[ethbro]

Given: (1) sensors necessary to autonomously navigate, (2) large stretches of rural America (out west, maybe 100+ miles to the nearest police station), (3) adaptable human adversay, (4) no humans to injure on the vehicle

... I just don't see how you economically protect a vehicle (vs cargo value).

And more sensors simply mean more things to steal. The minimum law enforcement response time along your entire route is the real issue, and there's no way you decrease that short of drastically increasing police staffing.

[jandrese]

These thieves have to steal from a moving vehicle? Sure it's not impossible, but it's more Hollywood heist than something you'd see in real life. It will almost certainly happen a few times, but for practical purposes the amount of stuff stolen before the guys are caught will be less than what it costs to hire tens of thousands of rent-a-cops to sit in the backs of trucks.

Plus, these are thieves we are talking about. Pointing a gun at a human driver and telling them to pull over so they can rob the truck is something that could easily happen today but is extremely rare. The minimum police response time is something that's hard to measure. It might be many minutes 90% of the time, but if you do 10 or 20 of these heists eventually you're going to get unlucky and the cop will happen to be sitting at a speed trap right there are you're busting into the truck.

This is the fundamental problem with crime. You will get away with it most of the time, but when you don't you're fucked. It's a lousy career choice because the upsides are modest relatively speaking, and the downsides are huge. If you're going to be a criminal the trick is to steal enough to retire on and then immediately retire. Knocking over one random truck is not going to do it.

[ethbro]

You can get a 50 BMG rifle for a few thousand dollars and put a hole right through an engine block.

Unload truck at your leisure.

That's not even getting into ways to make an automated system stop by putting up an emergency / stop sign in the middle of the road.

The risk to stealing is directly proportional to the chance of getting caught, which broadly correlates into something unexpected happening, which is drastically diminished by not having a human driver.

[smileysteve]

> You can get a 50 BMG rifle for a few thousand dollars and put a hole right through an engine block.

So, how does a single, or even a 2 driver truck prevent this TODAY? The only reason I can think is conspiracy felony murder of 1 or 2 people w/ clubs, guns, cell phones has a higher risk than conspiracy felony larceny?

You've concocted a great hollywood heist scene; but if you're Fast and the Furious driving through South America, it's The Rock and the Swat team hanging out in cargo hold you have to worry about; not whether the truck has an autonomous driver or not.

[ethbro]

> So, how does a single, or even a 2 driver truck prevent this TODAY

See my last paragraph.

Defending an unmanned vehicle is the walls vs guards argument: it's far harder to build an impassible, unguarded wall than it is to build a difficult, guarded one.

[smileysteve]

> Defending an unmanned vehicle is the walls vs guards argument: it's far harder to build an impassible, unguarded wall than it is to build a difficult, guarded one.

When it comes to shooting out an engine block, you're already past difficult. If you're blasting the doors, you're already past difficult.

But most of all, a truck driver is not a guard. Very few guards are guards of things that are insured. Driver, staff, and security guards (even banks) instructions typically include "protect yourself, but if something comes between your safety and the load safety, choose your safety".

To keep up with the Fast and the Furious movie relation; the first movie was about the FBI trying to prevent robberies BEFORE truck drivers took action after the FBI had instructed the truck drivers to not be heros.

[ethbro]

>>> So, how does a single, or even a 2 driver truck prevent this TODAY

>> See my last paragraph.

> The risk to stealing is directly proportional to the chance of getting caught, which broadly correlates into something unexpected happening, which is drastically diminished by not having a human driver.

You're missing the forest for the trees. A human witness is a deterrent because our court system says they are.

"Sir / Madame, could you pick the person you believe robbed your vehicle out of this lineup?"

Shooting out the engine of a vehicle traveling at a constant 55-85 mph down a straight interstate is a turkey shoot if you have the proper caliber.

I thought this was HN? The technical and creative requirements for this theft barely rise to "a bored Tuesday at the dorms."

[jandrese]

This assumes the truck has no way to call for help when something goes wrong, or that people driving on the same road won't call the cops on you. Long haul trucking doesn't usually happen on deserted backroads.

I'm just saying that the worry about theft is probably overblown. It's almost certainly going to be rare enough that a regular insurance policy will be sufficient protection. People can be hired for exceptional cargo, but that's true today too.

[ethbro]

Have you ever driven interstate east of the Rockies and west of the Mississippi?

If not, you'd be surprised how bare it is. Especially if automation kills the truck stops.

We'll see. The means are trivial for any enterprising farmer, and I think the moral calculus drastically changes once you remove risk to a human driver from the equation.

[james_s_tayler]

As my IT teacher always used to say "don't go to jail for 50 bucks, go for 50 million"