What’s the driving force?

If Aurora Innovations has its way, the company will deploy fully autonomous trucks in Texas by the end of 2024.

As companies like Aurora push forward with billions of dollars invested in driverless truck technology, it is paramount that every stone is turned in regard to safety, cybersecurity and how the trucking workforce would be affected. Aurora, which reportedly lost $1.72 billion last year, is definitely motivated to roll out the technology as quickly as possible. However, many argue that a more skeptical eye is needed before 80,000-pound trucks begin to drive 70 mph down the highway without a person on board.

In September, the House Highway and Transit Subcommittee held a hearing titled “The Future of Automated Commercial Motor Vehicles.” The timing was less than ideal as it was held during National Truck Driver Appreciation Week. Even worse, no truck drivers were on the witness panel, and three of the four witnesses were well-known supporters of the technology.

Even so, several lawmakers and a safety representative made a concerted effort to call out problems with the technology and question whether driverless trucks are anywhere near ready for deployment.

Safety concerns

Although proponents of autonomous vehicles point to potential safety improvements from the technology, it’s also led to numerous crashes. Among these are multiple incidents in San Francisco, where Cruise and Waymo operate fleets of robotaxis without a human driver.

NBC News and other media outlets reported that on Oct. 2 in San Francisco, a hit-and-run driver struck a pedestrian before a Cruise self-driving car ran the woman over.

There also have been reports in San Francisco of self-driving cars obstructing police and firefighters en route to emergencies. In June, an autonomous vehicle came to a full stop on a road emergency personnel were attempting to use in response to a nearby mass shooting. As of August, the San Francisco Fire Department said it had recorded 55 incidents of driverless vehicles blocking emergency vehicles in 2023.

Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, testified at the House hearing that the technology is not ready and pointed to recent crashes involving autonomous vehicles. Chase also referenced some of the recent problems in San Francisco.

“I think we absolutely need prudence when discussing autonomous vehicles of any level,” Chase said. “The biggest example we have so far is San Francisco, and it’s not going so well, to say the least. It’s a problem. We can’t just stick our head in the sand and pretend these problems don’t exist.”

During her testimony, Chase acknowledged that autonomous cars and autonomous trucks are different but also said that the trucking industry should learn from the problems involving driverless cars.

“The safety mishaps are substantial, and the consequences are alarming,” Chase told lawmakers. “A recent crash involving an AV and a fire truck and other incidents resulted in the state’s regulatory agency cutting certain AV operations by 50%. While AVs for passengers and AV trucks are not the same, there are similarities and lessons to be learned from the ongoing San Francisco (program). The serious problems must not be replicated or magnified with trucks or transit vehicles, which are significantly larger and heavier, more complex to operate and can have devastating outcomes in crashes.”

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., said that while autonomous vehicles could eventually improve safety, she emphasized the “could.”

“Autonomous vehicles have the potential to save lives by reducing traffic crashes caused by human behavior,” she said. “But that potential is not a guarantee. Potential safety benefits must be carefully weighed against risks, especially when the public roads are being used as testing grounds for new technologies. The bottom line cannot be saving money. It must be saving lives.”

Holmes Norton later asked Chris Urmson, Aurora’s CEO, how the technology would work when faced with difficult decisions.

“Is Aurora able to guarantee that its technology will prioritize the safety of people, not property, not infrastructure, but people when making split-second decisions on the highway?” Holmes Norton asked.

Urmson said that “safety is paramount” but did not directly answer the question.

Cybersecurity concerns

Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., who has a family background in trucking, outlined concerns about general on-the-road safety as well as cybersecurity.

“I know that we have enemies around this world that can tap into technology and cause major concern if we have a lot of (autonomous trucks) running up and down our roads,” Bost said. “We can’t guarantee what hackers might be able to get into and put autonomous trucks at risk to our people. We don’t – I mean, I think we can put a lot of safety in there, but we’ve got to be very, very, very careful.”

Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., asked Urmson about the potential threat involving cybersecurity and autonomous trucks.

“We’re living in a world now where we face a lot of cyberthreats,” Crawford said. “And so I want to give you an opportunity to kind of explain how you’re addressing – how your technology addresses that evolving threat, because what’s happening today doesn’t look like what will happen tomorrow and the next day with regard to cyberthreats.”

Urmson said that his company has about 50 employees dedicated to improving cybersecurity but did not provide any guarantees that autonomous trucks would be safe from hacks or other cyberattacks.

“So as you know, we have to continue to innovate in this space,” Urmson said. “It’s kind of a running battle, but we feel well-equipped to fight that battle.”

Rep. Chuy Garcia, D-Ill., suggested to Chase that autonomous trucks may prompt the need for a new set of regulations to defend against cyberattacks.

“So it seems that those regulations don’t address the fact that AV trucks don’t just rely on steering wheels or pedals,” Garcia said. “Instead, they use a set of systems to make sophisticated decisions about the driving environment. Given that, do you think that the same basic measures can be used to adequately regulate automated commercial vehicles?”

Chase agreed.

“I think that we need new additional safety standards when we’re talking about automated trucks,” she said. “These are very sophisticated systems, and they can be prone to cybersecurity hacks. They can be prone to … multiple disengagements and different problems on the roads. So without the assurance of standards, we don’t know how they’re going to perform. One company might do a great job, another company not so much, and it’s the motoring public that’s put in danger if we don’t have that security.”

Job loss concerns

Several lawmakers expressed concerns about the potential of driverless trucks displacing tens of thousands of jobs.

American Trucking Associations President Chris Spear attempted to alleviate those fears by telling the members of Congress that no jobs would be lost.

Rep. Pete Stauber, R-Minn., asked Spear if he could look a Minnesota truck driver in the eye and guarantee he or she won’t face job loss due to automation.

“I would – I would – I wouldn’t hesitate, in fact,” Spear said. “I think it’s going to empower that driver.”

Spear’s rationale is based on ATA’s claims of a current shortage of 78,000 drivers. He said driverless trucks will fill that gap rather than take trucking jobs from drivers who want them.

For full disclosure, however, it must be noted that several groups argue that ATA’s driver shortage claims are false. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has contended for years that large fleets have a driver retention problem rather than a driver shortage problem.

OOIDA points to figures showing that about 450,000 new CDLs are issued each year. However, large carriers possess turnover rates of 90% or more, and truck drivers are leaving the industry quickly due to low pay and dismal working conditions. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in 2022 that 300,000 truckers leave the industry every year.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics affirmed OOIDA’s stance in 2019, saying there was not a shortage of truck drivers. FreightWaves also recently reported that ATA’s driver shortage claims were a myth.

Spear didn’t acknowledge those reports denying a driver shortage during the hearing. He also doubled down when Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., suggested that if the technology were successful, it eventually would eliminate most truck drivers.

“There’s no evidence of that, Congressman,” Spear said. “None. When you have a shortage of 78,000 drivers, there’s plenty of space for innovation to play a role. We’ve got to add talent.”

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., remained skeptical.

“In all my years of being in Congress and the state senate, I’ve had a lot of people look me right in the eye and say that something wasn’t going to happen, and it sure did,” Van Drew said. “As the years go by, it’s going to be cheaper for you to do it automated … I feel like we’re losing small businesses at all levels.”

OOIDA’s concerns

OOIDA was not asked to be a witness at the hearing but did outline concerns about autonomous trucks to the subcommittee’s leaders.

First, the Association called out the subcommittee for holding the hearing during a week aimed at celebrating truck drivers.

“It is National Truck Driver Appreciation Week, but you wouldn’t know it from the subcommittee’s hearing on the future of autonomous or automated trucks,” OOIDA wrote. “It is bad enough this hearing is being held during a week that is supposed to thank truckers for their dedication, commitment and the many challenges they overcome, as is (the week’s) stated mission. But it is completely inexcusable to hold this hearing without a witness to represent the millions of professional drivers who will be affected by the deployment of these vehicles. Nothing says ‘thank you’ like denying you a seat at the table for a discussion about how to take away your job.”

OOIDA said that if truckers were at the hearing, they would have told lawmakers they’re worried about public safety.

“First and foremost, truckers are concerned about safety – their own – as well as the driving public’s,” OOIDA wrote. “Despite unfounded forecasts and empty promises that automated vehicles will lead to zero deaths, there continue to be real-world situations in which automation has devastatingly failed … For truckers who must share the road with these vehicles to do their job, an accident caused by autonomous technology could put them out of business and cause serious injury or death. Unfortunately, current voluntary reporting requirements leave truckers and the public in the dark about the safety and reliability of autonomous technologies.”

The Association also cautioned lawmakers that they shouldn’t grant special regulatory privileges to autonomous trucks.

“To be clear, OOIDA has long advocated for greater flexibility from the dizzying and often counterproductive array of safety regulations that force our members to work amidst more challenges and less safety,” the Association wrote. “Professional drivers are justifiably frustrated at the potential for the federal government to loosen regulations to help test new technology that will one day replace them on our roads.” LL