How America's Transportation Department Blocked a Self-Driving Truck Company (reason.com)
- Reference: 0179874586
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/10/26/0419205/how-americas-transportation-department-blocked-a-self-driving-truck-company
- Source link: https://reason.com/2025/10/19/feds-pump-the-brakes-on-autonomous-trucks/?nab=1
> An obscure federal rule is slowing the self-driving revolution. When trucks break down, operators are required to place reflective warning cones and road flares around the truck to warn other motorists. The regulations [3]areexacting : Within 10 minutes of stopping, three warning signals must be set in specific locations around the truck. Aurora [4]asked the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) to allow warning beacons to be fixed to the truck itself — and activated when a truck becomes disabled. The warning beacons would face both forward and backward, would be more visibleâthan cones (particularly at night), and wouldn't burn out like road flares. Drivers of nonautonomous vehicles could also benefit from that rule change, as they would no longer have to walk into traffic to place the required safety signals.
>
> In December 2024, however, the Transportation Department denied Aurora's request for an exemption to the existing rules, even though regulators [5]admitted in theFederal Registerthat no evidence indicated the truck-mounted beacons would be less safe. Such a study is now underway, but it's unclear how long it will take to draw any conclusions.
The article notes that Aurora has now filed a lawsuit in federal court that seeks to overturn the Transportation Department's denial...
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader [6]schwit1 for sharing the article.
[1] https://reason.com/2025/10/19/feds-pump-the-brakes-on-autonomous-trucks/?nab=1
[2] https://ir.aurora.tech/news-events/press-releases/detail/119/aurora-begins-commercial-driverless-trucking-in-texas-ushering-in-a-new-era-of-freight
[3] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-392/subpart-C/section-392.22
[4] https://www.regulations.gov/document/FMCSA-2023-0071-0011
[5] https://reason.com/2025/10/19/feds-pump-the-brakes-on-autonomous-trucks/?nab=1
[6] https://www.slashdot.org/~schwit1
Around the truck? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is "around the truck" really accurate in the US or are they being intentionally misleading? Truck drivers need to put a triangle 300 bloody feet behind truck on the highway here, that's not "around".
Re: (Score:1)
People aren't paying attention even in daylight and can hit a huge truck anyway. So it doesn't matter what you do - there will always be a better id1ot.
Re: Around the truck? (Score:1)
> Truck drivers need to put a triangle 300 bloody feet behind truck on the highway here
Well the goal is to
Re: Around the truck? (Score:2)
The goal is to have as little blood as possible.
The rule is 100 to 500 feet depending on the situation. Type of road, curves, that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how you get to "300 bloody feet". That bit where it says the rules are "exacting" in TFS, is a link to the actual rules. It's 100feet. That's pretty damn close to a truck. In fact that's just a couple of meters longer than b-double truck.
Re: (Score:2)
> Not sure how you get to "300 bloody feet". That bit where it says the rules are "exacting" in TFS, is a link to the actual rules. It's 100feet. That's pretty damn close to a truck.
You should read the whole section that you referenced. For example there's this
> (iv) Hills, curves, and obstructions. If a commercial motor vehicle is stopped within 500 feet of a curve, crest of a hill, or other obstruction to view, the driver shall place the warning signal required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section in the direction of the obstruction to view a distance of 100 feet to 500 feet from the stopped commercial motor vehicle so as to afford ample warning to other users of the highway.Hills, curves, and obstructions. If a commercial motor vehicle is stopped within 500 feet of a curve, crest of a hill, or other obstruction to view, the driver shall place the warning signal required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section in the direction of the obstruction to view a distance of 100 feet to 500 feet from the stopped commercial motor vehicle so as to afford ample warning to other users of the highway.
Getting a truck-mounted light to shine around a curve 500 feet away is tricky. Drone-dropped (and retrieved!) flares also tricky.
Re: (Score:2)
I did read the whole section. One thing America is infamously known for is it's long straight roads, your claim that truckers need to trek 300 feet is ignorant or dishonest. Most don't.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the federal regulation in the US is 100 feet. Not clear what states may required beyond that.
There are many reason why big-rigs need... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many reasons why big-rigs need alert and attentive drivers at the controls at all times - the ability to respond to organic situations that require intelligent cone-placement is but one.
How many of these MBA's and marketing morons have been to driving school??
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How good are humans at those "organic" responses? 4000 fatal large truck accidents annually by human truck drivers in the US are not enough for you? You know, like this just yesterday: [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6nKIkYHIK0
Re: (Score:2)
As many of us are software engineers, how many more unemployed people must we continue to create? Truthfully, though, if you get rid of money and everything is automated, then, well, there's no concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are by fare the best automobile operators on the planet. Computers do not come close. That's fact. If you took the very best autonomous vehicle system existing right now and a trucker with 10 years of experience and no violations, the trucker would be more capable at negotiating more complex situations and at less cost.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that a couple autonomous trucks running on a couple EXTREMELY measured routes are either cheap or consistent in their operation.
We'll eventually hav
Re: There are many reason why big-rigs need... (Score:2)
Why do you have such an inferiority complex toward people with business degrees, it is weird and telling
Re: (Score:2)
> the ability to respond to organic situations that require intelligent cone-placement is but one.
Citation Needed. To be clear it sounds like what you're saying is right, but the reality is we don't make decisions like this based on the feels which is precisely why a detailed study has been commissioned.
Add to that - most responses to break down are low-IQ even from supposedly smart people I would wager very few responses to such situations are resolved organically rather than "God fucking dammit now I need to place this thing 100ft behind me due to regulations, grrrrrr."
Re: (Score:2)
> There are many reasons why big-rigs need alert and attentive drivers at the controls at all times - the ability to respond to organic situations that require intelligent cone-placement is but one.
> How many of these MBA's and marketing morons have been to driving school??
How many of the actual drivers themselves have been to driving school?
You know there's an ongoing joke about Swift drivers right? Because Swift, alongside all the other huge truck transportation companies are basically hiring drivers with fre
Do a study FIRST. (Score:2)
> even though regulatorsadmittedin theFederal Registerthat no evidence indicated the truck-mounted beacons would be less safe. Such a study is now underway, but it's unclear how long it will take to draw any conclusions.
The company wants the regulations changed? Fine as soon as THEY provide evidence that the proposed change is NOT less safe. At this point according to the article there has been no study to indicate how safe their proposed changes are compared to existing regulations. So why should the change be made?
Re: (Score:3)
1) There has been no study that the current rule does anything. They just made it up. For all we know, the current rule CAUSES more accidents than it prevents. This is not medically tested science, but just someone that said '4 paces', and then later clarified that to mean 3 meters/10 ft.
2) The current rule allows for the use of road flares as warning devices, that last... 30 minutes. When they go out, no additional warning devices are required. Yeah, this is not the safest or well thought or tested ru
Re: (Score:2)
> I am saying that a reasonable agency could have looked at the rule, said 'this is just some crap a guy made up with no science', and given a limited testing exemption of some kind for say 100 trucks.
Common sense has no place in government. Does not even matter who is in charge. It's like a natural law.
Re: (Score:2)
> Common sense has no place in government. Does not even matter who is in charge. It's like a natural law.
The fact that their minimum standard allow flares that burn out is probably because they are a readily available and reliable option.
Requirements (Score:2)
Was a study done showing putting out cones and road flares is effective at alerting motorists that there is a disabled truck?
I honestly don't know if there was or not. However, if there wasn't (and a fair number of regulations aren't based on studies, nor are particularly well thought-out) why would a study need to be done to modify an existing regulation?
Not "blocking", requiring the rules to be followed (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not "blocking" anything. There are existing rules and they are requiring those rules to be followed.
Petitioner wants the existing rules to be ignored and is requesting an exemption because, reasons.
The reasons maybe perfectly reasonable. I might even agree with them. And it is entirely possible this is a case of "the rules" not keeping pace with technology. But it is not fair to say that the petitioner is being "blocked". That implies that someone singling out of their way to screw the petitioner. Not the case here. Petitioner is simply being held to the rules that already existed before petitioner came along.
Re: (Score:2)
If the rule was created in order to stop the petitioner from doing business, then it's blocking. I don't think that's the case here. It's just that the petitioner has a business model that was not anticipated when the rule was created.
I predict the rule can and will be changed. But for now ... well, it's a rule.
They shouldn't be requesting an exception (Score:3, Insightful)
> the Transportation Department denied Aurora's request for an exemption to the existing rules
They should request a change in the rules, not an exception for themselves. And that does require process, evidence, and time, for good reason. If that wasn't in your business plan, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that they just forgot to pay their $130 million bribe to Dear Leader. Nothing to see here.
Already resolved (Score:2)
The company did provide evidence to the safety of the proposed solution and the original request was denied in the last days of the previous presidential administration.
Recently, the DoT reversed their position and the external lighting solution was approved.
As to the other proposed solutions I see here, such as drones or wheeled bots, let us all remember that easier solutions should always be preferred.
Unlikely to be worse at truck driving ... (Score:2)
... than [1]Mr. "No Name" [nypost.com], lol.
[1] https://nypost.com/2025/10/11/us-news/illegal-migrant-trucker-with-no-name-given-on-ny-drivers-license-idd-arrested-in-oklahoma/
Mindless enforcement of.. (Score:2)
..silly rules kills innovation
Re: (Score:2)
Mindless permissiveness kills people.
Obviously (Score:2)
With some actual common sense being displayed for once. The US is a country where the overwhelming majority of centerline miles of road are not paved. And where they are paved, they're typically not marked or maintained too well because that'd get in the way of highway megaprojects to add freeway lanes that don't actually move more people or add functional capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
> With some actual common sense being displayed for once. The US is a country where the overwhelming majority of centerline miles of road are not paved. And where they are paved, they're typically not marked or maintained too well because that'd get in the way of highway megaprojects to add freeway lanes that don't actually move more people or add functional capacity.
How do you get to overwhelming majority are not paved? Even if you add in BLM and Forest Service access and estimates of private roads I can't get to majority much less overwhelming.
[1]https://www.bts.gov/content/pu... [bts.gov]
In the latest year, 2020, paved was 2.84 million and unpaved was 1.32 million Shows the US flipped from majority unpaved back in the late 70s.
[2]https://highways.dot.gov/safet... [dot.gov]
65% paved and 35% unpaved
Google AI summary
2.75 million paved and 1.36 million unpaved
Grok
2.94 million paved and 1.36 mil
[1] https://www.bts.gov/content/public-road-and-street-mileage-united-states-type-surfacea
[2] https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/unpaved-roads-safety-needs-and-treatments
Poor application is why the rejection of exemption (Score:2)
If you just read the attached [1]PDF from the link [regulations.gov], you will see why it was rejected, with one of their first claim of exemption from the rules: 'The Applicants have considered a number of mechanisms to try to comply with 49 CFR 392.22(b), including automated deployment of traditional warning devices. We have found that there is no practical, effective, or reliable way to do this for the foreseeable future. '
These companies specialized in automated self driving vehicles and they can't come up with an effective
[1] https://www.regulations.gov/document/FMCSA-2023-0071-0011
Poco dinero (Score:2)
Sounds like someone didn't pony up a contribution to the East Wing slush, I mean, construction fund.
Auto-matic lights (Score:2)
The automatic lights would be automatically turned on automatically by the truck's computer control system in the event of the computer control system failing.
Fuck reason.com (Score:2)
Trash
Existing solution . . . (Score:1)
Robotic traffic cones.
[1]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uO1LaAkGghQ
drone (Score:5, Insightful)
Stick a drone on it to drop the beacons when necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a good idea, why couldn't they think of it? I was immediately thinking deploying wheeled remote control cones but drones are a cheaper and better idea. There are many solutions to this, you have to wonder about why Aurora didn't offer them up
Re: (Score:2)
A small wheeled bot to pull two strings of LEDs in a triangle behind the truck with the bot at the tip?
Re: (Score:2)
That would require a FAA exemption as currently drones require a human to be in control (or monitoring and be able to take control). And if you put a human in control (say at a control hub somewhere) they would still need to get a BVLOS waiver to operate it remotely.