Leave the Driving to It
Driverless cars are on the horizon, and we can all start feeling ancient now. The youngest among us will remember the days when we had to keep our hands on the steering wheel and foot near the brake. Joining "icebox" and "fire stable" will be such terms as "behind the wheel," "pedal to the metal" and "in the driver's seat."
Hipsters yet to be born will laugh at worried talk of "blind spots" and complaints of "backseat drivers." Windshields with suction-cup marks from primitive GPS devices may become wall art, just as those old blue-glass Delco batteries now hold sunflowers.
I can't wait. The notion of dropping into some soft leather seat, saying, "Take me to the movie theater" (if there still are movie theaters), then pouring a nice glass of cabernet is most appealing. There will be no such thing anymore as drunken drivers because there will be no drivers. Drunken passengers, sure.
Radar will detect objects, including pedestrians and brick walls. Cameras will record lane lines, and infrared versions will see better at night than a raccoon. Some of the newer driverless models go 70 miles an hour.
There will be fewer traffic jams because the computer-run cars will know not to smash into their neighbors. Most accidents are caused by human error, explains traffic expert Tom Vanderbilt in Wired magazine. The driverless car's computer "is better than human in every way."
Driverless cars will reduce the need for new pavement. Did you know that vehicles take up only 5 percent of the road surface on even the most congested highways? "Hyperalert and algorithmically optimized" cars should be able to safely cruise bumper to bumper, according to Vanderbilt.
I keep using the future tense, but actually, some driverless cars are already on the roads.
A fleet of Google driverless cars now ply the byways of the San Francisco Bay area. They have signs on them saying "self-driving car," lest a shocked driver think he's encountered a vehicular headless horseman.
California recently legalized driverless cars, following the lead of Nevada and Florida. Bear in mind that driverless cars were never officially banned — for obvious reasons.
A legal question for the 21st century: If your driverless car does get in an accident, whom is to blame, you or the software developer?
A philosophical question: Are driverless cars computerized vehicles or computers on wheels? Clearly, Google believes in the latter. But the autoindustry is hard at work making its case. Traditional cars are already highly computerized. Some advanced features, such as automatic parallel parking, involve driverless movement. Several major carmakers have research centers in Silicon Valley.
So go forth, motorists: Write text messages till your thumbs turn blue. Gesticulate wildly as you argue on the phone. Play around with your 2,000 stations. Neck in the backseat — or the front seat, for that matter. You are no longer in charge, which means the driving time is all yours.
Ooooh. But what's going to happen to that time????? The utopian side says the hours our eyes were glued to the road will be spent in leisure or intellectual pursuits. The dystopian side says that the effort the technology saves us will create more time for work. Have smartphones freed up your day?
The possibilities are endless. Children will take themselves to clarinet lessons. The elderly will no longer worry about losing their ability to drive. On a sour note, computer hackers will be able to commit crimes against passengers yet unimagined.
But this part of our future is inevitable: Everyone will have a chauffeur and leave the driving to it.
CONNECT














6 comments on "Leave the Driving to It"
October 15, 2012 5:35pm
In answer to commenter Avard: why couldn't and shouldn't we have hybrid-control (like cruise-control) autos: where the front-left passenger can (on roads where legal) decide whether to drive herself or let the car drive itself?
Anyhow, should drone-auto transport be that different from what we already experience and know about? Being driven rather than driving was the normal state of mass transportation during the great railroad era and continues today with rail, bus and air transit. Why should activities of drone-auto commuters be so different from those of train and bus (and even air) commuters? Like the other driverless ground modes, drone-auto transport likely will function OK in relatively urban mostly flat places in OK weather for everyday utilitarian purposes, but could be problematic in other contexts - e.g. bad weather, twisted narrow mountain roads, etc. Contra commenter CASnyder: (1) added costs of the drone infotech will gradually be built into the price of all new cars, and moreover won't be all that great, and (2) considering even today's infotech and refocused economy there already has been no good reason - other than inertia and old-style notions of top-down corporate control - for inflexible biz-hours and resulting rush hours; so merely changing the mode of commute will not itself be likely to change the rush hours which result from the outdated syndrome of centralized-work-place and lock-step-shifts.
October 14, 2012 11:49pm
Only the very wealthy will own a driverless car, but many will ride in them - they'll be the cab of the future, summoned to you wherever you are (or will be) with your cell phone. As governments begin to realize the savings possible in infrastructure, and want to only have to pave a two track for the tires instead of entire lanes, it will become illegal for people to drive themselves on roads built for these machines to travel bumper to bumper at high speeds. Perhaps passengers and cargo (driverless trucks) will share the same freeways, but local roads will likely remain fully paved for they will need to serve all kinds of transport, since many of the poorest folks won't be able to afford this kind of transit often and will still be using bicycles and other driveable vehicles to do their local errands. I think this driverless technology will likely increase the lifestyle differences between rich and poor, and maybe contribute to the shrinking of the middle class.
October 15, 2012 12:06am
Another eventual outcome of the technology is that long-term it is likely to result in the end of the phenomena of rush hour, business hours, and parking lots for corporations that invest in these as the means of bringing people to their jobs. A relatively small fleet of driverless cars could do the task of bringing all the shifts of workers to their factory jobs, but because the cars would need to be kept busy 24/7 for cost effectiveness, every worker might have a slightly different set of "business hours". This would free up huge tracts of former parking lot land for development by the corporation that used a driverless commuting fleet.
October 14, 2012 2:20pm
As long time car enthusiast, (my user name is in reference to the Studebaker I own) and Automotive Engineer I've been watching the coming of 'autonomous cars' with great interest; and I'm in favor of it.
Since many drivers are never going to put down their smart phones while driving, I see autonomous cars as solution to the chaos we all have to deal with on the roads today.
October 14, 2012 10:56am
what if one likes to drive ?
October 14, 2012 9:51am
I am simultaneously glad that this will come to pass, and glad that I'm probably too old to see the day when it will be illegal to manually take the wheel. Will there even be a wheel? Future generations will be better off not driving, and won't know what they'll be missing, as a result.