SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill to require human drivers on board self-driving trucks, a measure that union leaders and truck drivers said would save hundreds of thousands of jobs in the state.
- queermunist she/her ( @queermunist@lemmy.ml ) 75•1 year ago
I’m sorry, but do people actually think human drivers in autonomous vehicles will make them safe?
Imagine sitting and watching a robot do its job for hours - do you think you’d be attentive to safety problems after all that time?
- °˖✧ ipha ✧˖° ( @ipha@lemm.ee ) 25•1 year ago
And the human driver would certainly be used as a scape goat should anything bad happen.
- Dem Bosain ( @DemBoSain@midwest.social ) English3•1 year ago
Can’t put a corporation in prison when they kill someone.
Yes. Tractors already have a number of built-in visual and audible alarms when the onboard sensors detect things like veering, severe pitch, and traffic. Oh, that and it’s a driver’s job to watch and respond to road conditions.
Not to also mention that student driver teachers perform a job like this already.
- queermunist she/her ( @queermunist@lemmy.ml ) 17•1 year ago
Tractors aren’t traffic. That’s clearly very different.
Student driver teachers, meanwhile, are teaching. That’s more than simply watching for mistakes, which would be an inhumanly boring job that I honestly don’t think anyone could do.
- termus ( @termus@beehaw.org ) English1•1 year ago
Security guards watch empty parking lots/tvs all night long.
- queermunist she/her ( @queermunist@lemmy.ml ) 4•1 year ago
Yeah, but they don’t need to react within seconds when there is a problem. They can zone out and nothing bad will happen.
A driver-operator needs to be hyper vigilant at all times and react within seconds to any problems because at any moment the software could fuck up and kill someone.
- spitfire ( @spitfire@infosec.pub ) 1•1 year ago
Which is why this veto is retarded
- queermunist she/her ( @queermunist@lemmy.ml ) 1•1 year ago
My point is that autonomous trucks shouldn’t be on the road, with or without drivers.
- SokathHisEyesOpen ( @Anticorp@lemmy.ml ) English20•1 year ago
Safety be damned! We have corporate profits to consider here.
- Blackmist ( @Blackmist@feddit.uk ) English18•1 year ago
Companies will put the staff back in the trucks when it becomes apparent how easy it is to stop them and steal everything from the back.
- michaelrose ( @michaelrose@lemmy.ml ) English2•1 year ago
Nobody is stopping trucks on the interstate. You could easily have one human minder escort 12-15 trucks outbound truck and a minder escort inbound trucks and spend most of the time on the interstate. Instead of a dozen drivers x 3 days you could use 1-4 hours of human labor total.
- Cethin ( @Cethin@lemmy.zip ) English21•1 year ago
Imagine a system were one driver could transport hundreds of trucks worth of cargo at once on preset routes. What an invention that would be…
- Blackmist ( @Blackmist@feddit.uk ) English6•1 year ago
You could even have the whole thing start and stop with one set of controls.
Get this idea to Elon immediately. He’ll have XRails running all over the country by 2050, from San Diego, all the way to, ooh, Los Angeles I suppose. Can’t imagine it would get much further than that before he gets bored of the idea.
- ours ( @ours@lemmy.film ) English6•1 year ago
Would be easier if set on its own dedicated track.
Something like… a slightly slower Hyperloop! At those speeds, the “pods” wouldn’t need to run in a pressurized tube. I’ll name it “OKLoop”.
- michaelrose ( @michaelrose@lemmy.ml ) 1•1 year ago
Yes we know trains exist trucks are used in addition for obvious reasons that won’t stop being true when we dont need drivers
- Umbrias ( @Umbrias@beehaw.org ) 1•1 year ago
In the context of this discussion, switching to trains isn’t really going to address the idea of people raiding the cargo haulers, in whatever shape they’re in.
- Cethin ( @Cethin@lemmy.zip ) English1•1 year ago
You’re right, but it’s because stealing cargo isn’t an issue. Trains are just a much safer and efficient method of transportation that also requires very few people.
- Umbrias ( @Umbrias@beehaw.org ) 1•1 year ago
There’s nothing really stopping people from doing that to human driven trucks either. Besides, if it’s ‘capacity to make the choice of running someone over’ you’re after, just have a dude at a control center watching ten different trucks with remote control overrides. Something arguably they would do regardless for many reasons.
- Blackmist ( @Blackmist@feddit.uk ) English1•1 year ago
I’m more thinking it’s a lesser crime to rob a driverless truck. No chance of being shot by a yee-haw Trump trucker while doing so. No need to be armed.
Just slow to a stop in front, open the back, take what you want. It’s practically a victimless crime.
- Umbrias ( @Umbrias@beehaw.org ) 2•1 year ago
I don’t think this is likely to happen regardless. Occasionally trucks are raided, though it’s rare in the us. More often in some places where there’s a lot more instability. But I don’t think the reason it’s rare in general is ‘because there’s a human at the wheel’, especially not the concern that they may be armed.
- Trev625 ( @Trev625@lemm.ee ) 17•1 year ago
“Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, head of the California Labor Federation, said driverless trucks are dangerous…” Well are they dangerous? Is there any data to back up that claim? And is there data to back up the claim that keeping the driver in the vehicle makes it safe again?
I hate this “save the jobs” attitude. How about we not save the jobs and pay them to get other jobs or even pay them to stay home?
- sour ( @sour@kbin.social ) 8•1 year ago
driverless trucks are dangerous
because trucks with drivers aren’t
._.
We’ve entered the Twilight zone. Where Ben Shapiro and Gavin Newsom are on the same side of a debate, and they’re fighting against Tucker Carlson and the unions.
Edit: piped link
- Dizzy Devil Ducky ( @AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee ) English12•1 year ago
Having a required human driver in the trucks for if/when the self-driving portion of the truck suddenly bugs out or gets into a situation where it cannot get itself free would probably save them a lot of headache and business when suddenly that truck gets into a situation it cannot correct itself.
Hell, we’ve already seen times when that would’ve saved lives like the time self driving taxis ended up blocking an ambulance en route.
- makeasnek ( @makeasnek@lemmy.ml ) 7•1 year ago
Funny to see the argument being made here that this idea is crazy because people “don’t have the attention span” to monitor the robot driving the car. Like yes, that’s exactly the point, people suck at driving and maintaining constant attention, and they are worse than they were 10-20 years ago thanks to cell phones and screens. One in every hundred people you know will literally die due to this problem. For most people that means several people you knew in high school are dead because of people’s inability to drive perfectly all the time. That’s just deaths, many more will get injured or maimed. It doesn’t have to be this way. The only way out of it aside from somehow designing better humans is self-driving cars. They are already orders of magnitude safer than humans and have been so for years. Do they have bugs? Yes. But if we replaced every car on the road with a self-driving car right now we’d see the death and maiming rate plummet.
For context: we shut down the global economy for a virus with an estimated 1% mortality rate. It was necessary to avoid hospital overwhelm and give us time to develop countermeasures. That’s the same mortality rate as driving. Obviously drivers are not overwhelming hospitals because the deaths are spread out over a longer time period. But nonetheless I think it’s an interesting comparison.
- janus2 ( @janus2@lemmy.sdf.org ) 2•1 year ago
[meta] this is a well-written comment that makes and argues several points relevant to the post and yet it got more downvotes than upvotes, which imho is some bullshit [/meta]