UPS Has Been Delivering Cargo in Self-Driving Trucks for Months And No One Knew

[Kilgore]

https://gizmodo.com/ups-has-been-delivering-cargo-in-self-driving-trucks-fo-1837272680

The self-driving freight truck startup TuSimple has been carrying mail across the state of Arizona for several weeks.

UPS announced on Thursday that its venture capital arm has made a minority investment in TuSimple. The announcement also revealed that since May TuSimple autonomous trucks have been hauling UPS loads on a 115-mile route between Phoenix and Tucson.

UPS confirmed to Gizmodo this is the first time UPS has announced it has been using TuSimple autonomous trucks to deliver packages in the state.

Around the same time as the UPS and TuSimple program began, the United States Postal Service and TuSimple publicized a two-week pilot program to deliver mail between Phoenix and Dallas, a 1,000 mile trip.

TuSimple claims it can cut the average cost of shipping in a tractor-trailer by 30 percent. In an announcement about the new partnership, UPS Ventures managing partner, Todd Lewis, said the venture arm “collaborates with startups to explore new technologies and tailor them to help meet our specific needs.”

[CatMor]

1. I just find this creepy ...

plus more loss of jobs.

[SouthernProgressive]

2. Huge step forward.

This will prove to be hugely beneficial and will be a major societal change. It will benefit everything from the environment to freedom of movement and safety. Corporations will be the leading driver to what will become an every day phenomenon.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. speaking of safety....

what happens when a robot truck has a flat tire
or a non-robot vehicle plows into it
or it skids on something on the road ( black ice, or spilled oil, etc


How do you protect the contents of what the truck is carrying from looters?
Or keep it from hitting somebody or something that darts into traffic?

[Johnny2X2X]

9. Driverless vehicles are already safer

The stats are coming in already, driverless vehicles are already safer than vehicles with drivers, and they're only going to get safer.

People had the same types of questions about Flight Management Computers in airliners. FMCs have made air travel many many times safer, cheaper, and better for the environment.

Driverless semi trucks are not yet all that mature of a product, but by the 2030s they'll be everywhere and the roads will be safer for it.

Automation is going to replace a ton of jobs in the next 2 decades, warehouse jobs are on the chopping block too. But that's not what will devastate the middle class the most, when AIs start to replace highly skilled and degreed workers is when a universal income will be a necessity.

[SouthernProgressive]

13. I'm not sure people know how autonomous aspects are already being integrated....

Into our vehicles and how it is already decreasing accidents.

My current car monitors my surroundings by 360 degrees. There are audio and visual cues if I make a move towards an object on all sides of me. If I'm doing over 35 my car will brake if I approach something too quickly from behind. If I become distracted or fall asleep my car will steer itself down the middle of the lane. If it has to correct it will also let out an audible noise in case I did fall asleep.

I make about a forty minute drive to see family once a week. Almost the whole drive is down one road with a 55 mph speed limit. Two weeks ago I made that section of the drive without ever touching my steering wheel, brakes, or gas peddle. My car stopped at multiple lights, accelerated once the light changed, and stayed in it's lane through all of the sweeping turns. There are cars already out there that have far more advanced autonomous features than mine.

This leaves out the environmental benefits that will be realized from this technology and the freedom of movement aspect that will provide a higher quality of life for millions.

[Johnny2X2X]

16. Amazng.

The car companies have been investing $Billions in this for years. The technology is further along than people realize.

Ultimately, where I think it heads is that driverless cars will be completely integrated with ride sharing like Uber, this will dramatically decrease the demand for consumers to own vehicles. Once vast fleets of automated vehicles are deployed there will likely be services you can subscribe to by the month that will send a driverless car to ferry you to and from work. There will be driverless car lanes on the roads where driverless cars can link up like train cars to travel more fuel efficiently, faster, and safely. I think this may encourage even more urban sprawl as people will be freed up to do whatever they want in vehicles, people will be able to nap on the way to work and continue to work on the way home from work.

Where things will really take a leap forward is when all of these vehicles are networked together and communicating. That's when traffic flow will speed up, traffic jams will be non existent, and travel will really be made completely different than it is now.

[RandiFan1290]

38. "Where things will really take a leap forward is when all of these vehicles are networked together"

Exactly!


Here is a Volvo concept:

[RobinA]

17. I'll Believe It When I See It

Not saying it won't happen, but I'm still waiting for that jet pack I was promised by my Weekly Reader in elementary school. And those heated roads I was afraid would do away with snow days? Now, fifty some years later, I WANT heated roads and they still aren't here.

[honest.abe]

45. Not necessarily.

Newer vehicles with driver assisted technology are likely much safer than your standard low tech vehicle and i suspect also safer than driverless vehicles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/self-driving-cars-have-a-problem-safer-human-driven-ones-11560571203

[SouthernProgressive]

10. "what happens when a robot truck has a flat tire "

Pulls over and stops.

"or a non-robot vehicle plows into it "

Applies the brakes and comes to a stop. Most new vehicles today with drivers in them are equipped with this autonomous technology. The driver has no choice in a collision. The car comes to a stop.

"or it skids on something on the road"

It doesn't panic. It takes measures to regain control. People are extremely bad at reacting when they lose traction.

"How do you protect the contents of what the truck is carrying from looters? "

The same way it is done today.

"Or keep it from hitting somebody or something that darts into traffic?"

Sensors that are more responsive and aware than actual drivers.

From safety to the environment, there are extremely few downsides.

[Disaffected]

20. Maybe so but,

I'm still not clear on how autonomous vehicles will be able to handle inclement driving conditions that may challenge even good human drivers. Such as, a dark and snowy night with snow accumulation on the road and poor lane visibility. Same for a rainy night or extreme glare from a wet or icy road and driving directly towards the sun close to the horizon. How will they deal with snow, dirt and ice buildup on the optical sensors?

As well, there is the problem of what to program the vehicle to do when faced with running into someone or something on the road or swerving which would endanger the vehicle's occupants or bystanders eg. zig into oncoming traffic or zag into a bridge abutment or pedestrians on the sidewalk.

Maybe it boils down to accepting accidents or loss of life in circumstances that automation cannot properly handle in return for reducing accidents caused by human drivers in more normal circumstances(?).

[SouthernProgressive]

22. Please read your first paragraph again.

You state numerous downsides to human drivers that do not exist when it comes to autonomous technology. That paragraph literally makes the case for me.

[Disaffected]

24. I don't understand

what you are "driving" at. Why are those adverse driving conditions not a particular problem for autonomous technology??

[SouthernProgressive]

25. Great pun!

"dark"
"extreme glare"
"driving directly towards the sun close to the horizon"

Those are human problems.

I honestly don't know about it when there is so much snow on the ground that the lanes are covered. I do know that my own car continues to steer itself in a complete downpour. I live in Tampa so when I say downpour I mean walls of water. Standing water does not stop its sensors from being able to recognize lanes, other cars, or obstacles.

Our cars today also already recognize rain on their own and autonomous technology has made us much much more safe when it rains. Everything from traction control systems to auto lights and wipers. None of which require action from the operator of the vehicle.

[Disaffected]

35. I suppose

"dark" per sec is not a problem for LIDAR based sensors but if pattern recognition from ambient or headlight light is used instead, the pattern recognition ability would be compromised, would it not, in dark, inclement conditions? IIRC wasn't it Tesla's Musk who poo-pooed LIDAR sensing? Radar sensors OTOH would not be affected AFAIK but they too have limitations as radar doesn't reflect well from non-metallic objects (such as humans).

As for extreme glare and driving into the sun or, "walls of water", it seems to me they would cause problems for LIDAR but, if not, I would be interested in learning why not.

GPS on it's own I suppose might potentially be able to at least keep a car centered in the lane but I don't think it is accurate enough in real time to do that, at least now.

[SouthernProgressive]

36. I just got back to my office after driving in a downpour.

It never lost lane recognition. It's the same when I drive down an unlit road at night in the rain.

My car uses front and rear cameras and a front sensor for lane assist. The front sensor is also used for autonomous braking. My car does also have oncoming headlight recognition but I haven't read up on it. I do plan on reading up. My dad explained it to me once but at first I didn't understand why it would turn my high beams down for an oncoming car but not a bright light far ahead on the side of the road. It has something to do with polarity recognition. At least that is the case in his Benz. Pretty sure it's the same in mine.

I don't pretend to know everything about everything out there. I do know the autonomous features on my car are a life saver and I'm really excited about the benefits of going fully autonomous.

[Johnny2X2X]

28. 75-90% reduction in traffic deaths

75-90% reduction in deaths from traffic deaths, those are the very achievable predictions.

40,000 people died in traffic accidents last year in the US, if that could be reduced to between 4,000 and 10,000 you're talking about radically improved safety.

Most traffic deaths are due to human error.

As far as swerving, autonomous vehicles are more apt to just brake, the human instinct to swerve around something probably causes more accidents than it prevents. Autonomous vehicles will recognize the danger, apply the brakes, and come to a stop in much less time than humans can. And when the cars are networked together, the traffic behind will already be adjusting the instant the first car detects a hazard.

[Disaffected]

33. Yes,

most traffic deaths are caused by human error and the same apparently applies to aircraft accidents.

The problem with brake or swerve comes in when an obstacle appears suddenly in the path of the oncoming vehicle (such as a child darting out onto the road) and the stopping distance is greater than the distance to the object. So, even for a fast reacting autonomous vehicle, the choice is swerve or strike the object.

That can be a very tough decision, even for a human driver, depending on the specific circumstances so I'm thinking programming an autonomous system to make such choices would be even more difficult. I seem to recall that one manufacturer (MB?) takes the position that the offending object, be it a pedestrian or a vehicle etc, always takes the brunt.

[Johnny2X2X]

34. There may always be a corner case where a human would make a better choice

But overwhelmingly, the self driven cars will be able to avoid way more accidents that a human wouldn't avoid than vice versa.

So yeah, you might be able to think of scenarios where a person would have saved a life if they were driving, but for every instance those might occur there will be many more instances where a person would have caused a death that a self driven car wouldn't have.

If you have a choice between preventing 35,000 death, but in that process 1,000 other deaths happen, or just letting all 35,000 deaths happen by doing nothing, you pick the save 35,000 lives.

[Kilgore]

46. This Tesla demo let's you see the automation view

https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware-neighborhood-long

[Historic NY]

29. Run flat tires.....

[Skidmore]

8. And how

does it benefit displaced drivers who will be joining checkers displaced by those checkout machines? Will there be a robot teller type machine to reject their unemployment application because their classification makes them ineligible?

I don't buy that machines can or should replace all human workers. Work is an essential part of human development. Leisure time costs money and money isn't free. Why is it progressive to hand so much power to corporations in such a world? Who is concerned with the vulnerable? Not everyone will benefit from a tech revolution. Will there be new social classes made up of elitist techies and their minions with those involved in human care becoming a new underclass? How far are we from the world of "Replicants?" Or "Logan's Run?" Or any other messed up tech world?

[SouthernProgressive]

11. There will be jobs lost.

There will be jobs created.

It a way of life.

I always found this to be one of the worst arguments.

[harumph]

14. Will drivers be able to get an equal paying job without

re-training significantly. I doubt it. If the new jobs created are relatively low skill
and low paying - then this only benefits the corps. There will be only so
many new jobs created to service said robot vehicles.
Will delivery rates go down because of increased efficiency? I doubt it.
I think you have the worst argument.

More techno-utopianism. It'll be great!!!!!!

We have the most advanced medicine in the world - but one of the worst
infant mortality rates. New toys don't necessarily result in better outcomes for people.

I think less focus on the magic machines and more focus on the needs of flesh and blood
people is the way to go. I'm not a Luddite - but tech progress should not be considered an end to itself.
That is to say, we should carefully consider the externalities of tech fallout.

[SouthernProgressive]

15. Some will, some won't.

"We have the most advanced medicine in the world - but one of the worst
infant mortality rates. New toys don't necessarily result in better outcomes for people."

The toys aren't the reason. That is why this is an insignificant point to make.

"I think less focus on the magic machines"

There is nothing magic about them.

"we should carefully consider the externalities of tech fallout. "

Of course we should. There have to be options for retraining, furthering education, or relocation.

"More techno-utopianism. It'll be great!!!!!! "

You are the only one mentioning "utopia." You interject extreme hyperbole just to make the argument sound valid. That one sentence is a strawman argument.

"I think you have the worst argument."

You think a pro-safety, pro-environment, pro-freedom of movement argument is the worst? I'm sorry, that is a bit laughable.

[obamanut2012]

30. You are being disingenuous about our infant mortality rate

The US's is so high because of lack of prenatal care because of no healthcare for many, many people, including many working folks. So, the " new toys" work great when people actually have access to them, like in other countries. Or, even in countries that have universal healthcare without some of the new toys, like Cuba, who has a very low infant mortality rate.

You built a strawman which couldn't stand up to any wind. Good try, but epic fail.

[theophilus]

21. Maybe. Maybe not. It might be a case of "They did it

because they could. They never stopped to think if they should." Of course it will funnel more cash to the rich. Jobs will be lost and babies will continue to be born with a questionable future. When the accidental deaths come the survivors should sue the robot companies for billions. They have the dough.

[SouthernProgressive]

23. I don't see this as making much sense.

Of course they should. It will be more safe, more environmentally friendly, provide freedom of movement for millions....

Arguments are completely lost when one goes "what about the babies."

"When the accidental deaths come the survivors should sue the robot companies for billions."

It will actually be no different than how it is done today. It's hilarious that people think these things will be rolling down the road with no insurance. With no owner operators. Truly hilarious.

If the technology is faulty then of course it will go to the manufacturer as well. Exactly as it is done today.

[Delphinus]

3. I have to admit

that's pretty amazing. Freaky, but amazing.

[uponit7771]

4. 8:24 is the reason why this thing should not be on the road

[BruceWane]

5. Normal turn

When you're pulling a long trailer, you normally go a bit past the apex of a corner in order to avoid running the trailer over the edge of the road.

[SouthernProgressive]

6. It shouldn't be on the road because it properly turns....

onto a small turn off with a close shoulder?

[USALiberal]

18. LOL, ok! Nt

[jberryhill]

27. What happens at 8:24?

You do realize there is a very long trailer behind the cab, yes?

[obamanut2012]

31. This is literally a textbook turn for this type of vehicle

[Tommy_Carcetti]

12. Nope. Nt

[USALiberal]

19. Yep, you cannot stop advanced technology! Get used to it! Nt

[tirebiter]

26. Does AI have a union?

And where the fuck have the union and the live drivers been on this?

[former9thward]

32. Unions can't stop automation.

They can only bargain to determine what happens afterwards.

[tirebiter]

44. But a good negotiate should bargain for what the workers built.

AI will need maintenance. former drivers can upgrade their skills with the right deal to allow it. They should get a percentage to do whatever they want to do. Like, maybe retire

Making the same mistakes that the coal miners and their unions made does not show wisdom.

[smirkymonkey]

37. However, they still need people to actually deliver the packages.

"At this point, the TuSimple trucks carrying packages for UPS still have an engineer and a safety driver riding along. When UPS reaches Level 4, it won’t need anyone behind the wheel."

What is the point of having a self driving truck if you still need someone in there to scan and deliver packages to where they need to go? You still need to pay someone for their time as a delivery person, they just aren't doing the driving. I don't know - maybe they get paid less? It just seems kind of pointless to have someone sitting there in the seat and not driving.

[Blue_true]

40. The truck bulk delivers to a distribution center.

You better bet UPS is working on truck unload and package registration technology, that comes after self-driving trucks reach Level 5.

[no_hypocrisy]

39. Automation is the only way to challenge the Teamsters Union.

BTW, if there isn't a driver, who's going to unload and deliver the package(s)?

[Blue_true]

41. The big truck delivers to a distribution center.

People at the distribution center unload, catalog and route packages to the typical UPS delivery vans. My guess, within 20 years the distribution centers will employ 1/5 the people they employ now, if not even less.

[Iggo]

42. ...cause they haven't killed anybody yet. (n/t)

[Liberal In Texas]

43. They will. But it's still the future.

And they'll be EVs.

Get used to it.