A Fleet of Trucks Just Drove Themselves Across Europe (qz.com) 156
An anonymous reader shares a report on Quartz: About a dozen trucks from major manufacturers like Volvo and Daimler just completed a week of largely autonomous driving across Europe, the first such major exercise on the continent. The trucks set off from their bases in three European countries and completed their journeys in Rotterdam in the Netherlands. One set of trucks, made by the Volkswagen subsidiary Scania, traveled more than 2,000 km and crossed four borders to get there. The trucks were taking part in the European Truck Platooning Challenge, organized by the Dutch government as one of the big events for its 2016 presidency of the European Union. While self-driving cars from Google or Ford get most of the credit for capturing the public imagination, commercial uses for autonomous or nearly autonomous vehicles, like tractors from John Deere, have been quietly putting the concept to work in a business setting.In related news, as tipped to us by a reader, "Swedish automaker Volvo is planning on bringing a fleet of 100 self-driving vehicles to China from next year, in a project which will see local drivers test autonomous cars on public roads in everyday driving conditions. Dangerous driving and congestion in Chinese cities will likely prove a difficult challenge for the fleet." I am particularly interested in learning how this autonomous truck is controlled. From the article, it appears that these vehicles utilize Wi-Fi. Based on so many security incidents we continue to come across, perhaps these companies should first work on solving the technical challenges to make these trucks safe -- that is, bolstering the hardware and software security.
It doesn't need to be 100% secure (Score:5, Interesting)
Being more secure than humans is enough. And that can be easily measured, in the number of accidents that the cars caused.
Traffic accounts for far more deaths than plane travel, still the media attention after plane accidents is much higher. Its good that now the roads are made safer as well.
Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually agree with you 100% and think that self-driving trucks and autos will make the roads safer, even if they don't make accidents impossible.
When I see this, however, I do wonder what they are thinking about the truck drivers that they are eagerly working at putting out of work. CDL driving isn't a job that I want to do myself, but it is relatively well paying and supports a number of working people who are not exactly STEM material. I hope someone has some idea on that front, or you'll find that you're working on creating even more Donald Trump-type voters.
Re: (Score:2)
When I see this, however, I do wonder what they are thinking about the truck drivers that they are eagerly working at putting out of work.
They're not going to be 'put out of work'. Commercial trucks have an even greater potential to cause loss of human life, therefore it's even more important that they be as safely operated as possible. Since so-called 'self-driving' vehicles, including trucks, will never be able to 100% guaranteed to be able to handle 100% of all situations that might arise on the open roads, all so-called 'autonomous trucks', just like all so-called 'autonomous cars', will be required to have a human driver behind the full
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>To do otherwise is sheer madness and inviting disaster.
Goddamn luddite. A computer doesn't get tired, a computer doesn't need to take no-doze to make that time sensitive delivery. A computer doesn't speed so it can get home to its family faster. A might misjudge the grip it has on a wet road, but it won't willingly risk wiping out a bunch of other drivers in the wet because it wants to get somewhere faster. A computer takes inputs, makes predictions, and operates on those outcomes. Exactly the same as a
Re: (Score:2)
They had better be impossible from the standpoint of the automaton, otherwise it opens all kinds of legal issues. If I own an automatic car, I'd better be assured it won't cause millions of dollars worth of damage or kill someone. If I am to accept financial responsibility for any of that then I'll just keep driving myself, thanks. I'll insure the vehicle *as property* so if someone throws a brick through the window I don't pay to get it fixed, but I won't
Re: (Score:2)
It's a little different in the US, although perhaps not too much.
Either way, now these guys are going from poorly paid to "not paid". There's more of a safety net in Europe, but I don't think more people who have been made structurally unemployed is going to be good for Europe.
Not that this is a reason to halt progress on this front, but I hope someone has thought about this....
Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're making more than a subsistance living driving trucks in the US, you're either doing something else besides driving, or you own the truck.
Some truck drivers are delivery drivers. They won't be replaced with self-driving trucks (though they might by delivery drones or whatever).
Some truck drivers are driving construction-related trucks. There's a lot more to operating a cement mixer or even dump truck than just rolling down the highway. Plus, autonomous driving on a construction site isn't a problem people are even thinking about yet (once you're on the site, where you actually go changes all the time).
And if you own something as capital-intensive as a big rig, whether you drive it or not you can still make money from providing haulage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Construction vehicles and construction in general
You misunderstand the mindset of some people here. They think that all manual labor is somehow going to magically become the responsibility of so-called 'AIs' and robots, and that just as magically, humans will be given some sort of free money to live on, and never have to work again. Then there's people like you and I, who know the difference between fantasy and reality.
Re: (Score:2)
In the "you get to unload this yourself" category, there's nothing technological to stop it
How would that work exactly? It wouldn't work for home delivery. It wouldn't work for commerical delivery where the same truck goes to multiple customers, or any sort of route sales for that matter. I guess it could work for a company moving stuff between 2 of its own warehouses?
etter start voting for people who know what a social safety net is and are willing to fight for same
Just learn to do work that is of value to society.
being a Republican or large-L libertarian won't get you lynched. Yet.
The (anti-gun) left sure does think a lot of itself. If society divides into one group that does work of value to society, and one group that doesn't, which group do you imagine
Re: (Score:2)
Just learn to do work that is of value to society.
And if machines already do 90% of the work that is of value to society, what then?
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing we've done for the past 500 years of technological advancement. People want more. It is fundamental human nature that our reach exceeds our grasp, and that won't change. There's plenty that people want now (and robots won't do anytime son), but most can't afford so the market is small. As the prices of everything robots can do falls, those markets will expand. Same as has happened for the past 500 years of automation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you imagine a world of automated factories building warehouses full of production that no one can buy? Frankly, I can't even understand the distopian future the Luddites fear, here. About 10% of jobs in the US are still manufacturing-related. That will certainly drop to below 5%, just like agriculture jobs. The drop has been going on for 50+ years, and the world hasn't ended. Some unskilled service jobs will follow in the new wave of automation. Where's the mushroom cloud again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty crazy even by /. conspiracy theory standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Truck drives jobs will be secure for many years to come. Trucks are expensive - if the AI were ready today it would take 10-20 years. The lawn care business is pretty saturated, but there aren't enough plumbers or electricians or welders or handimen. And it's not like construction-related truck driving is going away in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
The AI is there, or so close to it as to make no difference at all. Done deal. The rest is a matter of normal truck cabs wearing out and being replaced (that actually happens pretty fast in most cases, trucks do heavy service and they don't last all that long) and/or financial decisions based on available capital, and the ROI of replacing fallible, expensive humans with much less fallible automation and (for a little while, anyway) a much less expensive grunt laborer.
The median annual wage for a trucker tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From the post you were replying to:
That response is so clueless I won't dign
Re: (Score:2)
That's been true in the past. Should it remain true in a society where work is simply not available for many?
Of course not.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you have functional critical thinking facilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And pollution from motor vehicles kills 20 times more than road accidents, this is something that rarely gets a mention.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is besides the point, the trucks don't need to be fossil fuel powered and I said vehicles, not trucks, many vehicles could be electric or hydrogen etc, particularly taxis and buses.
Bend over, I'll drive you there (Score:2)
Kinda like this [google.com]
If you keep the whip in the middle of their backs, they generally drive pretty straight until they're just too tired. Then they fall over. Same as other forms of cattle. Just ask Fox News.
No, no need to thank me, delighted to enlighten you.
How long (Score:2, Funny)
until cars have a midlife crisis and drive across the country randomly to "find themselves"?
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe it has been addressed before, but with the idea of trucks hauling goods across large distances, instead of people (as a car would), are they looking to remove drivers? If so, then how will they handle refueling? Will we see a resurgence of employees washing windshields and pumping gas for a tip at stations?
That might be interesting.
Re: (Score:1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Overdrive
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Windshield washing is a waste of time, just make sure the camera's have a clean lens
And there's this: (Score:2)
Automated refueling tech [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's a robotic arm bringing a refueling source to a client. That it's electric is entirely beside the point.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers in (Score:1)
The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers in the usa they may need to turn to the jail / prison if they need a doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything under a 6 digit income in the US and this is a very real consideration.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I commend you but I warn that if the Government doesn't or didn't tax it chances are what you have will be declared illegal, robbed from you and sold to the highest bidder for a new development.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is fully permitted.
The only place I see this flying is in Alaska. Otherwise local citizenry or local government would be raiding your home and burning it down. What state did you pull this miracle off in?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you can pull this off most anywhere. Some cities are more uptight than others, but as long as you
Re: (Score:2)
You know when that is useful, exactly when that is useful, when 7 billion people can do it. Earth is 51.01 billion hectares, of which 3.107 billion hectares is arable so as we would need 112 billion hectares, we do you suggest we find the other 36 earths so we can all live like you, or do you suggest we simple eliminate sufficient people to end up with 1 36th of the number of people we have now. If you seriously think when the rest of the earth's ability to sustain the current population diminishes, you'll
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This could destroy roads in the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Trying to pre-emptively legislate based on speculation or predictions seems like a really bad idea. Let's address issues as they arrive. It's not like this is going to happen overnight.
Anyhow, to your point... railroads and trucking are rather different in their advantages and disadvantages, and so I suspect there may be less competition among these industries than you believe. Trucks will *never* match the efficiency per-pound of bulk goods carried by rail. However, rail can never match the speed and flexibility of trucks to make smaller point-to-point deliveries.
Re: (Score:2)
> However, rail can never match the speed and
> flexibility of trucks to make smaller point-to-point
> deliveries.
A significant contributor to this, though, has been poor urban planning that insufficiently utilizes rail. If corrected to more efficiently utilize the rail lines and hubs, those flexible point-to-point trucks could be smaller, lighter, and less damaging to the roads. Compare and contrast, for example, the lorries and "heavy trucks" used in the UK and Japan vs. the monstrous beasts on o
Re:This could destroy roads in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Compare and contrast, for example, the lorries and "heavy trucks" used in the UK and Japan vs. the monstrous beasts on our roads here in the US.
Oh? Over here in Europe(*) a regular heavy truck is depending on the number of axles up to 40 metric tons and in The Netherlands 50 tons, heavier special (not regular) transport needs an easy to get licence.
Road trains go up to 60 tons, in Sweden 80 tons.
Th basis of the legislation is between 10 and 11.5 tons per axle.
(*) Exceptions are the UK and Switzerland with a max. of 38 metric tons.
In the US the maximum weight without additional permit is 80,000 lbs or 36.28 metric tons.
Re: (Score:2)
80t? Pff... In Australia we can do up to around 130t for the properly massive trains (HML BAB Quad)
Refer https://www.nhvr.gov.au/files/201602-0116-mass-and-dimension-limits.pdf
Re: (Score:2)
There are US states with higher weight limits than national standard..
The maximum allowable gross vehicle weight on the heaviest "Michigan-weight-law MDOT Intermodal Policy Division truck" is 164,000 pounds,
https://www.michigan.gov/docum... [michigan.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> However, rail can never match the speed and
> flexibility of trucks to make smaller point-to-point
> deliveries.
True enough. But for that sort of traffic, don't the drivers often/usually unload the trucks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of doubt we've shipping that stuff mostly by train since our federal highway system was built in the 50s. Trains are good for shipping items in bulk quantities: grain & foodstuffs, coal, oil, lumber, cars, bulk consumer goods, that sort of thing. Consider the logistics involved of filling entire trains, and you quickly figure out why it really only makes sense for bulk goods.
I think Amazon shipments are possible the *worst* example you could pick for rail transport. Amazon orders are fulfilled
Re: (Score:2)
Well, perhaps after a few years of that roadway chaos; sanity will finally prevail here, and we'll actually raise those fuel taxes to reflect the true cost of maintaining and building the roads. Yeah, it's a long shot. But stranger things have happened. And perhaps if the roads do get bad enough to start impacting corporate profits, even the republicans will finally understand that they do have to be paid for.
But as for the rails, I'm kind of torn. We desperately need a systemic upgrade to something mod
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
raise those fuel taxes to reflect the true cost of maintaining and building the roads.
The idea that the two are related was always nonsense. Money is fungible. It doesn't matter the name of the tax, or the name of the program, money is money.
I benefit greatly from those trucks on the road. My grocery store has food in it, for example. I don't really care which tax the roads get pad for out of - maintaining the roads is worth every penny. It's one of the few good things the government does - honest to goodness infrastructure. Let's have more of that.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter the name of the tax, .... I benefit greatly from those trucks on the road. My grocery store has food in it, for example. I don't really care which tax the roads get pad for out of - maintaining the roads is worth every penny.
But it makes a difference to you and me where the tax is coming from. You (or I) would benefit more if the tax came from someone other than ourselves. Tax those trucks more and the groceries might cost you $10 more per week but you might be $20 better off if you are taxed less as a result, leaving you $10 in pocket. Or you might be no better off, leaving you $10 out of pocket. Depends on what your tax circumstances are.
In the UK most companies find it cheaper to send freight by road than rail, despi
Re: (Score:2)
But it makes a difference to you and me where the tax is coming from. You (or I) would benefit more if the tax came from someone other than ourselves. Tax those trucks more and the groceries might cost you $10 more per week but you might be $20 better off if you are taxed less as a result, leaving you $10 in pocket. Or you might be no better off, leaving you $10 out of pocket. Depends on what your tax circumstances are.
No, and no. First off roads are worth paying for. I don't care if one way costs me more than another - I benefit and I don't mind paying. I'm happy to pay for one of the very few useful things the government does!
Secondly, you're talking about me benefiting from a regressive tax. The total cost to society is the same. Trucking has very thin margins, so the costs will be passed to customers. So we're comparing a "tax" on food to a tax on income, really. I'm not even a fan of the progressive income tax
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is this fetish that liberals have for train sets? I've never understood that. Train freight is already very cheap and efficient, but it doesn't scale down. Hauling freight is pretty thoroughly optimized, whatever armchair experts might imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
The Future is Now (Score:5, Funny)
"Volvo is planning on bringing a fleet of 100 self-driving vehicles to China from next year,"
Forget self-driving vehicles. Tell us more about this time travel technology!
Movie Plot (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm very surprised there hasn't been a movie yet (that I'm aware of) featuring an autonomous vehicle being hijacked remotely to do some dastardly deed.
Other than China, they also might want to try driving the vehicles through Cairo. I remember taking a taxi once from the area of the zoo to a hotel near Giza once and the number of near accidents, crazy driving, etc. in that 20 minute trip was greater than everything I've seen in every other country I've ever visited put together over the span of my entire lifetime (40+ years).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm very surprised there hasn't been a movie yet (that I'm aware of) featuring an autonomous vehicle being hijacked remotely to do some dastardly deed.
Maximum Overdrive?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure at least a couple of episodes of Knight Rider and one of Airwolf involved KITT or Airwolf getting hacked and turned evil for an episode.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember KARR. But I know there was also an episode where Bonnie's evil twin installed a counterfeit alpha circuit into KITT so that the baddies of the day could turn him evil; and I'm pretty sure there was at least one other "KITT is reprogrammed for eviluz" as well. Perhaps it's time to fire up the Netflix and refresh my memory. Remarkable though... for a show that had a grand total of six main characters throughout its run, how many of them had evil twins. I'm pretty sure Michael's even had the evi
Re: (Score:2)
An old sci-fi book from 1966 by George Henry Smith called "The four day weekend" Basically car worship and AI has run amok to the point that cars are almost sentient and lots of people have fetishes about them. But the cars remain (sort of) subservient until Aliens trigger a "car-mageddon" over a (you guessed it) 4 day weekend.
Cheesy pulp sci-fi but I liked it way back when.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did they have seat belts?
Why?
Cairo is in an Islamic country, Allah will protect you better than any man made item can.
Re: (Score:1)
dozens of movies have done this.
How about Terminator 3 [youtube.com] - self driving vehicles, controlled by a maniacal bitchbot...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Netherlands Vehicle Authority evaluates test applications in three stages:
written evaluation, roughly comprising an overview of changes to the vehicle, and the impact these have on safety, and counter measures;
functionality testing (at a closed facility), of aspects the applicant seeks to test on public roads: the ‘happy flow test’;
a stress test at a closed facility. This tests system robustness, both in technical and functional terms.
If this phase is completed successfully, consideration will be given – in consultation with the road manager(s)
– as to suitable locations to be opened up and under what circumstances.
This may involve recommendations from knowledge institutes like the Road Safety Research Institute (SWOV)
or cyber security experts.
The exemption lists all relevant circumstances together with the licensed drivers,
the duration of the exemption and the vehicles.
They cheated.... (Score:2)
They just sent a bunch of gamers an early beta of "EuroTruck Simulator 3" which was actually just a thinly veiled tele-operation console for these trucks.
Convoy!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Ah, yeah, 10-4, Pig Pen v1.1, fer shure, fer shure. By golly, it's clean clear to Flag Town, c'mon.
Yeah, that's a big 10-4 there, Pig Pen v1.1, yeah, we definitely got the front door, good buddy. Mercy sakes alive, looks like we got us an autonomous convoy!
largely autonomous (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Going from nothing to largely autonomous also has by far the largest safety and efficiency improvements.
This is a significant step.
Re: (Score:2)
Going from nothing to largely autonomous also has by far the largest safety and efficiency improvements.
I'm not sure that's true. Forcing someone to sit behind a wheel and wait until the car beeps at them to take control is asking for accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's true. Forcing someone to sit behind a wheel and wait until the car beeps at them to take control is asking for accidents.
More so or less so than forcing someone to sit behind the wheel on ludicrously long journeys stopping only to eat, shit, drink coffee, and maybe a 15min power nap because otherwise they can't keep their eyes open? Well okay that may not be 100% accurate. Sometimes the drivers also stop to take some harder drugs [reuters.com] to help them through their long hauls.
You don't need to question whether that is true. The stats are building themselves continuously. So far Google's self driving cars which are largely autonomous
Re: (Score:2)
More so or less so than forcing someone to sit behind the wheel on ludicrously long journeys stopping only to eat
It's much, much more difficult to pay attention when you aren't actually driving. Are you kidding?
So far Google's self driving cars which are largely autonomous and still have people to take control are starting to rank in a really high percentile when it comes to accident free driving.
The data Google gives us is highly selective, and chosen in a way that makes them look good. Don't believe me, try looking for solid complete data on their self-driving cars. You won't find it.
A map I saw last year (Score:3)
Depressing enough to think that's what's left of the US nowadays, but what the hell happens in the next 5 to 10 years as even those jobs are eliminated (all the while told by the Puritan ruling class we're bums if not employed)?
Re: (Score:2)
Were those "truck drivers" from the map all long-haul big rig drivers? Or did it include the urban divers working for the likes of UPS, FedEx, Cintas, Iron Mountain, and so on? There's a significant non-driving aspect to all of the latter jobs that requires a human being even if the truck itself is self-driving.
Also, I'd be remiss in not pointing out that at one point 90% of the US population worked in agriculture. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. And our precursors seem to have managed the loss
Re: (Score:2)
Good news for China (Score:2)
That rocks (Score:2)
Did they have any "refugees" hiding in the back?
Permavacaton (Score:2)
No, an entire convoy was driven by just one guy (Score:2)
The technique demonstrated here is platooning, where trucks can autonomously follow the truck in front of them. The truck at the front of the line is still driven manually.
An interesting development, but not quite autonomous driving.
The question that remains is how they'd prevent the convoy being broken up at traffic lights.
Beautiful (Score:2)
I saw this from my window at work today. Actually I spent more time staring at the helicopter than the trucks but I digress.
The irony does not go unnoticed that in the video that they park these "eco twin" trucks promoting fuel efficiency and environmental savings right in front of the brand spanking new coal fired power station commissioned only this year at the Maasvlakte.
I can't help but wonder if todays event was the reason that the station wasn't running and belching its usual big cloud.
The driver does not matter if, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if the truck still belches out toxic nano particles in it's exhaust
Oh, you mean gasoline vehicles? They emit more PM2.5 than diesels.
and uses compression release engine brakes at 4 am that are so loud you can hear them from over 2 kilometres away.
The autonomous trucks will be programmed to brake ahead of time, so they don't need to use the jake brake.
Brake checks and chains? (Score:2)
An autonomous tractor sounds great, but (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"just to clarify: those self-driving truck were just following the truck in front of them at rather close distance, about 10m. The first truck in those so-called platoons was manually driven, the second, and possibly third and fourth follower however was following on autopilot"
That's what it sounded like to me, but it sounded like they were slipstreaming closer than 10 meters. Frankly, it sounds quite hazardous and somewhat pointless unless you take the drivers out of the trailing vehicles. In which case
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just join them together with rods?
OST nah, cobber. Only a total bloomin' drongo could come up with an idea like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah mate, if you put rails in the outback some crimmo will steal 'em.
http://outbacktowing.tripod.co... [tripod.com]
Re: (Score:2)