Slashdot Mirror
Watchdog Group Wants Uber's Self-Driving Trucks Off the Road (usatoday.com)
New submitter Kemtores quotes a report from USA Today: A few months ago, the ride-hailing giant announced that it would begin testing self-driving Volvo SUVs in this hilly city, but a day later that process was halted after the DMV said Uber had not applied for the proper permits. Uber moved its fleet to Arizona. Uber cars laden with sensors still troll San Francisco, but the company said it is only for mapping purposes. Now a southern California non-profit that has long raised concerns about the safety of autonomous vehicles has asked the DMV to look closer at the operations of Otto, a self-driving truck company that Uber bought last year for $670 million. Otto made headlines in October when it completed a 120-mile beer run with a large semi-tractor in Colorado. But Consumer Watchdog's John Simpson charged in a letter to DMV director Jean Shiomoto that in fact Otto's testing here did violate the law by operating in autonomous mode, offering proof in the form of documentation Otto submitted to Colorado officials that described a process where the driver hit a button and let the truck do the work.
I very much disagree with Uber's business model as far as passenger livery is concerned, as passenger livery laws are usually there as a reaction to something bad that has happened in the past, so those laws that Uber violates are there for reasons.
Long-haul, on the other hand, makes a lot more sense for self-driving vehicles, especially if they're basically limited to the interstate highway system as a limited-access freeway model. There are less people on the roads outside of motor vehicles, and the rules for where cross-country hikers and bicyclists are supposed to be at on those roads are definable. If operators remain with the trucks, if the trucks can be made reliable enough to self-drive where the driver doesn't have to be involved at all then driver fatigue can be significantly curtailed on the over-the-road part, so the drivers are fresh for operating where manual control is necessary, like at warehousing depots, in cities, and on roads that do not lend themselves to autonomous mode. Lastly, from the trucking-company perspective, using the convoy model where perhaps twenty trucks are shepherded by a single driver, ostensibly playin follow-the leader, would significantly curtail labor costs and would allow the trucking companies to base more staff locally to depots and cities, so that convoy, moved city-to-city by one driver, would be distributed to numerous local-delivery drivers or warehousing-yard drivers once it's near its destination, those drivers wouldn't be stuck in a sleeper cab overnight away from home when they're off-shift.
Granted, there probably still needs to be some ground rules for companies experimenting with autonomous trucking, but it makes a lot more sense to start with trucks than with around-town passenger vehicles.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Usually when a "watchdog group" appears, it tends to have been funded by someone in order to either derail some technology (as it can interfere with the profits of the company lining the "watchdog group"'s pockets), or it is made to suit some political agenda.
I wonder who runs the group in question. Some other state wanting people to test there, perhaps?
And certain towns that have large truckstops as their main activity will diminish like towns that had railway stations as their main activity? Just wondering. It seems this topic can be part of automation debate, like this lively one at reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/expla...
mfwright@batnet.com
Usually it's a Warren Buffet backed organization trying to mess with anything that could interfere with his rail investments. Automated trucks would fit the bill.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
"We want the past!"
"When to we want it? NOW!"
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Technically this tech has arrived. PERIOD.
If that were even remotely true, you wouldn't have needed to state it, much less quite so desperately...
Those things with 18 wheels also reach a lot of places that aren't practical for a train. This is quite similar to why your circulatory system has both capillaries and arteries.
...a southern California non-profit that has long raised concerns about the safety of autonomous vehicles
Have they long raised the concerns about human drivers who have a 100-year track record of abysmal failure? Accidents will happen with autonomous vehicles, but it's not going to be anywhere near the rate it happens with a human behind the wheel.
"No sir! I don't like it one bit! I don't want any new-fangled automo-contraptions making all kinds of noise on the streets. What's wrong with a carriage and good horse?"
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Because setting up a test environment is not cost effective for corporations. In capitalism everyone is better off if we save corporations money and help them profit even if we pay with our lives. Corporations are that important.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I imagine that most of these vehicles have undergone extensive testing on closed courses before they are put on public roads. Also, there is someone in the car while it is being tested, ready to take over if necessary.
IIRC, the only times that Google's self-driving cars have been in an accident is when the operator took over control.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Automated vehicles scrupulously obey speed limits and traffic signage, which is why human drivers find the current beta cars annoying in traffic. And I'm talking about situations where an upgrade on the Interstate has a clearly labeled climbing lane that trucks are restricted to. Examples are I-17 southbound from Camp Verde, AZ and northbound from Black Canyon City.
Except for the one that turned into a bus.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
All these people doing is just say no to innovation.
Automated vehicles on a large scale won't work well unless they attempt to drive the common speed like a human would. People get too frustrated driving behind someone who insists on driving slower than everyone else.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Do tesla have this special autonomous license everywhere, or is it an oversight?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Computers react mich faster than human drivers, so what's your point? I get it, you want job security, but I ain't ever seen a machine fall asleep at the wheel.
Uber seems to be relying on a "We're on the Internet, there's no laws here!" approach rather than complying with local taxi regulations. Most cities and states limit the number of taxis on the roads to prevent gas waste and traffic, but Uber and Lyft don't apply for such things, they just start up anyway.
Claim there are no real statistics as the basis for not letting trucks on the road to gather real statistics.... catch 22 much?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Speed limits come in two kinds: mandatory and arbitrary. There's a section of the Mass Pike (I-90, Lee to Worcester) where it's safe to do 100 under clear conditions despite Speed Limit 65 signage. However, on I-290 shortly after getting off the Pike, you must do 50 or slower to avoid flipping over because of curved roads.
Automated driving must understand all of these situations... otherwise they'll cause accidents that back up everybody.
Now that vehicles track all your driving and make logs and send data, I'm wondering how long it will be until a police officer can simply look at your car's data while he/she is driving behind you instead of using a speed gun of some sort.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Right now the 'common speed' (including the windage cops give you in most states) is limited by human mental processing speed and reaction time. When automated cars take over and all the "manual" cars have aged off the road, I can see a Great Speedup taking place as traffic reaches the maximum rate that physics and passenger comfort will allow. We will have to hash over such questions as, will passengers tolerate 1G cornering if cars can be designed to safely do it?
Shouldn't it be possible to outfit one of these trucks to log not only the actions of the automated system, but also of the human driver? Have human drivers doing their usual routine for a year while also having the automated systems active—But instead of actually controlling the truck, they would merely log the actions they would have taken and any discrepancies between the human driver and automated systems could be analyzed to account for edge-cases.
Roll out the Luddites!
:T:R:A:N:S:
The problem blocking this is that car controllers grabbed frequency FM 108.1 without the FCC's approval, and they're supposed be using that for 107.9-HD3s... sure, the police could grab a speeder based on a report from the car's computer, but on what frequency do they do that? Seems like they need to find something in the FCC chart to make that work.
The problem is infrastructure. Every single store you shop at has a loading dock in back for trucks, not rail. So why accept the time delays of putting intermodal trailers on train then back to truck when gas is so cheap.
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
A Google car turned into a Transformer?
It costs Boeing hundreds of millions of dollars to certify a new plane's autopilot through the FAA. Perhaps they shouldn't have to either.
It wasn't always that way. Grocery stores used to have their own rail sidings, back when trucking wasn't so heavily subsidized.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
As long as the plane flies in computer simulations they should have people pay extra for the privilege of trying the first flight.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
In fact, it will be more likely, as an economic optimum will be computed, instead of an hourly driver going "fuck it" and not passing.
HAHAHAHAHA no. The driver never says "fuck it" and doesn't pass.
Okay, "never" is hyperbole. But it's well-known that there's a shitload of poorly trained new truck drivers out there driving like dickholes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Those things with 18 wheels also reach a lot of places that aren't practical for a train. This is quite similar to why your circulatory system has both capillaries and arteries.
Constrict capillaries!
(C'mon, *some*body was gonna say it!)
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Until an autonomous system itself reaches an extremely higher level of maturity/sophistication it’s a long way from coming mainstream. The system, as it stands now cannot see an accident a mile down the road, it can’t see a police officer having pulled someone over on the shoulder of the highway, it can’t see debris in the road. In the 20 truck convoy scenario laid out, the shepherd riding in truck# 1 will not be able to respond/react quickly enough when truck# 17 blows a steering tire.
Once it does reach that level of sophistication, it will only be for general commodities going from and to a distribution point. It will be a very long time before it goes from the loading docks at Bob’s Dog Food and Ink Pens to your local retailers dock.
I’m the shipping manager for a rather large steel company in Texas. Moving steel bridge girders around the country where a single girder weighing in at 156k and 140’ is an everyday occurrence. 300k+ and 200'+ long is not uncommon. But it will be some Star Trek level docking program before these get moved autonomously.
Your sig here!
I've seen machines die for no apparent reason though.
There's a section of the Mass Pike (I-90, Lee to Worcester) where it's safe to do 100 under clear conditions despite Speed Limit 65 signage.
Some quick questions... Does that speed (safe to do 100) apply to a long-haul or truck? And if anything at all happens that requires you to sharply reduce the speed while you are driving 100 (assuming 100 mph), what would happen? And replace your car with a long-haul or truck, what would happen?
That's going to get pretty complex. On a busy highway will AI ever work well enough to detect an ice patch so that it is slow enough by the time it reaches it? Also, there will be a lot of situations where an intersection obscured by a building, so no matter how well it works there will only be a few seconds to stop before a person on a bicycle fails to stop at a stop sign and drives onto the road, so do you want to subject someone to stopping that fast. Maybe on long throughways designed for it but not during most city driving.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I was asked by MassHighway and WBZ(AM) Traffic on the 3s to drive 100 MPH in this zone in my Honda Civic Hybrid, and trucks carrying books from the Harry Potter series on release night did the same thing.
In this case, it was late on a clear night and I had the section of road all to myself so there was nothing to hit, and I was told to gently apply breaking four miles before my exit.
Automated vehicles annihilating cyclists who blow through stop signs and signals? This tech continues to spark off unexpected benefits.