|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics |
|
March 29, 2007We Better Establish a Right to DriveGun enthusisasts are often fond of the "...from my cold dead hands" perspective. Might car enthusiasts need to adopt a similarly hard line? As computers and sensors become smaller and more sophisticated, cars are handling more of the tricky and boring work of driving a car. Someday, they could handle virtually all of it.... I've been waiting for this. My hope is that the inevitable outcome happens after I die. Boldface emphases mine, BTW. Selling freedom for safety again. Most folks will love it, and eventually the voluntary will become the mandatory. Those riding in computer-driven cars will be forever blameless, most every accident the fault of human error, and the evil fools who want to drive their own cars will be marginalized. Paranoid science fiction? Maybe. But less so today than yesterday....I think a good guess is that 50 or 100 years from now you'll be required to switch to autopilot in any area designated to be above a threshold congestion level. Cars unequipped with autopilot will not be allowed into the green zones. We may even see a marked diminishment in individual ownership, the demise of taxis, and so on. And of course, all the autocars in the public fleet will be equipped with cameras, both internal and external. And they'll be smelly. Posted by Kranky Kritter at March 29, 2007 06:26 AMComments
Robot cars! Can flying maids be next? Posted by: Tully at March 29, 2007 10:53 AMBut maybe they will still allow exemptions for "classic" cars. Just like they now give exemptions from pollution controls for them. Posted by: wj at March 29, 2007 11:33 AMProbably not a good idea, Tully. Jane's first rule of maids is "no riding the maid!" Obviously this already applies, and will undoubtedly apply to the robot variety as well. The flying function would just add to the temptation. Posted by: bk at March 29, 2007 11:38 AMJust think of all the extra time you would have for sleeping, reading and, as they used to say on the Newlywed Game, "woopie." (cameras, shmameras) Posted by: WHQ at March 29, 2007 01:29 PMVernor Vinge's latest book features annoyng autocars, about as Brian said - good for dealing congestion, and lowering the gate on who can drive, but with irritating safety systems. As sad as it makes me, since I love driving, we have to get people out from behind the wheel of cars. It's the only way to eliminate traffic jams and accidents... generally speaking, people are simply incompetent drivers. Computer controlled cars, assuming they actually work properly, would save what, 45,000 lives per year in this country (we'll ignore the gene-pool cleansing aspect here)? Plus imagine how many hours of sitting in traffic per year that we'd get back. It's a trade-off we'd be fools not to make. Posted by: Justin at March 30, 2007 07:12 AMCan you imagine the lines in the amusement parks at the bumper cars if this happens? Posted by: WHQ at March 30, 2007 09:12 AMHave you ever noticed that the people who actually make their living in the computer business are among the least enthused about computer-controlled cars? I guess we just know too much about how reliable most computer systems aren't. "Most of American [by now, world] business is critically dependent on millions of lines of computer code written by people with no visible qualification to have done so." And it shows. At least, to the people responsible for trying to keep the whole mess working. Posted by: wj at March 30, 2007 10:16 AMwj, I'm currently working on an implementation of a new, "state of the art", software-based transit fare collection system. It makes my want to be involved with the implementation of an antiquated mechanical, token-based transit fare collection system. Rube Goldberg is laughing somewhere. Posted by: WHQ at March 30, 2007 10:40 AMI have this vision of people stranded at the side of the road, pounding on their dashboards. "Reboot, damn you, reboot!" Posted by: Tully at March 31, 2007 11:41 AMComputer controlled cars, assuming they actually work properly, would save what, 45,000 lives per year in this country (we'll ignore the gene-pool cleansing aspect here)? Plus imagine how many hours of sitting in traffic per year that we'd get back. It's a trade-off we'd be fools not to make. I make the opposite assumption. I seriously doubt that they'll work properly in the snese of getting us all from A to B more quickly. Will fewer folks die in accidents under such a system? Undoubtedly. But we'll pay for each lif saves in untols extra hours of commuting time and frustration with messed up systems. Now anyone who is adamantly pro-life id free to tell me and everyone else that all those lives saved MUST be worth it. I can't agree. It depends entirely on the additional amount of time and frustration added to the average life. After all, we could achieve the same life-saving benefit today by making the speed limit sat 15 mph, making airbags mandatory, and hamstringing all vehicles so they can't exceed the limit. But the cost of that would be judged far to high, and we'd never do that. So IMO you MUST do some sort of realistic cost-benefit, you can't simply privilege the value of human life as infinite. Thankfully, I'm pretty sure nothing like this will be fully implemented until after I die. Posted by: bk at April 3, 2007 09:27 AMThankfully, I'm pretty sure nothing like this will be fully implemented until after I die. Like, in a car wreck, maybe? (God forbid, of course.) Posted by: WHQ at April 3, 2007 09:46 AMWell, I already had my near miss last fall when a nudge at high speed (around 65 mph) on a rainy highway sent my truck into a 360 and then a rollover when we skidded onto the shoulder. Prompted my cheerful membership into the buckle-up club! Posted by: bk at April 3, 2007 11:40 AM |
Archives
July 2008
June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
July 4: Gasbag Edition
Independent Open Thread: Whatcha Doing This Weekend? Long Tail Controversy and Explanations Canadian Human Rights Commission No, Slavery Wasn't Competive With Free Labor Back online Irish Blogger Charged For Blogging Friday open thread Headline: Obama and Clinton Together in Unity There Is No EPA Document, There Is No EPA Document
|