Roads are entirely subsidized by people. Commercial trucks should bear the fair costs to make it equitable. Businesses will have the greatest incentive to cut costs and improve logistics.
And we need to talk about the externalities and fossil fuel subsidies, $7T/year worldwide (yale).
Tyres are also a massive source of micro plastics in the environment, as another example of one of the "uncounted externalities".
This suggests it may be the source for over a quarter of all environmental micro plastics [0]
Some reports suggest it could be even higher, this article [1] references a pew report suggesting tyres could be the source for over three quarters of the micro plastics found in the ocean.
Though it's not as if they're just driving around for fun (most of the time), but not costing these sort of externalities means the market doesn't realistically consider alternatives even if they "should" be more efficient, so "cheaper" when all the /real/ costs are added up.
The price of the goods being shipped. Perhaps, subsidized trucking reduces incentives for rail infrastructure which is cheaper transportation in the long run.
Discussion about this I heard 50 years ago is the alternative to trucks tends to be rail. The real unfairness is railroads have to pay to maintain their infrastructure while trucks do not pay anything close to the costs for theirs.
If you forced trucks to pay for the damage they do to roads rail freight would be far more competitive.
A 9th-power law is most predictive when the road is barely able to withstand the 6T load; and the per-crossing damage is roughly linear to axle-weight when the pavement is able to withstand much higher loads than 6T per axle.
With trucking CO2 is the least of your problems. The fumes are carcinogenic. Brake and tire dust doesn't help either.
Electric trucks would be a huge improvement on all fronts.
In other words: to carry the same amount of freight you need to do 3%-10% more trips, which means 3%-10% more tire wear, which means 3%-10% more tire dust.
I haven't done the math but i feel like a 10% increase in tire wear is probably offset by a 90% reduction in brake dust and not burning 10 000+ liters of diesel per year.
> Trucking is already subsidized because they don't pay their fair share of costs.
And that's an understatement: personal vehicles are so light they hardly damage the roads. This can be seen on three-lanes european highways where the leftmost lane is always totally pristine while the rightmost lane is often damaged and badly curved where trucks wheels do pass.
In the wikipedia link you gave it talks about 10 000 : 1 but for many cars and for many trucks it's more like 50 000 : 1.
Cars don't even register.
Now of course should commercial trucks bear the fair costs for being the only ones to damage the roads, everything would be pricier for merchandise price would need to be adjusted for the added logistics costs.
Trucking industry has many subsides, perverse incentives and (un)intended side-effects.
1) Fossil fuel subsidies, $7T/year worldwide. Poor countries subsidize a lot!
2) Biodiesel subsidies to grow crops.
3) Biodiesel subsides externalities. This directly increases cost of crops, food, livestock, as it reduces acres available to grow food.
4) Significant Health costs from pollution. (nytimes, 10M deaths/year from air pollution)
5a) Diesel fuel is less refined than gasoline, featuring longer carbon chains and higher natural levels of sulfur and nitrogen
5b) Because of how heavy they are, they are significant source of particulate matter from road dust, tire dust, brake dust
6) Real estate. Real estate is scarce and costly. Roads are 15 - 20% of a citys area. People pay for it, businesses get to use it for free.
7) They don't pay their fair share of road maintenance for the damage they cause.
8) Because of the damage they cause, roads need to be continuously maintained. Every road is always under construction, disrupting everyday life and causing congestion. If we build roads just for cars, they could go a decade or more without repaving.
9) Paving and repaving roads, building new roads is a cornucopia of money for politicians and their contracting company buddies. This is trillions of dollars worldwide.
10) Businesses running highly efficient modes of transportation can't compete.
11) With so many subsidies for the super rich, local communities which were producing the same goods locally can't compete.
A lot of people think its they sacred duty to protect the profits of a few dozen/hundred super rich and defend their right to extract subsidies/taxes from all of us. AI is probably going to destroy a lot of jobs. For the jobs that aren't destroyed (regulation requiring human in loop), the skill<->wage leverage will be destroyed, everyone is reduced to a flipping burgers at McDs kind of job. But you will be outcompeted by people who can work for cents/hour from a third world country.
> 8) Because of the damage they cause, roads need to be continuously maintained. Every road is always under construction, disrupting everyday life and causing congestion. If we build roads just for cars, they could go a decade or more without repaving.
Checks out. The residential suburban streets I've lived on have been resurfaced on about that timeframe, maybe a little less, with patch-ups in between. Say, how do the houses on those streets get built without trucking? What about the food in the nearby (much closer than the nearest train line) shops get supplied?
I'm one of those people whose brain works such that that rail and nuclear power plants are how we should be solving problems because I know how good they look to a physicist and engineer, so I am right there with you. But be practical: The guys running the machinery that literally makes society possible deserve to be compensated fairly and I don't see many trucking magnates living large at the rest of our expense.
There are some externalities we can afford to subsidise, and unless you've the stomach for putting in 100x as much public money into rail for a ROI measured in half-centuries, paying for high quality roads that you also get the direct benefit of should grind your gears less than most of the other economic imbalances you could name.
> But be practical: The guys running the machinery that literally makes society possible deserve to be compensated fairly and I don't see many trucking magnates living large at the rest of our expense.
Properly taxing trucks will be mostly passed onto the consumer, not reducing their compensation much, and it would significantly reduce the number of trucks on the road (a good thing). Out of equilibrium, it would cause many of them to go under and compensation would crater... so of course it would be wildly unpopular.
> Fossil fuel subsidies, $7T/year worldwide. Poor countries subsidize a lot!
That’s puzzles me a loot - there are many countries which hardly have any money for social safety net yet they keep fuel and electricity prices very low as a matter of government (social) policy and poor people benefit the least because they don’t drive and use little electricity.
The Santa Clara HWY 85 extension because it was built without federal funds was able to totally ban trucks over 4 tons and 30 years later is in decent condition. It was also built lighter and thus cheaper to build.
> Road damage is proportional to the 4th power. Roads are entirely subsidized by people. Commercial trucks should bear the fair costs to make it equitable.
Why not use trains for heavy transport?
I lived in a country where the roads between major cities were constantly swarming with hundred trucks coming and going. Even as a kid I thought that can't be efficient! It's certainly not comfortable for everyone else. Sometimes they'd be tipped over on their side. Sometimes there would be a tiny car crushed under them.
The barons certainly don't care about pollution, but don't they see the increased cost of each individual vehicle, the additional delays, having to pay multiple drivers and risk of accidents per vehicle?
Even if they want to keep a fleet of vehicles, shuttle trains aka "rolling highways" where trucks could roll on to the train via ramps, shut off their engines, let the trains take them to wherever, then continue into the destination cities, would be better than running the fleets on the roads. That would be good even for private cars.
The government added more lanes and diverted routes just for trucks, anything but build rail...
That would be great, but the railroads have torn up most of their own lines and refuse to move anything that might be needed inside of a month from ship date because PSR means they only run one mega train periodically. They also routinely refuse profitable runs because they're not as profitable as their other runs and they calculate success only in terms of profitability rate.
US railroads think the ideal railroad is one that owns no track and carries no freight.
Without trucks being subsidised we'd have much more expensive groceries on our shelves. In a way you can see this as regular drivers subsidising the price of food for everyone else, which is not at all a bad deal if one looks at society as a whole. Or we can make truck companies pay 10 times more on road tax and then pass down those taxes to the poorest among us, but I don't think that that would be a good deal when it comes to our society as a whole.
Why not subsidize the groceries instead, then? And let the market find efficiencies with reduced transportation distances. Or better yet, just subsidize the poorest among us, or even everyone via UBI. Why settle on diesel trucks as the thing to subsidize above others?
Then you'd have the State giving money directly to the likes of Unilever (think tooth-paste) and big agro-business (think bread). Subsidising transport instead is the lesser of many evils.
> And let the market find efficiencies with reduced transportation distances.
Market doesn't work when it comes to most of us.
> Or better yet, just subsidize the poorest among us,
This is just praying to bringing in servitude amongst us, it will go like this: "we will stop subsidising your daily bread if you stop voting for us". The same goes for the idea of UBI more generally speaking.
Wrong on many levels, already refuted by many commentors.
If food needs to be subsidized, subsidize it directly. Already done with food stamps, etc. You can apply here: https://www.usa.gov/food-stamps
If food gets costlier, people will eat less and it will reduce obesity, metabolic syndrome and save trillions of dollars in healthcare costs every year. The poor, who you seem to be so concerned about, can't afford the costliest healthcare on the planet.
Wrong. As food gets costlier, people shift eating habits from healthier but more expensive food to cheaper ultra-processed food. There are similarities elsewhere, like the iron law of prohibition: making opium more difficult to sell shifted the market to heroin, and eventually to fentanyl.
Or we can have a highly functional train system and not use freight trucks for long haul transportation. Small and medium sized trucks for last mile delivery is significantly less problematic.
>>Without trucks being subsidised we'd have much more expensive groceries on our shelves.
This doesn't make any sense.
If total subsidy is X and you remove it then prices should at most raise by X (in aggregate). It is at best an even trade. In reality it's worse because it creates perverse incentives.
If you want to help people then you can spend the same money by subsidizing groceries directly. You can also lower taxes for workers or 101 different things that help lower income people without promoting one way of doing transport.
Fighting for free roads is a sure way to have crap or no roads to a lot of places. If you (or any consumer) gets value from there bring roads, then you should pay some for that value. It’s not subsidizing the super rich - sounds like you want others to subsidize you.
Almost everything we eat or otherwise need for a comfortable life is transported by truck at some point. We all benefit from that. So we either pay more for trucking so that they can pay more for roads, or we just pay for the roads directly.
Consumers shouldn't pay more for roads to subsidize trucking. Businesses which use trucking more will pay more and if it costs an arm and a leg, they will figure out how to cut costs. There are lots of PhDs in Logistics, Operations Research who know how to think about these.
Local production within the communities may become competitive if we aren't subsidizing trucking. Local production has become uncompetitive because of these perverse incentives.
Consumers shouldn't pay anything at all for roads. Road costs should be entirely borne by businesses which are using them. The damage by cars is insignificant, too low to count. And consumers driving on roads see billboards, this is free eyeballs for businesses. Just like youtube is free with ads, roads should be free for car drivers with ads or some other form.
> Consumers shouldn't pay anything at all for roads.
If consumers get value from roads they should pay. Consumer road damage is certainly measurable, since plenty of roads disallow heavy trucks.
It’s silly to claim because one can see a billboard that the billboard would subsidize the value a consumer derives from roads. Putting up a billboard didn’t cause consumer utility of having a road to become zero. And private property owners are generally free to put up plenty of things, billboards included, without this odd request they subsidize others that look onto their property.
What does this have to do with internalizing costs to businesses? By your logic, the government should just subsidize all consumer goods... Which, okay maybe I actually agree with you? (Jk I'm not that much of a socialist. I think markets are great, and we should leverage them by fully pricing externalities like road damage or pollution, enabling the market to solve some of our big problems)
Imagine if we subsidized things that were an orange colour. Market prices of orange things would go down and consumption of orange things would go up. It wouldn't make sense to say "this is helping the many people that consume orange things therefore it is good".
If the costs of trucking is internalized, it then factors into the cost of goods shipped by truck. This makes it possible for competitors like rail or local produce to complete, which then allows consumers to save money. On the other hand, if the cost is externalized, we secretly pay more without even having the possibility of paying less.
The point of a market economy is to make prices accurately reflect costs. If moving things over the roads on trucks costs repair labor and materials, the price of things moved over the roads should reflect that. But maybe it's possible instead for those goods to be moved some other way with lower actual cost, and thus charge a lower price. But no one bothers finding that out if we just swallow the cost with a glib excuse of "well we all benefit".
The annual net profit of the trucking industry in the USA is $30-$40 billion dollars. They aren’t scraping by and could certainly pay for their proportion of the damage trucks inflict on roads.
It is NOT the profits of trucking industry, the trucking industry will remain intact and fine. It is the profits of ALL the companies using trucking, they get to upgrade their businesses with the new model. And the innovative businesses which figure out how to do logistics better will survice.
This also gives a fighting chance for local production. Why are we hell bent on screwing local communities and protect the subsidies to the super rich?
That number is laughably low compared to value of cargo they move. Really they should get to tech company model. Take 20-30% of value what they transport. Say you got 100 billion of AI servers. 30% of that goes to trucking company when they move it point to point.
Yes trucks are only there for the last mile, they do tiny journeys, they certainly don't make up a significant portion of interstate highway traffic and drive for hours at a time
It might be more economical for cargo to be moved by other means or for many people to live closer together than they do.
Imagine if we subsidized things that were an orange colour. Market prices of orange things would go down and consumption of orange things would go up. It wouldn't make sense to say "this is helping the many people that consume orange things therefore it is good".
So should we then makes buses also pay their fare share? I know you will then respond with second-order effects of buses and public transportation without considering that for trucks.
And yeah you can have rail for every city and store in a distributed country like the US.
Buses? Where? In the US they are as rare as unicorns. It depends on location. In third world countries metros, it is best to run electric buses for free and tax cars. It will reduce traffic and avoid hundreds of billions of road expansions if everyone is driving a car.
And pedestrians, cyclist and such pay nothing. We should easily gate all sidewalks and make them pay fair share of cost needed to build that infra. Just have payment terminals before and after each crosswalk allowing them to pay their fair share of use of roads.
They are still free loading on infra they have not paid for. I see no reason not to make them share the cost too especially for the space they need to be dedicated to them.
This could be solved by tracking those activities. Say GPS tracker attached to everyone. Decide certain beneficial point and then going under it or too much over it would result in losing credits.
The local communities paid for that infra. With zoning laws and during the development of subdivision. The cost of land for their lot reflects the additional land cost and and infra developed. They also pay utility connection fee so the city can build plumbing/sewage infra.
Also, homeowners pay 3% property tax (Texas). This pays for everything local, schools, roads, police, parks and a ton of other things.
Homeowners also pay their HOAs, while not as much as property taxes, this covers a ton of things within their subdivisions.
The super rich are free loading on all of this infrastructure.
My point is that pedestrians don't directly pay fair share of costs. Just like trucks don't directly pay fair share of costs of roads. Scenario is exactly the same. Or really much much worse with pedestrians. There is no tax they directly pay for the roads. I see no reason why they should be treated different from trucks.
Trucking companies for shipping are easy to setup and take down.
I wonder if anyone here has shipped anything by freight directly (like a car) and done the research on USDOT / MC Numbers / VIN for their truck. It's a shady system.
Yeah this feels like what I call the "scientific method for journalists". Step 1: create a hypothesis Step 2: google for evidence supporting that hypothesis Step 3: write an article about how it's definitely happening
I did a quick check to see how unusual this is. According to LLM-assisted research on actual U.S. trucking companies filing Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 (rather than carriers simply shutting down) the number isn't especially remarkable.
16 trucking bankruptcies in 30 days looks elevated, but it's not unprecedented. FreightWaves counted more than 20 trucking-related Chapter 7/11 filings in another 30-day period earlier in 2026, while previous downturns have produced much larger waves of failures.
What's happening here is that a sudden cost shock (like a diesel price spike) is probably clustering failures that might otherwise have been spread over several months. So 16 filings in a month may say something about timing, but by itself doesn't seem strong evidence of an extraordinary increase in the underlying rate of trucking bankruptcies.
That isn't to say higher fuel costs are a non-event; clearly they're bad for an industry already operating on thin margins. But we'll need longer-term statistics before we can tell whether fuel prices caused a sustained, systemic increase in trucking bankruptcies.
Trucking is a fundamental need so once competition thins out prices will naturally rise and eventually the cost of fuel will be pushed to the customer.
Honestly I'm not sure why we started this war. It really feels like our president taking notes on Russia and saying you know what....
We didn’t start a war. That is a thing that Congress has sole authority to declare, and that hasn’t happened.
Also a thing that never happened: the Department of Defense was not renamed to the Department of War because only Congress has the authority to rename government departments. That vote never happened and the Department was not renamed.
Just reminding everyone that this is not normal, and it’s not legal, and the exact people who have a sworn duty to stop this are not.
Other examples exist for things like The War in Afghanistan, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, and similar. But I'm not trying to write an unprompted book here on this fine October night. :)
(Maybe Congress didn't declare those wars, but they sure seemed to accept participation in them nonetheless.)
I'm almost 40 years old. The US has basically been at war my entire life in some form or another. Not a single war was declared by congress, I don't think.
This is very much normal. I'm not saying it's correct or alright, just that it is normal.
If you watched the film City of God, there's a voice over contemplating murder as the crew robs banks : the first time, the rule is the exception... the second time, he learned there's an exception to every rule... the third time, the exception is the rule.
The United States has gone to war so many times without (or with a faulty) casus belli that it no longer needed one, that's why "we" started this war.
That's assuming that this article is pointing to a new trend and not merely a clustering event, where the price shock is simply bringing future failures forward in time.
I thought after previous fuel price shocks that freight companies had a separate line item on their invoices for fuel that was actual cost or close to it.
So I had assumed that the $7-8/g diesel was already passed along to customers.
Only partially and it depends on their contracts. And only when transporting goods. They also have to cover empty miles in between gigs when they are not getting paid. Or when idling. And of course fuel prices differ between states. So, it depends but mostly cost goes up for truckers. Some trucking companies might be very vulnerable to high prices like this.
While that won't help most current truckers, the shift to electrical trucks is going to create some opportunities for the companies that buy them to undercut diesel trucks on price. Electrical trucks are still scarce and expensive and infrastructure is also lacking (in the US at least, EU/China is a different story). But of course with diesel prices spiking this high, it only exaggerates the benefits. And it looks like price uncertainty in general is could be here to stay with e.g. Russia probably needing many years to rebuild their oil infrastructure and the middle east also needing a lot of time if/when some sense of normality is restored there.
There are likely to be a lot more EV trucks on the market over the next years. China is already heading for 40+% of trucks sold (of all types, including heavy trucks) to be electric. They are way past the testing and experimenting phase there.
Transitioning the whole truck fleet in the US will take many years of course. But with Tesla bringing their factory online, other truck companies are likely to also increase production. This could quickly go from thousands of trucks sold per year in the US to tens of thousands. Tesla alone has the ambition to do 50K semis per year. We'll see if they manage. But it's going to disrupt truckers that are highly dependent on diesel prices when whole fleets start becoming immune to diesel price uncertainty.
I'm sure there's something to this but unless I missed it this story is missing the one piece of data you really want in order to contextualize: how many trucking companies ordinarily go under any given month?
In the the Space Exploration overhaul mod I once played for Factorio, at one stage the game progressed to the point that many/most resources could be converted into matter.
This matter could be transported from A to B.
And at the destination, this matter could be converted back into resources.
Mine uranium and/or copper and turn them into generic matter? Sure, why not.
Turn that matter into iron somewhere else? Of course!
And since matter could be transported in pipelines, it was just one tube for ~everything at that point. Some processes put matter into the tube, and some other processes took matter out of that same tube.
(It was very energy-intensive to make these conversions, but an intense amount of electrical power was also a solved problem by that point in the game.)
Sounds like your previous LTL had market headroom to be merely twice as expensive while still beating the next cheapest option. And if they'd done so who knows, they might have stayed in business.
Idiots is a overstatement. This is why trucking brokers exist. These small trucking outfits can barely hold a conversation, much less deal with a end-consumer on anything customer service related.
Truckers aren't just rolling around out there for their own enjoyment they're transporting the goods we all use every day, on pretty thin margins at that. I guess if you're trying to indirectly tax the users of trucking then OK.
Roads are subsided by people - what else would they be subsidised by, aliens?
Why is it that we need subsidies? Farmers and truckers "cannot make do" without subsidies! This is a well known "fact". But it seems very lopsided and most likely is why we can't have nice things.
Mind you there's a hefty tax surcharge on Diesel that could easily be lowered if the trucking economy was that important to states like California. Two years ago Diesel was at 8$ when it was 4 everywhere else, last year 9$, 5-6 in most other states. Now 10$? Haven't been there lately but it's still at 6 in MO/AR. It's not the oil price that's the problem with the Diesel price.
We've been the target of a stochastic economic sabotage campaign for years. I've been surprised the US economy has been in as good of shape as it is, considering all the obvious sabotaging events/trends.
- diesel prices were actually bankrupting companies. Those companies have been adjusting to daily price fluctuations, and also passing that surcharge on.
- cheaper diesel was expected to remain unattainable across the Midwest, making an E85 (or higher) fleet viable.
- can they pick up some of the fleet of closing operators without labor considerations?
There are some niches where it isn't true, when you have some other moat(like a warehouse network, or customer density in a route) so owning trucks strengthens that moat.
But in general, It's a bad business to own trucks.
...to move in and sell innovative new products in a healthy, vibrant and mature marketplace? In direct competition with Mack, Freightliner, Kenworth and Peterbilt? Selling products which only get sold if people choose to buy them?
...to sell products which could keep trucking affordable and potentially save some future trucking companies from bankruptcy?
...to reduce the country's exposure to global energy shocks by transitioning to a form of energy with a diverse means of production?
See the problem is the flawless and totally Autopilot Full Self-Driving systems somehow got excluded from the Tesla Semi for some inexplicable /cought crashes with big explosions and potential of tens of fatalities /cough reason, so cant really enter trucking market without hiring humans and admitting something is not right with a "tech company".
I don’t want this to imply that autopilot is somehow flawless and not allowing/including it is the wrong choice. However crashes and fatalities are something that already happen so I’ve always found it shocking just how much they’re highlighted and focused on when a computer causes them. I just think these things need to be looked at from a much more statistical angle than they currently seem to be. Innovation has kind of always been dangerous and risky throughout history with unfortunate lessons learned. Mitigating them should obviously be the goal but some level of risk kind of has to be acceptable.
These are the people who presume all undocumented aliens are dangerous, and that voting fraud is statistically meaningful, and that sports leagues with 0 trans players are consumed by trans players’ problems. Quietly moving quickly will probably work better than a long, thoughtful campaign of Carter-esque nagging.
p.s. as for waymo vs tesla - tesla has 10x less vehicles so far and only recently significantly added to the fleet. Given the scrutiny they receive and faux pass waymo has been getting, I don't think robotaxi crash rate will outnumber waymo. but of course there are people with mental health issues that crash into them on purpose, so idk.
They're saying that human accidents happen at a much higher rate while self driving cars nearly never have accidents, yet people fixate on the relatively few examples when self driving cars do have accidents.
If human drivers were held to anywhere near the standard that robots were then nobody could drive.
Trucking is already subsidized because they don't pay their fair share of costs. Road damage is proportional to the 4th power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
Roads are entirely subsidized by people. Commercial trucks should bear the fair costs to make it equitable. Businesses will have the greatest incentive to cut costs and improve logistics.
And we need to talk about the externalities and fossil fuel subsidies, $7T/year worldwide (yale).
Tyres are also a massive source of micro plastics in the environment, as another example of one of the "uncounted externalities".
This suggests it may be the source for over a quarter of all environmental micro plastics [0]
Some reports suggest it could be even higher, this article [1] references a pew report suggesting tyres could be the source for over three quarters of the micro plastics found in the ocean.
Though it's not as if they're just driving around for fun (most of the time), but not costing these sort of externalities means the market doesn't realistically consider alternatives even if they "should" be more efficient, so "cheaper" when all the /real/ costs are added up.
[0] https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/protectin...
[1] https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/02/toxic-tyre-dust-this-sou...
"Commercial trucks should bear the fair costs to make it equitable"
Who do we think those costs will be passed on to....
The price of the goods being shipped. Perhaps, subsidized trucking reduces incentives for rail infrastructure which is cheaper transportation in the long run.
That is narrow minded, rails can not replace trucks.
And no one is going to build rails to such areas like the 500 people living in Aniak, Alaska, or similar.
I could go outside right now and bang pots together and wake up more people than live in Aniak.
Discussion about this I heard 50 years ago is the alternative to trucks tends to be rail. The real unfairness is railroads have to pay to maintain their infrastructure while trucks do not pay anything close to the costs for theirs.
If you forced trucks to pay for the damage they do to roads rail freight would be far more competitive.
Depends on the road:
A 9th-power law is most predictive when the road is barely able to withstand the 6T load; and the per-crossing damage is roughly linear to axle-weight when the pavement is able to withstand much higher loads than 6T per axle.
Significantly: externalities from co2 emissions. Which is not just money, but lives.
With trucking CO2 is the least of your problems. The fumes are carcinogenic. Brake and tire dust doesn't help either. Electric trucks would be a huge improvement on all fronts.
Not the tire dust. Electric trucks are heavier, so they'll chew through more tires per freight-kilometer.
Electric cars are heavier but 2 tons of batteries barely matters on a 50 ton tractor trailer combination. It'll just carry ~3-10% less load.
In other words: to carry the same amount of freight you need to do 3%-10% more trips, which means 3%-10% more tire wear, which means 3%-10% more tire dust.
I haven't done the math but i feel like a 10% increase in tire wear is probably offset by a 90% reduction in brake dust and not burning 10 000+ liters of diesel per year.
Do they not build bypass roads in the US?
It seems like trucks just drive through the middle of every town even if they aren't going there.
> Trucking is already subsidized because they don't pay their fair share of costs.
And that's an understatement: personal vehicles are so light they hardly damage the roads. This can be seen on three-lanes european highways where the leftmost lane is always totally pristine while the rightmost lane is often damaged and badly curved where trucks wheels do pass.
In the wikipedia link you gave it talks about 10 000 : 1 but for many cars and for many trucks it's more like 50 000 : 1.
Cars don't even register.
Now of course should commercial trucks bear the fair costs for being the only ones to damage the roads, everything would be pricier for merchandise price would need to be adjusted for the added logistics costs.
> And that's an understatement
Indeed!
Trucking industry has many subsides, perverse incentives and (un)intended side-effects.
1) Fossil fuel subsidies, $7T/year worldwide. Poor countries subsidize a lot!
2) Biodiesel subsidies to grow crops.
3) Biodiesel subsides externalities. This directly increases cost of crops, food, livestock, as it reduces acres available to grow food.
4) Significant Health costs from pollution. (nytimes, 10M deaths/year from air pollution)
5a) Diesel fuel is less refined than gasoline, featuring longer carbon chains and higher natural levels of sulfur and nitrogen
5b) Because of how heavy they are, they are significant source of particulate matter from road dust, tire dust, brake dust
6) Real estate. Real estate is scarce and costly. Roads are 15 - 20% of a citys area. People pay for it, businesses get to use it for free.
7) They don't pay their fair share of road maintenance for the damage they cause.
8) Because of the damage they cause, roads need to be continuously maintained. Every road is always under construction, disrupting everyday life and causing congestion. If we build roads just for cars, they could go a decade or more without repaving.
9) Paving and repaving roads, building new roads is a cornucopia of money for politicians and their contracting company buddies. This is trillions of dollars worldwide.
10) Businesses running highly efficient modes of transportation can't compete.
11) With so many subsidies for the super rich, local communities which were producing the same goods locally can't compete.
A lot of people think its they sacred duty to protect the profits of a few dozen/hundred super rich and defend their right to extract subsidies/taxes from all of us. AI is probably going to destroy a lot of jobs. For the jobs that aren't destroyed (regulation requiring human in loop), the skill<->wage leverage will be destroyed, everyone is reduced to a flipping burgers at McDs kind of job. But you will be outcompeted by people who can work for cents/hour from a third world country.
> 8) Because of the damage they cause, roads need to be continuously maintained. Every road is always under construction, disrupting everyday life and causing congestion. If we build roads just for cars, they could go a decade or more without repaving.
Checks out. The residential suburban streets I've lived on have been resurfaced on about that timeframe, maybe a little less, with patch-ups in between. Say, how do the houses on those streets get built without trucking? What about the food in the nearby (much closer than the nearest train line) shops get supplied?
I'm one of those people whose brain works such that that rail and nuclear power plants are how we should be solving problems because I know how good they look to a physicist and engineer, so I am right there with you. But be practical: The guys running the machinery that literally makes society possible deserve to be compensated fairly and I don't see many trucking magnates living large at the rest of our expense.
There are some externalities we can afford to subsidise, and unless you've the stomach for putting in 100x as much public money into rail for a ROI measured in half-centuries, paying for high quality roads that you also get the direct benefit of should grind your gears less than most of the other economic imbalances you could name.
> But be practical: The guys running the machinery that literally makes society possible deserve to be compensated fairly and I don't see many trucking magnates living large at the rest of our expense.
Properly taxing trucks will be mostly passed onto the consumer, not reducing their compensation much, and it would significantly reduce the number of trucks on the road (a good thing). Out of equilibrium, it would cause many of them to go under and compensation would crater... so of course it would be wildly unpopular.
> Fossil fuel subsidies, $7T/year worldwide. Poor countries subsidize a lot!
That’s puzzles me a loot - there are many countries which hardly have any money for social safety net yet they keep fuel and electricity prices very low as a matter of government (social) policy and poor people benefit the least because they don’t drive and use little electricity.
Third world countries politicians are 100% corrupt, very focused on rapid wealth extraction and nothing else matters (same as current administration).
When they see the flow of money, the politicians first thought would be how do I capture the money? All of it? Or some percentage of it?
The countries that thought about it a little bit (China) understand this and are rapidly electricifying.
I don't think this is quite accurate.
If trucks were forced to bear their share of the burden we might see a significant shift in how we transported goods, including more rail.
(Yes, I know rail doesn't work for last mile.)
It does need to be paired with investment in train infrastructure, usually led by governments.
Obviously, that would be a very good thing, just pointing it out!
The Santa Clara HWY 85 extension because it was built without federal funds was able to totally ban trucks over 4 tons and 30 years later is in decent condition. It was also built lighter and thus cheaper to build.
> Road damage is proportional to the 4th power. Roads are entirely subsidized by people. Commercial trucks should bear the fair costs to make it equitable.
Why not use trains for heavy transport?
I lived in a country where the roads between major cities were constantly swarming with hundred trucks coming and going. Even as a kid I thought that can't be efficient! It's certainly not comfortable for everyone else. Sometimes they'd be tipped over on their side. Sometimes there would be a tiny car crushed under them.
The barons certainly don't care about pollution, but don't they see the increased cost of each individual vehicle, the additional delays, having to pay multiple drivers and risk of accidents per vehicle?
Even if they want to keep a fleet of vehicles, shuttle trains aka "rolling highways" where trucks could roll on to the train via ramps, shut off their engines, let the trains take them to wherever, then continue into the destination cities, would be better than running the fleets on the roads. That would be good even for private cars.
The government added more lanes and diverted routes just for trucks, anything but build rail...
That would be great, but the railroads have torn up most of their own lines and refuse to move anything that might be needed inside of a month from ship date because PSR means they only run one mega train periodically. They also routinely refuse profitable runs because they're not as profitable as their other runs and they calculate success only in terms of profitability rate.
US railroads think the ideal railroad is one that owns no track and carries no freight.
Without trucks being subsidised we'd have much more expensive groceries on our shelves. In a way you can see this as regular drivers subsidising the price of food for everyone else, which is not at all a bad deal if one looks at society as a whole. Or we can make truck companies pay 10 times more on road tax and then pass down those taxes to the poorest among us, but I don't think that that would be a good deal when it comes to our society as a whole.
Why not subsidize the groceries instead, then? And let the market find efficiencies with reduced transportation distances. Or better yet, just subsidize the poorest among us, or even everyone via UBI. Why settle on diesel trucks as the thing to subsidize above others?
> Why not subsidize the groceries instead, then?
Then you'd have the State giving money directly to the likes of Unilever (think tooth-paste) and big agro-business (think bread). Subsidising transport instead is the lesser of many evils.
> And let the market find efficiencies with reduced transportation distances.
Market doesn't work when it comes to most of us.
> Or better yet, just subsidize the poorest among us,
This is just praying to bringing in servitude amongst us, it will go like this: "we will stop subsidising your daily bread if you stop voting for us". The same goes for the idea of UBI more generally speaking.
Wrong on many levels, already refuted by many commentors.
If food needs to be subsidized, subsidize it directly. Already done with food stamps, etc. You can apply here: https://www.usa.gov/food-stamps
If food gets costlier, people will eat less and it will reduce obesity, metabolic syndrome and save trillions of dollars in healthcare costs every year. The poor, who you seem to be so concerned about, can't afford the costliest healthcare on the planet.
> food gets costlier, people will eat less
Wrong. As food gets costlier, people shift eating habits from healthier but more expensive food to cheaper ultra-processed food. There are similarities elsewhere, like the iron law of prohibition: making opium more difficult to sell shifted the market to heroin, and eventually to fentanyl.
Or we can have a highly functional train system and not use freight trucks for long haul transportation. Small and medium sized trucks for last mile delivery is significantly less problematic.
>>Without trucks being subsidised we'd have much more expensive groceries on our shelves.
This doesn't make any sense. If total subsidy is X and you remove it then prices should at most raise by X (in aggregate). It is at best an even trade. In reality it's worse because it creates perverse incentives.
If you want to help people then you can spend the same money by subsidizing groceries directly. You can also lower taxes for workers or 101 different things that help lower income people without promoting one way of doing transport.
Sounds like a great way to end up with tolls on all the roads. Or no access to the roads at all.
No, you should fight for free roads. How many ways do you want to subsidize the super rich? Why are you fighting for their interests?
Fighting for free roads is a sure way to have crap or no roads to a lot of places. If you (or any consumer) gets value from there bring roads, then you should pay some for that value. It’s not subsidizing the super rich - sounds like you want others to subsidize you.
Or mileage * weight^4 based fees. It would have the added benefit of reducing the amount of gender-affirming trucks on the road.
And?
Almost everything we eat or otherwise need for a comfortable life is transported by truck at some point. We all benefit from that. So we either pay more for trucking so that they can pay more for roads, or we just pay for the roads directly.
Consumers shouldn't pay more for roads to subsidize trucking. Businesses which use trucking more will pay more and if it costs an arm and a leg, they will figure out how to cut costs. There are lots of PhDs in Logistics, Operations Research who know how to think about these.
Local production within the communities may become competitive if we aren't subsidizing trucking. Local production has become uncompetitive because of these perverse incentives.
Consumers shouldn't pay anything at all for roads. Road costs should be entirely borne by businesses which are using them. The damage by cars is insignificant, too low to count. And consumers driving on roads see billboards, this is free eyeballs for businesses. Just like youtube is free with ads, roads should be free for car drivers with ads or some other form.
> Consumers shouldn't pay anything at all for roads.
If consumers get value from roads they should pay. Consumer road damage is certainly measurable, since plenty of roads disallow heavy trucks.
It’s silly to claim because one can see a billboard that the billboard would subsidize the value a consumer derives from roads. Putting up a billboard didn’t cause consumer utility of having a road to become zero. And private property owners are generally free to put up plenty of things, billboards included, without this odd request they subsidize others that look onto their property.
You understand that all business activity in an economy is driven by consumers. Everything is downstream of consumer demand.
Then, subsidize everything for all businesses?
Consumers are already paying heavy taxes for defense, trillions of dollars/year to protect business interests of the super rich everywhere.
I would rather that we subsidize the consumers.
(The super rich will still be super rich.)
What does this have to do with internalizing costs to businesses? By your logic, the government should just subsidize all consumer goods... Which, okay maybe I actually agree with you? (Jk I'm not that much of a socialist. I think markets are great, and we should leverage them by fully pricing externalities like road damage or pollution, enabling the market to solve some of our big problems)
Consumer demand can still be distorted.
I said this in another comment:
Imagine if we subsidized things that were an orange colour. Market prices of orange things would go down and consumption of orange things would go up. It wouldn't make sense to say "this is helping the many people that consume orange things therefore it is good".
If the costs of trucking is internalized, it then factors into the cost of goods shipped by truck. This makes it possible for competitors like rail or local produce to complete, which then allows consumers to save money. On the other hand, if the cost is externalized, we secretly pay more without even having the possibility of paying less.
The point of a market economy is to make prices accurately reflect costs. If moving things over the roads on trucks costs repair labor and materials, the price of things moved over the roads should reflect that. But maybe it's possible instead for those goods to be moved some other way with lower actual cost, and thus charge a lower price. But no one bothers finding that out if we just swallow the cost with a glib excuse of "well we all benefit".
The annual net profit of the trucking industry in the USA is $30-$40 billion dollars. They aren’t scraping by and could certainly pay for their proportion of the damage trucks inflict on roads.
It is NOT the profits of trucking industry, the trucking industry will remain intact and fine. It is the profits of ALL the companies using trucking, they get to upgrade their businesses with the new model. And the innovative businesses which figure out how to do logistics better will survice.
This also gives a fighting chance for local production. Why are we hell bent on screwing local communities and protect the subsidies to the super rich?
The annual revenue of the trucking industry is roughly $900 billion. That puts their net profit margin at about 3-5%.
I suspect many commenters here work in companies that expect their profit margins to be 10× that.
That number is laughably low compared to value of cargo they move. Really they should get to tech company model. Take 20-30% of value what they transport. Say you got 100 billion of AI servers. 30% of that goes to trucking company when they move it point to point.
$30-$40 billion sounds like scrapping by to me. For an entire industry, one of the most important in the country.
Move more of it to rail.
As much of it as possible is done by rail, it’s the last mile problem.
Unless it’s last minute which a surprising amount of it is, but consumers love overnight access to stuff
Yes trucks are only there for the last mile, they do tiny journeys, they certainly don't make up a significant portion of interstate highway traffic and drive for hours at a time
Let those consumers pay for it then!
What rail? The railroads are at capacity
They are? Is there a chart or a map or a study or something that supports this?
It might be more economical for cargo to be moved by other means or for many people to live closer together than they do.
Imagine if we subsidized things that were an orange colour. Market prices of orange things would go down and consumption of orange things would go up. It wouldn't make sense to say "this is helping the many people that consume orange things therefore it is good".
So should we then makes buses also pay their fare share? I know you will then respond with second-order effects of buses and public transportation without considering that for trucks.
And yeah you can have rail for every city and store in a distributed country like the US.
Buses? Where? In the US they are as rare as unicorns. It depends on location. In third world countries metros, it is best to run electric buses for free and tax cars. It will reduce traffic and avoid hundreds of billions of road expansions if everyone is driving a car.
Anecdotally on my own US highway commute, the ratio of public-buses to large trucks is very small, in the range of 1:50 to 1:100.
The thing I'd like to highlight is that each category has a very different profile for which roads they use, and how heavily.
And pedestrians, cyclist and such pay nothing. We should easily gate all sidewalks and make them pay fair share of cost needed to build that infra. Just have payment terminals before and after each crosswalk allowing them to pay their fair share of use of roads.
Road damage is proportional to the 4th power of the weight of the thing that passes over them.
I hope you were just making a snarky joke as there is effectively no road damage done by pedestrians and cyclists.
They are still free loading on infra they have not paid for. I see no reason not to make them share the cost too especially for the space they need to be dedicated to them.
Pedestrians and cyclists save money by reducing healthcare costs, sick days, aged care etc.
They should get a credit each time they use a road.
This could be solved by tracking those activities. Say GPS tracker attached to everyone. Decide certain beneficial point and then going under it or too much over it would result in losing credits.
The local communities paid for that infra. With zoning laws and during the development of subdivision. The cost of land for their lot reflects the additional land cost and and infra developed. They also pay utility connection fee so the city can build plumbing/sewage infra.
Also, homeowners pay 3% property tax (Texas). This pays for everything local, schools, roads, police, parks and a ton of other things.
Homeowners also pay their HOAs, while not as much as property taxes, this covers a ton of things within their subdivisions.
The super rich are free loading on all of this infrastructure.
My point is that pedestrians don't directly pay fair share of costs. Just like trucks don't directly pay fair share of costs of roads. Scenario is exactly the same. Or really much much worse with pedestrians. There is no tax they directly pay for the roads. I see no reason why they should be treated different from trucks.
They paid for it, via property taxes, either as owners, or less directly, via rent.
I am convinced that you are trolling.
My state charges a fee for every new bicycle that is purchased in the state to help cover costs.
Which state is that?
Pressure on the road, and profits, are not similar to those induced by pedestrians and cyclists.
This is a meaningless stat without comparison. There are nearly 500k trucking companies operating in the US, with ~91% operating 10 trucks or fewer.
16 companies seems like standard churn (if not a significantly lower than what I'd expect in a low margin business like trucking).
A statistic is propaganda if it is a value without a percentage, or a percentage without a value.
Trucking companies for shipping are easy to setup and take down.
I wonder if anyone here has shipped anything by freight directly (like a car) and done the research on USDOT / MC Numbers / VIN for their truck. It's a shady system.
16 companies is nothing.
Yeah this feels like what I call the "scientific method for journalists". Step 1: create a hypothesis Step 2: google for evidence supporting that hypothesis Step 3: write an article about how it's definitely happening
I did a quick check to see how unusual this is. According to LLM-assisted research on actual U.S. trucking companies filing Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 (rather than carriers simply shutting down) the number isn't especially remarkable.
16 trucking bankruptcies in 30 days looks elevated, but it's not unprecedented. FreightWaves counted more than 20 trucking-related Chapter 7/11 filings in another 30-day period earlier in 2026, while previous downturns have produced much larger waves of failures.
What's happening here is that a sudden cost shock (like a diesel price spike) is probably clustering failures that might otherwise have been spread over several months. So 16 filings in a month may say something about timing, but by itself doesn't seem strong evidence of an extraordinary increase in the underlying rate of trucking bankruptcies.
That isn't to say higher fuel costs are a non-event; clearly they're bad for an industry already operating on thin margins. But we'll need longer-term statistics before we can tell whether fuel prices caused a sustained, systemic increase in trucking bankruptcies.
--
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/freight-market-pushes-anot... (Early 2026)
https://www.thestreet.com/retail/bulmaks-files-chapter-11-ba... (Late 2025)
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/an-unusually-terrible-frei... (Mid 2023)
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/the-trucking-bloodbath-isn... (Mid 2022)
https://www.truckingdive.com/news/trucking-fleet-bankruptcy-... (Early 2021)
https://www.propertycasualty360.com/fcs/2020/01/13/another-o... (Early 2020)
So 16 in 30 days is a rate that, if sustained, trends toward ~3x the high end of your estimate of normal.
I don't expect "trucking" to fail, I expect stronger players to push price that will eventually show up in inflation stats.
> I don't expect "trucking" to fail
Trucking is a fundamental need so once competition thins out prices will naturally rise and eventually the cost of fuel will be pushed to the customer.
Honestly I'm not sure why we started this war. It really feels like our president taking notes on Russia and saying you know what....
We didn’t start a war. That is a thing that Congress has sole authority to declare, and that hasn’t happened.
Also a thing that never happened: the Department of Defense was not renamed to the Department of War because only Congress has the authority to rename government departments. That vote never happened and the Department was not renamed.
Just reminding everyone that this is not normal, and it’s not legal, and the exact people who have a sworn duty to stop this are not.
Congress hasn't issued a declaration of war that was signed by the president since June of 1942.
We've had wars since then.
edit,
Two recent examples from a long list:
The Persian Gulf War was admitted to be as such in April of 1991. https://www.congress.gov/102/statute/STATUTE-105/STATUTE-105...
The Global War on Terror was funded on that name in 2005. https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/1268
Other examples exist for things like The War in Afghanistan, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, and similar. But I'm not trying to write an unprompted book here on this fine October night. :)
(Maybe Congress didn't declare those wars, but they sure seemed to accept participation in them nonetheless.)
The US Congress not declaring a war is the normal thing (for the last many decades).
We started a war and aren't calling it as such.
We are a democracy. We voted for this, gerrymandering .. Money still in politics .. wealth concentration .. and all.
I'm almost 40 years old. The US has basically been at war my entire life in some form or another. Not a single war was declared by congress, I don't think.
This is very much normal. I'm not saying it's correct or alright, just that it is normal.
> Honestly I'm not sure why we started this war.
If you watched the film City of God, there's a voice over contemplating murder as the crew robs banks : the first time, the rule is the exception... the second time, he learned there's an exception to every rule... the third time, the exception is the rule.
The United States has gone to war so many times without (or with a faulty) casus belli that it no longer needed one, that's why "we" started this war.
That's assuming that this article is pointing to a new trend and not merely a clustering event, where the price shock is simply bringing future failures forward in time.
It would lead 195 per year if it stays at that trend; only 1.3x the high end of "normal".
I thought after previous fuel price shocks that freight companies had a separate line item on their invoices for fuel that was actual cost or close to it.
So I had assumed that the $7-8/g diesel was already passed along to customers.
Only partially and it depends on their contracts. And only when transporting goods. They also have to cover empty miles in between gigs when they are not getting paid. Or when idling. And of course fuel prices differ between states. So, it depends but mostly cost goes up for truckers. Some trucking companies might be very vulnerable to high prices like this.
While that won't help most current truckers, the shift to electrical trucks is going to create some opportunities for the companies that buy them to undercut diesel trucks on price. Electrical trucks are still scarce and expensive and infrastructure is also lacking (in the US at least, EU/China is a different story). But of course with diesel prices spiking this high, it only exaggerates the benefits. And it looks like price uncertainty in general is could be here to stay with e.g. Russia probably needing many years to rebuild their oil infrastructure and the middle east also needing a lot of time if/when some sense of normality is restored there.
There are likely to be a lot more EV trucks on the market over the next years. China is already heading for 40+% of trucks sold (of all types, including heavy trucks) to be electric. They are way past the testing and experimenting phase there.
Transitioning the whole truck fleet in the US will take many years of course. But with Tesla bringing their factory online, other truck companies are likely to also increase production. This could quickly go from thousands of trucks sold per year in the US to tens of thousands. Tesla alone has the ambition to do 50K semis per year. We'll see if they manage. But it's going to disrupt truckers that are highly dependent on diesel prices when whole fleets start becoming immune to diesel price uncertainty.
Demand may not be elastic however.
Aren't there several orders of magnitude more trucking companies in the US than 16?
Heck, shouldn't that be below the expected bankrupt trucking companies in any given 1-2 month period?
Yes and by a lot
https://www.skool.com/the-logistics-war-room-1319/trucking-b...
I'm sure there's something to this but unless I missed it this story is missing the one piece of data you really want in order to contextualize: how many trucking companies ordinarily go under any given month?
The interstate pneumatic tube network I designed with macaroni in the fifth grade is looking visionary now.
In the the Space Exploration overhaul mod I once played for Factorio, at one stage the game progressed to the point that many/most resources could be converted into matter.
This matter could be transported from A to B.
And at the destination, this matter could be converted back into resources.
Mine uranium and/or copper and turn them into generic matter? Sure, why not.
Turn that matter into iron somewhere else? Of course!
And since matter could be transported in pipelines, it was just one tube for ~everything at that point. Some processes put matter into the tube, and some other processes took matter out of that same tube.
(It was very energy-intensive to make these conversions, but an intense amount of electrical power was also a solved problem by that point in the game.)
Or trains...
We have freight trains in the US. (I hear a freight train right now as I write this.)
Its not big truck you cant just dump something on it! Its… its a series of….oh my! LOL!!!
I felt this on my last truck shipment. My previous LTL provider suddenly closed and the next cheapest option is more than twice as expensive.
Sounds like your previous LTL had market headroom to be merely twice as expensive while still beating the next cheapest option. And if they'd done so who knows, they might have stayed in business.
There are a lot of trucking companies in the US and if my experience in the PNW is any indication, a lot of them are run by idiots.
Idiots is a overstatement. This is why trucking brokers exist. These small trucking outfits can barely hold a conversation, much less deal with a end-consumer on anything customer service related.
Totally unsurprising.
I expect these are small companies surviving month to month without the ability (or skill) to plan for catastrophic changes in the future (present).
Truckers aren't just rolling around out there for their own enjoyment they're transporting the goods we all use every day, on pretty thin margins at that. I guess if you're trying to indirectly tax the users of trucking then OK.
Roads are subsided by people - what else would they be subsidised by, aliens?
Why is it that we need subsidies? Farmers and truckers "cannot make do" without subsidies! This is a well known "fact". But it seems very lopsided and most likely is why we can't have nice things.
Mind you there's a hefty tax surcharge on Diesel that could easily be lowered if the trucking economy was that important to states like California. Two years ago Diesel was at 8$ when it was 4 everywhere else, last year 9$, 5-6 in most other states. Now 10$? Haven't been there lately but it's still at 6 in MO/AR. It's not the oil price that's the problem with the Diesel price.
F peoples health and the environment. We need profits now! No incentive to get off diesel, just lower the price!
We've been the target of a stochastic economic sabotage campaign for years. I've been surprised the US economy has been in as good of shape as it is, considering all the obvious sabotaging events/trends.
MAGA!
Good opportunity for oligarchs like Musk to move in.
I’d see it if:
- diesel prices were actually bankrupting companies. Those companies have been adjusting to daily price fluctuations, and also passing that surcharge on.
- cheaper diesel was expected to remain unattainable across the Midwest, making an E85 (or higher) fleet viable.
- can they pick up some of the fleet of closing operators without labor considerations?
Trucking is a low-margin, high capex business.
There are some niches where it isn't true, when you have some other moat(like a warehouse network, or customer density in a route) so owning trucks strengthens that moat.
But in general, It's a bad business to own trucks.
Yes, to build space based trucking. Because roads are congested, getting permits for new roads is hard.
Hear me out, what if we could carry fresh strawberries from California to New York by Starship?
...to move in and sell innovative new products in a healthy, vibrant and mature marketplace? In direct competition with Mack, Freightliner, Kenworth and Peterbilt? Selling products which only get sold if people choose to buy them?
...to sell products which could keep trucking affordable and potentially save some future trucking companies from bankruptcy?
...to reduce the country's exposure to global energy shocks by transitioning to a form of energy with a diverse means of production?
Correct, it's a good opportunity.
See the problem is the flawless and totally Autopilot Full Self-Driving systems somehow got excluded from the Tesla Semi for some inexplicable /cought crashes with big explosions and potential of tens of fatalities /cough reason, so cant really enter trucking market without hiring humans and admitting something is not right with a "tech company".
I don’t want this to imply that autopilot is somehow flawless and not allowing/including it is the wrong choice. However crashes and fatalities are something that already happen so I’ve always found it shocking just how much they’re highlighted and focused on when a computer causes them. I just think these things need to be looked at from a much more statistical angle than they currently seem to be. Innovation has kind of always been dangerous and risky throughout history with unfortunate lessons learned. Mitigating them should obviously be the goal but some level of risk kind of has to be acceptable.
These are the people who presume all undocumented aliens are dangerous, and that voting fraud is statistically meaningful, and that sports leagues with 0 trans players are consumed by trans players’ problems. Quietly moving quickly will probably work better than a long, thoughtful campaign of Carter-esque nagging.
>crashes and fatalities are something that already happen
Optics change when an 80000 lbs rig inevitably crashes into stopped cars creating multi car inferno ball of death.
> However crashes and fatalities are something that already happen
Have they? https://robotaxireport.com/data/waymo-vs-tesla-safety-record...
p.s. as for waymo vs tesla - tesla has 10x less vehicles so far and only recently significantly added to the fleet. Given the scrutiny they receive and faux pass waymo has been getting, I don't think robotaxi crash rate will outnumber waymo. but of course there are people with mental health issues that crash into them on purpose, so idk.
You misread them.
They're saying that human accidents happen at a much higher rate while self driving cars nearly never have accidents, yet people fixate on the relatively few examples when self driving cars do have accidents.
If human drivers were held to anywhere near the standard that robots were then nobody could drive.
They could justify a human in the cab to satisfy existing reflective triangle regulations. Provides cheap publicity to nourish their lobbyists.
people really do just say anything to hate on others eh
You win, they win. You lose, they win. It’s a scam.
What?