Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Heinleinian 5081 days ago
Um, you must be joking. Frame it like an opponent would who is running for political office against you in the year 2050. So you're saying take away people's privilege to operate a vehicle they own and paid for with their own money? You want to require people to use an automated machine that, in theory, the state could over-ride the controls of at any moment? You want to eliminate all jobs associated with commercial driving (buses, delivery trucks, etc.) many of which are union jobs?

No. No. No.

Also, the answer to the danger & death problem is well understood -- you simply require people to first accumulate several dozen hours behind the wheel, under supervised instruction, with training for emergency situations, just like we do now with pilots licenses. The fact that this hasn't happened yet in the US (like it has in say, Germany) should show you what a political impossibility what you're saying really is.

2 comments

P.S. For added hilarity, the story directly below this one on HN is about cell phone tracking, where the top post is all talk of going without cell phones because the device's tracking could infringe on people's freedom.

Which is the scarier dystopia? Your phone keeps a running tab on your location, which could be accessed by the state or Google? Or your mode of transportation is tracking you, _and can be over-ridden or disabled at any time by the state or by Google_...

I'm FAR more frightened of being t-boned by a drunk driver than of big brother taking control of my car. Honestly can't tell if you are trolling or serious.
I was seriously trolling, also known as taking an idea to its logical extreme to make a point.

You're presenting a false choice here. There's lots of other ways to attack the drunk driving problem without taking everyone's drivers licenses away and banning normal driving, as the OP was advocating.

Ok I see what you were getting at now but I still don't agree with your conclusions and here's why:

1. Anti-drink driving campaigns and counter measures don't work. People make the choice to drive while drunk when their decision making powers are at their worst.

2. The issue with human controlled driving goes far deeper than just DUI. The fact is that we're (collectively) just not very good at it. Even if you are the best, most cautious most defensive driver there's nothing you can do about some idiot running a red light because he was adjusting his stereo. Your perfect driving record is intact but you're dead anyway.

3. The chance of being injured or killed while driving are astronomically higher than the chance of big brother having the motive/inclination to want to remotely control your car (although I might feel differently if I lived in Syria - even then this is getting really close to tinfoil hat territory).

The way I see it computer controlled cars shouldn't be seen as curtailing freedoms, rather as relieving us from tedium and making us safer.

I don't think your point 1 is as true as you think it is. Anti-drink driving campaigns seem to work: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/mvoi/massmedia_ajpm.pdf describes studies that identified significant (>15%) reductions in alcohol related accidents, with economic payoffs during the campaigns of more than 20x.
That's certainly a LOT better than I would have thought, although still depressingly short of the 100% reduction that computer controlled cars would give us.
Then you'll love the MS AutoCar 2020.

It has a top of the line electronic routing OS, designed by Visual Basic veterans.

It's easy to think of the political obstacles if you are expecting this to happen overnight. But it will be gradual. People will share the road with robots for a while, and when it's clear how much safer the robots are, there will start to be roads and then areas where people aren't allowed to drive. As for "tak[ing] away people's privilege to operate a vehicle they own and paid for," they can feel free to drive on private property. Even today I'm not allowed to drive my off-road truck on public roads because it doesn't have proper smog equipment and mudflaps, and I own and paid for it with my own money. It's really not that unreasonable when it's a matter of public safety and the restrictions only apply to public roadways.

As for the automation stealing jobs argument, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.