Driverless lorries,,,,

[growingvegetables]

Ummm ...

.... Just look at all the people the economy supports who don't create, produce or manage anything tangible...

... don't know where to start.

 

[classic33]

[QUOTE 4933996, member: 9609"]As for loosing drivings jobs within haulage - there is already a driver shortage and it is going to get much much worse, most drivers are in their fifties and sixties and can't wait to retire as the job is just horrible now. Very few young people coming into the industry; who wants to work 70+ hours a week for less than the minimum, sleep in a laybys and have a carrier bag to crap in. If you see a young bloke driving a truck he is more than likely east european working for money in conditions no one here would get out of their beds for. The industry is a disgrace. It used to be a great job you could make money at, it is not like that any more, pushed to the limit and treated like something that has been stood in, quicker it is all automated the better and safer.[/QUOTE]
Don't think of it as driverless lorries, with one "driver" as a back-up, in each additional one. Think of it as the lead driver having the responsibility of every lorry in the convoy behind them, on their shoulders.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I hope the lorries aren't being designed by Mercedes...

"One of the biggest debates about driverless cars concerns the moral choices made when programming a car’s algorithms. Say the car is spinning out of control, and on course to hit a crowd queuing at a bus stop. It can correct its course, but in doing so, it’ll kill a cyclist for sure. What does it do? Mercedes’s answer to this take on the classic Trolley Problem is to hit whichever one is least likely to hurt the people inside its cars. If that means taking out a crowd of kids waiting for the bus, then so be it."
​

(From https://www.fastcompany.com/3064539...d-to-sacrifice-pedestrians-to-save-the-driver )

 

[Drago]

Another point. The command of a very heavy road vehicle should only be trusted to the creme de la creme. Only the most skilled, most conscientious, most safety aware drivers should take control of such weapons, and they should be rewarded appropriately.

However, the industry pays peanuts, and as a consequence only monkeys apply, and these folk couldn't care less. Loons are left to pilot office blocks on wheels, which can end with the consequences we saw at the weekend where the bad driving of two such people resulted in multiple deaths.

The industry should be ashamed of the situation it has created and which it perpetuates and worsens.

 

[Smartarse]

So the objection to driverless lorries is it leads to one driver in charge of multiple wagons, lowering costs, cutting emissions and putting lorry drivers out of work.

But there's no objection to putting freight onto trains with one driver in charge of multiple wagons, lowering costs, cutting emissions and putting lorry drivers out of work.

Seems legit.

 

[Salty seadog]

The whole idea is driven by nothing but money. I agree with @Drago. It is a worldwide shame that those of us who get our hands dirty are are under constant attack from those who could provide the soap.

 

[classic33]

I hope the lorries aren't being designed by Mercedes...

"One of the biggest debates about driverless cars concerns the moral choices made when programming a car’s algorithms. Say the car is spinning out of control, and on course to hit a crowd queuing at a bus stop. It can correct its course, but in doing so, it’ll kill a cyclist for sure. What does it do? Mercedes’s answer to this take on the classic Trolley Problem is to hit whichever one is least likely to hurt the people inside its cars. If that means taking out a crowd of kids waiting for the bus, then so be it."
​

(From https://www.fastcompany.com/3064539...d-to-sacrifice-pedestrians-to-save-the-driver )

Hopes are dashed for the trials this year.

 

[John the Monkey]

Actually, comparing the track record of lorry drivers in London with that of the developing autonomous cars in the US, I'd say that vulnerable road users could be a lot better off relying on electronics. One (but only one) specific aspect is the ability of the electronics to continuously monitor and assimilate multiple inputs.

It's the assumptions of the people building the algorithms too, for my money. Given how heavily motor centric our culture is, and how little the perspective of cyclists and pedestrians appears in other areas of design related to road transport, I'd be worried about those attitudes being carried over into the code controlling those things. (Or more likely, situations involving pedestrians and cyclists simply not being thought about).

There's also the possibility of a legal framework surrounding these things being built to prioritise and enable them, rather than to protect other road users above all, given the vast sums of money involved.

 

[John the Monkey]

And while we ponder the technicalities, would it trivialise the question if one asked how truck drivers left on JSA could possibly afford the stuff the robot trucks deliver?

The CEOs of these companies will be getting a lot of new granite countertops in their yachts though, and they still need delivering.

 

[classic33]

It's the assumptions of the people building the algorithms too, for my money. Given how heavily motor centric our culture is, and how little the perspective of cyclists and pedestrians appears in other areas of design related to road transport, I'd be worried about those attitudes being carried over into the code controlling those things. (Or more likely, situations involving pedestrians and cyclists simply not being thought about).

There's also the possibility of a legal framework surrounding these things being built to prioritise and enable them, rather than to protect other road users above all, given the vast sums of money involved.

There's always the "vote with the feet" option. Take your business elswhere.

Odd how the two main transport associations, the RHA & FTA don't appear to be willing to come out in support of the system.

 

[John the Monkey]

I hope the lorries aren't being designed by Mercedes...

"One of the biggest debates about driverless cars concerns the moral choices made when programming a car’s algorithms. Say the car is spinning out of control, and on course to hit a crowd queuing at a bus stop. It can correct its course, but in doing so, it’ll kill a cyclist for sure. What does it do? Mercedes’s answer to this take on the classic Trolley Problem is to hit whichever one is least likely to hurt the people inside its cars. If that means taking out a crowd of kids waiting for the bus, then so be it."
​

(From https://www.fastcompany.com/3064539...d-to-sacrifice-pedestrians-to-save-the-driver )

Depends what drives that algorithm - (regulatory regime, cultural assumptions by those building the code, etc etc) for example, make it favour a less expensive (in terms of insurance payout) crash, and it may not be good news for the driver after all.

 

[swansonj]

....
There's also the possibility of a legal framework surrounding these things being built to prioritise and enable them, rather than to protect other road users above all, given the vast sums of money involved.

My guess is the first effect of autonomous or semi-autonomous motor vehicles will be an improvement in cyclist and pedestrian safety as they will be programmed to avoid other users and will be better at it than human drivers.

Then, once people realise that their cars and lorries are being slowed down by the need to avoid other road users (and actually to do so effectively unlike the present position) there will be increased pressure to ban us from more and more roads.

In particular, once pedestrians and cyclist realise that stepping/pulling out in front of an autonomous vehicle is remarkably safe, because such vehicles, unlike human drivers, will always stop, they will start doing so. And once that starts happening, the car-centric majority will not long put up constant stops to their journey.

 

[classic33]

My guess is the first effect of autonomous or semi-autonomous motor vehicles will be an improvement in cyclist and pedestrian safety as they will be programmed to avoid other users and will be better at it than human drivers.

Then, once people realise that their cars and lorries are being slowed down by the need to avoid other road users (and actually to do so effectively unlike the present position) there will be increased pressure to ban us from more and more roads.

In particular, once pedestrians and cyclist realise that stepping/pulling out in front of an autonomous vehicle is remarkably safe, because such vehicles, unlike human drivers, will always stop, they will start doing so. And once that starts happening, the car-centric majority will not long put up constant stops to their journey.

That last part may just be the necessary evil they've to put up with for their choice of transport.

 

[classic33]

Interesting to see that the same issue, hacking into the system, has been raised.

Like the driverless cars "this wasn't possible". As a result it wasn't considered, for a second time with lorries.

 

[swansonj]

That last part may just be the necessary evil they've to put up with for their choice of transport.

That may be yours and my perspective, but I somehow doubt it will be the perspective of the car using - and voting - majority.