Crazy robot drivers!

Would you trust a robot driver?

Robot drivers are a staple of science fiction, but GM says they might be on the road in a handful of years.  (Heh… no need to beef up public transportation, see?  Same song, thousandth verse.)

No, really!  European researchers working on the new V2V protocol say they can get cars to be aware of other cars, and even predict collisions.  From there, they think it’ll be a short step to automatic vehicle control and greater safety. 

The biggest effect would be on highways and commuter roads, where any savvy driver knows that if one person taps the brakes, the effect cascades back for miles, resulting in a tangled mess.  Now scientists are making an effort to understand traffic waves and other effects with algorithms that computers can apply.  One thing they have not mentioned but which could save a lot of lives is that urban evacuations would be considerably more effective. 

I’ve known that speeding ahead and jamming on the brakes doesn’t get you there any faster, and carries a large penalty in safety.  (My last speeding ticket was in 1975.)  I have often thought that on highway trips it would be a lot less stressful if the speed were regulated by the highway, and each vehicle ran a simple algorithm that kept it equidistant from the cars behind and in front.  And when I enter intersections, I’m working really hard to know where the other cars are and what they’re doing.  But I know that my attention isn’t perfect; this has resulted in a close call or two. Some people’s attention is even worse than mine.

One other thing: will the robot brake for animals?  I do.  Once I was driving near here and there was a mother duck and her ducklings trying to cross the road.  The mother had hopped up the curb, but it was too steep for the ducklings.  She was walking around in a panic but she couldn’t get the ducklings over the curb.  They were trying to follow their mother but they were right where people’s tires were barely missing them.  I stopped my van, blocking traffic to protect them, and hopped out.  In a few seconds I’d scooped the ducklings up over the curb and mama was on her way with ducklings trailing behind.  Can we program the robot to protect ducklings?

But really, would you get in a car, speak your destination, and press “drive”?  If there’s an accident, who gets sued?  The car manufacturer?  The programmer nerds who wrote the software?  The person sitting passively in the car (can’t really be called ‘driver’) reading their newspaper?  Are we ready, psychologically, legally and comedically, for this?

Posted by George on 01/14/08 at 06:24 AM

  1. I’m one of the people that keeps one car-length for every 10 miles tailgating. This drives my family crazy since aggressive drivers think I’m leaving the space for them to weave in and out. I just adjust for them too.

    Still, I seem to get where I need to go on time, and very seldom fall behind my schedule.

    One other thing: will the robot brake for animals?

    Will they brake for people? I see that people would need an id/rf chip to designate them special—what with the value of human life and all. Of course adjustments must be made to the algorithm for brown people, illegal aliens, etc, since as we all know, we’re not really worth the same just because we have outwardly similar features. Some people can’t afford to sue, so it’s useful for the car to make the quick credit check with ChoicePoint to see what the consequences of running someone down—expensive or worth the speed difference in order to make the LA Fitness appointment?

    Posted by Ted  on  01/14/08  at  08:18 AM

  2. One more thing.

    You know how QOS on the internet drives the concept of “Net Neutrality”? What’s the chances that “Road Neutrality” rules and deregulations wouldn’t take place so that those willing to pay higher rates couldn’t get their cars to run in the fast lane and slow down everyone else or block them out once congestion starts to get heavy. I mean, we’re a capitalist culture that likes to let the market decide what efficient use is.

    Net Neutrality can actually keep you from some destinations by having providers not provide enough bandwidth if someone else pays higher fees it in order to exhaust the path. I can forsee a future where Wal*Mart pays “Road Neutrality” premiums to allow stopping only at their sites at the detriment of others. All roads lead to Wal*Mart and Sams’s Club. (BTW, I’ve got dibs on that concept from here into perpetuity).

    Posted by Ted  on  01/14/08  at  08:29 AM

  3. Some people can’t afford to sue, so it’s useful for the car to make the quick credit check with ChoicePoint to see what the consequences of running someone down—expensive or worth the speed difference in order to make the LA Fitness appointment?

    Interesting thought Ted! And is the reason why I don’t particularly care for complete free market government. And is also a reason why there will need to be a lot of government involvement to move to such a system.

    A few years ago TreeHugger posted about a system being developed in Japan for taxis that are driverless. Basically they run by some kind of magnet propulsion system and are very configurable. Though not sure how the company was thinking they would integrate it into the current roadway system…

    Posted by webs05  on  01/14/08  at  10:53 AM

Post a comment...

Name - What should we call you? Please use the same name every time.

Email: (won't show)

Location: (optional, but adds context)

Got a website or blog? Want us to know about it? Put 'er here:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?


Type in below, the word you see above:

Next entry: Our buggy sales are slipping!

Previous entry: Movie Review: Lars and the Real Girl

<< Back to main