we spend in the UK on health per capita but don't even cover everyone, so that's working well for you guys. People are dumb, and most law systems are predicated on blame, I'm not sure people will accept the logic that fewer people dying by robot hands is better than more by human hands. People don't accept that vaccines are good when all the data says they are so why do you think this would be different.

Re:Do you know

[Kjella]

I know the plural of anecdote is not data but that doesn't ring true to me based on those I know that have been in traffic accidents. Most of it is plain not paying attention or hitting some kind of blind spot where you thought it was clear. Even the ones where the environment played a role they misjudged that particular turn as icy and slippery, not that they were surprised by winter conditions. Or they made some bad assumptions about what people would do.

If you only count the "freak accidents" like tire blowouts or other mechanical failure, potholes, surprise oil spills, cargo falling off a truck, trees falling over the road and so on that go "above and beyond" ordinary driving and following the rules of the road I'd say those are a very, very small minority. Of course they've been in some accidents where they were faultless, but generally then the other person involved was at fault. Truly faultless accidents are rare.

Re:Do you know

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Actually the number has declined pretty sharply in the last 10 years, to 32,719 in 2014. Its still a huge number, and the number of injuries is staggering, numbering in the several millions. I didn't look for an economic loss estimate but at the rate of 90 deaths per hour in the US it has got to be quite expensive. Every person in this country is effectively paying something like $1000/yr just to pay for the consequences of crappy human driving.

Yeah, we could lower our medical costs drastically, by 300% anyway, but it would still be 1/3 of a huge number is a huge number.

Re:Do you know

[evilbessie]

It wouldn't be a panacea, there would be a large time when the majority were normal cars and a few were self driving, there would be a few high profile accidents and the bottom would fall out the market. It really doesn't matter that it would be better if all cars had this because it wouldn't ever get that far. Deskilling is not the answer.

Re:Do you know

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Well, we will have to disagree. I think the change is now inevitable and won't be seriously impeded just by a few accidents all that much. The cars being sold 10 years from now will largely be capable of self-driving in a wide variety of situations, and that will just snowball. Once the idea of the car as a utility that can simply drive itself to where it is needed and carry out simple tasks on its own takes hold driving will die a very swift death.

Re:Do you know

[evilbessie]

Well I can see how it might take on in America, lots of driving there is dull as anything but I doubt it'll cope in european cities, oh how I'd love to see them cope with double mini roundabouts or the magic roundabout (an actual thing, in Swindon). What with all the roadworks and diversions and general fuckery which goes on over here. Also not mentioning that driverless trains, which while statistically safer have not caught on, often requiring a human operator/conductor to placate the people. Several of the tube lines in London are configured for automatic operation but this has been stopped for many years by safety concerns. So real world data says we don't trust automatic systems, I don't see why this wouldn't translate to cars.

Re:Do you know

[Jack Griffin]

Yes, yes it will. And I can see the looks on the cops faces when you present them with the evidence. Excuse me officer I'd like to lay formal charges against this guy who applied his brakes in front of me and caused my robot car to keep stopping. Good luck with that one...

Re:Do you know

[Giant Electronic Bra]

but there's no HUGE change that occurs when a train is automatic. Yeah, its cheaper, and probably somewhat safer, but trains are REALLY safe already, an order of magnitude more so than automobiles, so the gain is much smaller. On top of that nothing much changes. The train still goes to the same place with the same schedule no matter how it is operated.

With cars they wouldn't operate in anything like the same way. Just think about this, if cars were truly driverless and could be summoned as needed why would you care what car you use at any given time (beyond you have some specific need, say for a bulky cargo or etc). This means that the entire paradigm of cars can change, they could simply be a service where they circulate around as needed and pick people up, preposition themselves, etc. They could also achieve MUCH higher utilization, 10 cars could do the work now done by 100 cars, which all mostly sit idle all day anyway.

Its not just a minor detail for cars, its a TOTALLY DIFFERENT SYSTEM that isn't interchangeable with the existing system. That's why I compared it to the change between horses and automobiles, not the change between manual and automatic trains, which really amounts to a detail, not a paradigm shift. This change is therefor inexorable because it brings vast efficiency gains and increased functionality. Once it happens the change will quickly propagate across the world, with any holdout regions being instantly marginalized and their citizenry left looking rather foolish as they spend 10x more than everyone else for a worse service.

Re:Do you know

[tehcyder]

Also you are ignoring the moral decisions that the computer would have to make, whether to swerve and hit a single person over going straight and hitting a family type dilemmas.

In the tiny number of cases where there is an element of choice, a computer wouldn't necessarily make any worse decision than a human driver.

Anyway, most of the time when pedestrians are killed, the driver is not in control for one reason or another, perhaps because of inattention, weather conditions or mechanical failure. There are few plausible scenarios where a driver has to choose to turn left over the old lady or right over the young mother and baby.

Re:Do you know

[evilbessie]

Yes but the driver is legally responsible, so whether they were properly in control or not is irrelevant, they are to blame so suffer the legal repercussions. Who would be legally responsible, if it's the operator, not sure they'd agree to be responsible for others code, not sure the programmers would take that legal responsibility, nor the manufacturers. So that leaves a gap, which MUST be filled, if the operator has no way of controlling the vehicle then they cannot be responsible so it must be the manufacturer or programmer, who become legally to blame for their work, sounds like they will spend a lot of their time in prison paying off huge debts. So small it may be, the legal system we live and work in likes to assign blame, so tell me who gets the blame with an automatic vehicle.

going parking has new meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

hard to remember back to the time before hymens, still.... we wander,, lust,,, for direction... from above.. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+weather ... pilots optional there too?... motive equals results https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+truth+about+US ... rock on /. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kA3UtBj4M

Delphi Chose An Audi...

[Anonymous Coward]

... because Audi doesn't use Delphi Ignition Switches.

That explains it

[Tablizer]

So that's who cut me off! Explains the odd-looking counter-gesture.

Always Moving the Bar

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn. Some of my relatives have driven across the country. Call me when it walks across the country. Far fewer people can do that.

That said, the article is poor. It compares this trip to a Darpa challenge where a vehicle got stuck and caught fire. Darpa challenges are way harder than driving through nicely paved highways. They didn't even let it drive at night.

give it to me

[evan_adams]

I am in sales and spend a lot of time on the road. I got a car a few years ago with 20mph adaptive cruise and basic lane viewing. Also, I am an admittedly not great driver. I want this SO bad. #1 I want start/stop adaptive cruise for traffic. But someday if I can get in the car tell it to dive me to a client, and be able to be productive during that time, then when it gets to the client, find me a parking space ... wow I would be able to add 10-15hrs of work per week. I can't imagine what this will do for commuting, kick back and watch the nightly news on the drive home, get all your AM e-mail done on the way in (a la high tech mega corp google bus)... wow.

Not that impressive really...

[Gordo_1]

Newer Tesla Model S cars will be able to basically do the same thing this summer with its auto-pilot 'lane holding' firmware update.

It may not be obvious to those who aren't paying close attention to the advancement of self-driving technology, but driving hundreds of miles on a highway is actually fairly easy for today's AI and requires only a basic sensor stack (GPS, HD camera with IR for nighttime, 600 ft radar sensor up front, and a slew of sonar sensors for close up decisions). Lane holding and traffic-aware cruise control together basically can take you 99% of the way to any city from any other on the interstate -- and this is likely coming to a car near you (not just $100k luxury cars) in the next 5 years.

Beyond the highway though, is where the current technology falls apart... The difference between maintaining a lane on the highway and driving in a suburban neighborhood is orders of magnitude in complexity. Google's super-fancy Lidar-based "driverless" cars still have tons of trouble navigating in cities and suburban settings. I'm not even going to approach the topic of weather, but to illustrate some of the challenges, in a city you might run into:

* Roads with inadequate, faded or absent lanes markings.
* Intersections with no stop/yield signs or broken/flashing traffic lights
* Vast distances with no speed limit signs
* Random and unpredictable people, animals and inanimate objects crossing or blowing across the road (e.g. a raccoon, kid on bike, plastic bag, paint bucket, police officer with hand up each may require a completely different reaction from the driver and the inappropriate reaction could put occupants or pedestrians in serious danger.)

All of these are relatively easy for people to navigate, but pose significant challenges for AI. I predict that all-weather, door-to-door, autonomous driving is closer to 10-20 years away -- perhaps 10 years for high-end vehicles and 20 years for your run-of-the-mill Toyota Corolla, etc... (Think of the rollout of GPS navigation or airbags.)

Re:Not that impressive really...

[Jack Griffin]

It may not be obvious to those who aren't paying close attention to the advancement of self-driving technology, but driving hundreds of miles on a highway is actually fairly easy for today's AI

I always see lots of claims about technology this, and technology that, but never any discussion and the actual hard parts, politics, insurance, safety, public acceptance etc. Even if I had a car that could do this, how comfortable would you be taking your hands off the wheel and trusting your life to some developer you've never met? And when the first accident happens (regardless of cause) what impact does that have to public adoption? It also doesn't address the fact that a lot of people actually enjoy driving, especially people who spends lots of money on cars.

Re:Not that impressive really...

[itzly]

how comfortable would you be taking your hands off the wheel and trusting your life to some developer you've never met?

I've never met the developer that designed the cruise control or the brake mechanism either.

Re:Not that impressive really...

[Jack Griffin]

Both cases involve me keeping my hands on the wheel. I've actually had mechanical brakes fail on me, and was able to recover by steering off into the nature strip. Good luck doing that in your robot car.

So basically it did nothing new or useful.

[kuzb]

Following a highway is not a thing to brag about. Cars you can buy right now are already capable of doing this.

The last 1% is nothing to worry about

[khchung]

IF, and that's a big pessimistic if, eventually autonomous car is deemed unable to navigate local city streets, then what you will see are large parking lots springing up around highway exits, where robo-cars will park itself when it leaves the highway.

There, either the human driver takes over immediately and go away, or more likely, the car alert the sleeping driver to wake up. The driver, after sleeping all the way since he got on the highway, gets off and have a meal and refresh himself, then drove off.

OR, the passengers don't even know how to drive. Some other driver drove to the lot next the highway, get off, the car take over to get on the highway, reach the lot near destination, and some other driver came and drive the car to the destination. Think kids of divorced parent, or kids going to visit grandparents.

Same approach applies much more easily to trucks. Now truck drivers only need to go round and round between the last leg on both sides, letting the truck drive itself over the long haul. That means cheap transport, no need for long tiring trips away from home, and fewer accidents.

JUST automating the highway portion is going to give huge benefits, there is no need over worry about the last 1% of the trip.

Re:The last 1% is nothing to worry about

[Jack Griffin]

JUST automating the highway portion is going to give huge benefits

Who to? I drive about 15000km a year, I'd be lucky if 5% of that was outside the city. I'm assuming the robot option is not free, so how many people will be willing to pay a premium for something hardly used by most people?

Re:The last 1% is nothing to worry about

[JaredOfEuropa]

The last 1% is a gamechanger, though. If cars can drive themselves everywhere, then:
- Many people no longer need to own a car; if they need one, they just dial one up and have it arrive 15 minutes later. Or you would have 1 small EV for your daily needs, and order up a truck, family car, or long-range vehicle as needed.
- You would no longer need to have a driver's license. No more need to drive your kid to school either, the car can do it for you.
- Parking will be hassle-free: let the car worry about it. And who cares if it parks itself 10 minutes away? This means that parked cars can be removed from the urban landscape I always thought that American suburbs, with cars parked in driveways instead of the street, look rather nice. Over here, most middle class people cannot afford the land for a house with an actual driveway.

It'll be nice to have the car drive itself over the highways, but having it drive that last % changes everything.

Re:The last 1% is nothing to worry about

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside the city, maybe not, but in lots of areas, commutes are along interstates (or at least expressways). Yours may not be, but you better believe that those commuting into Atlanta, LA, pick a Texas metroplex, etc. would love such a feature.

EULA will not stand up with a 3rd party victim or

[Joe_Dragon]

EULA will not stand up with a 3rd party victim or criminal court.

I'll buy a self driving car..

[8086]

the day you can make it drive in heavy Indian traffic. Out here in the traffic, you have to use the horn, stare down at other drivers, sense the other driver's next move (which may or may not be predictable from their vehicles' movements), dodge cows, camels, donkeys, motorbikes, tuk-tuks, and hand pulled rickshaws. Sometime's if you're stuck in a lane behind a truck that's not moving, you have to change lanes while frantically honking, flickering your headlights, and motioning with your hands. Check out the Top gear India special if you think I'm joking - and those guys didn't even get into some of the nastiest traffic.

Re:I'll buy a self driving car..

[ColdWetDog]

I don't see why this represents a serious objection. You would obviously have the vehicle software / sensor stack optimized for local conditions. Indian designers could rig it so that lights flashed and horns honked. Algorithms could be designed so that you could simulate bluff charges / random aggressive behavior / whatnot.

Really, from what I've seen of third world driving, a simple pseudo random number generator along with five or so stock behaviors (go, stop, go faster, swerve, swerve more) should do just fine.

Re:I'll buy a self driving car..

[8086]

I don't see why this represents a serious objection. You would obviously have the vehicle software / sensor stack optimized for local conditions. Indian designers could rig it so that lights flashed and horns honked. Algorithms could be designed so that you could simulate bluff charges / random aggressive behavior / whatnot.

Really, from what I've seen of third world driving, a simple pseudo random number generator along with five or so stock behaviors (go, stop, go faster, swerve, swerve more) should do just fine.

You present the problem better than I do. In third world driving, the road is full of random actors like that, and in close enough proximity that any automated driving device/"stack" safe enough to be made road legal would keep the car stopped the whole time. I have a reverse sensor that pings if there's an obstruction some x feet away from the car. If I'm reversing out of parking into busy mixed vehicle/pedestrian traffic (and you have to in places), it just beeps constantly - if I was to go strictly by the sensor I'd probably have to wait hours. Bad third world traffic requires a human driver who also acts as a negotiator for the right of way, and has a sensor grid complex enough to sense every inch of the car, and has the human intelligence required to predict the actions of these random actors quick enough. I'm not saying it's impossible for self-driving to one day be good enough to use here. It's just that the state of the art is not as advanced right now. No amount of million dollar cars that can barely traverse the I-90 by itself will convince me that self-driving cars are going to be a thing any year soon. All kinds of automation is already used for safety features and assists and that will keep getting advanced, but autonomous driving throughout the world is still pretty far from real.

This will be wonderful

[ITRambo]

For Interstate highway driving, this will be quite welcome. I'd rather drive in city streets myself as there is no way computers are ready for the insanity that city traffic can be at times with pedestrians, bicycles, and what-nots.

It is still a long way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

Roadwork will break the deal so will roads closed of by police and I am not sure what will happen when it is snowing and the car cannot read the speed signs or see the lines on the on road, or for that matter see the road itself when it is lots of snow.

1% of 3400 miles is still 34 miles and that was in good weather conditions.

It Will Never Happen

[tquasar]

There are to many unpredictable events..Who do you sue when the car kills somebody?

Re:It Will Never Happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you sue when the car kills somebody?

From this comment I presume you're American (and you probably have no idea just how American you are).
Don't worry. If you're American, finding someone to sue is the least of your problems.

If memory serves, the American Way is to always sue the bastard at the bottom of the chain - their pockets are likely not deep enough to fight you. Only if there isn't anyone there you can sue, you work your way up.

Airplanes fly mostly on auto-pilot. If an airplane crashes, you'd sue the pilot for snoozing off. But typically, he'll die in the crash, so you sue the airline. If the airline believe there's fault with the airplane, let *them* sue the manufacturer.

Can't Wait For This

[dcw3]

I'm imagining the new vehicle thefts that will occur with driverless vehicles. No witnesses, no concern over kidnapping charges. Which truck had the diamonds again?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ca...

They're coming for me!! Their COMING!!

[fluffernutter]

Ahem.

Legal matter

[arnero]

For me it seems politicians are afraid that their country is to be left behind and thus establish a standard way for people to get a license to let a car drive on a limited number of streets. In this way, autonomous cars can be phased in over the next 50 years. Also what is the problem with city traffic? Parking in the city is part of it, cars can do that autonomously today pretty well. This sonic sensors are mostly for city traffic. Besides parking they are useful to detect pedestrians running in front of the car. And fueling the car was not done by the driver in the past, but by the operator of the gas station. Good 'ol time. In Europe a truck can drive non-stop without refueling. Low speed, Diesel engine, large tank.

No, no it did not

[drinkypoo]

A robo-car just did the easy part of driving across the country, the part that other people already did years and years and years ago. It didn't do the hard part at all.

Saying that this car drove across the country is a lie at best.

Re:No, no it did not

[zarthrag]

Is it really a lie if it results in a commercial product capable of removing a *lot* of monotony from truck driving? I hate highway driving - here in OK, it's 2 hours of *nothing* in every direction, I'm likely to fall asleep, and adding entertainment is adding distraction. IMO, it doesn't matter if someone has done it before, it matters if/when *I* can get one to improve *my* life. (Not that I am a truck driver...)

Auto accidents are the #5 most likely way you'll die ~w/1-in-100 odds. (http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html) I don't understand the naysay - no one is looking to ban manual control (yet).

Re:No, no it did not

[drinkypoo]

Is it really a lie if it results in a commercial product capable of removing a *lot* of monotony from truck driving?

Yes. Yes it is. Whether the results speak to anything else has no bearing on whether the claim of driving across the country is or is not a lie.

say no to robots

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is everyone so happy about this shit?
You're giving up your rights. Are you really that fucking lazy you can't even drive your own car?
Can't pay attention that long? But if it keeps fucking idiots from txting and driving I guess its a good thing.
Rather be on the road with drunks than txting idiots

Throw in snow, ice...

[Sqreater]

wind, rain, tornadoes, hurricanes, crazy drivers, mechanical breakdowns etc etc etc along with a few Black Swan events and then you are "only" killed, what, 20% of the time instead of 1%? They will promise you anything to make a buck, and they will kill as many as they have to to accomplish the goal of making a buck.

Re:Throw in snow, ice...

[Sqreater]

P.S. In the area of promises by techies with a need to make a buck: http://graphics.latimes.com/mi...

Actually, they ARE linked!

[DrYak]

I always see lots of claims about technology this, and technology that, but never any discussion and the actual hard parts, politics, insurance, safety, public acceptance etc.

Actually, politics and technology ARE linked.
Because the technology will roll-out *very* slowly, it's going to start appear in everyday life very progressively. People will get time to get accustomed to it in small baby steps. By the time technology actually get mature enough, people will have grown up with it and are completely accustomed to it. They won't see it as bringing the end of the civilisaiton as we know it, only as a useful thing that was always there.

Re:Actually, they ARE linked!

[Jack Griffin]

How do you introduce this slowly? You're either in control or you aren't, and each accident will add years to the development cycle. I'm sure they'll get it right eventually, but the gamble is if it takes 50 years, will the appetite for wasted investment continue? Or will someone come up with something better to make this obsolete (ie better designed cities that don't require cars).

I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how long until this leads to not having personal cars? You contact service that you need a car and one drives itself to your door. You go where you go and tell service when your coming back... Another car is waiting for you for return trip.

Airplanes & Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Planes have had autopilot for decades... they still have pilots even though the state of the art tech could probably do the whole job of flying. Some drones I bet already do this. So why don't the airlines go pilotless, at least for things like freight?

Re:Airplanes & Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Followup to this... what happened to pilot pay when autopilot use became common? Anybody know?

Hello, THEFT?

[fluffernutter]

I knew a long-haul driver and there are places in cities where they will not stop even if the light it red. Why? Because people will board the vehicle and break into it. How does this work with an automated vehicle? There will have to be a security force dedicated to protecting the vehicles. Seems easier just to have a driver.

hack-a-car

[Anonymous Coward]

So, with self driving car i can hack (or in cace of NSA-police "legally") order the car to drive the locked out cars occupants to where I want. Like over the cliff? To lake? Under the train? Or off the bridge in repair? And no one can do nothing against it?
And nobody probably can discover it in post-accident study, becouse you can probably fake GPS break up, bad "things" on motherboard, software fuckup?

Re:hack-a-car

[Anonymous Coward]

And with car filled with goodies. You can hack it and make it dump the trailer in somewhere on the road and make it fake to the company just long enough that it has not dumped the trailer? That it has suffered some minutes of hard weather or bad connections? You can use communications jammer if you want (buy from alibaba if you want one, or build it yourself).

Not really 99%

[Anonymous Coward]

The car might have driven 99 percent of the distance, but I would not say that that is the same thing as doing 99 percent of the driving. That last 1 percent on city streets accounts for a lot, even for a human driver.

Disagree

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Most drivers accidents are in places they are familiar with. Its not entirely clear if this is simply due to mostly driving in such places, but it is commonly asserted that over familiarity often leads to inattention. I know this is true for me, and so presumably for many others. The fact remains, human drivers have a high error rate, and so far all the automated driving systems being tested in the US fall far below that number, even given that they drive in controlled circumstances.

Yeah, and you'll still have a license?

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Not hardly. I've driven in NYC, Boston, many other cities all over the US, as well as in more rural areas, in the NE, on bad roads, snow, ice, etc. I think I know all about driving in the US. Most people just want to get from A to Z. Once automatic driving is here it will rapidly kick the humans off the road, nobody will be stupid enough to ride with you.

Re:Yeah, and you'll still have a license?

[Jack Griffin]

You're making some big assumptions here. Once robot cars are cheap and plentiful... when it is that going to be, the 23rd century? It's one thing to have a working proof of concept, it's whole other universe to get from there to mainstream. The other challenge which isn't covered is just because a robot car can get me from A to B, do I actually want that? If I can manually get from A to B faster then why bother? We've all had experience with crap GPS directions, what magic ingredient will prevent the robot car from not making the same stupid errors?

Re:Yeah, and you'll still have a license?

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Meh, I expect there is a whole world of transition involved, and improvements to be made in all sorts of areas, but the incentive exists to make them and they are purely incremental technical improvements, so its virtually guaranteed they will be made. It isn't going to take 300 years. 100 years ago cars could barely make 25 MPH and even then only on a few specially maintained roads. I'm sure plenty of people thought they wouldn't catch on for '300 years' either.

Re:Yeah, and you'll still have a license?

[Jack Griffin]

Oh I'm sure they'll be made, but just like aeroplanes, elevators, or nuclear power stations, we won't all necessarily own one.

Remote drivers for last mile

[Overzeetop]

Fit the truck with two way communications and let a remote operator in a remote location take over. One driver could service 10 or more trucks, driving only last-mile areas.

Paradigm Change

[Giant Electronic Bra]

I think its one of those things that once it comes to fruition everything simply changes. Its like automobiles. Most people laughed and insisted that horses would be around for another 100 years and cars were 'a fad' or 'a toy for the rich', etc. Once Ford made the first cheap car horses were done in 10 years flat, off the road.

It will be the same way. Safe, automatic driving will free up people's time, it will reduce costs greatly, and it will start a whole series of changes in the transportation infrastructure that will snowball. That's how I see it. In 10 years people will start to balk at buying a car they have to drive for themselves, and eventually they won't even care to own one anymore, it will be trivial to summon up what you need from whomever you contract for that service. The whole fetish of car ownership will go up in a puff of smoke. There will of course always be a few nostalgics, hobbiests, collectors, people that drive in some specific situations perhaps, but not much.

Its not possible to say exactly how long the transition will take, but in 5 years automated driving will be much improved over its current state, which is already pretty good, if limited. Within 10 years it will probably be accepted, like cruise control is now, and somewhere down the line, probably within our lifetimes, certainly well within the lifetimes of younger people, it will be ubiquitous. I'm guessing about 20 years, after that a human driver will be an oddity, if not an outright hazardous situation to be dealt with.

Re:Paradigm Change

[dcw3]

The way I see it, you're minimizing the hurdles that are yet to be overcome. And they will be overcome, but not in ten years.

The comparison with horses didn't have to deal with weather, and roads (trails) already existed to kickstart it. There were no initial infrastructure changes required...how does it automatically pull off the highway and get in line at a service station?

I think we're likely to see some type of hybrid implementation much earlier than full automation. Something like autonomous highway mode, but with a driver still seated at the controls and able to switch to manual instantly. Once people become comfortable it will become an evolution....just my $.02.

Re:Paradigm Change

[Giant Electronic Bra]

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, sure, it will start with 'highway mode', but that won't be a long phase. For obvious reasons people will desire the ability to drive on surface roads. Actually parking will come before surface roads, Ford already has a system that can autonomously move the car and park it, driving at low speeds in a dense environment. It will only be a matter of time, I still say about 5 years, before these capabilities have effectively merged and we have a car that can deal with most situations. It might not be allowed to just drive without a 'supervisor' for a certain time, but there will be a huge push to get rid of that limitation.

Think about it, an autonomous car can go to school and pick up the kids, it can go to the store and be loaded with groceries, it can go to the dealer and get maintained, it can come and fetch you, obviating the need for a second car in many cases, etc etc etc. People may think they want to drive right now, but really they don't. They want the power and convenience of instant effortless transportation.

And once that day comes, then they won't even care about owning a car, the concept will be silly. The entire edifice of the car culture will vanish like a puff of smoke into nothing. Cars will simply become a ubiquitous utility, a service you pay to access and which supplies you with however much personal transportation you need or can afford. And of course then it can be supplied at different grades, you can ride with other people going where you're going and its cheaper, you can ride a 'car' that stops at various stops and picks up and drops off lots of people, gosh its a bus! Everything is about to change. The entire edifice upon which most people's reasoning about autonomous vehicles is built will be quaint nostalgia in 20 years.

Re:Paradigm Change

[ColdWetDog]

On a related line ....

"Boat - go fetch me a tuna."

(Then it parks itself, refuels, does it's routine maintenance and pays it's own bills - I can dream, can't I?)

Re:Paradigm Change

[Giant Electronic Bra]

It seems inevitable to me. Its going to take a lot of work and time and increased CPU power and better sensors, etc to fully realize all that, but we will. The advantages are so large that any nation 'Luddite' enough to refuse will be stone age compared to the rest of the world 30 years later.

Re:Paradigm Change

[dcw3]

I think we're mostly in agreement. That said, the first time some autonomous car hogs the fast lane there's gonna be hell to pay. I'm imagining lots of different ways people will take out their road rage on them during the transition. Will they be able to flip us off?

Re:Paradigm Change

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, the number of horses decreased fairly steadily by between 2 and 3% per year from the peak to the point where it started growing again (in the 1960s). So I find the "where done in 10 years flat" claim interesting; do you have any data to back that?

I am optimistic about self-driving cars, and agree that it is possible that all new cars will be self-driving in ten years - but the horse data I've found don't back that.

Re:Paradigm Change

[GTRacer]

I was gonna bust your chops over the extra apostrophes, but I decided not to. The mental image of a person, on whatever the near-future version of YouTube is, telling his boat to get a fish then watching it happen is just too amusing to me!

Re:Paradigm Change

[Giant Electronic Bra]

NPR had an April Fools Day story where they had an automated car that did that, cursed the other drivers, used the horn, etc. It was kind of funny.

Re:Paradigm Change

[tehcyder]

I hope you're right, I would love to have an autonomous car ready within the next 20-30 years so it can ferry me about when I'm old and drunk.

Worthless.

[Anonymous Coward]

So it can stay between the lines on a freeway but can't drive in real traffic. I bet that they had the speed set at 10 miles below the limit to avoid approaching vehicles. lol

What I can't figure out

[HangingChad]

With the push for autonomous vehicles what I can't understand is why cargo ships still have a crew? It seems like shipping would be a far better candidate for automation than cars. You'd need a harbor pilot to steer into port, just like you do now, but it seems like the other 98% of the time cargo ships, with the proper tracking technology would be a slam dunk for automation.

Still, when it comes to cars. If a self-driving car was available I'd definitely buy one.

Re:What I can't figure out

[Anonymous Coward]

The ship and the engines need maintenance on the trip. Try doing that with robots ...

Re:What I can't figure out

[Whorhay]

My understanding was that cargo vessels have very small crews these days and they spend most of their time doing maintenance type stuff. The ocean is a pretty hostile environment for things made of steel. I imagine we will eventually replace those crews with robots, but for now it's cheaper to pay people to do it.

Wouldn't that be a large paycut

[rsilvergun]

like the pay cuts that have been going on in tech since server admining as been getting easier?

another 2-9's useless metric

[holophrastic]

So, a typical commute here is about 10km. 99% would be 9'900 metres, leaving 100 metres as the 1%.

Now, I agree that only driving the last 100m would be convenient for many. But that's not the 99% here.

In this case, it's as bad as driving 1m every 100m. It's actually much worse. It's MAYBE driving 1m every 100m.

So, either I'm staring at the road, effectively "driving" without touching anything, so that when the car suddenly beeps, I suddenly grab the wheel, or I'm reading my book and writing an e-mail, and then instantaneously stopping, looking up, grabbing the wheel, and figuring out what the hell is going on -- assuming I heard the car's beep.

This isn't robo-car. This is car-as-train -- with paint and cameras acting as train tracks and train wheels.

It's never been about the perfect highways. You won't find a 10km stretch of highway here without construction, detours, stopped cars, emergencies, and roadkill at any time of the year. Add snow, ice, rain, black ice, debris, fog, sand, salt, and sun, and I spend over a quarter of my driving without being able to see the lane markings at all.

the solution to drunk and driving!

[Anonymous Coward]

Robocar to the rescue!

Self driving cars

[ElAngelo]

I can't believe that technology has already advanced this far. The taxi driver from the movies 'Total Recall' will be real soon ;)

Safety measures

[NotRightAway]

The entire trip was supervised by two priests in a Ferrari.

Baby steps

[DrYak]

We're still years before selling actual robo-cars.

Still, lots of car makers are packing radars and cameras in the cars. To be used as lane tracking, collision avoiding, etc.
They are sold as extra feature, and work (legally and in terms of responsibility) as form of more complex adaptive auto-cruise (it self just an evolved auto-cruise) as the cars in generation before.
The driver is still the one who is theoretically in charge of the car. Except that now the driver get a big bunch of electronics to watch out and assist

There is a real reason to pack more of it: featuritis! Now auto-maker A can boast that their car does even that few things B & C that the other auto maker aren't doing yet.

Re:Baby steps

[Jack Griffin]

Probably worth noting, that many cars have robot parking abilities these days, yet I know of precisely zero people that use this feature (and know quite a few owners of luxury cars). Robot powers may not be in as big a demand as some Slashdotters might wish.