Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Talk about moving goalposts, now you've backpedaled from "reducing traffic" to minimizing the increase to traffic based on "what otherwise would have been". You can't do that because without the subway there would have been better road infrastructure.
Show me stats where absolute number of cars or traffic congestion decreased over a 5 year period. Probably there's not even a one year period but recessions can sometimes have an effect.
You're right. That's exactly what I was doing since I was equating reducing traffic with reducing the amount of cars that would otherwise be needed. I now understand what you and Ziggy are saying (i.e. there were fewer cars after an implementation than there were before), and my examples were talking to something different. My fault.
I don't see any articles, or links to one. However, I'll say this, in response to what would make an EV "acceptable"....the ability to go 1000 miles on a charge, and the ability to fully recharge in no more than 2 hours, without costing any more than it would currently cost, to drive an ICE powered vehicle the same 1000 miles.
Moderator note: Link added later.
very few people drive 1000 miles in a day so that is a unnecessary requirement......400-450 would be more than enough
Forward engine design in a truck, with big grilles, wheel wells and ground clearances that allow air and elements under the hood, is completely different than designing a boat with an enclosed mid or rear-engine design.
Those who actually work in the industry and on this exact issue do not think it's so easy. (I'm not one of them who is tasked with solving that problem, I just work with those people who do on a daily basis and they don't seem as optimistic as you when it comes to making those systems run trouble-free.)
NoX sensors are the biggest sensor issue trucks have and those are fully enclosed parts. Maybe the supply base is just not up-to-speed in the truck business, who knows, but nobody in this business thinks self driving trucks are coming anytime soon.
The truck problem in the sun belt is a relative piece of cake. So that is where it happens first. And the truck problem is vastly easier than the automobile. You simply have a much less cost sensitivity and there are lots of partial implementations that will likely be workable.
The truck problem in the sun belt is a relative piece of cake. So that is where it happens first. And the truck problem is vastly easier than the automobile. You simply have a much less cost sensitivity and there are lots of partial implementations that will likely be workable.
There is still a driver in those trucks - and they will be taking control in certain situations. That's not what I'd call "self driving."
I've driven numerous cars and trucks (including tractor trailers) with these forward and blind spot sensors and they are not ready to be "self driving" yet. Even aside from a mechanical breakdown concern, the sensors, etc, still report too many false positives or miss things that can lead to an accident.
Getting them to handle 95% of the situations is easy. Getting them to handle that last 5% is really, really hard and until that happens they won't even pursue the government for approval. (This is what one of the top execs at Freightliner has said.)
There is still a driver in those trucks - and they will be taking control in certain situations. That's not what I'd call "self driving."
I've driven numerous cars and trucks (including tractor trailers) with these forward and blind spot sensors and they are not ready to be "self driving" yet. Even aside from a mechanical breakdown concern, the sensors, etc, still report too many false positives or miss things that can lead to an accident.
Getting them to handle 95% of the situations is easy. Getting them to handle that last 5% is really, really hard and until that happens they won't even pursue the government for approval. (This is what one of the top execs at Freightliner has said.)
Nope. Just riding along on the highway. Generally not in a position to take control. They do drive in the cities at the ends. And in a year or so they will go away.
And they at closer to 99.5% though that last .5% may be 80% of the battle.
Nope. Just riding along on the highway. Generally not in a position to take control. They do drive in the cities at the ends. And in a year or so they will go away.
And they at closer to 99.5% though that last .5% may be 80% of the battle.
Did you miss this part of the article:
"These drivers also guide the trucks on and off the highways, and into distribution terminals; most companies working on automated trucks have focused on simple highway driving, and plan to leave urban driving to humans for the foreseeable future."
When it comes to simple highway cruising I would agree they have 99.5% of that covered. But truck terminals are not right on the highway, you actually have to take an exit and navigate through some city streets sometimes to get there.
"self-driving" is not a success until they can actually remove a driver from the cab for 100% of the trip. That is the whole point, isn't it? If you still need a driver in the seat the whole time what exactly is the savings with that?
"These drivers also guide the trucks on and off the highways, and into distribution terminals; most companies working on automated trucks have focused on simple highway driving, and plan to leave urban driving to humans for the foreseeable future."
When it comes to simple highway cruising I would agree they have 99.5% of that covered. But truck terminals are not right on the highway, you actually have to take an exit and navigate through some city streets sometimes to get there.
"self-driving" is not a success until they can actually remove a driver from the cab for 100% of the trip. That is the whole point, isn't it? If you still need a driver in the seat the whole time what exactly is the savings with that?
Yes that is what I said. But a year or two down the road the safety driver goes away on the highway. And not too long after that the human drivers at the end vanish.
In ten years the only ones left will be those who have a significant role other than driving. Route guys who deliver and also sell. Dangerous material guys who deal with obnoxious cargo. But the city to city driver in the sun belt will be gone. May last a little longer in the colder country. But not a decade.
Yes that is what I said. But a year or two down the road the safety driver goes away on the highway. And not too long after that the human drivers at the end vanish.
In ten years the only ones left will be those who have a significant role other than driving. Route guys who deliver and also sell. Dangerous material guys who deal with obnoxious cargo. But the city to city driver in the sun belt will be gone. May last a little longer in the colder country. But not a decade.
We can agree to disagree with that. Even the trucking companies and truck manufacturers do not expect driverless trucks to be legal for at least 10 years, if at all. Everyone seems to think this is a slam dunk that it's coming but there are a lot of obstacles against it. (Including insurance companies who say they will not insure driverless vehicles.)
We have been advised platooning is the first thing that the trucking companies are trying to get approved. That's where the ATA lobbyists are spending their time right now. Individual driverless trucks would be the next project after that, but they'd have to let the platooning trucks run for at least 3-5 years prior to getting approval on non-platooning driverless trucks for any other application. This is what senior execs at Freightliner have told us.
We can agree to disagree with that. Even the trucking companies and truck manufacturers do not expect driverless trucks to be legal for at least 10 years, if at all. Everyone seems to think this is a slam dunk that it's coming but there are a lot of obstacles against it. (Including insurance companies who say they will not insure driverless vehicles.)
We have been advised platooning is the first thing that the trucking companies are trying to get approved. That's where the ATA lobbyists are spending their time right now. Individual driverless trucks would be the next project after that, but they'd have to let the platooning trucks run for at least 3-5 years prior to getting approval on non-platooning driverless trucks for any other application. This is what senior execs at Freightliner have told us.
Sorry driver less trucks are fully legal now in Texas. Fact of life. And that is sufficient to get the driver less trucks fully established. Other states will fall into line so as not to lose business.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
