We live in an age of technology and evolving devices that I watch with growing suspicion. I observe as every ‘new’ iPhone is released to even more hype and in the end, greater sales. And that’s all great for the company (which admittedly I do consider success, from a business standpoint at least), but for the oblivious consumer, it could have a negative affect. I grew wary of technology companies, especially growing up in the first generation with full access to cell-phones. I noticed that no matter what Apple did (I am just using Apple as an example, however the technology industry in general applies as well) people went crazy for the ‘newest’ device. I never thought it necessary to jump on this bandwagon and as every year passes I have grown to resent it. This is all important because of one thing that will appear as irrelevant to the beginning of this essay: I love cars. Bear with me, however as I tie the two together. The eve of semi-autonomous and autonomous cars is upon us, and I fear that consumers will react like lemmings again. But I plead with you…this time re-evaluate what is necessary; what is logical as a consumer and what is best for the community as a whole. Buying an iPhone may make you susceptible to advertising rhetoric or peer pressure, as well as being easily parted with your money. If that’s you, I’m fine with it. It doesn’t affect me, though I will disagree with your buying habits. Well now that cars are about to be overrun with technology, all of us need to take a deep breath and a step back. Cars that drive themselves should not be obtainable by consumers.
Let me begin this by clearing up some things about yours truly. I am a car enthusiast, and I love driving. So you wouldn’t be wrong to say I am biased. I am not trying to hide that. But I am logical, and my bias will not take a part in this essay.
Technology moves fast, as evidenced by the fact that your brand new laptop that you got two weeks ago is already rendered archaic by the newest next generation model. The law, however, doesn’t move quick at all. So while the technology might already be ready for road usage (I can tell you right now that it isn’t), self-driving cars can’t step a tire on asphalt with regular consumers until the legal terms catch up. We have had conventional cars for upwards of 80 years now, and it has taken us nearly as long to keep up with all of the legalities that come with car ownership and operation. To this day, the law still struggles to define who is at fault in some car crashes. And as a society we have designated laws to protect those who are not at fault and responsibilities for those who caused the crash. If we as consumers are to endorse autonomous cars, first the courts will have to catch up. This is not an easy process. Not a quick one either. Says Jim Hall of 2953 Analytics “[Autonomous technology] is going to happen quicker than the legal community is ready for” (Automobile, January 2014, 54). Technology has glitches, but as of yet, American society is unequipped to determine who is at fault in an autonomous vehicle accident. What if a regular human driver hits an autonomous vehicle? The other way around? Can the two co-exist on public roads? Who takes responsibility when an autonomous vehicle is at fault, the ‘operator’ or the manufacturer? Both of these parties will resist being in the wrong. And while it may not be impossible to draw guidelines on these political ramifications, it will take exceedingly long to do so, and ultimately without much success.
Another reason why autonomous cars should remain a product of imagination is the fact that computers are not perfect. Autonomous vehicles use a panoply of sensors and computers to propel them down the road. And yes, the computers can do a good job of predicting predetermined actions and supplying them with predetermined outcomes. However, the computers do not play well with “heavy rain, total darkness, and snow-covered roads” says Eberhard Kaus, chief project engineer on a self driving Mercedes Benz S500. “The car would also be outwitted by temporary roadwork or a pedestrian crosswalk that has been added overnight” (Automobile, January 2014, 55). These will prevent autonomous cars from hitting the roads for years to come, although I do realize that technology evolves quickly, and these flaws may be ironed out eventually. But for those that argue that the computer is the ideal driver because it makes decisions based on algorithms, I raise you this--the human mind is able to adapt efficiently and also very quickly to what is going on around it. It is the product of years of evolution. It drives (no pun intended) our world as we know it, and it does so for a reason. There are always going to be situations that a computer will not be able to understand--all of which the human mind will take notice of. For example, just this past weekend as I step into my car after dining on some fine Mexican cuisine, I notice that two men in the Corolla a few parking spaces over from me are smoking marijuana. I get into my car at the same time they get into theirs, and we both exit onto Ogden avenue at the same time. Marijuana is known to impair driving skills, and I know this, so I choose to speed up to get away from the potentially dangerous car. Now, there is no way that a computer could have known what I did, or figured out an algorithm to match the scenario. Sure, programmers can code for predetermined reaction to something the sensors pick up no the road, but that cannot cover for nearly all of the scenarios drivers face daily. There are literally infinite--infinite--amounts of situations that a driver-less car can get into. It takes the human mind to pilot a vehicle out of that situation. The computer cannot react fast enough, and now there is the possibility of fatalities, injuries, or damage to property. Which would have to be brought to the courts--which again have no idea with whom the liability will land. It’s a mess.
These aren’t the only reasons why driverless cars are a bad idea. In the wake of 911, the Paris attacks, the Boston Bombing and such other events, self-driving cars turn from a supposed ‘advantage’, to a weapon in the hands of terrorists. Yes, terrorists already use vehicles to some extent, but cars would be exploited even more than they already are. In an FBI report cited by the Guardian, autonomous cars are called “lethal”. The cars could become victim to many hacker groups across the country. “Now, a security researcher says that the complex LiDAR system used in many driverless car prototypes can be fooled with just $60 dollars in parts” (Popular Science). Already we know of many people that are using lasers to attempt to blind pilots. If the ability to hack a vehicle becomes common, the villains of the world retain the ability to wreck lives. The National Defense Magazine ran a test on a driverless car, and noted that they could take over acceleration, braking, and other automated features. However, the article did add that there is technology to prevent against these attacks in real time. I’m not sure about you, but the last thing I want hacked is my car...something that you are supposed to be able to trust your life with. If we have learned anything from our smartphones, it is that technology moves fast. I’m sure that although there may be on demand ways to prevent against hacking, old models of cars will not be able to support this. As a result, a hacker can take control of your car via the cloud. Drivers will be continuously subjected to this, considering anyone can do it, 40 year old living in his Mom’s basement included. The hackers can move faster than these big car companies, the bureaucracy cannot develop fast enough with all of the government regulation. The hackers have no government regulation and no one to please. So don’t trust the fast talking individuals that claim you cannot hack a car. You can hack anything, especially when it is new technology.
The biggest argument that is raised by driverless vehicle supporters is the claimed advantage in saving lives. According to the Atlantic, autonomous cars could save up to 90% of potential car crash fatalities every year. For 2013, autonomous cars would then save just under 30,000 lives in the United States. Sounds great right? It is! I do believe that autonomous cars will save many lives, and these numbers from the Atlantic don’t even seem like exaggeration. I am not denying that self-driving cars will save lives (maybe not quite that much), but I do think there is a better and less expensive alternative to this problem. Even with conventional cars, I believe we can reduce traffic fatalities nearly as much as driverless cars. The driver’s education courses in America are sub-par, especially when compared to European countries. The current driver’s education courses are “preposterously easy” and were designed sixty years ago and modified only slightly (Road & Track). The courses are dilapidated...the state and DMV want to give you your license. There are government employees who simply don’t care. Most people deserve their license. However there are some people that really should not have a license, but the state makes money off of it, and instructors in the end wouldn’t dare not give someone their license. While harsh, I think that some people just don’t have the eye-hand coordination nor the will to drive. Here is my proposition. First time drivers need to be rigorously evaluated, and the minimum age you should be able to drive at should be 18 across the country. Teenagers cannot handle a car. Secondly, there needs to be re-evaluation of your driving skills every five years or so, to make sure that you remain safe. This will put pressure on people to be better drivers, and prevent those that shouldn’t be driving from having access to a license. Through this, fatalities and crashes will fall, and people will finally realize that they are controlling not only a vehicle but also a weapon. With this strategy crashes will fall significantly, and we won’t be wasting money on new technology, as we can keep using conventional infrastructure and cars.
Finally, in order to have driverless cars prevail in our society, the entire United States would have to basically start with a clean slate in terms of infrastructure. The bridges, highways, traffic lights, and general roads across America are disheveled. Many are as old as the driving test. Already in the States, “there isn’t enough money to maintain everything that’s being built”, and “the U.S. will never be able to build its way out of its infrastructure challenge” (Adam Allington). Keep in mind that these comments refer to just maintaining our current infrastructure and building some new roads and bridges. Conventional roads and bridges. Conventional infrastructure. What would happen if we tried to convert all of our already old and shabby highways into driverless car friendly passages? And even if that wasn’t hard enough--where exactly--are we getting the funding to do this if we already have a grand total of zero?
I hope, as a member of society, that we all reconsider the limitations of useful technology and take a deep breath before we entrust our lives and well-being to a robot. For now, there are ways to reduce traffic deaths while keeping humans in control. But most importantly, autonomous cars should not share a part of our future because we are not ready to handle the responsibility. Please. Put down your phone and take a look at the world around you. Are you sure you want to lose another part of it to robots?
