autonomous vehicles

Convoy Trucking Proving the Industry Must Adapt

December 18, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

2019 has been a tough one for the trucking industry. Through continuous storylines covering the driver shortage to serious concerns regarding the overall business prospects for trucking companies, the industry has truly been struggling. Despite all the noise, there have been several companies who have been able to cut through the tension and make a name for themselves. Recently, it was announced that Convoy, an on-demand digital trucking platform, has raised $400 million in funding, which will help it escalate its business model and bring it to market. What exactly is a digital trucking platform? For starters, Convoy’s intention is to cut shipping costs by creating a streamlined alternative to the large amount of wasted space that occurs in most long-haul trucks. The goal is to digitally connect shippers with trucking companies. Think Uber for truck drivers; something we have already seen in the market with Uber Freight.

While the news of Convoy’s new round of funding may not appear monumental, it really is a sign that the industry could seriously pivot within the next decade. For instance, back in August of 2019, The New York Times wrote a piece about Convoy’s emergence within the industry and had the opportunity to speak with Silpa Paul, a commercial vehicle analyst for Frost and Sullivan, a prominent research company specializing in consulting for companies. In that piece, The New York Times stated that “Ms. Paul estimated that services like Convoy’s were expected to grow rapidly, from posting $210 million in broker fees in North America in 2017 to $6.7 billion in 2025.” Further, Paul had determined that the streamlined efficiency would likely not bear on a loss of trucking jobs, because there was already such a severe shortage, as announced by the American Trucking Association. For an industry struggling as much as the trucking industry is, companies finding the potential to garner billions of dollars certainly provides a few bright spots.

Moving forward, Convoy understands that although it has produced the necessary funding to evolve its business model and become a national brand for many shippers, it also faces competition from the likes of Uber Freight. That’s why it is fascinating to see where this brand goes next. According to Tech Crunch, “the company launched in 2019 an automated reloads feature that allows truckers to book multiple loads at a time. It also added Convoy Go, which allows drivers to bring their truck cab and hook up to a trailer pre-filled with cargo.” These advancements are really where we will see how profitable and transformative these digital freight shipping apps will be. While long-haul freight is likely to be where the money is for Convoy, the reality is that there are drivers throughout the industry looking to independently move freight. Allowing for drivers to bring their truck cabs to pre-filled cargo shipments truly changes how the industry functions.

Changing Industry May Bring More Challenges than Previously Believed

There is much to be said about Convoy’s business model and how it; coupled with Uber Freight, will have a tremendous impact on the industry as a whole. Unfortunately, it seems to go unnoticed that some of Convoy’s investors happen to singlehandedly turn the industry on its head already. Currently, Jeff Bezos serves as a primary investor for the company, being that both Amazon and Convoy are located in the same city and largely have the ability to overlap their business models; it’s a genius move by the billionaire. Unfortunately, we have already written about how Amazon is threatening the industry by bringing its shipping and delivery in-house to save on costs. With Class 8 tractors now on the roads for the company, a start-up with the ability to handle the “spot market” with the click of a button seriously threatens small companies. Sure, there is already a driver shortage and Convoy argues that it won’t be taking jobs, but rather rendering shipping more efficient by ensuring that freight is carrying up to its capacity. The issue is that there are many small trucking companies throughout the United States and a majority of their business relies on the “spot market” to turn a profit. In 2019, the spot market has been down. Some may argue that these new apps will help alleviate this issue; however, the long-term ramifications due to who actually has a “say” within companies such as Convoy may present far more issues for the industry and its ability to support small and medium size trucking companies in the next decade.

Boston inks deal to test self-driving cars. Is Chicago next?

September 14, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The folks in Bean-town have peered into their crystal balls and one of the things they’re seeing is self-driving cars. The Boston Globe reported this morning that the city has struck a deal with a group of unnamed tech companies and manufacturers to test autonomous vehicles, beginning in a matter of months. Coincidentally Uber is set to unleash a fleet of autonomous cars (though this particular fleet will include an actual human behind the wheel for safety reasons) on the streets of Pittsburgh later today.

More from the Globe: “If this technology is going to yield benefits for the consumer, we want to make sure it works in the city of Boston,” said Chris Osgood, the city’s chief of streets. “We want to make sure we’re doing our due diligence and understanding what the implications are. How do we set up the right policies and take the right approach to this so it’s going to have the biggest net benefit?”

Counting Pittsburgh, it seems Boston is the second major city in recent months to commit to exploratory testing. Could Chicago be the third? Here are four reasons why it might.

The mayor is a big Uber fan

His brother, Ari, is also a big investor. Back in 2014 reports started swirling that Rahm’s younger brother stood to make nearly a billion dollars from his Hollywood agency’s dealings with the popular ridesharing company, which is venturing into autonomous territory. On top of that, David Plouffe, a strategist to then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008 and former White House mainstay, now serves as one of Uber’s most prominent strategic advisors. The mayor has also favored rideshare-friendly legislation that keeps it at a premium in the Windy City (much to the consternation of the highly regulated limousine and cab service industry). Now that Uber has unleashed self-driving cars on the roads of Pittsburgh, it’s easy to imagine the company heading further west to a place that fits its self-driving test criteria and where it’s ostensibly been feeling the love.

Chicago has one of the largest populations in the country

This goes beyond the Uber and ridesharing craze. Chicago is a major city with a major population—nearly 2.7 million people to be more precise. That’s good enough for third on the national charts, behind only Los Angeles and New York. A study in 2015 by Zen99, a resource for folks who depend on 1099s, found that Chicago ranked ninth out of 70 U.S. markets that were favorable for ridesharing users. That’s not counting the untapped potential of autonomous ridesharing either. One could assume that a city that loves alternative modes of public transportation is bound to look closer at the ways self-driving cars impact the broader economy, both commercially and otherwise.

Like a good neighbor, State Farm is here

So is Allstate, based in Northbrook. They’re two of the biggest auto insurance companies in the country and the insurance industry has been wrestling with the notion that self-driving cars may reduce crashes and potentially eliminate them altogether. That poses big questions for State Farm, Allstate, Nationwide, and others, which will soon need to figure out how they’re business plays into the bigger picture. I’m not saying that either will be making a public relations push in favor of self-driving cars, but what better opportunity to do some experimentation while the guinea pig is rummaging around in your own backyard? Let’s assume the worst: self-driving cars get into tons of accidents. Maybe a public relations push on behalf of the insurance companies isn’t so far-fetched after all.

It’s the economy, stupid

The reality is this: Autonomous cars are the future of transportation. It’s not a matter of “if” but “when.” Rahm and others like to refer to Chicago as the Silicon Valley of the Midwest. If we’re to take that declaration at face value, we need to make the most of our opportunities, which could have huge economic benefits. Tech is big business and presenting Chicago as a tech-friendly hub feeds the narrative while drawing new talent to the city. Being labeled as a pioneer of autonomous transportation and the legislation that governs it has the potential to be hugely beneficial in the long run. I can already imagine Tim Cook pulling up to Apple headquarters in the West Loop. In a self-driving car no less.

Yikes. Driver caught snoozing while car is on autopilot

May 26, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Hands-free shouldn’t mean hands-off

That didn’t take long. A driver was caught napping in the driver’s seat of his Tesla Model S on Sunday while the car inched along a congested LA freeway.

There’s only one problem: The Model S is not an autonomous vehicle. Rather, Tesla’s futuristic-style cars are equipped with a semi-autopilot system designed to give drivers a smidge of hands-free liberation on a severely limited basis. That means it’s probably not a good idea to catch a few z’s, no matter how cool your car is.

The few autopilot systems that exist still require drivers to be alert at all times. Anything less likely has bad implications for you, your car, and the drivers who happen to be nearby. Motor Trend caught wind of the video and reached out to Tesla for a statement. The company was quick to reply, describing its auto system as “designed to provide a hands-on experience to give drivers more confidence behind the wheel, increase their safety on the road, and make highway driving more enjoyable.”

Proponents of autonomous vehicles have championed their cause in recent years, as the technology has advanced to a new level of sophistication. We’ve even written about the benefits of autonomous vehicles and what the future may look like down the road. But this is a perfect example of how drivers are taking a relatively fledgling luxury for granted. There’s not enough evidence to suggest that “hands-free” translates to “hands-off.”

In the same article, Motor Trend points out that owners of self-driving cars are responsible for the actions of their property, meaning the sleepy driver from the video would be liable for any crash that he or his car may cause. It’s a logical conclusion. From a legal perspective, however, the case precedence has yet to be written. There’s no telling how a case like that might play out.

The bottom line at this stage? Keep your hands on the wheel.

The prospects of illegal driving in a driverless world

March 24, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

How long before we lose the privilege of driving altogether?

Last week, Mark Goldfeder, a senior lecturer at Emory Law School, speculated that our grandchildren will conceivably live in a world where driving is not only obsolete but also illegal. We’re talking about humans, that is. If you’re a robot, then by all means have at it. After all, robots are smarter than people, right?

Goldfeder’s article for CNN.com, which has since made it to the top of my “Interesting Ideas” list, revolves around a piece of news coming out of California: a minor accident involving one of Google’s self-driving cars. The Google car, attempting to avoid sand bags in the middle of its lane, veered left and bonked into the side of a bus. It’s not the first time a Google car has been involved in an accident, but it is the first time Google’s top brass was willing to accept that the Google car should bare a sliver of responsibility for the mishap. The company’s PR team released a statement saying as much. For the naysayers, this was the perfect chance to say boo. And most of them did, even if the crash was relatively minor.

The incident is an irritating setback for Google, which, despite its goal of ridding the world of crashes, still has work to do. But for the autonomous car movement, the incident is somewhat of a milestone. You see, in order for cars to be safer than people, they have to think differently. The advantage of the robot is that it can think and analyze in a fraction of a second, and it too can learn from past experience based on algorithms as opposed to emotion or intuition. When a person is driving and reasonably expects to be involved in an imminent crash, the person has limited options: crash; avoid the crash; or choose a calculated path that’s less injurious than the initial crash threat. What do we tell our robots to do? What is reasonable?

Goldfeder addresses the “reasonable driver” standard prevalent in tort law: “Simply put, if a driver can show he took as much care as a ‘reasonable driver’ should have taken, he is generally not held liable in case of an accident.

“Until now, that just meant comparison to a reasonable person. But if a ‘driver’ can now be defined both as a ‘reasonable person’ and as a computer — one that can react on the roadway 10 times faster than the average human being — then what does it mean to say ‘reasonable driver’ anymore?”

In essence, Goldfeder argues that the future of “reasonable” driving is far more sophisticated than what we’re currently working with. Machines are smarter, faster and, based on the early statistics, much less prone to error than humans. So if a machine is effectively 10 times the safer driver, where does that leave officials who are tasked with defining what the term “reasonable” means in the future?

Goldfeder cites several numbers that prove, up to this point, that humans are responsible for thousands of preventable crashes every day. Judging by the many miles traveled by Google’s cars over the past few years, a single crash is way better than the norm (though there has been at least one time when the Google car was ticketed for driving to slow).

We’ve come to a point where it’s no longer far-fetched to consider the day when federal regulators deem human-based driving illegal altogether. Because humans, in comparison, are unsafe. Goldfeder isn’t suggesting that competent drivers are inherently dangerous, but he is suggesting that even the safest drivers are less safe than autonomous vehicles. Think of it this way: if a drunk driver is 100 times more likely to be involved in a crash than a sober driver, who’s to say the same logic shouldn’t apply to a car that can, theoretically, operate 100 times safer than a man or woman?

I’ve followed the development of driverless cars to make a few educated observations, and one of them is that “smart cars” are becoming more sophisticated, and they’re poised to assume a large role in the future of transportation. Did you hear about Dominos’ autonomous pizza delivery vehicle? Even Amazon’s rumored shipping drone could transform into an AV plan. The bigger question for us living and breathing folks isn’t if our driving skills will become obsolete, but how long before we’re ready to hand over the keys.

Autonomous vehicles: We predict the future

February 24, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

What will we be doing 50 years from now? Along with the new iPhone L (how long before Apple switches to Roman numerals?), will we also be waiting for the release of the latest DriveOS software? Lamenting the fact that Grandpa won’t come to terms with swapping his old Ford 5 for a Ford 10? Perhaps insurance companies will finally be willing to negotiate premiums because, hey, we’re not the ones driving anymore.

Get ready: autonomous vehicles (AVs) – self driving cars – are on the verge of breaking through in a big way, and it’s with a cheery note of optimism that we peer into our crystal ball for a glimpse into the future—the not so distant future, depending on who you’re asking. The Obama Administration recently offered up close to $4 billion over the next decade to fast-track projects related to the safety of AVs, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has decided that artificial intelligence (AI) constitutes “a driving entity,” meaning drivers will no longer need to be living and breathing in order to operate a vehicle.

To reference an old cliché: It’s not a matter of “if” AVs become part of mainstream consumerism, but “when.” So when it does happen, what will our roads and our world look like? There are a lot of technological, infrastructural, and legal decisions to be made, and we’re taking educated guesses at what could happen.

Insurance makes a move

AV advocates have long preached the benefits of eliminating human error altogether, reducing the number of auto crashes by significant margins. For insurers and drivers, that may mean a national, comprehensive no-fault regime is on the horizon. An AV study by the RAND Corporation suggests that the concept behind no-fault auto insurance laws might become an appealing alternative to tort-based laws for drivers and AV manufacturers. In other words: your own insurance company, would cover your damages in the event of an crash, regardless of who caused the accident. Tort-based law, by contrast, is based on principles seeking monetary compensation from the at-fault party’s insurance company.

What ultimately happens depends largely on which side makes the first move, and likely, who can get the most public support: the insurance industry, the technology and manufacturing industry, or legislators. All have varying interests in the future of AVs. Both the traditional tort model and no-fault have pros and cons in a world dominated by AVs.

The insurance industry depends on receiving premiums and thrives on holding onto as much money as possible, while paying out as little as possible in claims. National no-fault means an insurer of a driver is responsible whereas tort-based systems allow wiggle room for insurers and injured parties to go after the at-fault party. The RAND Corporation paper depicts a world with comprehensive no-fault and limited liability – up to and including immunity – for manufacturers who’s AVs are involved in a crash..

Technology and manufacturing companies want to be efficient and at the forefront of new, exciting technology like AVs. They should also want to manufacture safe AVs, but for a device as complex and dynamic as a self driving car, companies need to be invested in their products, set on frequent updates and advancements.

Of course, if AVs are as safe as anticipated, auto crashes, and thus injuries caused by crashes, will decrease. The result: less no-fault insurance claims, which insurers may be willing to support. But manufacturers and software developers are still liable in some cases – if the software or hardware of an AV is defective – so they’ll want something to protect them, too. They’ll turn to legislators, demanding immunity or other legal protections, so, they often claim, they can continue to innovate without fear of a massive lawsuit bankrupting them. But with a blanket immunity, the incentive to create, update, and take responsibility for AVs is arguably diminished.

As the sides play out, expect an expensive marketing campaign from insurers, who still rely on high premium-paying customers to make money. “Are you in good hands?” may become a much more literal slogan, for example.

Digital corruption sparks new driving policies

Several months ago, WIRED magazine decided to conduct an experiment with two hackers who were able to infiltrate the computer console of a Chrysler-manufactured Jeep. The trial ultimately forced one driver into a ditch on the side of the road. Though the stunt was planned, it caught the attention of lawmakers who were none-too-pleased with the prospect of real-life remote-control cars. Two Senators in particular set out to look closely at the way hacking presented challenges in a fully autonomous driving world.

That brings into question matters of digital corruption policies and the establishment of security practices to protect drivers from themselves (accidentally installing malware, for example), as well as laws to deter and punish outside forces like hackers. Tailoring these laws to a world in which AVs are prominent would be beneficial in the long run. Expect Congress to take a much more detailed look in the coming years as AVs become more prominent

The legal field starts retrofitting old laws to fit new ones

The days of Napster and P2P file sharing sent some copyright lawyers into frenzy. Attorneys were grappling with a new technological capability—mass downloads—and relying on outdated precedents to argue infringement. So much was happening in such a short time that it became easy to misunderstand what was really going on. As file sharing and copyright laws progressed, a new set of case law began to afford the technology its own body of law, giving lawyers a means by which to prosecute effectively. We may soon see the same thing happen when it comes to the rules of the road for AV.

Today’s question

We have to decide, as a community, how all the moving parts of the AV puzzle will fit together. Who will make the rules, and how will those rules be enforced? At this point, there may be things we don’t know that need changing in order to have AV operating seamlessly. Ford, for example, is working to create an on-demand ride service—like Uber—with AVs. Who would’ve conceived of such an idea just five short years ago and what would the consequences be, both legally and economically? The future is coming into full view. The bigger question is: can we keep pace?