Levinson and Stefani

It seems self-driving trucks have taken over the spotlight–as was the case at CES 2020 in Las Vegas last month.

While earlier, idealistic visions of automated passenger cars have excited the industry, manufacturers and technology startups made it clear at the January conference that automated commercial vehicles were indeed the next wave of futuristic transport. 

For example, Paccar Inc. and Plus.ai showcased new tech they believe will become widely used throughout trucking in the coming years. A sensor-heavy and Level 4 automated driving-equipped truck took the stage–a commercial vehicle that can drive itself without need of a human driver in certain conditions.

Kenworth Truck Co., the brand operating under Paccar Inc., debuted this proof-of-concept truck quietly, because the company is currently working on learning as much as it can regarding automated truck driving expectations.

“We have a pretty good plan, and it’s going to take a lot of validation work once we get it to the point where it can run hands-off and we’re confident of it,” said Kenworth research and development director, Brian Lindgren. “Doing all of the validation work is going to be a couple of years to prove in different situations that you can’t always foresee when you’re designing it.”

The new conventional body T680 does not appear to the naked eye to be terribly different than its original design; however, the traditional exterior mirrors are equipped with light-detecting and ranging units (LiDar)–an important upgrade.  The truck’s global navigation satellite system gives high location accuracy–within a centimeter, to be exact–when using its inertial measurement unit in combination with a LiDar point on a high-definition map.

For the interior hardware, five computers host feedback control logic and record up to 1 terabyte of data for every hour of driving.

“We’re using this as a test bed to try out different sensors and LiDar,” said Lindgren. Three different LiDars come from two suppliers. Three radars, along with six cameras, sense surrounding road conditions and then feed fusion algorithms to track objects.

Additional modifications include a torque overlay system of redundant steering, a new high-capacity alternator, an electronically controlled air-braking system, and rear seats (instead of sleeper berths) for engineers on ride-alongs.

ZF Group, Ryder System, and Locomation also weighed in on the future of automated trucks, and many industry members view automated commercial vehicles to be more rewarding than self-driving passenger cars overall.

“At ZF, we believe that systems for Level 4 or fully automated driving and upwards right now only make sense for commercial vehicles and people-movers,” said Wolf-Henning Scheider, CEO of the company. 

ZF will focus on using Level 2 systems for passenger cars–meaning drivers are always involved. The cost of the necessary technology for widespread individual use of automated cars would make it less than sensible right now, Scheider explained.

A return on investment is much more likely for commercial transportation businesses in their use of Level 4 systems, however. Scheider said automated commercial trucks would work well in areas like logistics centers and harbors in the near future.

“First, we have to start with systems that only run on premises,” he said, “which would already reduce the number of hours that drivers are needed significantly.”

For now, highly automated trucks will still need safety drivers present during on-road operations, especially with the confusion currently surrounding legality aspects–including how such a vehicle could comply with law enforcement.

“[A] very simple question: How does a police car stop a fully autonomous truck?” asked Scheider. “But, we are working on it.”

Regardless, the day before the conference, ZF announced its plans to provide a fully autonomous commercial vehicle for an anonymous customer by 2025.

“There is a lot of development that is happening in the automotive industry overall that is accelerating some of this,” said Kenworth’s Lindgren in response. “Not of all it is really built for heavy trucks. It doesn’t have the kind of longevity and durability that we need.”

Still, Lindgren believes it is possible for autonomous trucks to enter mainstream operations by 2025–in both terminal and on-road environments.

“We’re pursuing both so they could come together at the same time,” he explained. 

In addition, Paccar’s general manager, Stephan Olsen, believes professional truck drivers will continue to be enormously important to the industry, regardless of the promise of autonomous vehicles.

We’re not in the business of taking drivers out of the truck,” he said. “We’re in the business of taking technology and applying it to make drivers’ jobs more comfortable, safer, and more efficient.”

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration implemented its Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program in December of 2010. Its purpose was to be a method of measuring safety and regulation compliance on the road, with a goal decreasing truck-involved accidents.

The program allows commercial vehicle owner-operators to view their safety efforts because it is based upon a scoring system, which trucking professionals can view.

Scores are made by analyzing an owner-operator’s safety events and then categorizing them into Behavioral Analysis and Safety Improvements Categories (BASICs). There are seven BASICs of safety: Unsafe Driving, Crash Indicator, Hours-of-Service Compliance, Vehicle Maintenance, Controlled Substances/Alcohol, Hazardous Materials Compliance, and Driver Fitness.

After being placed into a category, an event is given a weighted score based on when it occurred and its severity. FMCSA’s Safety Management System (SMS) receives this data on a monthly basis.

If owner-operators have a score of 65 or above, they will receive a warning letter from the Motor Carrier Early Intervention protocol, which allows them to correct issues before law enforcement must intervene. The lower the score, the better an owner-operator’s overall safety is considered.

Presently, CSA is made of three components: the Safety Measurement System, interventions, and a Safety Fitness Determination Rating System.

So, 10 years later, is the system still beneficial? Currently, there are concerns about its ability to reduce fatal commercial vehicle-involved crashes.

“Despite the best of intentions, CSA has not moved the crash reduction needle in the right direction,” said Dave Osiecki, Scopelitis Transportation Consulting president. “Is it time for FMCSA to consider a new and different approach to CSA, and perhaps more generally?”

Scopelitis recently presented FMCSA’s latest data, showing that the rate of truck-involved fatal crashes per 100 million miles traveled actually grew from 1.14 in 2010 to 1.42 in 2017. The rate of truck-involved injuries per 100 million miles traveled within the same period has also risen from 19.5 to 34.4.

“When I looked at [the data], it’s pretty clear that CSA hasn’t met [its] objective,” said Osiecki.

Although 2018 and 2019’s results have yet to be released, it is clear they won’t be an improvement from years past. Because of this, Jim Mullen, Acting Administrator of FMCSA, said he is urging the agency to focus on reversing a four-year increase in the number of truck-involved fatalities.

However, the data may not be so easily comparable from year to year. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety research director, Shaun Kildare, said the trucking industry was hit by the recession in 2009 and had low numbers of miles traveled, and that between 2016 and 2017, the way FMCSA collected data changed drastically.

“What CSA can do is limited by the amount of enforcement and touches by the agency and the industry,” he explained. “There are about 560,000 carriers that FMCSA regulates. Of that total, in reality, they may only audit and touch as many as, let’s say, 50,000 carriers.”

Additionally, Steve Bryan, SambaSafety Transportation executive vice president and general manager, said there have been further changes for truckers, especially with the usage of new technology and the changes to Hours-of-Service rules. “The environment that truckers operate in–the distractions from cell phones and the fatigue–is extraordinarily worse than it was 10 or 12 years ago.”

Currently, FMCSA is working toward implementing an improved manner of evaluating CSA with a technique called Item Response Theory, a method currently used to evaluate programs in the health and airline industries.

IRT uses data to score highway and roadside inspection violations, and FMCSA said it will know by September 2020 whether or not the method is applicable to CSA.

“I believe the IRT model does a much better job of identifying those motor carriers that have a high crash rate,” Bryan explained, as he has previously run models using IRT. “I wish they’d implement the darn thing.”

American Trucking Associations vice president, Dan Horvath, is less than assured that the methodology will end up helping the industry.

“Truck crashes have gone up,” he said. “But, I don’t believe that an improved CSA program will be the single solution to reducing truck crashes. I certainly believe that an improved program can be part of the broader picture to reduce crash risk.”

During a February Senate hearing, a new bill allowing commercial drivers below the age of 21 to drive trucks between states was met with a huge endorsement.

Chris Spear, President of American Trucking Associations, gave the legislation his enthusiastic approval. The bill, sponsored by Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana, would reduce the age requirement for interstate commercial driving from 21 to 18.

“It’s really not about age,” he said at the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing. “It’s about training.” He explained the measure would also help the industry improve its overall truck driver shortage. “This is a step toward safety.”

If the bill is passed, it would also bring new criteria for training. One requirement would include at least 400 hours of on-duty time and 240 hours of driving time with an experienced operator. The trucks operated during these training sessions would need to be equipped with active braking systems, forward-facing video recorders, and speed governors capping speeds at 65 mph.

The DRIVE Safe Act was filed in both the Senate by Senators Todd Young (R-Indiana) and Jon Tester (D-Montana), and the House by Representatives Trey Hollingsworth (R-Indiana) and Henry Cuellar (D-Texas). The act works to fight the issue of driver shortages, and specifies that an apprentice driver would need to complete 120 hours of on-duty time, and that at least 80 hours of that must be in a commercial vehicle. 

In addition, an employer would need to deem an apprentice competent in every type of traffic, safety awareness, lane control, speed and space management, right and left turns, mirror scanning, and complying with Hours-of-Service regulations.

The ATA has been a strong supporter of the legislation and has argued that it would help the industry bring in a new pool of prospective drivers. Currently, federal law prohibits truckers under 21 from crossing state lines, although 48 states allow drivers of at least 18 years to operate Class 8 trucks within their states.

“This bill reinforces a culture of safety far and above current standards to provide the next generation of drivers with the critical skills they need to operate a truck safely on our nation’s highways,” said International Foodservice Distributor Association president, Mark Allen.

Spear argued that for drivers at age 18 to be allowed to drive long distances intrastate made it plausible to allow them to move interstate. He also explained that it makes little sense to allow military personnel between the ages of 18 and 21 to operate heavy machinery and then disallow them to truck from state to state.

“How are we willing to allow 18-year-olds to go off and do that, but we can’t teach them how to cross state lines in a Class 9 [truck]? This bill is responsible. It’s safety-minded. It’s the right thing to do,” Spear said. He continued to emphasize the bill’s outline of drivers’ training requirements.

Although bill sponsors and the ATA both brought up the new safety requisites, it seems their biggest concern is the long-reported shortage of truck drivers.

“We have this substantial driver shortage in this country,” said Young. “And, progressively this threatens the long-term economic stability of our country. We want to maintain this longest period of economic expansion in American history.”

Dawn King of the Truck Safety Coalition questioned the legislation and its main focus of solving the shortage, claiming safety didn’t seem to be a real concern.

“There is ample research showing that teen drivers have significantly higher crash rates and are much less safe than older drivers,” she said. “There is absolutely no evidence that introducing teen drivers will in any way improve safety.”

Additionally, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Lewie Pugh, brought up the widely-believed claim that “there is no driver shortage.”

The ATA currently claims that the industry short 61,000 truck drivers, and must hire 1.1 million more within the next decade to meet industry demand. Spear also brought up the ATA’s support of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s proposed relaxation of hours-of-service rules, saying “New flexibilities should be based on sound evidence and sufficient data to ensure safety.”

There has also been strong pushback against hours-of-service regulation changes, with opposers explaining the dangers of allowing truckers to have more freedom during mandatory rest times and longer periods of driving, as fatigue is a major factor in a many fatal truck crashes.

“In Illinois, you can’t even drive a car without restrictions until you turn 18,” commented Jay Stefani, “but we’re supposed to believe those same teenaged drivers are suddenly experienced and competent enough to operate an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer at highway speeds? Driver shortfalls are certainly an issue, but perhaps the ATA should consider increasing interest by supporting higher wages for interstate truckers.”

Electronic braking systems are making their way throughout the United States after 20 years in Europe.

EBS braking uses electronic control by calculating actions needed for brake management when a driver applies the brakes. The brake valve is replaced by a signal transmitter, which sends a signal to the control, which finally signals each axle group about braking needs.

Because traditional pneumatic systems are still enacted with EBS, compressed air is used to apply the brakes. This means that if an electric failure should occur, the brakes still work properly.

EBS will most likely be widespread within the next few years, according to Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems. Bendix’s director of electronic brake and chassis control, Mike Tober, says the technology has been tested here for the past couple of years, although Bendix has yet to obtain any truck manufacturer clients using EBS in the U.S.

The system will begin supporting driver-assist technology in a larger capacity than ever before, and will make huge strides in the commercial vehicle market, especially among electric trucks. According to Wabco, one of the brake suppliers working with this quickly-progressing technology, “island applications” are in use throughout the country among vehicles without trailers and those with 24-volt architecture.

“Within three to five years, we see EBS coming to the U.S. in larger scale,” said Wabco’s innovation and technology officer, Thomas Dieckmann.

However, the technology is already being used in some buses.

Not everyone believes EBS will become commonplace quickly, though. Jack Legler, American Trucking Associations’ Technology and Maintenance Council technical director says there is still a long way to go. For example, the technology still needs to see certain track testing, prototypes, reliability verification, and compliance with advanced driver assistance systems.

“You can’t degrade safety performance,” said Legler. ”It’s got to be at least as good or better to be both desirable, and have the regulatory people allow it, and have industry acceptance at the driver level…We’re not going to go backwards on risk.”

Additionally, Joseph Kay of Meritor said there are still many regulations needing attention, especially those with backup strategies. There are also updates need to be given to SAE International test procedures.

The biggest challenge in the mind of Chris Stadler, Volvo Trucks’ product marketing manager, is training difficulty among inspectors.

Other industry professionals say we will see the technology primarily within longhaul fleets–especially due to their easily-predictable environments. It will take much more time for heavy-duty trucks, because they typically work in more challenging circumstances where fleets must have equipment ready for particular applications.

However,” said Bendix’s Tober, “sometimes the market takes strange turns, and a specialized application could move up in priority as the OEs go through their product planning cycles.”

Because North America has been quick to implement ADAS and electric vehicles, this shift into electronic braking will take place soon. ADAS requires full-vehicle communication, while EBS allows for improved brake balance and smoother braking throughout multiple applications. Additionally, EBS works more efficiently in collaboration with collision avoidance systems than ABS, and can also work easily with vehicle-to-vehicle communications.

“EBS knows, by design, how much pressure it takes to achieve a certain declaration–it’s being calculated and is learning all the time,” said Meritor’s Kay.

ABS has also been evolving into EBS, he said. ABS has been integrating “hill hold” and has upgraded its ability to handle automated functions, including collision mitigation. Stability control is also now mandatory in tractors with ABS, as it can now calculate mass.

However, Kay explains it is still being outgrown. 

“That ABS system is trending toward the end of its time in the market, and is likely not capable of supporting the new trends pulling us into the next generation of braking,” he said.

With many brake parts remaining the same, Bendix’s Tober doesn’t believe the transition will be particularly difficult for technicians, although the technology will call for a certain period of adjustment. Technicians will be more easily able to discover brake lining wear, as they will be notified of coming problems from EBS’ predictive maintenance capabilities. The system is also easier to install than ABS, which will increase overall uptime for the industry as a whole.

The impact on truck maintenance will be “low overall” according to Kay, because the industry has already adopted so many other electronic systems–which is what has led to this transition.

“The EBS system has the ability to change the performance characteristics with a ‘keystroke,’” Kay said. “Essentially by hooking a laptop to the vehicle system, certain features may be adjustable.”

These systems will be used similarly to those in Europe, but parts will be specifically adapted for lower voltage in the U.S.

“All the OEs are now global,” said TMC’s Legler. “All the braking system suppliers are global. Nobody’s thinking about this U.S. market. Everybody’s thinking ‘global market’ as they’re developing these new technologies.”

“Considering the high number of truck crashes that are a result of a truck rear-ending another vehicle, any improvement to braking is welcome from a safety standpoint,” said Jay Stefani. “And while it’s disappointing it has taken so long to get EBS here, despite being road-tested in other countries for well over a decade, I’m glad it’s here now.”