Freightliner Inspiration Truck Unveiled at Hoover Dam(freightlinerinspiration.com)
freightlinerinspiration.com
Freightliner Inspiration Truck Unveiled at Hoover Dam
http://www.freightlinerinspiration.com/newsroom/press/inspiration-truck-unveiled/
52 comments
for what it worth - tried to find story about lawsuit you mentioned, when stumbled upon this - http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html :)
So, if I understand this, there is still a human in the truck, they're just not driving most of the time?
This has just unlocked a dream for me. Imagine having a remote working kind of job (like, say a programmer). You could pretty much just do your job from the cabin of a long-haul truck pausing only occasionally to top up on fuel or drive through messy conditions the computer can't handle. It's an introvert dream come true.
this will go in the other direction though - drones are remotely controlled, fleets of trucks will be as well. one operator, 25 trucks, only need to take over for special tasks.
depended on network coverage, yes, but most trucks move between well covered, urbanized areas.
depended on network coverage, yes, but most trucks move between well covered, urbanized areas.
yes, for example for all parts of the route that are not on a highway.
They have the numbers that it's less stressful work, which they'll no doubt manage to compensate for soon enough with more work. They can also collect data that may help automating larger parts of the route. Or evidence that machines are more reliable than humans (making the case for building these things without a driver's seat)
They have the numbers that it's less stressful work, which they'll no doubt manage to compensate for soon enough with more work. They can also collect data that may help automating larger parts of the route. Or evidence that machines are more reliable than humans (making the case for building these things without a driver's seat)
Basically, these drivers get first seat tickets to watching their jobs slowly being taken away from them by machines.
In terms of what order to automate things away, truck driving isn't quite as bad as fruit picking or the more dangerous bits of the construction industry, but it's demanding, lonely, and unhealthy. I don't know how the US regulates awakeness, but in the EU there are strict limits on how long truck drivers can be on shift for. If they can sleep in the middle long-distance sections and drive the narrower local roads at the end, that reduces the need for sleep stops.
Or maybe the secret is that it's being remote controlled by players of the inexplicably popular Euro Truck Simulator.
Or maybe the secret is that it's being remote controlled by players of the inexplicably popular Euro Truck Simulator.
| Or maybe the secret is that it's being remote controlled by players of the inexplicably popular Euro Truck Simulator.
That would explain the mystery of titles like Forklift Simulator, Firetruck Simulator, Farming Simulator, Train Simulator and Car Mechanic Simulator :-)
That would explain the mystery of titles like Forklift Simulator, Firetruck Simulator, Farming Simulator, Train Simulator and Car Mechanic Simulator :-)
Surgeon Simulator and Goat Simulator to extend this into the ridiculous :)
Maximum of 11 hours driving after 10 consecutive hours off-duty, and no driving after 14 hours of coming on duty.
it's demanding, lonely, and unhealthy
That's one point of view. Some people love it.
That's one point of view. Some people love it.
Can't the same thing be said about pilots though? They spend something like 1% of the total flight time actually controlling the plane, everything else is automated. Yet we can't actually get rid of them,because you always need to have someone who knows what to do in case of an emergency. I imagine it will be the same with truck drivers.
Yeah, it's just a lot worse in the case of a truck than a plane. In a plane for 99% of the flight you've got MINUTES to deal with errors and avert a crash, since you're several miles up in the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadstick_landing
When you're in a truck everything seems to be OK until some kind of non-obvious corner case comes up and BOOM! "you" (the truck) just crashed into a car and killed a family.
Not a job I'd want since you probably have all the liability for the problems and none of the time to react that you'd want. Watching a truck drive itself -- if you're on call to jump in and try and avert a disaster -- is probably more stressful than just driving it yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadstick_landing
When you're in a truck everything seems to be OK until some kind of non-obvious corner case comes up and BOOM! "you" (the truck) just crashed into a car and killed a family.
Not a job I'd want since you probably have all the liability for the problems and none of the time to react that you'd want. Watching a truck drive itself -- if you're on call to jump in and try and avert a disaster -- is probably more stressful than just driving it yourself.
This is old trope, and wrong. Small reminder that 100% of takeoffs and a vast majority of landings are flown by hand. That "1% of the total flight time" may be hand-flying the plane (ie, hands on stick and throttle), but all the flying that you're discounting in your 99% is still something that the pilot needs to handle. They need to manage the automation, the FMS, ATC, etc.
Patrick Smith (ask the pilot) has a number of good criticisms [0][1] of this "1%" trope.
[0]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/opinion/why-pilots-still-m...
[1]http://www.askthepilot.com/pilotless-planes/
Patrick Smith (ask the pilot) has a number of good criticisms [0][1] of this "1%" trope.
[0]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/opinion/why-pilots-still-m...
[1]http://www.askthepilot.com/pilotless-planes/
Thanks, this is genuinely very informative, I had no idea.
A truck could just stop at the shoulder when something goes wrong and wait for assistance, while a plane still has to land, which is anything but easy, depending on the circumstances.
Like the other person pointed out - if you have a problem with a plane and the autopilot disengages, a pilot has minutes(sometimes several) to figure out what is going on and land the plane safely. If an automated truck is driving on a highway and one of the tyres blows out, the time between autopilot disengaging and the truck moving into opposite lane and colliding with someone head-on is measured in seconds. Obviously, there is no guarantee that a human driver would handle it better, but it's a real problem with automated cars.
no guarantee that a human driver would handle it better
Assuming the control system is smart enough to cope with changes in control authority, it's got to be better - it has much faster reactions and direct access to the tyre pressure data.
A system where the autopilot disengages and gives up control without having confirmation that the human has taken over (by giving a control input) is an obvious danger though.
Assuming the control system is smart enough to cope with changes in control authority, it's got to be better - it has much faster reactions and direct access to the tyre pressure data.
A system where the autopilot disengages and gives up control without having confirmation that the human has taken over (by giving a control input) is an obvious danger though.
Wait, but with the right sensors, a computer could respond way faster and better than a human, provided it has the right programming on what to do in specific conditions. That data could be aggregated from crash tests and actual drivers around the world.
>>provided it has the right programming on what to do in specific conditions
That's my exact point - you can't hard code in every single possible problem. And in case autopilot doesn't have sufficient data or programming to handle the situation it has no other choice but relinquish control to the driver, at a moments notice. Of course it could always try breaking with full force, but a) breaks might be damaged b) breaking is actually a bad idea, if any of the wheels are on a soft surface(like in my example, after a tyre blowout the truck has moved closed enough to the edge that wheels on one side are now on grass - applying maximum breaking force in this situation will actually tip over the truck, the correct solution is to keep going until the truck slows down by itself). The truck might not know what surface it's on or where it's going(say a bird hit the laser sensor on top), so the autopilot would fail spectacularly in this situation, which would not be very difficult for an experienced driver to handle.
That's my exact point - you can't hard code in every single possible problem. And in case autopilot doesn't have sufficient data or programming to handle the situation it has no other choice but relinquish control to the driver, at a moments notice. Of course it could always try breaking with full force, but a) breaks might be damaged b) breaking is actually a bad idea, if any of the wheels are on a soft surface(like in my example, after a tyre blowout the truck has moved closed enough to the edge that wheels on one side are now on grass - applying maximum breaking force in this situation will actually tip over the truck, the correct solution is to keep going until the truck slows down by itself). The truck might not know what surface it's on or where it's going(say a bird hit the laser sensor on top), so the autopilot would fail spectacularly in this situation, which would not be very difficult for an experienced driver to handle.
>The truck might not know what surface it's on
The truck should have a notably better feel for the surface than a human.
>say a bird hit the laser sensor on top
Say a bird hits the human driver in the face?
The truck should have a notably better feel for the surface than a human.
>say a bird hit the laser sensor on top
Say a bird hits the human driver in the face?
I've never considered that, I thought they're there to please the government/bureaucracy (need to have a human, etc.). And judging by some of the latest plane crashes, a complete autopilot may not be that bad of an idea.
In case of trucks, I've always liked the idea of a convoy with one manned truck and several automated drones - seems like a good compromise.
In case of trucks, I've always liked the idea of a convoy with one manned truck and several automated drones - seems like a good compromise.
>> And judging by some of the latest plane crashes, a complete autopilot may not be that bad of an idea
Well no - the problem with problems is that you can never predict all of them, and complete autopilot would either need to exhibit strong AI to deal with all(not possible right now) or have them all coded in(also not possible). Not to mention that complete power loss can, and has happened before - even if the steering still has power, without a computer running it won't do much good without someone who can move the stick. Or look at the landing on the Hudson River - would any computer ever decide to try it? I think the answer is no. If we had a ridiculously good AI, I think it would decide to crash land the plane somewhere with no people. River has people. There were bridges in the way. AI might not be 100% capable of gliding the plane with no engine trust and broken sensors -it would have simply not tried that landing. That plane only landed safely because the captain had experience with gliders and knew what to do.
Well no - the problem with problems is that you can never predict all of them, and complete autopilot would either need to exhibit strong AI to deal with all(not possible right now) or have them all coded in(also not possible). Not to mention that complete power loss can, and has happened before - even if the steering still has power, without a computer running it won't do much good without someone who can move the stick. Or look at the landing on the Hudson River - would any computer ever decide to try it? I think the answer is no. If we had a ridiculously good AI, I think it would decide to crash land the plane somewhere with no people. River has people. There were bridges in the way. AI might not be 100% capable of gliding the plane with no engine trust and broken sensors -it would have simply not tried that landing. That plane only landed safely because the captain had experience with gliders and knew what to do.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
It's not like all pilots without that much glider experience are 'unsafe' because they can't recover in that extremely particular set of circumstances.
Even if we ignore the possibility of remote control, you don't need an autopilot that's better in every way than every existing pilot. You just need one that's better than the average pilot.
It's not like all pilots without that much glider experience are 'unsafe' because they can't recover in that extremely particular set of circumstances.
Even if we ignore the possibility of remote control, you don't need an autopilot that's better in every way than every existing pilot. You just need one that's better than the average pilot.
That is just deeply untrue. Even if automatic pilots had statistically less accidents than real ones, any accident caused by machine error would be greatly publicized, and manufacturer of the autopilot would have to pay $$$ in damages.
Let's use a different argument, just for the sake of it. Let's assume there exists a medical device, which never fails on its own, but due to operator errors 1/10000 patients who use this machine die.
Now someone makes a fully automated machine,but due to problems with programming it kills 1/100000 patients it treats(completely on random). Even though it's 10x better than your average operator, such machine would be banned from the market quicker than you can say "litigation". In our society human errors are much more easily forgiven than computer errors, because everyone believes that they could have been prevented. And therefore, a truck autopilot wouldn't need to be just better than your average driver - it would need to be absolutely perfect. And I don't think we are ready for perfect yet.
Let's use a different argument, just for the sake of it. Let's assume there exists a medical device, which never fails on its own, but due to operator errors 1/10000 patients who use this machine die.
Now someone makes a fully automated machine,but due to problems with programming it kills 1/100000 patients it treats(completely on random). Even though it's 10x better than your average operator, such machine would be banned from the market quicker than you can say "litigation". In our society human errors are much more easily forgiven than computer errors, because everyone believes that they could have been prevented. And therefore, a truck autopilot wouldn't need to be just better than your average driver - it would need to be absolutely perfect. And I don't think we are ready for perfect yet.
People are stupid, but insurance companies are less stupid. It can be made to work, you just need enough of a profit potential for people to put up with the hassle.
"judging by some of the latest plane crashes, a complete autopilot may not be that bad of an idea."
Until something[0] goes catastrophically wrong. The FMS on that flight threw so many errors that it couldn't compute landing performance metrics. In other words, because it couldn't handle the sheer number of aircraft system failures, it couldn't tell the pilots if the plane would be able to land on the runway and not overshoot it. The pilots hand to manually select which errors to override in order to have the system run its calculations.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32
Until something[0] goes catastrophically wrong. The FMS on that flight threw so many errors that it couldn't compute landing performance metrics. In other words, because it couldn't handle the sheer number of aircraft system failures, it couldn't tell the pilots if the plane would be able to land on the runway and not overshoot it. The pilots hand to manually select which errors to override in order to have the system run its calculations.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32
If you think the only role of a truck driver is to steer and press the pedals you are terribly mistaken. That is the easy part to automate.
for many package companies, think UPS/FedEx the automation of the long haul combined with automated yard facilities will certain come to bear. The loading and unloading occurs once the trailer is parked and that parking and moving to staging can be automated as well; providing the union agrees.
however many truck drivers usually are tasked with loading and unloading their trailers, most likely to occur when flat beds are picking up special cargo. Movers also tend to be part of the work crew as well. More than one friend has ventured in trucking only to return when they realized the amount of hard labor, if not dangerous labor they faced.
however many truck drivers usually are tasked with loading and unloading their trailers, most likely to occur when flat beds are picking up special cargo. Movers also tend to be part of the work crew as well. More than one friend has ventured in trucking only to return when they realized the amount of hard labor, if not dangerous labor they faced.
What's the hard part?
Navigating the endpoint/dock/whatever.
This makes me think that we'll end up with truck drivers who are more like tugboat captains. They know their distribution center and as automated trucks come in and park on the edge, they then do the fiddly work of getting it lined up at the right time to the right loading bay.
I disagree. That could be automated exactly like 'self-parking cars' which has been a feature in some luxury cars for a while now.
The most challenging part mentally is accurate trip planning. Drivers try to predict exactly when to move to ensure an on-time delivery and have too many variables to do this with high accuracy. Then they will typically falsify logs and run illegally to make the logs match the date and time stamped documentation (toll reciepts, times stamped on delivery reciepts, etc).
I think that you'll find large trucking companies are happy to keep using cheap expendable labor, who will willingly bend the rules, as this gives the companies the plausible deniability they want.
The most challenging part mentally is accurate trip planning. Drivers try to predict exactly when to move to ensure an on-time delivery and have too many variables to do this with high accuracy. Then they will typically falsify logs and run illegally to make the logs match the date and time stamped documentation (toll reciepts, times stamped on delivery reciepts, etc).
I think that you'll find large trucking companies are happy to keep using cheap expendable labor, who will willingly bend the rules, as this gives the companies the plausible deniability they want.
Bah.. re-train them into knowledge workers while they sit there.. Provide them with a wireless workstation and they can do all kinds of other interesting work for the company while they sit there for hours on end..
Better than staring at the road..
Better than staring at the road..
Brilliant idea! Just give them one of these and a laptop and let them learn some coding on Codecademy while on the road: http://www.amazon.com/AutoExec-Wheelmate-Steering-Attachable...
Speaking as someone who is sometimes on that road in a vehicle that is much smaller than a truck, I would strongly prefer that they keep staring at that road, and everything else on it.
I'm in such a vehicle too, and I think you're crazy to want that. If they spend 6 hours unnecessarily staring at the road while autopilot is on, they're not going to be anywhere near peak driving condition when they do take over.
Heh, yeah they could definitely learn some other profession while monitoring the truck. But it would probably be against the rules or downright illegal...
Interesting.. I always assumed the first iteration of this would be on separated lanes that ran alongside highways.. Maybe once they go full drone (never go full drone) that's what they will have to do, depending on public opinion..
I believe cost per mile for a lane of highway starts in the millions range and can get towards the billion range going through cities. Thats assuming you can even get the land at any price.
What I am really looking forward too is RVs with this technology.
Simply load up the family, drive to freeway, and let the RV take over, and hang out in the back for 8 hours while going to your destination.
Simply load up the family, drive to freeway, and let the RV take over, and hang out in the back for 8 hours while going to your destination.
This is also what farm equipment automation is currently taking. A human drives the tractor/combine/* into the field hits "Go" on a screen and turns around to watch what the implement is doing.
Calling this thing “The Inspiration” is the most uninspiring thing about this truck. It's difficult to make it through the video with all of the buzzwords.
Seems like a huge missed opportunity, because it’s a pretty impressive accomplishment.
Seems like a huge missed opportunity, because it’s a pretty impressive accomplishment.
Not that you're wrong, but I don't think you're the target market. The people who eventually buy these trucks probably eat all that up, since it's probably pretty new to them.
Why no pictures?
Is this article missing photos or is it just the mobile version that's missing them?
It's a straight text press release, I found a Car and Driver gallery here: http://www.caranddriver.com/photo-gallery/the-trucks-are-ali... - the truck pretty much looks like a semi truck, the interesting thing to me is the image I linked to, which is the UI for 'highway pilot' mode.
Since using the Hoover Dam as a projection screen is probably cooler than the actual truck, I dug up a link that show it. Full article, but the photo in question is halfway down [0].
edit: Found more background and pictures on the projection. Started a new thread so as not to hijack [1].
[0] http://www.trucknews.com/mobile-and-it/freightliners-autonom...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9504958
edit: Found more background and pictures on the projection. Started a new thread so as not to hijack [1].
[0] http://www.trucknews.com/mobile-and-it/freightliners-autonom...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9504958
Am I being irrational or is anyone else infuriated by the use of "an historic"? No one would ever say "an history", why do people say this?
> A historic is more common in both American and British English, but both usages are sufficiently common to be considered correct.
http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w005.html
http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w005.html
I'm sure that I am in the minority, but for some reason "a historic" sounds like it should be an adjective meaning "non-historic" (like "apolitical" or "amoral").
Does anyone else see the possibility of seeing some very strange activities associated with drivers with way too much time on their hands being reported in the near future?
I've seen some pretty wild things going down highways but the possibilities are endless with autopilot.