Platooning, how do you feel about it?

1. Yes, I've heard of it
2. B, Working conditions will still suck
3. A, it's bad enough already.... now add road trains.
4. C. You think texting and driving is bad now.....
5. C, what good could come from paying LESS attention?
6. C, my brain and skills are sharper than your wifi wagon.
7. C, but that's my opinion... I've never been just a wheel holder.
8. Simply..... no
9. It would be worse...
10. No! Or any other company for that matter.
11. B. It would keep this industry moving in the same direction it has been for the last 25+ years.... right down the crapper.
12. A, yes at some point they may be but we won't be around to see it.

This technology is too far away, unreliable, and still requires drivers.... it's just baby steps towards the automated trucks 'they' really want.

 

Never heard of platooning. What is it

Just googled it - ridiculous

 

1. A Yep. Comes up when talking about automated trucks.
2. B You still have to be in the truck, maintain safe equipment and watch the road. My bet is companies will try to pay less.
3. A Merging is a huge issue now. It will only get worse with 3-5 trucks in close proximity riding in the granny lane.
4. C See above. In addition, the drivers who would have to monitor the truck will get easily distracted while waiting for the truck to initiate manual control. The single biggest problem with the automated Google car is the turn over from automation to manual control. Most drivers were failing to take control within a second or less resulting in crashes.
5. C The transition to manual control is the single biggest point of failure. Waiting while the truck 'drives' will be boring and difficult to stay awake without the engaging task of driving.
6. C With current technology? No way. Enough said.
7. B Unless, of course, there is an issue and not sufficient means to track down and document the automation's failure. Then the powers that be will fall back onto today's DOT default stance: blame the driver. Even when the driver wasn't controlling the vehicle at the time of the incident. Then that would be a C.
8. A I will jump through any hoops my company requires. I have a good job and I plan to keep it.
9. A Imagine yourself sitting for hours and hours doing nothing but watching a road pass you by. Drivers will use distractions - reading, tv, cell phone, etc. to pass the time. It will greatly increase reaction time, and with that, odds of an accident.
10. B Not as the technology is now. If it gets rolled out anyway, I'll have to train for it regardless. A moot point.
11. No clear answer. There are positives. Fuel economy is one. Driver fatigue another. But these positives come at the cost of safety - too high, in my opinion.
12. A Yup. No question. It's all about the dollar. If it was about safety, we'd have roll cages and airbags in trucks.
13. The technology is not ready for prime time yet. Ask me in another 10 years. Until then, you have to understand that truck automation will be turning over control to a driver in the riskiest possible scenario - bad weather, imminent accident, road construction, night driving, etc. And frankly, most new drivers out on the road can barely handle a truck they are actively driving when those conditions occur, let alone adding a spontaneous transfer of control on top of it.

Best of luck.
Elvee

 

In perfect world (road system with 100% participation of all vehicles using the road) it has merit. The idea of exponential slowing and lagged speed resumption is certainly the biggest cause of slowdowns and backups, (all because of perhaps one seeing brake lights one time) but the system probably would only be workable on roads with 3+ travel lanes when there are entrance/exit ramps. Putting all platooned vehicles into one lane just isn't going to work IMO (I'd think they need to avoid lanes where entrance traffic is coming in)

 

It was a pretty decent movie.

 

People already follow one another at stupidly short distances. For those individuals, sure, it would be great for their vehicle to be electronically linked to the one ahead of them so that highway safety isn't adversely affected by some idiot's inattention coupled with their reaction time.

For those of us who pay attention and do what we're supposed to do, maintaining proper following distance and all, then there really isn't any need for it. Too many variables exist, and a computer cannot anticipate the actions of others outside of what has been programmed. Seeing as how the programmers aren't likely to have any real world experience behind the wheel of a tractor trailer, it is HIGHLY unlikely that they'll get the program to react more appropriately than a well trained driver who takes his job seriously.

Then there is the security issue. It has already been proven that hackers can remotely take over control of the stereo, wipers, throttle, automatic transmission, and they are working towards controlling the steering system. They can do it in reverse (thanks to park-assist)...just not going forward yet. Once a computer has the ability to control the steering going forward, hackers can (and will) gain access to that as well. I sure as hell don't care to be anywhere NEAR an 80,000 pound truck (potentially loaded with hazmat) when a hacker with evil intentions takes over. And yes, if the truck is open to communicating with other vehicles allowing those other vehicles to control the driving (as would be required in platooning) it is an open door to be exploited by a hacker.

Personally, I will never drive a vehicle capable of platooning. I will never own a vehicle capable of driving itself. I don't even care for automatics...not even in a car. When I'm behind the wheel, I prefer to be in control of that vehicle. When it gets to the point where that is no longer possible, I'll hang up the keys, get a regular job, and just ride the horses anywhere I need to go.

You asked about working conditions? Driving is already considered "unskilled" work. With every "advancement" in technology, less skill is required. Power steering meant you no longer needed physical strength. ABS meant you no longer needed to know how to apply the brakes. Automatic slack adjusters removed the necessity to know how to adjust the brakes. Lane departure warnings allow the driver to be distracted because it'll beep if you start to wander too much letting you know to get your eyes back on the road. With traction control, you no longer need to know how to control your throttle input, and stability control takes away the need to watch where you're going because the truck will self-correct if you try getting into a curve too hot or need to swerve around something you should have seen (if you'd been paying attention). Adaptive cruise control means no longer having to pay attention to what's ahead, and the self-braking "accident avoidance" trucks further reenforce that attitude. Automatic transmissions mean you no longer need to know how to shift...and now the self-driving truck comes along and the "driver" becomes almost completely unnecessary. It is being advertised as a way to allow the driver to partake in other activities, and then if the computer gets in over its head, it'll pass control back to the "driver"...who at that point has no clue what is going on and will likely take more time (and distance) than he has to figure out what needs to be done to avoid disaster. Couple that with the fact that these "drivers" won't have the experience necessary to react in a proper manner because they haven't had the time at the controls to become familiar with how the truck handles in any variety of situations. You don't learn what a vehicle can do riding shotgun. You don't acquire a feel for the vehicle's inputs without time at the controls actually driving it.

Technology is a wonderful thing in certain environments. On the road, there are just far too many variables to contend with. It would take a battalion of programmers working around the clock for years just to get a computer that would react properly is a majority of situations. That is unacceptable. We as drivers are expected to be perfect...and the consequences are severe if we fail. That expectation of perfection should not be compromised when computers are introduced. The "advancements" up to this point have still held the driver responsible when the technology failed, and I don't see this being any different. If I'm going to be held responsible, I'm not relinquishing control. If the computer programmers are going to be held liable for the shortcomings in their software, then they can start installing their software into vehicles. Until then, let the driver drive.

 

Yes

It would be more negative than positive. You're no longer as "free" and independent on the road, you no longer have a nice corner office view, and your wages are likely to suffer since more skill is being taken away from your position.

More negative than positive. If every truck suddenly started driving the speed limit, it could be positive, but a 1/4 mile string of trucks going below the flow of traffic is going to ask for trouble...

More likely to be negative than none. From the simple physics of it, you are introducing 3 times as much energy into a collision, so you would need to have far fewer collisions just to have a neutral effect.

Negative. Why be there at all then?

I would feel less safe, but in a few years, I'd probably feel safer if the OTHER guy was in an automated truck.

No, I would see it as riding a greyhound collecting welfare.

I am my company and I won't be implementing automated controls.

Yes, of course. Plenty of testing shows this to be the case for cruise control and speed limiters. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

This is a very low margin industry with massive capital costs. I have no desire to further lessen profit and further increase costs. That will be the realm of the mega fleets replacing/supplementing their poorly-trained drivers.

For trucking? Horrendously negative. For society? Probably positive if you can find suitable employment for 3,500,000 no-longer-skilled workers.

Automated trucking is here already and it will continue to become a larger and larger part of trucking.

Platooning is fundamentally problematic -- massive vehicles traveling at speed in close proximity is inherently dangerous. Airlines could save a lot of fuel if they flew in military formation, but you don't see that, do you?

A better solution is automated coupling. 2 or 3 tractor trailers form a physical connection, like a train, for the duration that they travel together. An anomaly affecting only 1 truck is much less likely to have a devastating effect on all 3 if they are physically coupled.

The word sounds lame, but I guess "computer aided drafting" is already taken.

 

All that typing and I got it in one word- lol

 

it works for trains up on the tracks, they platoon along most of the time with no problems. Occasionally you hear about a train derailment. Up on the roads with pneumatic tires and squishy suspension and slick roads I just don't see how all this new tech is going to take over after a busload of kids get run over one time.