Along the winding course of a three-lane testing ground adjacent to the Monongahela River, an eighteen-wheeled tractor-trailer navigated a curve without anyone in the driver’s seat. Approximately a quarter mile ahead, the truck’s array of sensors detected obstacles: a trash can obstructing one lane and a tire impeding another. In a fraction of a second, the system swiftly signaled, guiding the vehicle into an unobstructed lane, seamlessly bypassing the hindrances.

This self-driving semi, equipped with a sophisticated suite of 25 laser, radar, and camera sensors, is the product of Aurora Innovation, a Pittsburgh-based company. By the latter part of this year, Aurora intends to commence freight transportation operations along Interstate 45, connecting the Dallas and Houston regions, employing a fleet of 20 driverless trucks.

“We want to be out there with thousands or tens of thousands of trucks on the road,” said Chris Urmson, Aurora’s CEO and formerly head of Google’s autonomous vehicle operations. “And to do that, we have to be safe. It’s the only way that the public will accept it. Frankly, it’s the only way our customers will accept it.”

The primary objective of these trucks is to enhance the efficiency of goods transportation, expediting delivery schedules and potentially reducing operational costs. Additionally, these trucks will cover shorter distances on secondary routes.

Supporters of this technology assert that autonomous trucks will also contribute to fuel savings, as they maintain continuous operation without the need for breaks and adhere to consistent speeds.

Nevertheless, the concept of a fully loaded, 80,000-pound driverless truck maneuvering amongst traffic on a major highway at speeds exceeding 65 mph does evoke apprehension in many. A recent AAA poll revealed that a significant majority of Americans, 66%, express worry about autonomous vehicles.

Despite companies’ assurances regarding safety, skeptics, including safety advocates, express concerns about the lack of stringent federal regulations governing autonomous trucks. They argue that companies are largely responsible for ascertaining the safety thresholds for deploying driverless trucks.

Phillip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon professor who specializes in vehicle automation safety, is most concerned about the minute computerized elements of these trucks and their safety engineering capabilities in real-world situations.

“Everything I see indicates they’re trying to do the right thing,” he said. “But the devil is in the details.”

Companies like Aurora maintain that years of rigorous testing validate the safety of their autonomous trucks.

“If we put a vehicle on the road that isn’t sufficiently safe — that we aren’t confident in the safety of — then it kills everything else,” Urmson said.

Experts predict that instead of automated trucks becoming the norm, they will serve to complement human drivers, not replace them.

“If you’re driving a truck today,” Urmson said, “my expectation is you’re going to be able to retire driving a truck.”

Source: The Trucker

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear’s decision to veto a bill aimed at facilitating the operation of fully-autonomous vehicles, including trucks, in the state was met with swift action from lawmakers. Despite the governor’s veto, the bill, known as HB 7, was successfully overridden, thus enacting it into law.

Initially passed by the state’s House and Senate, HB 7 encountered resistance from Gov. Beshear. Nevertheless, the legislation now paves the way for the regulatory approval of fully autonomous vehicles, provided they meet specific criteria.

In vetoing the bill, Beshear said, “[it] does not fully address questions about the safety and security of autonomous vehicles, nor does it implement a testing period that would require a licensed human driver to be behind the wheel” for passenger vehicles.

One notable stipulation of the bill is the requirement for a testing period with a human driver present for trucks weighing over 62,000 pounds and any towed units until July 31, 2026.

“Opening Kentucky’s highways and roads to fully autonomous vehicles should occur only after careful study and consideration and an extensive testing period with a licensed human being behind the wheel, which is what other states have done before passing such law,” Beshear said.

The decision to override the governor’s veto was not without contention. The Kentucky House voted 58-40 in favor of overriding the veto, while the state Senate followed suit with a vote of 21-15. This outcome signifies a clear divergence of opinions on the matter within the state’s legislative bodies.

Source: Commercial Carrier Journal

Earlier this year, Kentucky introduced House Bill 7, a legislative proposal aimed at facilitating the integration of fully autonomous vehicles within the state. This bill seeks to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework governing the operation of self-driving vehicles on public highways. Among its key provisions are guidelines for autonomous vehicles and their automated driving systems, as well as specific requirements for proof of insurance or self-insurance amounting to $1 million for death, bodily injury, and property damage for both personal and commercial fully autonomous vehicles. Notably, the bill also includes exemptions relieving fully autonomous vehicles from certain regulations applicable to human drivers.

Despite successfully passing the Kentucky House with a 61-31 vote, the bill underwent a significant amendment. This modification introduced a crucial requirement stipulating the presence of a human operator inside any fully autonomous vehicle “for which the declared gross weight of the vehicle and any towed unit is more than 62,000 pounds” until July 31, 2026. The operator would be responsible for “monitoring the performance of the vehicle and intervening if necessary.”

This particular provision garnered opposition from various groups, including members of the Teamsters Union, police officers, firefighters, and others. In response to the amendment, these stakeholders collectively assembled at the state capitol in Frankfort on Thursday, urging Kentucky senators to vote against the bill.

The opposition group, composed of Teamsters union members, police officers, and firefighters, emphasized their concerns about the amended requirement for a human operator within fully autonomous vehicles. They argued that such a mandate could hinder the potential benefits and advancements associated with autonomous technology.

“We cannot let California’s Big Tech write laws for our state. Lawmakers need to pass legislation that’s by and for Kentucky residents,” said Fred Zuckerman, Teamsters general secretary-treasurer. “Senators need to preserve good union jobs, safe streets, and the will of the people by stopping this bill dead in its tracks.”

The gathering at the state capitol served as a unified effort to express dissent and encourage Kentucky senators to reject the bill in its current form. The ongoing debate reflects the complex intersection of technological innovation, regulatory considerations, and the broader societal implications of autonomous vehicle integration.

Source: Commercial Carrier Journal