logo
Driverless semi trucks are here, with little regulation and big promises

Driverless semi trucks are here, with little regulation and big promises

Boston Globe7 days ago

Last month, Aurora Innovation, based in Pittsburgh, became the first company to operate a driverless 18-wheeler on an American highway, ushering in an era that could dramatically change how cargo moves across the United States.
Autonomous trucks, proponents say, could solve a knot of problems facing the American shipping industry, which has struggled to recruit drivers for grueling, low-paying long-haul shifts, and which expects major growth in cargo shipment activity in the coming decades, driven by the overwhelming popularity of online shopping.
Advertisement
These new trucks won't need sleep, they won't speed, and they won't get road rage. They won't ride the brakes or make unnecessary lane changes, wasting fuel. And they won't need to abide by the 11-hour daily driving maximum imposed on long-haul truckers for safety reasons.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'If you're a farm that has fresh produce, the reach of your farm just expanded dramatically,' said Chris Urmson, the CEO of Aurora, who was riding in the back seat during the first run.
Related
:
Aurora's new truck, which has already logged more than 1,000 driverless miles shuttling goods along Interstate 45 in Texas, is equipped with nearly 360-degree sensors that can detect objects 1,000 feet away.
But some truckers, academics and labor groups are uneasy. They see an unregulated and risky sphere emerging, and worry that American roads could be facing a new menace.
Advertisement
Byron Bloch, an auto safety expert in Maryland, said that federal oversight of the new robotrucks was 'totally inadequate' and that the technology was being rushed into use with 'alarming' speed.
'My initial thought is: It's scary,' said Angela Griffin, a veteran truck driver from outside Hagerstown, Maryland.
She said misting rain had caused AI-powered scanners on her semitruck to malfunction, and she worried that unpredictable traffic patterns in congested areas or challenging weather conditions could lead to catastrophic errors by unmanned trucks.
Griffin recalled a particularly difficult episode: Driving down a rain-soaked Interstate 95 in Fredericksburg, Virginia, early one morning, signs directed her that the right two lanes would be blocked off because of construction.
Following the signage, she moved her semi to the far left lane, but when she went around a bend, she discovered the sign was wrong: two construction trucks were parked in the left lane, she said. There was a semi on her right. Workers were in between the trucks, and there was no left shoulder. She slammed on the brakes and yelled. Her truck pulled up just in time.
'I thought for sure I was going to kill those people,' she said. 'I don't see how a driverless truck would have been able to read and recognize the threat that was imminent.'
And Griffin wondered if the lack of a driver might slow the response time if an autonomous truck runs over a pedestrian, or freezes in the road and gets rear-ended. (Urmson, the Aurora chief, declined to say how many people in a remote assistance center would be assigned to each robotruck.)
Advertisement
Semitrucks, the skeptics note, bring dangers different from those posed by the self-driving cars that have started to take over the streets of San Francisco; Phoenix; Austin, Texas; and Las Vegas. The trucks are far heavier, and need at least a football field's length to come to a complete stop at highway speeds. Some carry flammable or hazardous materials.
The rollout of robocars has itself been bumpy. In Arizona in 2018, a driverless car ran over a pedestrian walking a bicycle, killing her. In San Francisco and Austin, the vehicles have slowed emergency response times and caused accidents.
With larger vehicles, the critics say, the dangers multiply. The risks seemed to crystallize on an Arizona highway in 2022, when an autonomous truck with a driver aboard veered across Route 10 and careened into a concrete barrier. (Nobody was hurt.)
'It's potentially disastrous from a safety perspective,' said John Samuelsen, head of the Transport Workers Union of America, who is also worried about trucking jobs being automated out of existence.
Samuelsen appears to have public opinion on his side. A survey conducted by AAA this year found that 61% of motorists in the United States feared self-driving vehicles and that 26% were unsure about them.
Just about everybody agrees on one thing. The robotrucks are coming, fast. 'Like a freaking Corvette -- doing zero to 60,' Samuelsen said.
The consulting firm McKinsey & Co. has projected that 13% of the heavy-duty trucks on U.S. roads will drive themselves within a decade.
For now, Aurora, whose investors include Uber, has operated just two trucks without a driver -- only in good weather and during the day. And last week, Aurora said it was temporarily returning an observer to the driver's seat at the request of the truck's manufacturer. But Aurora says it plans to expand its driverless runs to at least 20 trucks by year's end, and to push into more challenging conditions.
Advertisement
The company is fine-tuning the technology for bad weather, and said its robotruck would drive conservatively in the rain and use blasts of high-pressure air to clean the lenses of its sensors. Runs in the snow appear more distant. (Urmson previously ran Google's self-driving car project, now known as Waymo, which has had successes in San Francisco and other cities.)
At least three other companies are also developing driverless trucks. One of the companies, Kodiak Robotics, has started to use driverless trucks on dirt roads in Texas.
Experts spoke highly of Aurora, describing the company as a leader in safety. But they also expressed concern about a lack of regulation.
'What Aurora's doing is being much more careful than most,' said Philip Koopman, an engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University who specializes in autonomous vehicles. 'But there's still no requirement for independent checks and balances.'
The Transportation Department, which regulates commercial trucking through its Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, said in a statement that 'comprehensive federal regulations specific to automated trucks are still under development.' But the department added that it was working with the trucking industry and state governments to 'modernize safety oversight.'
Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, said in a statement that he welcomed the arrival of Aurora's trucks and that his state 'offers businesses the freedom to succeed.'
Advertisement
Although there is no federal regulatory framework in place, a number of states have considered legislation to regulate self-driving trucks.
Under normal circumstances, experts said, robotrucks may prove much better at driving than humans. 'For our ordinary set of traffic crashes, automated trucking will be safer,' predicted Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina who focuses on driverless vehicles, citing existing research on vehicle automation.
But experts caution that it is impossible to predict how the trucks will react to circumstances their designers did not anticipate: a storm of tumbleweeds, perhaps, or a broad cyberattack that affects their systems.
'This technology is really good at things it's practiced, and really bad at things it has never seen before,' Koopman said, adding, 'From a safety point of view, nobody knows how it's going to turn out.'
This article originally appeared in
.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Russia's Pearl Harbor' Fuels Fears Over Chinese Cargo Ships at US Ports
‘Russia's Pearl Harbor' Fuels Fears Over Chinese Cargo Ships at US Ports

Miami Herald

time6 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

‘Russia's Pearl Harbor' Fuels Fears Over Chinese Cargo Ships at US Ports

Sunday's Ukrainian drone ambush on a Russian airbase more than 3,000 miles from the front lines has intensified a growing debate among U.S. military analysts over the plausibility of a similar attack launched from Chinese merchant vessels docked at American ports. The scenario has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers and security analysts alike following confirmation that COSCO Shipping-China's state-owned shipping giant-operates across key U.S. ports, despite being designated by the Department of Defense as a Chinese military company. At issue is whether drones or cruise missiles could be hidden in shipping containers aboard these vessels, activated remotely or after offloading, and used in a preemptive strike. "This is a very plausible form of attack in the U.S.," said Bryan Clark, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former U.S. Navy officer. "But the attack would need to overcome several challenges," he told Newsweek. "The drones need to get out of the container, and that's hard to control aboard a ship. A more feasible approach would be to deploy the drones from a container once it's offloaded and moved on a truck." Retired Navy commander Thomas Shugart, now a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, has voiced a more urgent warning. "It is becoming borderline-insane that we routinely allow ships owned and operated by DoD-designated Chinese military companies to sit in our ports with thousands of containers onboard and under their control," Shugart said in a conversation with Newsweek. Shugart said the concept isn't speculative-it mirrors Chinese military writings. "Their Science of Campaigns is full of references to 'sudden' and 'surprise' strikes," he said, referring to a core text that Chinese military officers are expected to study. "They explicitly discuss hitting first, especially against what they call the 'powerful entity,' which is clearly a reference to the United States." The concerns are not just theoretical. In January, members of the House Committee on Homeland Security asked the U.S. Coast Guard for a classified briefing, citing COSCO's access to "major U.S. ports" and warning of risks including "espionage, cyber intrusions, sabotage, and supply chain disruptions," according to a letter sent in January. Zak Kallenborn, a researcher of drone and asymmetric warfare, acknowledged the technical possibility but questioned the timing. "A similar Chinese drone attack is definitely plausible and worth worrying about," he told Newsweek. "However, a Chinese attack is unlikely to come completely out of the blue. If China were to do this, we'd likely already be at war." Still, the lessons from Ukraine's recent drone strike on Russian airfields linger heavily in the minds of U.S. analysts and war planners grappling with the warp-speed progress of battlefield technological advancements like drone warfare. The operation on Sunday exposed how even hardened military targets can be neutralized by low-cost drones-deep inside a nuclear-armed adversary's territory where an enemy's conventional air power would be difficult to penetrate. For some of these experts, it raised uncomfortable parallels to U.S. vulnerabilities. Shugart said the U.S. shouldn't assume distance offers safety. "We've hardened some overseas air bases," he said. "But we still park billion-dollar aircraft in the open on our own soil. That's a risk." According to a March report from the Atlantic Council, China has developed and demonstrated containerized missile and drone platforms that can be covertly transported aboard commercial vessels. The report warned these systems could enable Beijing to establish "a covert way to establish anti-access/area denial nodes near major maritime choke points." Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb demonstrated how swarms of inexpensive, off-the-shelf drones-slightly modified to carry explosives and smuggled in wooden containers to be deployed remotely-can inflict billions of dollars in damage on strategic military assets, including long-range bombers. The contrast has fueled criticism of more traditional defense approaches, such as President Donald Trump's proposed "Golden Dome" missile shield, which analysts say may be poorly matched to emerging low-cost threats. The regulatory environment surrounding drones is also a major factor in the growing risk, experts say. "We don't have a drone transportation and logistics system," military theorist John Robb wrote on X. "The FAA strangled it in the crib a decade ago. If the FCC had regulated the internet the way we've handled drones, we'd still be using AOL." Robb advocates for a national drone framework with built-in security measures: "Monitoring, kill switches, no-fly zones, hardware and software rules, maintenance requirements, and corporate certification." In Congress, lawmakers continue to press the Coast Guard to ensure more stringent vetting of foreign vessels, crew members and cargo. "The vetting process must be consistent and comprehensive across all U.S. ports," the Homeland Security Committee wrote in its January request. The committee also raised concerns about Chinese political officers allegedly embedded aboard COSCO vessels, which it argued underscores direct Chinese Communist Party influence over ostensibly commercial operations. For analysts like Clark, the technology is only part of the equation. The more pressing concern is readiness. "If China believes it can use relatively small drones to cause major damage, and we've done nothing to detect or deter it, that's a vulnerability we can't afford to ignore," he said. Related Articles Putin Ally Says Ukraine Operation 'Grounds for Nuclear Attack'Are the Russia-Ukraine Peace Talks Going Anywhere? | OpinionSteve Bannon Says Lindsey Graham Should Be Arrested Over Ukraine SupportWhat 'Russia's Pearl Harbor' Says About Trump's Golden Dome 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

Opinion - The missing middle class puts Democrats in a ‘big beautiful' bind
Opinion - The missing middle class puts Democrats in a ‘big beautiful' bind

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - The missing middle class puts Democrats in a ‘big beautiful' bind

Sometimes, a one-vote margin seems like a landslide. That's how the 215-214 margin of victory in the House for the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' should have felt to many Democrats. From the moment of the bill's introduction, Democrats seemed unable to find their footing, resorting to calling it by less flattering names but not rallying the nation against it. In fact, the Democrats couldn't seem to figure out quite who they were trying to rally. If American democracy is to have a viable future, the Democratic Party needs to get its act together — and do it quickly. Its performance in the debate about President Trump's signature legislation was not a hopeful sign. As the Senate begins its consideration of the bill, Democrats will say, to borrow from one commentator, that it will lead to 'the largest upward transfer of wealth in American history.' Think of what New Deal Democrats, and their hero Franklin Delano Roosevelt, would have done with such a bill. They would have denounced it over and over again as the work of the 'plutocrats' or 'princes of property.' They would have been speaking to a solidly working-class base. That was then. But now the Democrats have themselves become, at least in part, the party of 'plutocrats' and 'princes of property.' As political scientist Sam Zacher reports, 'Beginning in the 1990s, the Democratic Party started winning increasing shares of rich, upper-middle income, high-income occupation, and stock-owning voters.' This shift was really evident in the 2024 presidential election. Last November, Kamala Harris received a higher share of the vote of people earning between $100,000 and $199,999 than did Donald Trump. That was also true among people making $200,000 or more. In fact, a majority of Americans with a net worth of at least $5 million were also in Harris's camp. On the other hand, she carried the group of people making under $30,000. Therein lies the problem. People in the lowest and highest income groups prioritize different issues. Satisfying members of one group may turn off the other. While the lowest-income voters tend to focus on kitchen table issues, people in the upper income brackets are 'post-materialists, prioritizing issues of identity and other social concerns over traditional economic matters.' That is why the Harris campaign elected to eschew populist and redistributionist themes. The former vice president was happy being shown in the company of celebrities and billionaires. At times, she seemed to be running to the right of Donald Trump, embracing patriotic fervor, gun ownership and the American dream. But given the shifting allegiance of working-class voters, she had a very difficult task to win the election. We saw that again in the messaging from House Democrats about 'The One Big Beautiful Bill Act.' The party of FDR was again in a real bind. Let's start with the simple fact that opposing it meant that Democrats could be accused of wanting to let Trump's 2017 tax bill expire. This, Republicans claimed, would increase taxes on millions of Americans. The second problem was that part of the Democratic base will be among the winners if the bill is signed into law. As USA Today notes, citing the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the bill 'would cut taxes on average by about $2,800 in 2026,' but '[m]ore than two-thirds of the total cuts would go to those with annual incomes of about $217,000 or more.' 'Those with incomes of $1.1 million or more,' it reported, 'would get nearly a fourth of the cuts.' Many of America's millionaires support the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, they are not particularly focused on the plight of those who will be the biggest losers if the president and his Republican allies get their way. The losers will be people at the other end of the income scale — and the other part of the Democratic coalition. 'Americans making about $17,000 to $51,000,' USA Today says, 'would lose about $700. Those with an income of less than $17,000 would lose more than $1,000 on average.' That would come from the deep cuts the House bill would make in the social safety net. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries got it right when he said that passage of the bill would 'cause millions of Americans to lose healthcare and food assistance.' Polls show that the vast majority of Democrats in the country oppose Trump's plan. But a party whose support is most heavily concentrated at the two extreme ends of the class divide would have to show great dexterity in bringing them together to oppose the Republican plan. Alas, such dexterity is in short supply in today's national Democratic Party. That is why it is not clear at the moment that it can stop the plan from being enacted into law. The party is, however, likely to try to use 'The One Big Beautiful Bill Act' as a rallying cry to try to win back the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms. But by then the damage will have been done, and the prospects of undoing it will be bleak. Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Global alarms rise as China's critical mineral export ban takes hold
Global alarms rise as China's critical mineral export ban takes hold

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Global alarms rise as China's critical mineral export ban takes hold

By Jarrett Renshaw and Ernest Scheyder (Reuters) - Alarm over China's stranglehold on critical minerals grew on Tuesday as global automakers joined their U.S. counterparts to complain that restrictions by China on exports of rare earth alloys, mixtures and magnets could cause production delays and outages without a quick solution. German automakers became the latest to warn that China's export restrictions threaten to shut down production and rattle their local economies, following a similar complaint from an Indian EV maker last week. China's decision in April to suspend exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets has upended the supply chains central to automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies and military contractors around the world. The move underscores China's dominance of the critical mineral industry and is seen as leverage by China in its ongoing trade war with U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump has sought to redefine the trading relationship with the U.S.' top economic rival China by imposing steep tariffs on billions of dollars of imported goods in hopes of narrowing a wide trade deficit and bringing back lost manufacturing. Trump imposed tariffs as high as 145% against China only to scale them back after stock, bond and currency markets revolted over the sweeping nature of the levies. China has responded with its own tariffs and is leveraging its dominance in key supply chains to persuade Trump to back down. Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are expected to talk this week and the export ban is expected to be high on the agenda. Shipments of the magnets, essential for assembling everything from cars and drones to robots and missiles, have been halted at many Chinese ports while the Chinese government drafts a new regulatory system. Once in place, the new system could permanently prevent supplies from reaching certain companies, including American military contractors. The suspension has triggered anxiety in corporate boardrooms and nations' capitals - from Tokyo to Washington - as officials scrambled to identify limited alternative options amid fears that production of new automobiles and other items could grind to a halt by summer's end. "If the situation is not changed quickly, production delaysand even production outages can no longer be ruled out," Hildegard Mueller, head of Germany's auto lobby, told Reuters on Tuesday. Frank Fannon, a minerals industry consultant and former U.S. assistant secretary of state for energy resources during Trump's first term, said the global disruptions are not shocking to those paying attention. 'I don't think anyone should be surprised how this is playing out. We have a production challenge (in the U.S.) and we need to leverage our whole of government approach to secure resources and ramp up domestic capability as soon as possible. The time horizon to do this was yesterday,' Fannon. Diplomats, automakers and other executives from India, Japan and Europe were urgently seeking meetings with Beijing officials to push for faster approval of rare earth magnet exports, sources told Reuters, as shortages threatened to halt global supply chains. A business delegation from Japan will visit Beijing in early June to meet the Ministry of Commerce over the curbs and European diplomats from countries with big auto industries have also sought "emergency" meetings with Chinese officials in recent weeks, Reuters reported. India, where Bajaj Auto warned that any further delays in securing the supply of rare earth magnets from China could "seriously impact" electric vehicle production, is organizing a trip for auto executives in the next two to three weeks. In May, the head of the trade group representing General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, Hyundai and other major automakers raised similar concerns in a letter to the Trump administration. "Without reliable access to these elements and magnets,automotive suppliers will be unable to produce criticalautomotive components, including automatic transmissions,throttle bodies, alternators, various motors, sensors, seatbelts, speakers, lights, motors, power steering, and cameras,"the Alliance for Automotive Innovation wrote in the letter. (Reporting By Jarrett Renshaw; additional reporting by Ernest Scheyder in Washington; editing by Chris Sanders and Marguerita Choy) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store