Commentary: Let's Look More Closely at Automation in Trucking

October 2017, - Editorial

by Rolf Lockwood

SHARING TOOLS        | Print Subscribe
Rolf Lockwood
Rolf Lockwood

Escape is impossible. The word “autonomous” is everywhere I look, and if I believed the hype in the mainstream press, I’d think that human control of cars and trucks will soon be a thing of the past.

Yes indeed, some forms of autonomous driving will find their way into trucking before long. Who knows when? Not me, but it won’t be tomorrow for the mainstream freight business.

At the user level, I fear that the whole autonomous phenomenon is poorly understood, and in a conversation over dinner recently, I found that a veteran OEM engineer agrees with me. First off, in only very rare circumstances are we talking about actual full autonomy – that is, with no driver present. It is already happening in mines and in some agricultural applications, though very slowly, and it’s likely to appear in container ports on very proscribed routes fairly soon.

Everywhere else, we’re talking “semi-autonomous,” meaning a driver is in there – or even two as presently required in some jurisdictions. Jobs will not be lost any time soon.

The technology component is relatively easy, but not the social and regulatory sides of it all. That challenge takes “complex” to new heights.

Last-mile deliveries are a different story, and there we already see the start of jobs being lost to drones. But that’s a different kettle of techno-fish.

My engineer friend and I also got to talking about platooning. Both of us registered a little skepticism there too. At best I think we’ll see two-truck platoons in the nearish future – but not as near as I once thought we would. I’m not sure the benefits are sufficiently large to justify the expense and the hassle, though a “confidence report” from the North American Council on Freight Efficiency last year begs to differ.

A two-truck platoon would save about 4% in fuel compared to a pair of rigs running separately, the report says, and payback could be as short as one or two years. Fuel savings come from reduced air turbulence between the two vehicles when they operate 40- to 50-feet apart.

The original vision, as I understood it, suggested that as many as 10 trucks could be platooned, limited only by the strength of the radio signal connecting them. And that vision also suggested that random trucks could join an existing platoon if they “asked” by electronic means and determined that routes were compatible. A commercial connection between trucks was also envisioned, namely that the lead rig – which enjoys a much smaller fuel saving – could be paid by the others.

As things stand now, none of this is practical anywhere except on smooth and easy highways in good weather with a pair of trucks from the same fleet.

The biggest downside, to my mind, is the fate of the poor driver in the second truck. These are not autonomous trucks, remember, so all following trucks will need a driver. How on earth do you keep that poor bugger awake?

One big cloud over all this fancy wizardry is that it’s essentially limited to 80,000-pound vans being hauled down clean highways. Talk to loggers, guys hauling to and from remote mines, people supplying all manner of things in oil fields, and you know what you’ll hear.


  1. 1. Dean Hughson [ October 18, 2017 @ 06:37AM ]

    The concept seems a little ridiculous. To take the train off the tracks and put it on the highway. Trucking and the general public don't get along very well now. Unskilled drivers in speed limited trucks versus' impatient, distracted four wheelers. I don't mean the first statement literally. But maybe we should consider a complete shift in our transportation modes..

  2. 2. Richard Bishop [ October 18, 2017 @ 11:22AM ]

    Rolf -- I've been involved with platooning since the late 90's. You correctly summed up things various folks have been saying over the years re platooning. Both those were researchers and visionaries! When things have to be implemented in the real world, a solid use case and business case has to be targeted.

    I saw the NACFE Confidence Report as very helpful, with a feet-on-the-ground perspective. As you note, "A two-truck platoon would save about 4% in fuel compared to a pair of rigs running separately, the report says, and payback could be as short as one or two years." That sounds pretty good to me. They also interview drivers who have operated in testing platoons, and they find the driver experience in rear trucks is fine.

    Platooning doesnt have to happen everywhere, just in enough places and situations to create a solid user base to stimulate the market.

  3. 3. Dennis O Taylor [ October 18, 2017 @ 02:15PM ]

    Today, many highways run at saturation levels of cars per lane. At 60 mph, with 2-second trailing gap, one lane can carry 26.9 cars (average length 20 feet, average gap 176 feet). At 70 mph, the lane capacity is 23.4 cars/mile. That does not make allowance for any trucks. Since the average truck is 70-feet long, or so, the space it claims will reduce capacity by at least one car and possibly two.
    So, if you can SAFELY cut the trailing gap to 1 second or even less, you can increase lane capacity. My sense is that you can gain more lane capacity by platooning cars instead of trucks. So, maybe the future looks like platoons of 5-9 cars for every 2-3 trucks. Which one do you want to be in?


Comment On This Story

Comment: (Maximum 2000 characters)  
Leave this field empty:
* Please note that every comment is moderated.


We offer e-newsletters that deliver targeted news and information for the entire fleet industry.


ELDs and Telematics

sponsored by
sponsor logo

Scott Sutarik from Geotab will answer your questions and challenges

View All

Sleeper Cab Power

Steve Carlson from Xantrex will answer your questions and challenges

View All