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.

Comments

See, this application actually makes some sense

[TWX]

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.

Re:See, this application actually makes some sense

[taustin]

Commercial truck driving is almost as tightly regulated as taxi services. For many of the same reasons: people who have done it without being regulated have killed a lot of people. And an 80,000 pound truck can kill far more people than a 2,000 pound car, when driven poorly.

Uber's entirely business model is criminal, and they know it.

Re:See, this application actually makes some sense

[Ichijo]

Long-haul freight really ought to be moved by rail where it causes less traffic congestion, emits less greenhouse gases, and doesn't tear up the roads. Also, it's easier to automate a vehicle that cannot steer. Unfortunately, the trucking industry is so heavily subsidized that there's no incentive to change.

Re:See, this application actually makes some sense

[Applehu Akbar]

"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. "

In particular, a robot trucker will be less concerned with penis size than its human counterpart. A robot driver, grinding up a grade at 21 mph, is not going to leave the dedicated Trucks Only lane to vainly try passing a 20 mph truck, thereby blocking a long line of cars which could have passed by.

Re:See, this application actually makes some sense

[bobbied]

Actually rail is more efficient per ton pre mile that any form of ground transportation going. It's not because it moves a lot of stuff, but that the steel on steel rolling resistance is almost nothing compared to a truck with rubber on asphalt. This is why you CAN tow a mile long train with couple of locomotives....

Rail's problem is the infrastructure costs are really high. Keeping miles and miles of rails in useable condition is hard and labor intensive. Maintaining rolling stock costs money... Getting that ton of freight from point a to b doesn't cost that much in fuel, but in labor, logistics and infrastructure suck up a lot of cost.

Paid for shills?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?