Slashdot Mirror


The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

An anonymous reader writes: Last week we learned that self-driving big-rig trucks were finally being deployed on public roads in Nevada for testing purposes. Experts consider trucking to be ripe for replacement with AI because of the sheer volume of trucks on the road, and the relative simplicity of their routes. But the eventual replacement of truck drivers with autonomous driving systems will have a huge impact on the U.S. economy: there are 3.5 million professional truck drivers, and millions more are employed to support and coordinate them. Yet more people rely on truckers to stay in business — gas stations, motels, and restaurants along trucking routes, to name a few.

Now, that's not to say moving forward with autonomous driving is a bad idea — in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important. But we need to start thinking about how to handle the 10 million people looking for work when the (human) trucking industry falls off a cliff. It's likely we'll see another wave of ghost towns spread across the poor parts of the country, as happened when the interstate highway system changed how long-range transportation worked in the U.S.

11 of 615 comments (clear)

  1. Won't save most of the 4000 lives by dunkindave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The summary says "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." My brother is a truck driver, and from what he has told me, and also what I have seen reported multiple times, and what I have seen myself, the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck. They pull stunts like pulling in front of them at merges then hitting the brakes. An autonomous truck will hit such a car just like a manned truck, so I think the claim that automating the trucks will save most of those lives is wrong.

    1. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What makes you think that the autonomous truck will hit the car just like a manned truck? I'd think that with the sensors on the truck tied directly into the autonomous control systems the autotruck could react thousands of times faster and more effectively than a human being truck driver.

      Hmm... looks like somebody failed at learning Amdahl's Law.

      Let's say a truck is driving at 60 MPH (88 feet per second) when somebody jumps in front of it, 88 feet away. The driver will take 0.5 seconds (44 feet) to react, then the truck's air-brakes will take another 0.5 seconds (44 feet) to engage. By that time, the truck will have hit the person. Then the truck will take another 355 feet to come to a stop.

      Let's replace the human-driven truck with an automated one, and assume that the computer is unrealistically perfect and manages to reduce the reaction time to zero (seconds or feet). In that case, it still takes 0.5 seconds (44 feet) for the air brakes to engage, so the truck has "only" 311 feet of braking distance left to travel when it hits the person.

      In other words, reaction time accounts for only about 10% of the total stopping distance, so the maximum improvement gained by switching to an autonomous truck would be about 10%. That's not zero, but it's also not "thousands of times" better, as you claimed.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. New Jersey and Other Fictions... by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In NJ, you aren't allowed to pump your own gas so that you will keep the guy who pumps it employed. They *could* have employed him dong something useful--thing TVA-type programs where he's doing a job to improve the environment, for example--but this is what they picked. There will be pushback against automated trucks in a similar fashion, although of course they're so much more proficient that they will prevail in the end.

    There are a lot of trucks where liability or small tasks that still require human judgment will keep with human drivers for a good long while yet. Fuel Trucks delivering to local gas stations, septic trucks and heating oil trucks that have to find a port in every person's yard, etc...

    I do wonder whether the amount of stuff that falls off the back of the truck will go up or down. Less oversight of the stuff, but less chance for a driver to be in collusion with the people who fall things off the back of trucks.

  3. Re:Markets, not people by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, God knows we don't need any of that advanced technology crap!

    Next thing you know, they might develop big machines to replace covered wagons and plows. Then where will we be, when all those teamsters and farmers are put out of work?

    And what's with these "computer" things? Everyone knows a computer is a (usually) young woman who calculates (by hand) the numbers required by Real Scientists (tm). Replace them with machines? I say no!

    I say we just destroy all that automation and go back to the tried and true ways we've always known! Ned Ludd Lives!

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  4. Re:Markets, not people by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly, we can kick that can a lot farther down the road than you may suspect. When self driving trucks first become a reality, they are going to be used as 'autopilot' where they do the over-the-highway driving, and human drivers do the 'last mile' because the last mile can be a tricky bastard for a human, let alone a computer. Many deliveries take place where the truck must jack knife the truck in the middle of a street, back into an ally and around a corner in reverse, and center up on a loading dock, or some variant thereof. As the initial action (blocking all lanes of traffic) requires something that by most standards would be a traffic violation, it becomes extremely hard to program a computer to make the final approach to the dock, while still following all its 'road safety' rules. It could be decades before we get our software/AI advanced enough for that, and until then, self driving trucks are going to require skilled drivers in the seat, waiting their turn.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  5. Re:former trucker here... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will be interested to see how AI deals with a mountain pass or city traffic;

    I'd be interested as to how they will deal with 6" of snow, and no real lane lines.

  6. Re: Markets, not people by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We had no regulations under Laissez Faire, and it killed growth. Monopolistic abuses, and anti-competitive actions were the norm. How many times do we need to try it before it works the way the neo-liberals (the non-US term for the us term "conservative") say it will?

  7. Oh for fucks sake by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    stop repeating this nonsense about technology not disrupting peoples lives. Yes, over the course of several decades the economy replaced those jobs. In the meantime millions were without work. There's a reason why the Luddites existed. That word has meaning beyond an insult. There was nearly 60 years of joblessness following the industrial revolution before other tech caught up. Google it. Read some history. Jeez.

    I agree the solution isn't to go back on technology though. It's socialism. Plain 'ole socialism. When we don't need these people to work we don't just let them starve while we all take turns seeing who can make the 1% the happiest. And btw, I said _socialism_, not communism. And not a fascist dictatorship that occasionally publishes a pamphlet with something written by Karl Marx either...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Oh for fucks sake by localman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've never actually had to live in such an environment, have you?

      I'm posting from behind a two meter spiked fence at the moment. Outside the fence are people living in shit conditions, suffering, and generally making the world an uglier place for me. And we still get robbed. All the money I have can't fix the side effects of living in an impoverished city. Having actually spent significant time in both situations, I've come to realize that the people who don't see the advantages of a reasonable degree of socialism are the people whose worlds have benefitted from it so thoroughly they take it for granted.

    2. Re:Oh for fucks sake by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This argument was already covered above. I can protect myself for a modest outlay that's a lot less than I'm already paying in taxes.

      And even if I couldn't, I don't know why I should think that paying off violent extortionists would result in anything but more violent extortion. Why do you think it might?

      History tells me that bad things eventually happen to every society. There's not one single example of any system that endured permanently in peace. So what's the lesson? (Personally, the lesson I learned is not to use "look at history..." as an argument for anything.)

      People that revolt from a position of abject poverty and unemployment are extortionists?

    3. Re: Oh for fucks sake by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is making a living off of 8 hours of work only achievable in a utopia? This could be accomplished with only a fivefold increase in productivity. Higher standards of living result in lower birth rates, which means that there can be an increase in the ratio of resources to people, and there would be considerable gains due to the Flynn effect and a more well rested workforce. Cut out the fat from the military-industrial and the prison-industrial complex, as well as their effects on our policy, and we've got a good head start already.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.