Autonomous Vehicles

[Amp34]

Yes but one serious accident could change opinion on that. Some of the stuff getting move around the UK is really bad for life. We need a level of responsibility and control that I don't think a machine can ever offer.

So have someone in those machines for “safety”, as there are for aeroplanes. They can take over if absolutely needed.

If there’s extremely valuable products in the back of an HGV have a security guard in the cab. They can take over if they think something dodgy is about to happen, or override the controls if there’s an ambush.

The vast majority of HGVs and even more passenger vehicles are not transporting extremely high value or dangerous goods. Those vehicles don’t need those sort of extra “safety” features.

Those features aren’t really needed for a lorry trundling along a main highway from depot to depot either, which is where automated HGVs are going to cut their teeth in the not to distant future, and where semi autonomous cars are already being driven.

 

[adam cool dude]

The problem is if the AI makes a mistake and crashes that company would become liable and would no longer be in the hands of the drivers. Said company would go bankrupt in no time. Insurance companies would just foot the bill to the car makers.

 

[adam cool dude]

So have someone in those machines for “safety”, as there are for aeroplanes. They can take over if absolutely needed.

If there’s extremely valuable products in the back of an HGV have a security guard in the cab. They can take over if they think something dodgy is about to happen, or override the controls if there’s an ambush.

The vast majority of HGVs and even more passenger vehicles are not transporting extremely high value or dangerous goods. Those vehicles don’t need those sort of extra “safety” features.

Those features aren’t really needed for a lorry trundling along a main highway from depot to depot either, which is where automated HGVs are going to cut their teeth in the not to distant future, and where semi autonomous cars are already being driven.

So you are paying someone to sit in a lorry anyway they might as well drive. You make it sound like lorry drivers get paid a fortune and an operator can get paid minimum wage. They would get paid near enough if not the same.

 

[jigger]

So have someone in those machines for “safety”, as there are for aeroplanes. They can take over if absolutely needed.

If there’s extremely valuable products in the back of an HGV have a security guard in the cab. They can take over if they think something dodgy is about to happen, or override the controls if there’s an ambush.

The vast majority of HGVs and even more passenger vehicles are not transporting extremely high value or dangerous goods. Those vehicles don’t need those sort of extra “safety” features.

Those features aren’t really needed for a lorry trundling along a main highway from depot to depot either, which is where automated HGVs are going to cut their teeth in the not to distant future, and where semi autonomous cars are already being driven.

Maybe, although I'm not sure a driver sat twiddling his thumbs is good idea or something that should be encouraged. Security is already a thing with some loads.

One thing for sure, we can make transport safer with technology to assist drivers and doing something to improve standards could make a big difference.

 

[Amp34]

So you are paying someone to sit in a lorry anyway they might as well drive. You make it sound like lorry drivers get paid a fortune and an operator can get paid minimum wage. They would get paid near enough the same.

No, I’m saying, specifically to jigger, that there are ways to make sure any malfunction can be worked around in certain instances (such as extremely dangerous goods being transported).

The driver would be statistically more dangerous in general than the AI, so putting them in the driving seat for the entire journey would be counter intuitive, BUT having someone that can take over in certain circumstances (such as jiggers “malfunction”) as a redundancy could be an option in those scenarios.

 

[Amp34]

Maybe, although I'm not sure a driver sat twiddling his thumbs is good idea or something that should be encouraged. Security is already a thing with some loads.

One thing for sure, we can make transport safer with technology to assist drivers and doing something to improve standards could make a big difference.

So we’re basically back to someone monitoring the computer, sitting twiddling their thumbs on the off chance they’re needed.

In my example the “driver” would literally just be there for the extremely small chance the vehicle “malfunctions”. Then they can press the “big red button” and bring it safely to a standstill.

 

[jigger]

So we’re basically back to someone monitoring the computer, sitting twiddling their thumbs on the off chance they’re needed.

In my example the “driver” would literally just be there for the extremely small chance the vehicle “malfunctions”. Then they can press the “big red button” and bring it safely to a standstill.

I think offering as much assistance to the driver as possible is better than having someone bored to tears.

It's probably worth mentioning most HGV drivers would need very little assistance if any. Having the computer monitoring inxperinced lorry drivers would offer something to the industry. My Dad used to turn down a lot of applicants because of lack of experience. Maybe a wagon that offered extra layers of safety would be worth the cost.

 

[Amp34]

I think offering as much assistance to the driver as possible is better than having someone bored to tears is a better situation.

But we’re back to the statistical mismatch. The computer taking over from a driver entirely is safer. There are plenty of other jobs where the main point of their job is to just observer and be there “just in case”. There’s no reason vehicle “minders” can’t be the same in those specific scenarios (the “dangerous/high value goods). For most other vehicles there no reason to have a person in the vehicle at all.

Have a look into DLR “passenger service agents”. Their job is not to drive the trains, they’re there to deal with passengers, close the doors and press the “big red button” in case of emergencies.

 

[jigger]

But we’re back to the statistical mismatch. The computer taking over from a driver entirely is safer. There are plenty of other jobs where the main point of their job is to just observer and be there “just in case”. There’s no reason vehicle “minders” can’t be the same in those specific scenarios (the “dangerous/high value goods). For most other vehicles there no reason to have a person in the vehicle at all.

Have a look into DLR “passenger service agents”. Their job is not to drive the trains, they’re there to deal with passengers, close the doors and press the “big red button” in case of emergencies.

You need a driver with good skills and a high level of experience. One danger with drivers becoming passengers is it will take longer to gain both. Plus people need things like rest and sleep.

 

[Amp34]

You need a driver with good skills and a high level of experience. One danger with drivers becoming passengers is it will take longer to gain both. Plus people need things like rest and sleep.

Why? The only job of the operator in the examples above would be to bring the vehicle safely to a stop, or in the security example perhaps tell it not to stop. They wouldn’t be “driving” for more than a few seconds. Neither would particularly require them to be highly experienced at actually driving.

If they really need experience then they can always get it in training simulators where hey can practice scenarios where they would be required to take over in a safe environment. This is pretty standard in other industries.

Again this sort of requirement would be such a minor use case it’s pretty irrelevant to the general logistics and passenger vehicle industry.

 

[jigger]

Why? The only job of the operator in the examples above would be to bring the vehicle safely to a stop, or in the security example perhaps tell it not to stop. They wouldn’t be “driving” for more than a few seconds. Neither would particularly require them to be highly experienced at actually driving.

If they really need experience then they can always get it in training simulators.

Again this sort of requirement would be such a minor use case it’s pretty irrelevant to the general logistics and passenger vehicle industry.

HGV driving is a skilled job. I know some people think any goon can jump in a drive one but that's really not the case.

 

[Amp34]

Yes, but the point is they wouldn’t be driving...

 

[jigger]

Yes, but the point is they wouldn’t be driving...

And maybe they should.

 

[Simon]

So they are asleep and need to emergency brake ? The whole advantage is not having a driver. As soon as you need a human in there then it is pointless.

 

[Simon]

Yes, but the point is they wouldn’t be driving...

Lol just get anyone in to take over a hgv when it goes wrong. Easy

Some of the posts in here sound like a politicians simplistic view of the world.

 

[Amp34]

Lol just get anyone in to take over a hgv when it goes wrong. Easy

Some of the posts in here sound like a politicians simplistic view of the world.

We’re discussing an extreme scenario.

Something along the lines of a vehicle transporting bromide or nuclear waste where there may be a requirement for an operator/technician to intervene once every one or two million miles. That intervention may involve pressing a few buttons/starting a procedure to force the vehicle to stop safely in the event of a malfunction. It would be be a very different job to the one current HGV drivers do.

 

[jigger]

We’re discussing an extreme scenario.

Something along the lines of a vehicle transporting bromide or nuclear waste where there may be a requirement for an operator/technician to intervene once every one or two million miles. That intervention may involve pressing a few buttons/starting a procedure to force the vehicle to stop safely in the event of a malfunction. It would be be a very different job to the one current HGV drivers do.

Unclear waste isn't much of an added risk and IIRC most is moved on rails. The containment vessels are almost indestrucable. SAM is another thing but again the containment is robust and has a military or police escort.

The real danger is 45 tonnes of lorry and the carnage loss of control brings esspecailly in the wrong hands.

 

[Simon]

We’re discussing an extreme scenario.

Something along the lines of a vehicle transporting bromide or nuclear waste where there may be a requirement for an operator/technician to intervene once every one or two million miles. That intervention may involve pressing a few buttons/starting a procedure to force the vehicle to stop safely in the event of a malfunction. It would be be a very different job to the one current HGV drivers do.

But surely the operation hours are limited by the fact you need a human awake and aware of what’s going on. So a guy is going to get paid to sit there for a million miles incase he’s needed ?

 

[Amp34]

So basically a scenario where a person in the cab would be “needed” would be very rare.

Gotcha.

@jigger

 

[Amp34]

But surely the operation hours are limited by the fact you need a human awake and aware of what’s going on. So a guy is going to get paid to sit there for a million miles incase he’s needed ?

Again, we’re talking about a rarely required scenario, not an HGV trip taking goods to a supermarket.

For many of these scenarios there are already special precautions and procedures in place (such as police escort as jigger mentioned) so operational hours of the driver wouldn’t be a problem.

99.9% of journeys would not have a anyone in the cab at all.

It’s all theoretical anyway as this is probably 30 years in the future. A time where there will be a lot more data to work with in deciding exact procedures for this kind of scenario.

It’s a world away from HGVs trundling up and down main roads from depot to depot with bread, milk and building materials in their trailers, which is where the automation will start.