California's Democratic governor has vetoed a bill that would have required human drivers to be on board self-driving trucks.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill to require human drivers on board self-driving trucks, a measure that union leaders and truck drivers said would save hundreds of thousands of jobs in the state.
Can't believe they bothered to try to pass it.
From an outside quick glance, it seems like a brilliant idea.
But then you have to remember WHY they're doing this.
They want to ship 24x7 and not have to pay a person.
Slapping a co-pilot in there is counter-intuitive to their end game.
Not to mention humans do NOT have the required attention span for this. We can often do stupid shit, completely sober, while driving, with DECADES of experience.
If the autopilot is even 80% effective, we're going to get bored, sleep, read, fuck around on our devices. Maybe jerk off? Who knows?
We're not ready for this step, not yet.
Bet they'll be needing a lot of mechanics when the time comes, though.
We've entered the Twilight zone.
Where Ben Shapiro and Gavin Newsom are on the same side of a debate, and they're fighting against Tucker Carlson and the unions.
"Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, head of the California Labor Federation, said driverless trucks are dangerous..." Well are they dangerous? Is there any data to back up that claim? And is there data to back up the claim that keeping the driver in the vehicle makes it safe again?
I hate this "save the jobs" attitude. How about we not save the jobs and pay them to get other jobs or even pay them to stay home?
This can only end well. I can't wait for the personal injury lawsuits to start rolling in.
Also, having worked in a warehouse, who the hell is going to hand over the paperwork? Do you know how many places don't use electronics that talk to each other? Do you know how many times I, working at a modest size business, had to sign my damn name? Half the time it doesn't even need to be there, they just use it to make sure somebody looked at the pallet of merchandise to make sure it was correct. This is going to blow up in everyone's face, literally and metaphorically.
Having a required human driver in the trucks for if/when the self-driving portion of the truck suddenly bugs out or gets into a situation where it cannot get itself free would probably save them a lot of headache and business when suddenly that truck gets into a situation it cannot correct itself.
Hell, we've already seen times when that would've saved lives like the time self driving taxis ended up blocking an ambulance en route.
Funny to see the argument being made here that this idea is crazy because people "don't have the attention span" to monitor the robot driving the car. Like yes, that's exactly the point, people suck at driving and maintaining constant attention, and they are worse than they were 10-20 years ago thanks to cell phones and screens. One in every hundred people you know will literally die due to this problem. For most people that means several people you knew in high school are dead because of people's inability to drive perfectly all the time. That's just deaths, many more will get injured or maimed. It doesn't have to be this way. The only way out of it aside from somehow designing better humans is self-driving cars. They are already orders of magnitude safer than humans and have been so for years. Do they have bugs? Yes. But if we replaced every car on the road with a self-driving car right now we'd see the death and maiming rate plummet.
For context: we shut down the global economy for a virus with an estimated 1% mortality rate. It was necessary to avoid hospital overwhelm and give us time to develop countermeasures. That's the same mortality rate as driving. Obviously drivers are not overwhelming hospitals because the deaths are spread out over a longer time period. But nonetheless I think it's an interesting comparison.