Well it could work Fenris. We'd have one great big giant Pez despenser for everything people need. No Pzev big trucks grinding down all those tires and billions of gallons of diesel fuel. We could be out in front of the world with our logostics industry. We can call the web site Pezazon..

Interesting concept, from the aspect of Long Haul trucking establishing a transportation unit that can run 24 7 without stopping for a federal break increases productivity, longer trucks, move larger loads.

Larger loads will require more maintenance, but for moving loads point to point with distribution centers along the route it might prove more efficient.

Buses, cabs, trucks, is where the initial push should be for automation and electrification of their fleets, you can get lots of long term data in shorter terms due to fleet size and the higher rate of abuse from work vehicles over consumer.

Here's George Jestson...
His boy Elroy....

Tesla should call the truck the SS for Spacelys Sprocket

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
I expect that when this technology matures, autonomous trucks will be vastly safer than manual ones. I would also expect that liability and insurance costs will quickly drive trucking companies to adopt the autonomous systems.

See, and I predict the exact opposite.

I dispute your assertion about them being safer, but, for sake of argument let's take that as given for a couple paragraphs. So what?

What will happen is, that as more and more robo-cars are on the road, even if they are safer as some assert, the inevitable will happen. Some crashes will happen, with economic damage and loss of life, injuries etc.

Now, we enter the hell which is US tort law. Everyone associated with that truck: the company that built it, the company who wrote the software, the companies that sold sensors, the dealer who sold the truck, the folks who repaired it, the owner of the truck, the owner of the trailer, the owner of the cargo, and the intended recipient will be sued. Recall the genius jury that soaked $2B out of the makers of Roundup for two people harmed (but not killed).... How many people are likely to be harmed by even one out of control semi?

And this is assuming the trucks are safer, and while I'll grant that for argument's sake, there's not the slightest hope of that proving true.

Driving is not a bounded problem, in the real world. Putting lethal weapons in the hands of robots, programmed by, well, programmers, dependent on sensors for input (Boeing 737 Max, anyone?), and set loose on roads of arbitrary condition, in real-world weather, alongside people who will be doing their usual, unpredictable things. Yeah, why am I not thinking that will be safer?

Might be safer than drunken teenagers, maybe. But the answer is to get bad drivers off the road, not to accept automatons.

No, this is all foreseeable. And that will be a factor in those liability suits. "Wee ask the jury to bear in mind that defendant, knowing X,Y, and Z, did put truck ABC into service despite the easily foreseeable risks, merely to save money." Defendants will settle, insurance rates will skyrocket.

I am very far from a Luddite. This is simply a bridge too far.

You really don't think any/all of those can't be solved with some combination of technology, organizational changes, contractual changes between the trucking companies and their customers, and moving to more third party services? You're right that they'd need to be addressed, but it's not hard to see how they could be.

The big equation here difference for the trucking companies, between the plus side of this change (being added revenue from keeping the equipment working around the clock, and the elimination of driver costs), and the minus side (added expenses to replace the non-driving tasks that the drivers do now, and likely some level of price reduction to account for more of the work being pushed to the customers doing the loading and unloading.) In the end, I think the result of this calculation will be strongly positive for the companies.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
^^Those are the hopes and promises. Tell me, who inspects the tie-downs every three hours on that D9 Cat on an autonomous truck? Who is responsible when a piece of lumber falls off? Who must wipe the snow off the lights? Who checks for Hazmat containment? Who does the daily pre/post trip inspections of all cargo and vehicle? Who looks for tire chunk out? Simply because a computer can keep it between the lines does not account for all this other stuff. As for safety, I’ve already addressed it. It’s another unicorn. Driver assist may make a truck safer, but autonomy by itself won’t.

As for doing drugs and cheating logs, 10-4 good buddy. The 70’s were quite awhile ago.

It’s all random drug screens and eLogs now.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
For the same reason we still have pilots in cockpits and engineers in locomotives, there will continue to be a need for a driver in a truck. There may be some benefit in automation, but not as total replacement, not for a long time.

I wholeheartedly agree. And I actually see railroads and airlines going to a completely automated system 100% before road trucks. The neverending variables and unpredictability of roads is not like rails or even the sky. As I told a friend, robotic carpet vacuums are not the mainstream, tech that has been around for decades, they haven't made human operated uprights obsolete due to their shortcomings. I too do not see driverless trucks as part of the mainstream anytime in the near future.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
You really don't think any/all of those can't be solved with some combination of technology, organizational changes, contractual changes between the trucking companies and their customers, and moving to more third party services? You're right that they'd need to be addressed, but it's not hard to see how they could be.

The big equation here difference for the trucking companies, between the plus side of this change (being added revenue from keeping the equipment working around the clock, and the elimination of driver costs), and the minus side (added expenses to replace the non-driving tasks that the drivers do now, and likely some level of price reduction to account for more of the work being pushed to the customers doing the loading and unloading.) In the end, I think the result of this calculation will be strongly positive for the companies.

Everything that you are saying sounds good, but if you had experience in the industry, you'd see a lot of reasons it isn't so easy. As an example, let's take this:

quote:

being added revenue from keeping the equipment working around the clock

There are some loads that could move around the clock. But the vast majority of freight operates in the 400-700 mile range. The load that travels coast-to-coast is the exception, not the rule. Most receivers/shippers do not operate 24 hour docks, so any truck that can operate 24/7 has no advantage over another in the distances that most loads travel.

Take, for example, anything from SLC, UT going to Denver, CO. Approximately 500 miles. You load in SL, with loading hours from 7-3. Drive from 15:00-24:00, ten hours off, deliver in Denver at 10:00, reload at 12:00, rinse and repeat. 24 hour trucking has no advantage because nobody is going to receive and reload the truck in the middle of the night.

If you can get the entire economy to embrace three shifts, then yeah, we could benefit from 24/7 trucks. We could now as well with sleeper teams, who mostly occupy the rush/long freight market.

Tell me how you'll deal with this problem. Say you load lumber at a mill. Who will strap it and tarp it? The shipper? OK, using who's gear? If the mill uses their gear, how do they get it back? Who maintains the tarps and straps? Who tightens the straps in the first 50 miles of travel? If DOT gives a service ticket on a strap, who is responsible? If the load is insufficiently secured, and something falls off, who gets to go to jail? If a strap damages the product, who's insurance is going to cover the damages? Will the autonomous truck have its own gear? If so, what happens when the last customer left it off or stole it? Who uses the fire extinguisher to control a brake fire? Who, who, who. Ultimately, who is on the hook? Currently, it's the driver, be it for weight, safety, everything. If you think the shippers are going to willing embrace the costs and tort exposure, then you'd be wrong. Very wrong.

Its easy to say that we can change institutions and use technology to fix all these issues. Sure, we could build a check station every 50 miles on every road in America for these autonomous trucks to enter and be inspected. However, that is more expensive than what we currently have.

As I have already stated and is soundly being ignored, is that all the benefits you are stating in the shipping segment favorable to autonomous trucks is already handled by inter-model RR. Point to point terminal shipments. Nothing can complete with the RR when it comes to cost/mile ton, period. Autonomous trucks, platooning trucks. This segment is handled today by the RR, and it does it cheaper by far, even if there were no driver present.

One other thing. Electric long haul trucks. It will happen when it is technologically possible to have electric turbofan jet airliners. There is nothing as energy dense and practical as diesel fuel. When you can run a 40 ton gross (16 ton tare) truck 1200 miles and refuel it in 15 minutes, then you've got something. The electric over-the-road truck is an Elon Musk wet dream. One of many.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
One other thing. Electric long haul trucks. It will happen when it is technologically possible to have electric turbofan jet airliners. There is nothing as energy dense and practical as diesel fuel. When you can run a 40 ton gross (16 ton tare) truck 1200 miles and refuel it in 15 minutes, then you've got something. The electric over-the-road truck is an Elon Musk wet dream. One of many.

On this, I could not agree more. Electric vehicles are impractical virtue signalling.

You're correct. It isn't easy. But not easy doesn't mean not doable or not worth doing. Building an automated, self driving truck is the epitome of not easy. But we can see it happening.

There are at least a few of categories of things that will need to be dealt with:

Liability: This will end up being negotiated between all the parties, trucking companies, the customer base, regulators, legislators, etc.). Legislation is going to need to be passed to enable automated trucking anyway, likely at both the state and federal level, so legal liability rules will be embedded in that. It's both premature, and really out of scope for us to deal with all the details here. And some arbitrary lines will hve to be drawn. But I don't see any reason this can't be dealt with, in much the same way the rules for manned trucking developed.

Service: As you bring up, someone will have to deal with the on the road issues the driver do. This is could happen in a couple of ways. Trucks and trailers are going to have more sensors that keep track of many more things than are now. Tire pressure and wear, brake temperature, cargo issues (many and varied, based on the cargo/trailer type), etc., etc.. The trucks will likely have real time date links to the mother ship. If anything goes out of spec, they get notified immediately. Who deals with the issues on trucks when they're on the road? What's needed is a large set of widely distributed facilities that are never too far away, that specialize in dealing with trucks and the problems they can develop. These already exist. They're known as truck stops. Right now they split the services between dealing with the needs of the human drivers and the mechanical needs of the trucks. This mix will change, and a relationship between the trucking companies and the truck stop companies will evolve, so that if a truck detects an issue to be dealt with, the truck will be rerouted to the nearest truck stop that can deal with it, and the truck stop will be notified that the truck will be coming in, and what problem to expect. In point of fact, especially as the trucks need fuel and head in anyway, the truck stop could be requested to do the physical inspection of the truck a driver would do, report any issues back to the trucking company, and deal with them. If something catastrophic happens on the road, or the truck breaks down and has to stop before it can get to service, the mothership should know right away, an could contact local emergency services and or tow crews.

Timing: You're issue with terminals not being open 24/7 is obviously valid. But I bet the trucks can be scheduled to deal with it in a way that minimizes downtime. For example, longer stretches would be done overnight when the terminals are closed, timing the trip to show up after the terminal opens. And as 24/7 trucking is more viable, the customers might want to go 24/7 to take advantage of it.

Equipment issues. From a physical standpoint, with GPS and easy cell communication, there's no reason not to know where anything is at any time, and if something goes dark, they should know where it was when it happened. And with the increased use of sensors, and with responsibilities negotiated between the parties, it shouldn't be too big a deal to work out the issues you talk about. It's not like they haven't been worked up previously.

My point is not to try to work out everything that could possibly come up, because I plainly can't. But I want to point out that the issues are likely solvable, and in a way that would work for the people spending the money to implement it.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
You really don't think any/all of those can't be solved with some combination of technology, organizational changes, contractual changes between the trucking companies and their customers, and moving to more third party services? You're right that they'd need to be addressed, but it's not hard to see how they could be.

The big equation here difference for the trucking companies, between the plus side of this change (being added revenue from keeping the equipment working around the clock, and the elimination of driver costs), and the minus side (added expenses to replace the non-driving tasks that the drivers do now, and likely some level of price reduction to account for more of the work being pushed to the customers doing the loading and unloading.) In the end, I think the result of this calculation will be strongly positive for the companies.

Everything that you are saying sounds good, but if you had experience in the industry, you'd see a lot of reasons it isn't so easy. As an example, let's take this:

quote:

being added revenue from keeping the equipment working around the clock

There are some loads that could move around the clock. But the vast majority of freight operates in the 400-700 mile range. The load that travels coast-to-coast is the exception, not the rule. Most receivers/shippers do not operate 24 hour docks, so any truck that can operate 24/7 has no advantage over another in the distances that most loads travel.

Take, for example, anything from SLC, UT going to Denver, CO. Approximately 500 miles. You load in SL, with loading hours from 7-3. Drive from 15:00-24:00, ten hours off, deliver in Denver at 10:00, reload at 12:00, rinse and repeat. 24 hour trucking has no advantage because nobody is going to receive and reload the truck in the middle of the night.

If you can get the entire economy to embrace three shifts, then yeah, we could benefit from 24/7 trucks. We could now as well with sleeper teams, who mostly occupy the rush/long freight market.

Tell me how you'll deal with this problem. Say you load lumber at a mill. Who will strap it and tarp it? The shipper? OK, using who's gear? If the mill uses their gear, how do they get it back? Who maintains the tarps and straps? Who tightens the straps in the first 50 miles of travel? If DOT gives a service ticket on a strap, who is responsible? If the load is insufficiently secured, and something falls off, who gets to go to jail? If a strap damages the product, who's insurance is going to cover the damages? Will the autonomous truck have its own gear? If so, what happens when the last customer left it off or stole it? Who uses the fire extinguisher to control a brake fire? Who, who, who. Ultimately, who is on the hook? Currently, it's the driver, be it for weight, safety, everything. If you think the shippers are going to willing embrace the costs and tort exposure, then you'd be wrong. Very wrong.

Its easy to say that we can change institutions and use technology to fix all these issues. Sure, we could build a check station every 50 miles on every road in America for these autonomous trucks to enter and be inspected. However, that is more expensive than what we currently have.

As I have already stated and is soundly being ignored, is that all the benefits you are stating in the shipping segment favorable to autonomous trucks is already handled by inter-model RR. Point to point terminal shipments. Nothing can complete with the RR when it comes to cost/mile ton, period. Autonomous trucks, platooning trucks. This segment is handled today by the RR, and it does it cheaper by far, even if there were no driver present.

One other thing. Electric long haul trucks. It will happen when it is technologically possible to have electric turbofan jet airliners. There is nothing as energy dense and practical as diesel fuel. When you can run a 40 ton gross (16 ton tare) truck 1200 miles and refuel it in 15 minutes, then you've got something. The electric over-the-road truck is an Elon Musk wet dream. One of many.

Airlines have in issue in that they carry people. People want to see other people flying the planes. I think an airline with automated aircraft might have trouble finding customers.

I'm a little surprised cargo aircraft haven't been automated already. The same with railroads.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
For the same reason we still have pilots in cockpits and engineers in locomotives, there will continue to be a need for a driver in a truck. There may be some benefit in automation, but not as total replacement, not for a long time.

I wholeheartedly agree. And I actually see railroads and airlines going to a completely automated system 100% before road trucks. The neverending variables and unpredictability of roads is not like rails or even the sky. As I told a friend, robotic carpet vacuums are not the mainstream, tech that has been around for decades, they haven't made human operated uprights obsolete due to their shortcomings. I too do not see driverless trucks as part of the mainstream anytime in the near future.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Airlines have in issue in that they carry people. People want to see other people flying the planes. I think an airline with automated aircraft might have trouble finding customers.

I'm a little surprised cargo aircraft haven't been automated already. The same with railroads.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
For the same reason we still have pilots in cockpits and engineers in locomotives, there will continue to be a need for a driver in a truck. There may be some benefit in automation, but not as total replacement, not for a long time.

I wholeheartedly agree. And I actually see railroads and airlines going to a completely automated system 100% before road trucks. The neverending variables and unpredictability of roads is not like rails or even the sky. As I told a friend, robotic carpet vacuums are not the mainstream, tech that has been around for decades, they haven't made human operated uprights obsolete due to their shortcomings. I too do not see driverless trucks as part of the mainstream anytime in the near future.

As a person that has to share roads with trucks and other vehicles too I don’t want driverless vehicles. It’s not just that people are carried in planes and therefore that’s why pilots remain, because people who are passengers in those planes want them. Other people that share the air want them too. It’s not just that computers may make more or less errors than human operators, or that computers could fail, necessitating the need for a human to take over. It’s also a matter that computers in autonomous vehicles would at some point have to decide which life to save in the case of an unavoidable accident generating condition. They would have to be programmed how to make those decisions ahead of time. How will they be programmed? Merely on survival probabilities? I don’t feel comfortable with autonomous vehicles making life and death decisions based solely upon pre programmed conditions. As long as people need to move from place to place Then they will need to share the roads, rails and airspace. I think there are lots of people unwilling to share those things with completely autonomous vehicles.

here is a good video on adaptive cruise down to zero. this looks rather promising for intercity driving. Sorry I could not imbed it here.


https://www.truckinginfo.com/3...c_id=0673H6164245E4U

It’s nigh on impossible to keep all the lights burning on a semi. Good luck with your dreams of radio control trucks.