The first road-legal self-driving truck

[Rixis]

We've got the actual data on every incident involving Google's automated cars.

Are you sure people just really don't like those cars?

Almost every one was rear ended, revenge on our Skynet overlords !!

[Mark01gt]

It's a novelty how google has professed that only people crash into automated cars, not the other way around, but bet your whistle they don't want to let on any stats of avoidable accidents caused by automated cars.

Are you saying that everyone should have an automated car?

Too many people enjoy driving. I have a sports car, a mustang mach 1. On my days off work there's nothing more relaxing than taking a drive around the country roads, just to get away from it all. I enjoy washing it, going to car shows, working on my car in my garage. I also have a pickup truck, and I tow my boat to the lake on the weekends. There's no way a completely self-driving vehicle would know how to hook up to a boat trailer , or how to back it down a ramp into a lake. You will probably only see it take over in urban areas where people have a car simply because they need transportation in the city, but for a lot of rural america, it'll likely never happen. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[glo]

The modern US infrastructure is not adequately designed to do this. And considering that the US is insufficient at even maintaining its roads from normal wear and tear, I don't really see the investment being put down for this. As it is, the system is very burdened and would probably not be capable of taking the reins back from highway infrastructure.

Uh, what? Are you honestly under the assumption that metric shit tons of cargo don't get transported over US rails and that our highways are falling apart? I mean, I get that you're in Russia and likely buy into all of your mandated propaganda, but at least try to use some common logic.

[breadisfunny]

This is great and all, but I'd like to see trucks off the road completely. The cargo should be transported by trains and keep the roadways clear for cars.

don't trains guzzle more diesel than trucks?

[Captain N]

don't trains guzzle more diesel than trucks?

In terms of raw usage of course. But you have to take into account the amount of freight being moved by a truck and a freight train. A majority of locomotive fuel consumption is wasted when starting the engine in extreme weather and when moving up to its maximum authorized speed. When the train reaches it's travel speed its almost no different than putting a car on cruise control. Fuel consumption is at its lowest.

[Masark]

don't trains guzzle more diesel than trucks?

In absolute terms, yes, but in terms of per unit of freight, trains come out way ahead.

[Kellhound]

The modern US infrastructure is not adequately designed to do this. And considering that the US is insufficient at even maintaining its roads from normal wear and tear, I don't really see the investment being put down for this. As it is, the system is very burdened and would probably not be capable of taking the reins back from highway infrastructure.

The US freight rail infrastructure is doing quite well, with sizable investments to address capacity issues where needed, especially Chicago, though it still needs work there.

- - - Updated - - -

The US is so big that it wouldn't be practical to put a rail depot within a hundred miles of everyone and it would tear up a lot of land. And even if you did put in the tremendous amount of rail to get within a hundred miles of everyone, you'd still need trucks to move cargo the hundred miles.

And cars can share the roads with trucks which is an added benefit, rails are for trains alone.

The amount of cargo moved by rail and truck has doubled in the last thirty years with rail moving less. But both rail and trucking are doing very well. Water born cargo is falling behind.

Problem with trucking is that you have to engineer your roads so well as to put up with all the weight of the trucks.

Railroads have shed well over 60% of their track since 1915, most of it in the mid-west.

- - - Updated - - -

That is........ false...

by mileage yes...... But not by efficiency....
it misses heaps of connection points and crisscrossing
Compare the network sizes with the country sizes, and you see why I the correct answer is false.

The US system is constrained by the lack of demand and environmentalist or it would haul more. As for efficiency, it is VERY efficient because most of its tonnage is in unit trains.

- - - Updated - - -

Railroad tracks per square mile.......... Count that....
Efficiency is to get goods from A to B as quick as it gets per rail. Now if you have no tracks at all for a hundred miles or more, you are no longer efficient. There is a reason why the transport of people per train in the US is barely to nonexistent.. Because it's inefficient, and or there aren't even tracks.

By connectivity both France and Germany have a larger railroad network than the US.... Both are smaller than the US, yet their networks are not proportionally smaller. And there too, ineffective routes are abandoned and removed.

Population density. Germany is 3X as densely populated as the US. Thats why it moves more people by train, but less freight. Those dense rail networks are for passengers.

- - - Updated - - -

Interstates were developed for trucks. They only later allowed cars to start using them.

Fuck off, car driver.

They were really designed to transport troops and military gear.

- - - Updated - - -

The largest problem is delivery to stores, malls, restaurants, etc. Unless you have rails going right up to each store, you'll still need trucks to deliver freight within at least a few miles. This would also mean more stops more the train, increasing rail traffic, and reducing efficiency dramatically as those take ages to both stop and get up to speed. So with those factors, you will never see trucking completely eradicated. A (relatively) small transport of freight with (relatively) high versatility is something that can't be replaced so easily.

Well, that is how railroads operated until the 1950s-1960s.

- - - Updated - - -

don't trains guzzle more diesel than trucks?

Trucks use over 10x the energy per ton-mile compared to Class 1 railroads.

[Collegeguy]

We've got the actual data on every incident involving Google's automated cars.

Rear ends and merging collisions are certainly avoidable accidents. I'm probably not a perfect driver, but I have avoided every adjacent lane merge collision experienced. For me, it was mostly old people that don't look when they switch lanes or realize they have a blind spot. The automated car looks like it failed to avoid.

There are hosts of other problems that I could fathom as well like sensor errors. Commercial airliners have been doing this for decades longer than google, and airliners have had many fatal crashes from sensors that are blocked by ice, water, or just faulty components. The cost, upkeep, and maintenance of such sensors is questionably not in the stomach for a commuter market and would need to be accounted for trucking too. Especially considering that you need to have a human in there regardless.

[Elegiac]

Rear ends and merging collisions are certainly avoidable accidents. I'm probably not a perfect driver, but I have avoided every adjacent lane merge collision experienced. For me, it was mostly old people that don't look when they switch lanes or realize they have a blind spot. The automated car looks like it failed to avoid.

There are hosts of other problems that I could fathom as well like sensor errors. Commercial airliners have been doing this for decades longer than google, and airliners have had many fatal crashes from sensors that are blocked by ice, water, or just faulty components. The cost, upkeep, and maintenance of such sensors is questionably not in the stomach for a commuter market and would need to be accounted for trucking too. Especially considering that you need to have a human in there regardless.

And yet on a proportionate basis aircraft accidents are several times less likely.

The technology is still nascent, that doesn't mean that it isn't viable. Hardware and software errors can be fixed; human errors (namely in the form of stupid/reckless drivers) can't.

[StayTuned]

Do want these trucks everywhere. And same with cars too.



So he tried to overtake a car while he was too close to it, and with someone being too close behind too?

Seems like a great choice by him.

Well, the way he explained it was that he was joining the Autobahn, getting some speed on the acceleration lane. He merged a couple of meters behind another car, which really isn't a problem, especially when you have space on the far left side. But the system saw a problem in it because he was too close while switching lanes, and started braking him off, while he tried to gain speed. Those 3/4 seconds of "wtf is going on?" are enough to have the car which was previously far away right behind you. When you have 350~ hp, getting to speeds is a joke, but getting none is a serious problem when you are in need.

Given, it was idiotic of him in my eyes to switch from the acceleration lane to the far left lane in one go. Usually this is a "I have a big car"-syndrome. It's always better to wait a couple of seconds on the right lane to be 100% sure nothing is coming from behind.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you sure people just really don't like those cars?

Almost every one was rear ended, revenge on our Skynet overlords !!

Yea it's like people can't drive properly :P

[Collegeguy]

And yet on a proportionate basis aircraft accidents are several times less likely.

The technology is still nascent, that doesn't mean that it isn't viable. Hardware and software errors can be fixed; human errors (namely in the form of stupid/reckless drivers) can't.

I doubt anybody thinks this is viable or not. I have a hard time understanding the use of that word. Although I would say a world with nothing but automated cars and no drivers is a fantasy. Computers right now are just too stupid, blind, and handicapped to never need human help.

When it comes to stupid/reckless drivers, automated cars will create their own problems with that. We all know someone is going to want to sleep in their automated car at some point.

[Bakis]

This is nice, but can we focus on killing long distance trucking period?

Dont say that around aussies

[ParanoiD84]

Just seems lazy as hell.

[Kasierith]

The US freight rail infrastructure is doing quite well, with sizable investments to address capacity issues where needed, especially Chicago, though it still needs work there.

I never said it wasn't. But the amount of expansions that would be required to replace the highway system pretty significantly exceeds volume expansions in Chicago.

[Kellhound]

I never said it wasn't. But the amount of expansions that would be required to replace the highway system pretty significantly exceeds volume expansions in Chicago.

That depends on how close you want the train to truck transload to be from its final destination. The issue with rail is its economy begins to break down the closer you get to small shippers, and is non existent when it comes to LCL anymore.

There is actually a good amount of routes that are either abandoned or vastly under used that could potentially be brought back to full use if traffic picked up. However, there is a reason 60% of the trackage from 1915 was pulled up, and there is a reason only 7 Class 1 railroads exists now compared to 174 in 1925.

[jimlow]

This could end up going very bad for the economy. According to a quick google search http://www.truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm thats 3.5 million jobs that would basically be going poof. Strictly speaking not sure how many of those people would be able to re-tool themselves for other types of employment. So that is a lot of people that will be jumping on the welfare bandwagon.

[Kasierith]

This could end up going very bad for the economy. According to a quick google search http://www.truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm thats 3.5 million jobs that would basically be going poof. Strictly speaking not sure how many of those people would be able to re-tool themselves for other types of employment. So that is a lot of people that will be jumping on the welfare bandwagon.

That I can see, they are still requiring truckers to be there; the big haul of hundreds of miles on straight roads is just being taken off their hands and placing them as passive observers.

[Masark]

The automated car looks like it failed to avoid.

How is the automated car supposed to avoid something while sitting at a red light?

[Rixis]

How is the automated car supposed to avoid something while sitting at a red light?

Drive into crossing traffic/pedestrians to avoid a low speed no/minimal damage collision, obviously

[imabanana]

Well, the way he explained it was that he was joining the Autobahn, getting some speed on the acceleration lane. He merged a couple of meters behind another car, which really isn't a problem, especially when you have space on the far left side. But the system saw a problem in it because he was too close while switching lanes, and started braking him off, while he tried to gain speed. Those 3/4 seconds of "wtf is going on?" are enough to have the car which was previously far away right behind you. When you have 350~ hp, getting to speeds is a joke, but getting none is a serious problem when you are in need.

Given, it was idiotic of him in my eyes to switch from the acceleration lane to the far left lane in one go. Usually this is a "I have a big car"-syndrome. It's always better to wait a couple of seconds on the right lane to be 100% sure nothing is coming from behind.

Yeah, idiotic and totally against the most basic safety distance rules. And sorry, but it is a problem, if the car in front brakes for any reason while he is behind, there's absolutely nothing he can do if he's that close. Having lots of hp isn't an excuse to put people lives at risks during the time you need to get to full speed.

btw:
Penalties for tailgating were increased in May 2006 to a maximum of €375 and three months license suspension: "drivers must keep a distance in meters that is equal to half their speed. For example, a driver going 100 kph on the autobahn must keep a distance of at least 50 meters (165 feet)". The penalty increase followed uproar after an infamous fatal crash on Autobahn 5 in 2003.

Even if he was only at 40km/h (which I doubt), that would mean 20 meters behind the other car. If you can't follow the rules when getting into traffic, you slow down until things are better (right lane is here for that on autobahn), not accelerate and force your way in ignoring every basic safety rules. And of course, "it's not my fault, it's the other (slow) driver, the road that's not made as it should be, the automated thingies in my car, the terrible laws, <insert another random excuse here>".


This kind of shit is *exactly* why I want automated cars to take over, especially on roads with really high or no speed limits like these.

Yea it's like people can't drive properly :P

Exactly.