Einride, a company based in Gothenburg (Göteborg), Sweden, has a vision that lowers these hurdles slowing the adoption of both alternative energy and self-driving technologies in hauling. The key change? Take the driver out of the vehicle with a hybrid of self-driving and remote control.
Einride plans to have their driverless (windowless, even) T-pods plying the route between Gothenburg and Helsingborg by 2020. The 7-meter (23- feet) long vehicle can carry 15 standard pallets and up to 20 tons. The trucks roll through their highway distances in fully automated mode. But when they near population centers, the T-pods can be put under remote control, with a human managing the navigation.
With no paid personnel on board to be bored and useless during long charging cycles, electric motors begin to make more sense. The T-pods can travel 200 km (124 miles) on a single charge, and stops at charging stations add little to the overall costs of haulage compared to traditional rigs that have down-time during driver resting periods. Remote drivers can simply switch their attention to a different vehicle when one T-pod stops for recharging. Which is a good thing, because even the run up and down the Swedish coastline between Gothenburg and Helsingborg may be a bit out of range without a top-up along the way.
Maybe all those hours playing Starcraft did not go to waste after all--perfect training to be an Einride operator.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday April 19 2017, @05:02AM (6 children)
Remote control will have a significant delay. But for safety it requires transferring real time data (4K video) with latency under, say, ten milliseconds, camera to screen. Not sure how this can be achieved, given that many monitors need most of this time just to refresh the screen.
Who would want to drive a truck in "population centers" if the visual lags the reality by half a second, sometimes stops (wireless!) and the commands reach the truck another half a second later (or not reach it at all)? It would be safer to just go 100% automatic.
Looks like yet another startup collecting investors' money to build something that not only violates the laws of nature (there is not enough bandwidth for this under 60 GHz,) but also is a stopgap solution that will be obsolete in 5-10 years, probably before the investment starts generating profit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 19 2017, @05:27AM
I was thinking about this, and I think the delay can be handled by self-driving tech.
The problem, at least as I see it, is that self-driving tech is not good enough to navigate complicated roadways. But it is good enough for low-latency things like "brake for the child that jumps into oncoming traffic." All high-end cars and most mid-range cars already have much of that capability as standard (lane keeping, automatic braking, etc). So let the computer handle the fast-response stuff, while the remote driver makes the higher-level decisions about which turns to take, etc. It would probably require a different set of controls than the traditional steering-wheel and accelerator/brake pedals. Maybe a joystick with an on-screen representation of the path the vehicle is on course to follow.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday April 19 2017, @05:32AM (2 children)
The "Fragile" comment below mostly got it right, but I think mixing human and automatic input may work.
The vehicle just needs proximity sensors and logic to automatically stop (fixing the latency problem). 4K resolution may not even be needed in built-up areas due to the limited speed (fixing the bandwidth problem). The operator is essentially responsible for object avoidance and path-finding.
Still don't think it is a good idea, but not sure impossible is the word for it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Wednesday April 19 2017, @05:55AM (1 child)
I think mixing human and automatic input may work.
Yes, but the easiest way to achieve that is by having human drivers who jump behind the wheel at a certain transfer station and complete the route into the city. As long as the truck comes charged for the remaining miles, there is nothing to gain from having remote drivers, and plenty to lose. Why are they removing manual controls? Are they going to save money on the steering wheel, windshield and a chair? Everything is already drive-by-wire, plug your controls in and go. Just the certification of the remote control system will take years: as others said, it *is* a safety critical system, and it will be necessary to prove (not just show once) that the combination of the automatic and remote controls will not incur additional risks. In particular, "just stop" may be a terrible answer to loss of communication if other drivers do not expect the truck to stop on a ramp or on a freeway or in many other places.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 19 2017, @04:24PM
Another approach, if they want to keep the T-pods cabless, is to have a follow-the-leader mode where you slave each one to the one in front, and slave the front one to a human-driven vehicle.
This can be particular sensible if several T-pods are going to the same place, but also works if you can set up a chain of 3 or 4 T-pods, and drop them off at various points on a more-or-less direct route. It doesn't make any kind of sense if you're leading one T-pod at a time
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday April 19 2017, @06:35AM
Don't exaggerate the technical requirements. 4k resolution? 10ms latency? Nuts. The average driver reaction time is on the order of 500ms, for which 100ms latency would be fine - ugly, but fine. To fix the ugly, make it 50ms. A 4k resolution is also unnecessary; A standard monitor resolution would be more then adequate.
Bandwidth is not necessarily a problem - if this becomes widespread, it will get dedicated spectrum. Moreover, you don't need to control all vehicles all of the time. You only need human control when the vehicles are at the end of a defined journey (off the major roads, say), or when a vehicle yells for help because something unexpected happened. In the latter case, the vehicle can stop and wait for human help.
What one may want to rethink is the way information is displayed. We are used to looking out of our windshield, but an eagle-eye view from the top, showing the situation around the entire vehicle, might be more useful. Or, perhaps, some combination of the two.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday April 19 2017, @08:24AM
Not only that, but it will become a race to the bottom (and past), in reducing the number of drivers needed, and then making individual drivers work longer and longer hours by offsetting trucks by less and less time. You have to truck X from the hwy to the dock in 10 minutes, because there's another truck to get from the high to the dock arriving in 10 minutes. And you're fired if you fail, we'll find someone who can do it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 19 2017, @05:08AM (2 children)
Because lag when going 80 MPH doesn't matter.
Because GPS is never wrong and map database never have incorrect or outdated data.
Because there's never any interference with communication.
Because it's against the ToS to use Windows as a real-time, safety critical OS.
Because no one has every accidentally pulled out a joystick cable and took a few moment to figure it out.
Because everything is designed for touchscreens and no one has joysticks anymore.
Because everyplace has 100% power up-time.
Because encryption never gets hacked or implemented improperly.
Because suicide car-drivers will commit suicide the old fashion way when they can't drive a car.
Because driving trucks for minimum wage for hours and hours on end isn't soul crushing work. (How long can you play Dessert Bus?)
Because companies are 100% moral and will never cut any corners by having multiple operators operating multiple vehicles.
Because a co-worker can't walk up to your truck and spill coffee on you while you're driving.
Because there has never been a single video of a self-driving car navigating a construction zone, accident site, or almost every other possible thing which could arise during highway driving, including poor weather.
Because it'll be trivial to box the truck in, then steal everything in it before the company or police could respond. Highway robbery indeed. Kids will grow up with heroes jumping on and defending driverless trucks instead of horses (well, actually that already happened).
Because no drunk or emotionally charged idiots will ever shoot paintballs at car sensors.
And yet, I see no reason why this type of vehicle won't exist in the future. Too many companies want to be first with self-driving cars that they'll push them out before they're ready. And when we do get them, they'll have backdoors for remote control. At the very least for developers, but probably for end users too for private road use and the few random times you drive inside buildings.
How about we get self-typing keyboards working first? When I use voice control to type a message my keyboard keys never move. We can't even get that right!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Wednesday April 19 2017, @06:50AM (1 child)
Hey granther, let's look at your objections:
Because lag when going 80 MPH doesn't matter.
Autopilot on the highways. Some trucks already effectively have this, just with a driver pretending to pay attention.
Because GPS is never wrong and map database never have incorrect or outdated data.
Defined routes, local sensors for lanes, etc.. Again, this part is already proven technology.
Because there's never any interference with communication.
Again: autopilot on defined routes. When the truck is under remote control, the automatic systems should still be active, for the case of interrupted communication. Fail-safe: stop the truck.
Because it's against the ToS to use Windows as a real-time, safety critical OS.
Where does Windows come into this? Actually, they said that the new truck is "windowless" :-)
Because no one has every accidentally pulled out a joystick cable and took a few moment to figure it out.
See above: make the system fail-safe
Because everything is designed for touchscreens and no one has joysticks anymore.
Huh?
Because everyplace has 100% power up-time.
So? Go to any large trucking agency, step into their control center, and imagine a power failure. It will be a mess, even today.
Because encryption never gets hacked or implemented improperly.
Yes, it's a whole new world of technology to hack. Let's stop all progress, because each step brings new dangers with it.
Because suicide car-drivers will commit suicide the old fashion way when they can't drive a car.
Huh?
Because driving trucks for minimum wage for hours and hours on end isn't soul crushing work. (How long can you play Dessert Bus?)
I cannot imagine sitting in a truck cab, hours a day, every day, driving back and forth on the same route. Some people apparently like the work. Sitting in a data center, playing remote pilot, not seeing the problem...
Because companies are 100% moral and will never cut any corners by having multiple operators operating multiple vehicles.
Let's stop modern civilization and we'll all go back to our ethical agricultural life, working 100+ hours/week to avoid starving...
Because a co-worker can't walk up to your truck and spill coffee on you while you're driving.
Man, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today...
Because there has never been a single video of a self-driving car navigating a construction zone, accident site, or almost every other possible thing which could arise during highway driving, including poor weather.
Finally, a point that makes sense. As self-driving vehicles become more common, things like this are going to require some serious consideration. Probably a lot of standardization, or even special signaling for automated vehicles.
Because it'll be trivial to box the truck in, then steal everything in it before the company or police could respond. Highway robbery indeed. Kids will grow up with heroes jumping on and defending driverless trucks instead of horses (well, actually that already happened).
Guess what, this already happens in various forms. In one case I know of, a driver was looking for a business to make a delivery. Someone ran up to the truck, pointed to a warehouse door, and said "here we are, unload here". Wasn't the business, and the goods were never seen again.
Because no drunk or emotionally charged idiots will ever shoot paintballs at car sensors.
See "fail-safe" above. There are lots of monkey wrenches people could throw into the infrastructure today. Scatter a box of nails across the highway, for example. This stuff rarely happens, because most people are civilized.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday April 19 2017, @11:49AM
> Finally, a point that makes sense. As self-driving vehicles become more common, things like this are going to require some serious consideration.
> Probably a lot of standardization, or even special signaling for automated vehicles.
I assumed for many years that someone had already thought of plugging wifi/RF/cheese transmission into all the signposts to deal with automated vehicles. It would be insane to require automated vehicles to process visual info for this stuff when there are so many more elegant solutions.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 19 2017, @06:11AM
So these self-driving vehicles will really only follow straight roads by themselves because city traffic is too complex. They need to use batteries with charge and discharge inefficiencies and expose other drivers to life threatening dangers because.. profit. How about one could make some vehicle that follow a straight path and won't expose others to excessive traffic collision risks and combine it with direct power transfer of electricity. They can even take 1500 ton of cargo compared to 60 ton for this truck. Hmm.. let's call it Trains! This idea is stupid. There are railways. So use them! They don't even have to enter the city if that's what's desired.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday April 19 2017, @06:27AM
This should be just part of a larger overall vision: transport optimized to the freight, rather than to the vehicle. Making sensible use of driver hours. Where I am (Switzerland), we have a lot of trucks that drive onto the train, so that they can take the tunnel through the Alps. Which means that the drivers are just along for the ride - but if you propose eliminating drivers from the trip (you know, another driver could pick up the truck on the other end) - well, you'd have thought you proposed dismemberment or something. No, somehow it's better to pay them to have nothing to do, because we've always done it that way. So, yes, RPVs make a lot of sense, especially with automation for the highway portion of the journey. This breaks the tie between an individual driver and an individual truck - currently, trucks spend most of their time idle, because drivers are only allowed to work a maximum of 9 hours per day. [europa.eu]
To the larger vision: actually, the trucks themselves are irrelevant. In the Swiss case, WTF are we transporting the trucks back and forth under the alps, when it's only the cargo that needs to go? Standardized cargo containers exist - that's what you see being loaded and unloaded from ships. Why are these containers not used for the rest of the transport chain?
Getting back to TFA, this would mean having this automated/remotely-piloted vehicle equipped to take a standard transport container. For the cases where the standard containers are too large, we need a smaller standard container that holds maybe 3-4 palettes. Then move these containers from place to place on the available transport - ship, truck, train or plane.
The current systems is just crazily inefficient. My wife's company imports stuff internationally. A shipment is loaded on a truck, palette by palette. It goes to a logistics center, where the palettes are unloaded. They are then reloaded onto an international truck. Which arrives in a logistics center, and is unloaded, palette by palette. Then reloaded on a local truck which drives to our place and unloads. So the individual palettes are loaded and unloaded six different times. It is entirely normal to find that a forklift has stuck its fork into a palette somewhere along the way. Theft is also problem, because anyone in any warehouse along the way can slit open the shrink wrap and help themselves. It would be infinitely better to containerize the shipment, seal the container, and ship the whole thing as a unit.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.