Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Kodiak Robotics Will Haul Freight Autonomously for Tyson Foods

posted by hubie on Saturday April 22, @06:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the east-bound-and-down dept.
News

upstart writes:

Kodiak Robotics will haul freight autonomously for Tyson Foods:

Autonomous trucking startup Kodiak Robotics is partnering with truckload carrier C.R. England to autonomously ship Tyson Foods products between Dallas and San Antonio, Texas.

A human safety operator will be present in the one dedicated truck Kodiak is allocating to this pilot. Deliveries will begin this month, according to the company.

The pilot program is the latest in Kodiak's growing string of paid partnerships with major carriers, and it further demonstrates the startup's potential path to sustainability and even profitability once it removes the human safety driver from operations.

A spokesperson for Kodiak said the company aims to remove the safety operator within the next couple of years.

[...] Kodiak says the partnership is not only emblematic of how human-driven trucks and autonomous trucks can work together, but it also provides a use case for autonomy as a solution for moving perishable products in a timely manner.

[...] As part of the partnership, C.R. England is also joining Kodiak's Partner Development Program, which is Kodiak's way of working with carriers to help establish autonomous freight operations and, hopefully, integrate Kodiak's self-driving system into their fleet.

"Our intent is to be a 'one-stop shop' for customers, whether they need their freight moved autonomously or not," said England.

Original Submission


«  How to Create Your Own Auto-GPT AI Agent | AI Poised to Transform Video Compression Landscape  »
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Kodiak Robotics Will Haul Freight Autonomously for Tyson Foods | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 7 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @09:17AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @09:17AM (#1302538)

    I have to send this one to my trucker friend who thinks human drivers won't be replaced for 100 years.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @10:54AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @10:54AM (#1302557)
      Actually interstate trucking is an easier problem for self-driving vehicles than city/suburb taxis.

      The latter scenario is messier and has more things you need to consider from a liability perspective - children, pets, prams, etc.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @09:52AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @09:52AM (#1302540)

    First, per tfa the self-driving bit is only the intercity (interstate) part of the route, local pickup and delivery is handled by normal human driven trucks.

    Second, no mention if the safety driver is qualified/trained? SAE is in the third revision (2020) of this recommended practice for training & qualification of safety drivers: https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3018_202012/ [sae.org] (abstract only).

    This page has an overview of the contents, https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/roadshow-explains-sae-self-driving-car-road-testing-guidelines/ [cnet.com] here's a snip,

    In-vehicle Fallback Test Driver (IFTD): Nope, IFTD isn't a Meyers-Briggs result gone wrong; it's the SAE's designation for a human safety driver. IFTD is a good designation because it's much clearer as to what the test driver's responsibility is and is not. The driver is a fallback, meaning that if the Automated Driving System packs it in, the vehicle can fallback onto the test driver to retake control.

    [...]

    Next, we should talk about the SAE's ideas for what traits, skills and abilities an ideal IFTD possesses. Again, because this document calls for standardization in what is largely an underregulated industry, there are some pretty fundamental considerations listed, including said individual possessing a valid driver's license, for example.

    Other requirements are less straightforward, but still important. What's more important still is the SAE's call to have IFTDs broken down into two groups: Early-stage prototype test drivers and late-stage prototype test drivers.

    Early-stage test drivers are routinely asked to deal with vehicles and systems which are still in development, and therefore more prone to failure. These drivers need to have greater skill, reflexes and training so that they're able to quickly and reliably take control of a vehicle in an unsafe situation, whether that situation is caused by the ADS or by outside forces (e.g. bad weather or other motorists). The SAE calls explicitly out that these IFTDs should be trained in emergency handling and evasive driving techniques.

    Late-stage test drivers should still have the training to deal with retaking control during unsafe situations, but because a late-stage vehicle is much closer to the end of its development cycle, the likelihood of a driver needing to intervene should reasonably also be much less. The SAE doesn't think late-stage IFTDs need the same kind of emergency handling training that early-stage drivers do.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @10:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @10:24AM (#1302546)

      Light truck drivers get paid less and can have a lower amount of experience than big rig drivers.

      Local delivery might need robots loading and unloading the trucks before drivers can be replaced.

      The IFTDs need to be carefully managed to avoid another Elaine Herzberg incident.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @10:49AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @10:49AM (#1302554)
      The highway bits are easier. If a kid gets crushed by a vehicle on a highway, people are more likely to blame the parents/guardians than the vehicle or vehicle makers. But if a kid gets crushed by a self-driving vehicle in a suburb...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @11:20AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @11:20AM (#1302562)

        Delivery van crashes and kills a kid = $1 million problem
        18-wheeler crashes on the highway = $10-100 million problem

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @11:30AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @11:30AM (#1302563)

          > 18-wheeler crashes on the highway = $10-100 million problem

          Sure, if it results in something major like a chain-reaction multiple vehicle crash or toxic fire.

          But we're talking Tyson "protein" here (read, cheap chicken products) so a crash in Texas will just be a happy meal for the buzzards & vultures.

(1)