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.

40 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 tompaulco · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      Your brother is correct. Professional drivers can drive hundreds of thousands of miles per year, while Joe Blow in his Honda may do 15,000. Statistics show that most accidents involving a larger truck are, in fact, the fault of the car. So automating trucking won't help.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by funwithBSD · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sensors and computers will provide evidence it was the texting fucker in the car that caused accident.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by MetricT · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To give a counterexample, I was driving down a long hill that I have driven daily for 20+ years. At the bottom of the hill, right before it went around a curve, I saw cars hitting their brakes, and knew there was probably a traffic jam around the corner, so I started slowing down.

      There was a truck driver pretty far behind me, and he didn't bother slowing down until he came around the curve, saw the traffic jam, locked his brakes, and ran off the road, and blamed me for the accident.

      I'm a physics major, so I measured the location of where he locked his brakes, and the point he came to a stop. A little high school algebra showed he was moving 80-85 MPH in a 70 MPH zone when he hit his brakes.

      For that reason, I subsequently installed a dashcam in my car. It pays for itself the first time some idiot lies and tries to pin the blame on you.

    4. 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

    5. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by ultranova · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      That won't help. The problem with trucks isn't human reaction speed, it's the sheer amount of kinetic energy that needs to be dissipated for one to stop. A 60-ton truck going at 50 mph has 29 MJ of kinetic energy. For it to stop, every single joule needs to go somewhere, and with current technology that means they'll turn to heat. And that means it's going to take a while as that heat dissipates - the brakes will literally melt if you try to brute-force a shorter braking distance, for example by increasing braking system pressure.

      Alternatively, just consider how much damage is caused by a truck crash. Physics don't care if it's another car's rear or the truck's own brakes it's pushing against; any object that tries to stop its motion in a hurry is going to be hit by those same forces.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It will help SOME. Automatic drivers will not suffer degradations of reaction time due to distractions or getting sleepy. But that might just prompt drivers to be even more risky around trucks because they assume it will always be able to react to whatever stupid shit they pull. (Physics be damned!)

    7. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by dunkindave · · Score: 4, Informative

      If there's that much difference in stopping distance then the truck is criminally poorly maintained.

      No, the fact a truck going the same speed as a car can take three times the distance to stop is physics. See this chart.. The car weighs around 3000 lbs, and the truck is 40,000-80,000 lbs. The car has a lot more rubber per pound on the road so stops faster. And no matter which driver caused it, when a 40 ton truck hits a 1 to 2 ton car, the car loses. It is the same problem with many motorcycles being able to stop faster than a car.

  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.

    1. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are no such people. I mean, if there were, then WTF would they do when they go on a trip to a different state? Stand next to the gas pump and act helpless, like a drooling moron?

      I went to visit in-laws in Oregon a while back, and was amazed at how much of a pain in the ass getting gas there was. In normal states, you can just get out, pump the gas, pay, and leave. But in Oregon? In Oregon you have to wait in line for fucking ever because they have one guy running around handling all the pumps and there's a line of cars waiting because he can't keep up. People from Oregon say "oh, isn't it great how we don't have to pump our own gas?" No, it really fucking isn't! It's worse!

      --

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

    2. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

      First of all, let's be honest: if someone is frail enough to require a walker, in many cases they're probably not healthy enough to be operating a vehicle in the first place. In an emergency, how are they going to press the brake pedal hard enough to actually stop effectively (i.e., hard enough that the ABS would kick in)?

      Second, in the entire Metro Atlanta area I've only ever noticed one gas station that advertized full service. So how do disabled people around here get gas? Simple! Every staffed gas station, including self-service ones, is required by law to have the attendant pump gas for disabled people, rendering the whole thing a non-issue. (By the way, that's a Federal law -- the Americans with Disabilities Act -- so don't pretend as if it wouldn't apply in New Jersey and Oregon too!)

      The bottom line is this: Why should able-bodied people be treated like drooling morons -- and have to pay more -- just so that some minimum-wage worker can pretend that he's useful? The answer is, no goddamn reason at all!

      --

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

  3. Not sure what to worry about here by JWW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't imagine that even with trucks driving themselves, that we wouldn't want or need someone being with the truck. For interactions with people for delivery, to handle mechanical problems or unexpected issues that would arise.

    I just don't think it'll be the employment collapse everyone is imagining, I just think we'll move from truck driver to truck manager.

    1. Re:Not sure what to worry about here by queazocotal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would you want one person per one truck, when you can have a customer service team with one person per hundred trucks?

    2. Re:Not sure what to worry about here by ghjm · · Score: 3, Informative

      We won't have a truck manager on every truck. We'll have truck managers responsible for a region of maybe a couple hours' drive. When a truck gets sick, the local truck manager drives out to where it is and fixes it. So we're replacing a couple million jobs with a couple thousand.

  4. 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"
  5. 3.5 million truckers by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    Who said anything about replacing truck drivers with autonomous driving systems? Airplanes have autopilot, but they still require TWO pilots. Autonomous trucking systems will be no different. Somebody will have to drive it in city traffic and park it at the freight terminal, and take over when the autonomous system doesn't know how to handle a situation. The difference is that in a plane you usually have seconds or minutes to take over the system, whereas on a road with cars mere feet away, a trucker will have fractions of a second to respond and take over to a situation.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:3.5 million truckers by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Somebody will have to drive it in city traffic and park it at the freight terminal, and take over when the autonomous system doesn't know how to handle a situation. The difference is that in a plane you usually have seconds or minutes to take over the system, whereas on a road with cars mere feet away, a trucker will have fractions of a second to respond and take over to a situation.

      Which is why it's an absurd notion. Human beings can't "take over" in a fraction of a second, especially since they're out of practice from not driving the car and daydreaming (at best). An automated car has to handle every situation it encounters on its own, otherwise it's worse than useless.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:3.5 million truckers by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wouldn't say it's worse than useless. But it may not be the panacea that we expect.

      First, I have my doubts about the whole "A.I. Can Handle Anything" theory. Weather, accidents, and construction can create very creative roadways where you will want a driver behind the wheel who'll be able to figure out and work with human beings on the scene (for example, a cop doing traffic control around an accident).

      So you'll still want drivers. The question is, how many drivers will you need?

      Consider long-haul trucks, which are the ones that are really ripe for automation. They usually have two drivers so that they can run 24 hours at a stretch. I believe--and I may be off--that the rules for these people require that they drive no more than 12 hours. It might be 10 hours, I don't remember. But in any event, the reason you have two drivers is so that you don't have a truck spending 12-14 hours sitting by the side of the road while the single driver sleeps.

      You could get rid of one driver right there. A long haul truck with one driver who can sleep for 12 hours and will only be woken up if something weird is going on that the truck can't handle so it pulled off to the side of the road. That's still saving money versus having two drivers and is certainly not "worse than useless."

    3. Re:3.5 million truckers by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps more accurately, the A.I. MUST be able to either handle the situation or decide it can't and bring the vehicle to a safe stop to allow a driver to take over. What it must not do is suddenly buzz and expect the human to instantly take over to avoid a crash. Rule number one, the AI is responsible for the vehicle until the human voluntarily indicates he has taken over, no matter what.

  6. Re:Markets, not people by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    let the markets sort themselves out.

    No worries, millions can move into the "big rig hijacking" business! A semi-trailer full of something easy to sell on the street, or a tanker full of a chemical useful in making meth, or of gasoline (gasoline smuggling was the mafia's most profitable business for years) - all very valuable targets. Today that theft is kept somewhat in check by the real risk of getting shot in the process, or of wrecking the rig if your try a scene out of a Fast and Furious movie. But an AI truck with safety reflexes on a lonely stretch of road? Well, the markets will sort themselves out.

    As for the legal trade, driving is a crappy job unless you own your truck, and I rather suspect the owner/operators of today will become the owners of tomorrow. Truckstops may go the way of the buggy whip, but I can't see that happening fast - like all infrastructure changes, the capital outlay is so high this will be a 20-50 year transition.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  7. Who manages the loading and unloading? by gatkinso · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also, refueling? En route maintenance. Stuff like that?

    There is more to being a truck driver than just driving.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  8. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This time around I think the services sector, which is kind of the only thing absorbing overflow, might just be unable to grow further. If anything, it might implode and add to the bulk of socialism/violence, as the truckers who use the services can't do that anymore. Call centres can only call so many people, and they need those people to have some sort of revenue they want to give to the call centre people. But when it gets to "my call centre people call your call centre people" for the purpose of profit generation, it kind of ends up with both call centres firing their people and shutting down.

    Oh, I know, all those truckers could learn PHP and take the jobs of the H1-B Indians :) Code quality-wise, and wage-wise, nobody would be able to tell the difference.

  9. Re: It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wrong. The solution is, and has always been, the complete elimination of the now useless people. There will be paradise on earth, one day, but only for the One Percenters. The world is being remade by, and for, the Ruling Elite. If you're not part of it now you will never be and neither will any of your descendants. You're part of the surplus populace scheduled for eradication. Sorry.

  10. Re:Markets, not people by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the transition will take at most 2 to 5 years once the tech is commercially available, because the cost of a driver is $40k minimum per year. If you can outfit a truck with an auto-driver for $40k it starts to pay off really quickly.

    It also lets you operate the trucks 24 hours per day (minus maintenance and refueling).

  11. Re: Markets, not people by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand economics. Prices are whatever the market can bear. If the costs can be lowered, it does not mean that the prices go down because they are already at whatever the market can bear. Prices will stay the same, corporate profits will raise.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  12. 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.
  13. Re:Markets, not people by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    *pfft* And you're telling me the Democrats give a flying fuck about your jobs either? Who is pushing the H1-B visas so fucking hard? Oh that's right, Democrats.

    The politicians are shitty but a lot of the reason they're so shitty is because of tribalistic asshats like you that slavishly associate with a faction. This permits which ever faction you associate with to get away with ANYTHING and you'll forgive them. And the opposing faction could be fucking Jesus Christ walking around giving sight to the blind and you'd still hate them.

    You're a fucking cancer on the political system.

    Do not vote political parties. Neither the democrats nor the republicans are actually on the ballots. It is just people. PEOPLE. Individuals. Vote for them. Fuck parties. Just look at the people. Evaluate them on a personal level.

    That's as good as you'll be able to do in this political system. But really you're not helping anyone by saying "oh its all this political party's fault"...

    What if the republicans didn't exist at all? And lets say we a choice between the democrats and some other leftish party. I don't know... the Greens or something. Who wants to bet that someone would be saying in no time "If only the greens weren't there everything would be better".

    Its bullshit. This is the sort of crap dictators tell their starving people to explain why their country is shitty. They say "it is because of those evil foreigners!"...

    Look at Baltimore, chump. You know the city that recently rioted. Riddle me this, when was the last time that city was run by Republicans? Exactly. The whole country could be run lock stock and barrel by the democrats and most of the shit you're upset about would either not change or might even get worse.

    You're mad about markets and capitalism? Tough shit. Not even the Soviets could kill capitalism INSIDE the soviet union during the cold war. The market is forever. You can't kill it. It is a dynamic inevitability, No stable society can exist that does not account for the market in a substantive way.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  14. 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.

  15. Re:Markets, not people by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What you describe sounds analogous to harbour-pilots that are used to navigate big ships in and out of port. They belong with the port, not the ship.

    You could imagine that long distance truck journeys could happen without any driver on board, then they pick up a driver just on the edge of a city to take them to their final delivery.

  16. 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?

  17. 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 rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did we read the same article? The point is there is going to be less and less work to do. Yes, there will still be high level thinkers like Hawkins and Einstein. Yes there will still be surgeons. The rest of us get replaced with robots, automation and expert systems. Maybe you're a genius brain surgeon ( if you are what the hell are you doing on /., but I degrees), but what about the other 6 billion who aren't gifted geniuses and don't have a silver spoon up their ass. What about them?

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    3. 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?

    4. 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.
    5. Re: Oh for fucks sake by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Fortunately, those scenarios are fictional."

      For now.

      New technology is coming along. The situation is almost unprecidented - the closest comparison would be the industrial revolution, but even that is just a poor analogy. This means that history cannot serve as our guide - and those fictional scenarios may well be what lies ahead.

  18. Re: Markets, not people by Kohath · · Score: 3, Informative

    Other things that are cheaper: food, fuel, clothing, entertainment. If you measure the price by "how many hours would the average person have to work to buy it", then almost everything is cheaper.

  19. Re:Markets, not people by blue9steel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This has all happened before, and it will all happen again.

    When the resource sector automated everyone moved to manufacturing, when manufacturing automated everyone moved to service, now that service is automating where exactly do you expect them to go?

  20. Re:Markets, not people by geoskd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A functioning society requires jobs that pay a livable wage

    No, Capitalism requires that. There is nothing fundamental to society that requires capitalism.

    --
    I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  21. Re:LEOs by andymadigan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the driver is only needed during emergencies, they won't be awake enough to do much when the emergency hits. The same is true for cars as well, after sitting in the car for hours doing nothing you'll zone out. Even a short trip you take every day will get ignored.

    Besides, in an emergency the two choices are to brake or to try to turn. In a big rig trying to make a fast turn is probably just going to make the situation worse. A computer can hit the brakes just as well as an unprepared human.

    --
    The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.