Back to Gaffer's Variety.
Gaffers's Variety:
Removing the Nut 001:
By Willie Gaffer:
August 15, 2005:
When I wrote about the hybrid auto in my philosophy series, I briefly touched on the idea of a driver-less car. I also looked at this issue in another essay. Now I will expand on those beginnings. There are some compelling arguments for having a driver-less auto. The most compelling of these is the huge number of deaths and injuries that result from so called auto accidents. Of course, we all know that most accidents are not really accidents. They are caused in that they are the result of a driver's errors in judgement. For sure, drinking is one major cause of these errors in judgement, but there are many other causes.
For example, there is this ongoing media noise about cell-phones causing accidents. It goes around and around. There is talk about no-hands phones as though that would make a difference. Any thoughtful person must conclude it is not about the hands. Handicapped, one armed, people turn out to be very successful drivers. They hardly ever have accidents. The reason is, they are concentrating on their driving rather than other things. With cell-phones it is the distraction of the conversation that causes the problem, not the fact that it is held in a hand. In that sense, cell-phones are not the only distraction. The distractions to driving are almost infinite in type and number. Anything that takes the driver's attention away from his primary task of driving is a potential cause of accidents.
The main problem is, we cannot prevent these distractions. People are mostly rabble. They are thoughtless and generally ignore the simple rules of safety. We will find people who read, eat, and drink while they are diving. We will find parents looking back to deal with unruly kids and adults who argue with each other while driving. We will have sightseers and accident gawkers of all kinds. We will even find people who play friendly fondle while they are driving. We can do little if anything about all of that. The truth is driving will only be safe when we take the nut from behind the wheel, when we let the car drive itself without human intervention.
How many people are killed in highway accidents every year? How many are maimed and injured? How many lives are destroyed? How much justification do we need? The only thing keeping an automatic driver-less car from happening are the stupid politicians and arrogant auto company executives. It only needs a little bit of cooperation. All they need to do is agree on one system and get it up. The technology itself already exists in one form or another.
Besides the death and injury, there is another very compelling reason for creating a driver-less auto. That is the issue of traffic gridlock. Automobiles under computer control would use the available road space much more efficiently. Vehicles could safely be closer together and could easily select alternate routes to a destination on the fly. In addition, this would be accomplished with a great deal more fuel efficiency. There would be no weaving in and out with its associated accelerations and braking. Traffic would necessarily flow smoother with better fuel efficiency.
I believe the driver-less car is eminently possible. We have the technology, right now, to create a completely driver independent vehicle navigation and control system. I'm talking about a system where the driver is superfluous. He could use his stupid cell-phone to his tiny hearts content. He could read, drink, eat, play cards, argue, and even fondle his partner while traveling. There are many ways to implement this navigation and control system. We could use the satellite navigation system, but that is expensive and not necessary. We could do the entire system with ground based controls.
Let me outline just one way to do it. The main problem would be how to have distributed guidance control modules accessible to every vehicle. I submit there are at least two ways to do that. One would be to have guidance chips embedded in the roadway. These could be passive devices much like the embedded information on a credit card. It is simple embedded information about the highway with its exact shape and location. The auto's navigation system should be able to read this passive information and relate it to the planned route. Another way to implement this would be to put the devices on the highway mile markers already present. In cases where they were not present, it would be an inexpensive installation problem, nothing more.
I suspect, the mobile part, in the vehicle, would not cost more than the much vaunted on-star stuff costs now. It doesn't need a satellite system. All that's needed is a scanning device in the vehicle to read the passive markers. This tells the vehicle exactly where it is. The passenger, no longer a driver, simply enters the end coordinates into the system and initiates the start procedure. Then he can sit back and play with his toys or whatever. He may also want to enter things like fastest route, scenic route, or shortest route.
Collision avoidance should also be in the vehicle, and not in the fixed part of the system. The American big two and that German company are already developing collision avoidance. They only need to cooperate, standardize, and finish the development. If they spent half the funds on this that they do on bull crap hype, they could have it ready in a year. Control of this vehicle becomes a matter of centralizing the various parts into a redundant computer control system. All the operator would need to see would be the destination and route choices along with a start button.
Now, visualize, if you can a redesigned auto interior. It has a table and comfortable chairs which can swivel for view. There are no front and back seats. Seat belts and air bags are superfluous, because there will be no collisions. The passengers can play bridge or checkers or drink beer. They should not care how long the trip takes, because they are being entertained in one way or another. If they get drunk, so what? They are not going to victimize someone else. They are the only ones who will suffer.
This is all a dream, of course. My guess is we will never actually
get a system like this. It is possible, but there is too much
bureaucracy in its way. To get something like this we would need
a human renaissance much like the one that got us out of the previous
dark ages.
Back to Gaffer's Variety.
|
|
|
|