Maybe this isn’t the best choice of a title since our generation has already seen them in operation. Google has been testing seven artificial intelligence-powered cars (they call them “autonomous cars”) for more than 140,000 miles on California roadways. These are cars that do not require a driver, but are equipped with and controlled by an auto-pilot system rather than a human operator. But, don’t be alarmed… these driverless cars are not being tested without occupants. Each test vehicle has two people on board: One technician and one stand-by driver ready to take the controls when something goes awry.
Why bother with such an experiment? We are told the potential benefit to our society is enormous. One article I read on the subject observed that the average American spends 72 minutes per day behind the wheel. Now, just imagine transforming that time into productivity. The insurance agent could plan his/ her day, check email, make calls, or even catch a quick, much needed nap during the commute.
Add to these personal benefits a reduced nationwide hazard. Proponents of this technology contend there would be fewer accidents and fewer fatalities… translating into lower insurance rates. In addition, consider the potential payroll reduction in the transportation industry (trucking, taxi services, delivery services) not to mention businesses in general and the result is clearly a positive impact on the economy. Or, is it? Can a reduction in payroll be interpreted as a reduction in jobs?
Google touts a pristine highway safety record associated with their testing. 140,000 miles on the highway and only two accidents! Just last month, one of Google’s test cars (a Toyota Prius) was involved in a minor fender-bender. It turns out that when Google’s Prius hit another Prius from behind, it was not being driven in “autonomous mode” but was being manually operated (I’m glad I don’t have to explain that one to the boss!). On a previous occasion, one of Google’s test cars was standing still at a red light when it was hit from behind. But, will the perfect safety record of driverless cars continue?
Not likely. Can you imagine technology advancing to a point where a computer NEVER crashes? As one blogger put it, “The real question is not whether or not they (the automobiles) will crash, but whether or not the likelihood of getting into an accident (or the likelihood of the seriousness of any such accident) is significantly higher or lower than with a human at the controls.” Hello-Technology Dept, TechDirt.com Google’s argument is that robots react faster than humans, have 360-degree perception, and do not suffer from problems affecting human drivers such as distraction, drowsiness, and intoxication. One of Google’s engineers, Sebastian Thrun, believes this new technology can one day reduce traffic related fatalities by half.
Still, there are nagging questions about potential equipment malfunction, malicious sabotage, and even terrorism (yikes!). Again, proponents of this technology have a ready answer: Should the unthinkable occur, the occupant can always take manual control of the vehicle. The problem, however, with this line of thought is that this “safety net” is negated by their own argued benefits. If the occupants are involved in productive activities (email, planning, communication, napping), they may not be in a position to take the reigns at a moment’s notice.
Then, there is the question of liability. Today, when there is a traffic accident, we have a tried and true method of determining fault and liability (that’s not to say the conclusions are never disputed). But in the age of autonomously driven cars, who will bear the liability when an accident occurs? Will it be the technology companies? Or, will insurance companies simply share the liability. Another blogger concluded, “The greatest barriers to such a system might very well be legal in nature.” Brandon Ge, The Columbia Science and Technology Review
The technology of self-driven automobiles is certainly fascinating – even exciting. I’m not sure it is a totally new concept. My father tells me of my great-grandfather’s mule who routinely hauled a wagon load of honey from the bee farm to their home some 10 miles away, accompanied by the family dog, then made the return trip… without a driver. The driverless team managed to navigate the roadway without incident or with the aid of a man-made global positioning system.
Modern technology doesn’t seem to be the problem. Brandon Ge reminds us that we already have cars that can parallel park with limited driver input, and can brake on their own when a crash is imminent. He went on to say, “Additionally, driving can be fairly easily broken down into various algorithms and functions, as the main variables involved are predictable: lanes of standard widths and traffic lights that change in predictable intervals.” But, is the application of the technology currently practical?
The success of the technology seems to rely on “predictable factors”. Consider the newest rage in computing: Cloud Technology. This is a concept where software and information are provided to computers and other devices as a service or utility and not as a product. In the near future, they tell us, our software will not be housed on our laptop’s hard drive, but rather provided through the network we are connected to. Sounds great, and will probably work great for most. I just question how practical this will be for many. This technology will only be as good as one’s Internet or network service, and some folks will be looking at a lot of “down time” unless there are some improvements.
So, how practical is the implementation of driverless technology? It depends on whether all the variables remain PREDICTABLE. For driverless technology to work seamlessly and with optimum success, manual driving will have to be reduced to zero. Again, Brandon Ge points out that, if manual driving is still permitted, then autonomous cars will be at the mercy of their physical limitations and constraints of the road system and will have difficulty avoiding accidents if they share a congested road with wreckless drivers. Computerized cars will employ very passive driving systems (designed to avoid accidents under all circumstances) and aggressive human drivers would be able to take advantage thereby creating a greater hazard.
Can you imagine a world without “driving”? To say, “We Americans have had a love affair with the car for the past 100 years” is a gaping understatement… even a cliché. Who buys a new car and doesn’t want to DRIVE it? Can a technology succeed that asks America to stop driving? Who will be willing to barter away their freedom and adventure on the highway for a reduction in their insurance premium?
Like it or not, some form of driverless technology is in our future. But, it’s hard to imagine heading out on the highway, inserting your CD of Steppenwolf, and singing along the lyrics of “Born to Be Wild” while riding as a passenger in a little self-operated commuter car.
