Aesop's Fables date back to the 7th century BCE and may be the first known written expression of an often repeated proverb, namely: Necessity is the mother of invention. In the story called "The Crow and the Pitcher," during a terrible drought a thirsty crow finds water in a partially full water pitcher. But the mouth of the pitcher is too small to allow the crow to reach the water. The crow discerns that if it drops enough pebbles in the pitcher, this will raise the water level. So the crow proceeds with this plan and finally gets a drink.
Aesop's Fables come in many versions which often include a "moral" or "application" at the end. Hence, we have the summary of the lesson of the story that we recognize today.
Trouble is, it's all too easy to apply this idea to any invention and assume that "necessity" refers to some common problem that, if solved, helps the entire community or society. So, when I saw that Waymo's autonomous taxis had shut down, not once, but twice about five days apart in the same city—the first time from a power outage that darkened about one-third of San Francisco and the second due to concerns that a coming storm would create flash floods—I asked myself what necessity is pushing the deployment of autonomous vehicles forward. (To state the obvious, cars with drivers were still able to move about San Francisco during the blackout and adapt to the outage of traffic signals.)
First, I asked whether there is a shortage of taxi rides available for lack of drivers. With the rise of Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing services alongside taxicab companies, there appears to be adequate availability of taxi rides in most cities around the world. So far, autonomous vehicles as taxis appear to be a solution looking for a problem.
Second, I wondered whether autonomous vehicles are safer for riders. There's not a lot of evidence since the use of these vehicles is in the early stages. What evidence there is seems equivocal and incomplete. An article in "New Scientist" begins with this:
One of the largest accident studies yet suggests self-driving cars may be safer than human drivers in routine circumstances – but it also shows the technology struggles more than humans during low-light conditions and when performing turns.
It's hard to understand how low-light conditions and performing turns are not routine parts of driving. So, I'm not persuaded by the reasoning of study. While this piece explains that 90 percent of all accidents are caused by human error, it also asks how autonomous vehicles could make eye contact with other drivers or pedestrians to sort out intentions. Then, there is our instinctive sense of whether another driver is not in good control of his or her car when we sense that car drifting toward the edge of the lane it's in.
It's true that autonomous vehicles don't get drunk or get tired. But then the human backup crew behind the cars—a crew that is constantly in touch with these vehicles as they roll—could get tired or be under the influence of drugs or alcohol—which would pose different kinds of problems for riders should an autonomous vehicle malfunction.
The jury is out on whether on balance autonomous vehicles are safer than those driven by humans. It's worth noting that so far we are referring to autonomous vehicles as ride-hailing services. The drivers for those services are required to be sober and alert as part of their job and so more likely to be so than average drivers driving themselves around. You should note whether any safety claims made for autonomous vehicles are made in comparison to drivers who do similar jobs, for example, ride services, delivery or long-haul freight, and not to the general run of drivers.
My third question was whether there is a shortage of truck drivers. This is relevant as trucking companies begin to test autonomous trucks. There is even less data on the safety of these vehicles on the open road as testing began only in May 2025.
As for whether there is a shortage of drivers, some say yes and some say no. It's easy to see why driving a truck may not be as attractive as other careers since truck driving requires long periods away from home, often alone in a truck cab, and long hours each day. But the naysayers to the shortage problem label it an ongoing myth perpetrated by the industry designed to "lower standards, suppress wages, and prioritize big carriers over safety and sustainability." As proof, they note the American Trucking Association's sudden change in wording in its public statements to a shortage of "quality" drivers. But, the real problem may be a shortage of freight which is sending many trucking companies to their deaths.
Assuming for the moment that there is a shortage of truck drivers, it turns out there's a solution. Walmart just upped its starting pay for truck drivers to $115,000 per year. High pay causes people to reframe their views of previously "undesirable" occupations. Bloomberg (cited just above) reports:
While competitors worry about potential worker shortages, Walmart Inc. has grown its trucking workforce by 33% in the last three years by making the job more attractive to people who might otherwise eschew the field.
The success Walmart is having can't really be all that surprising. I am reminded of the perpetual nursing "shortage" which we often hear about in the media. Perhaps those who employ nurses can take a page out of Walmart's book and simply give them better pay and working conditions.
So, after considering all this, I asked myself what "necessity" is really driving the autonomous vehicle push. The only answer I can think of is that employers, whenever possible, want to minimize labor costs and also the supposed aggravation of having to deal with people. If employers can eliminate drivers of all kinds, they can make more money (so long as their competitors don't do the same and underprice them). Clearly, employers believe all or most of the savings will go into their own pockets and those of their shareholders. Any safety issues will just be other people's problems.
And, of course, there is the problem of what to do with all those drivers (of which there was a supposed shortage). Back in 2011 I wrote that the Roman emperor Vespasian—under whom Rome's great Colosseum was built—was told by one of his engineers of a labor-saving machine that would hasten the work. He rejected the idea saying: "I must always ensure that the working classes earn enough money to buy themselves food."
I do not think the trucking industry will care about whether their former employees can buy themselves food. But I do think the owners of the growing fleet of autonomous vehicles have found a way to make it seem that such vehicles are a response to some necessity that will result in public good.
Previously, I have suggested that such vehicles will only be able to function safely on a closed course, something that is simply not in the cards for today's applications which are all on public roadways. There is no way to implant human judgement, perception and flexibility into a truly autonomous vehicle (without the eyes and ears of humans in the background in real-time) so that it can coexist harmoniously with human drivers and pedestrians.
One more note, in this case regarding autonomous semis—and I can't resist saying this again—I believe that we are unfortunately about to be reminded that force still equals mass times acceleration.
Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer and communications consultant who writes frequently about energy and environment. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, Resilience, Common Dreams, Naked Capitalism, Le Monde Diplomatique, Oilprice.com, OilVoice, TalkMarkets, Investing.com, Business Insider and many other places. He is the author of an oil-themed novel entitled Prelude and has a widely followed blog called Resource Insights. He can be contacted at kurtcobb2001@yahoo.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment