Driverless Trucks: Not a Threat to Drivers and Jobs
The concept of driverless, autonomous trucks has made major headlines lately as Google received a patent for its driverless delivery system and Daimer Trucks of Germany performed a platooning test in live traffic.
These evolutions show promise for the industry —increased fuel efficiency and traffic flow with fewer emissions and collisions—however, there is little reason for drivers right now to be concerned. Here’s why:
Hacking
The amount of security required with this technology is much more than the average car or personal computer. If hacked, the trucks could be re-routed to remote locations, allowing the hacker to steal both the truck and its contents. Hijacked trucks could even be used to execute terrorist plans and threaten lives.The necessary security measures have not yet been established at this point.
Insurance & Liability
Autonomous commercial vehicles pose an interesting question in terms of responsibility. If the truck causes or is involved in an accident, is it the driver’s fault? The truck owner’s fault? Or the vehicle manufacturer’s? Would the manufacturer argue that liability lies with the provider of the technology used that allows the truck to run autonomously? Until this question of responsibility is answered, autonomous commercial vehicles cannot become a reality.
Autonomous vs. Driverless
For the reasons mentioned, any widespread introduction of self-driving trucks would begin with a period of autonomous trucks, not driverless trucks. These trucks would still need occupants to perform a number of safety and security checks, and be available for situations requiring maintenance or other resources.
Summary
The industry is in no way shifting to driverless trucks. Despite the many advantages these vehicles could provide, there are simply too many complexities and reasons to require a driver for the foreseeable future. Companies all over the country are experiencing a driver shortage—to think there is not going to be a continuous need for drivers would be incorrect.