Driving Me Crazy

SelfDrivingCarby James Ray Deaton10/4/15
I like a good Jetsons episode as much as the next guy, but this whole (mostly left-wing) push for and fascination with self-driving cars and super-fast and super-expensive ($68 billion? $98 billion? $200 billion?) California bullet trains is troubling on many levels. And it’s not just the cost, taxes and resources required.

Why this rush to a driverless future? I generally like to drive and enjoy the simple independence of asphalt and internal combustion. And I don’t think I’m alone on that. I wouldn’t mind an autopilot car for some routine jaunts around town from time to time — but if we had that technology it wouldn’t end there. There’s a fundamental difference between driving, or being driven, from place to place. A philosophy of independence, if you will. Of your own good self being in control of things. Wherefore this sudden urge to develop these real-life futuristic people movers? Did I miss the memo? Where’s the big public outcry for driverless cars and super-fast trains? And why is it leftists always seem to be behind their advocacy and development? It will surely be more egalitarian fifty years from now when we’re all whisked about so efficiently in little pod-cars or super fast trains. It will be called sustainable. Green even. But the whole agenda seems contrived, somewhat forced and mainly the desire of a small wealthy minority with a bent towards central planning. I smell Utopia.

Could the impetus be (at its core) mostly a fancy new high-tech way to finally get the masses out of their cars? If all your utopian public transit plans to get drivers out of their cars have failed — are these new technologies a roundabout way to at least control their movements and whereabouts? These chock-full-of technology driverless pod-cars will be able to be tracked, monitored, rerouted and controlled much easier than granddad’s Galaxy 500 Ford.

Newly installed “smart meters” in many California homes already allow central planners to dial down energy use when the electric grid is stressed — will someone someday be able to “take offline” a certain percentage of driverless cars when the transportation grid is overloaded. When a motorcade passes through town, will you be re-routed “until further notice?” It will make things much more convenient for central planners and authorities. Next time a Pope visits Philadelphia it will be much easier to reroute and shut down the city than the old-fashioned way of roadblocks and red lights.

And high speed trains and train stations will be chockablock with high tech systems to monitor and “secure” the teeming masses yearning to train-port from Bakersfield to Fresno. Authorities will be able to track your movements and travel plans much easier. And it will be much safer. Security will be provided. Metal detectors, TSA workers (union jobs!), sniffer dogs, security cameras, facial recognition systems, full-body x-ray scanners and para-militarized security will likely be part of any bullet train enterprise. Customer services will be the best that minimum-wage service workers can provide. (But don’t worry because by then the minimum wage will be $35 an hour). It won’t be like a bus depot at all. It’ll be like going to the airport — but without the glamour!

Skeptics say people won’t leave their cars for bullet trains, but the calculus may change. Liberals plan long-term. It’s not so much “build it and they will come,” but “build it and then change things to force them to come.” Once the infrastructure is in place and trains running — the powers that be (both private and public) would not let any good crisis go to waste. World events, radical political changes or natural disasters could very conceivably cause gasoline rationing or sharp price hikes. If a gallon of gas cost $5 or $10 or $15, would train ridership increase? What if gasoline were $20 or $25 dollars a gallon? Bullet trains would start looking attractive to those who could still afford to travel. Jerry Brown would be hailed as a visionary leader who fixed the problem before there even was one!

I know I shouldn’t worry — there will always be room on the roads for a few old-fogy “retro-drivers” like me. But we Ret-Drives better make sure we are rich. And have very good insurance. Once the pod-cars take over, insurance rates for old-fashioned drivers who insist on missing the train and driving themselves will necessarily skyrocket. A few rich elite will always be able to indulge in the old-fashioned off the grid American road trip. They will be kind of like what private airplane pilots are today and the cost of such extravagance will keep their numbers relatively low. Driving yourself will be seen as an inefficient and dangerous way to travel. A little anti-social. Selfish, really. You will be expected to pay for such indulgence. And have the proper permits. And pay the proper fees. And have sufficient gasoline ration coupons. And have a valid and chipped Ret-Drive Class C driver’s license. And have an approved pre-trip physical exam with an approved “Data-Link” eye test. Then you’ll be ready for the freedom of the open road. And it should be more open — the hoi polloi will be on the train.

And why do I get the feeling that the people most interested in self-driving cars don’t like cars or driving very much? If you don’t like driving — don’t drive — but don’t ruin it for others. A poll by Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute revealed that a large majority of Americans are not interested in self-driving cars. According to a July article in fortune.com, “The most frequent preference for vehicle automation was no self-driving capability at all.” A recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle said that riding in the prototype Google-developed driverless car “feels like taking an airport tram — comfortable, safe, quiet and dull.” Wow! What more could a good liberal want?

James Ray Deaton, one of six known conservatives living in Berkeley, Calif., is a graduate of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.
Author Archive Email • (860 views)

This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Driving Me Crazy

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    There is already a potential problem with car controls being hacked; someone actually ran an experiment, with frightening results. No doubt it would be a lot harder when it isn’t voluntarily arranged, but it could still be done. Self-driving cars would increase the danger. Imagine programming your car to drive to your vacation home — but then an enemy (including a political enemy, such as the current federal government) taking it over and having the car deliver you to your doom. And that ignores the possibility of simply creating an “accident” that really isn’t.

    And if there really is a genuine accident involving a self-driving car, who is liable? The owner or the manufacturer/programmer?

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    From the perspective of the passenger, trains, plains, and automobiles are self-driving. I don’t have a theoretical problem with self-driving cars…personal trains, if you will.

    Speaking strictly in terms of technology, no doubt they would be a lot more efficient, save gas, save money, and save a lot of grief. It might save tens of thousand of lives each year by avoiding traffic accidents which rarely are caused by mechanical failures and are usually driver error.

    Certainly hacking and personal liberty are legitimate concerns. But in regards to self-driving cars, let’s remember the essential part – the cars. This is not mass transit. This is still the primacy of the American automobile and our right to hit the open road.

    Certainly the system itself is problematic. One would suspect that there would first be corridors or zones restricted to all cars but self-driving ones. Given the bizarre waste of space created by “car pool lanes,” I have little faith that the wizards of smart will get this right.

    And it will be interesting to watch who is for this. The Left wants us out of our cars and into mass transit. We are to the eyes of the Left sardines who have escaped their tins. Let’s put it this way, if the usual suspects are for it, it’s because they see it as a way to phase out cars.

    However, if this is the next logical evolution of the car as it meets modern technology, then it might be worth a few pilot projects just to see how it goes. I’m just not sure how you kick-start something like this. It doesn’t sound practical to mix self-driving with non-self-driving cars. The highway utopia they surely have in mind is everyone just stating their destination to the car as they step in and letting the car do the rest…and all the other cars on the road are doing the same thing which decreases accidents and increases efficiency (thus, one might presume, actually increasing the useful life of personal automobile transportation). Super computers map the best routes and manage traffic, perhaps doubling or tripling the carrying capacity of roads.

    And if self-driving cars are truly much safer because of being computer-controlled, one would think insurance rates as well as the prices of the cars themselves would come down. Would a self-driving car need all the costly crash-safety features they have now?

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I am curious about the timing of the present all out assault on VW about emissions fraud on their diesel engines. This could bankrupt the company. If the company goes bust, who will get the assets, Google?

  4. Rosalys says:

    I like the idea of a self driving car, because although I don’t mind driving I don’t really like it – and I hate traffic. Having a chauffeur is an acceptable option and one which I will avail myself of as soon as make my first million (in real, not inflated, dollars.) I actually like buses, and I love trains. I like buses because I can read or sleep while somebody else deals with the traffic. I love trains because I can read, get up and walk around, and view the country as we snake through it at a leisurely pace. I don’t really believe in bucket lists, but if I did, a cross country ride by myself, with a ticket for a sleeper car on a train would be on it. But trains are expensive! Several years ago I went out to Chicago to visit my daughter and investigated taking a train. I couldn’t justify spending twice the cost of an airplane ticket for the privilege. Yes, going by air was even cheaper than taking the bus! I don’t like the hassle and harassment of air travel, but it is cheap and quick.

    As much as I like the idea of a self driving car, I doubt I would ever trust them enough to get one. Digital technology is wonderful when it is working well – but when it’s not, it can be horrifying. Plus the very real possibility – indeed, probability! – of hacking is something I could just never be comfortable with.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      An important thing is to have the choice. And, as I mentioned earlier, there’s the matter of who’s responsible for any accidents.

  5. SkepticalCynic SkepticalCynic says:

    A man that worked at the same company as I, probably the only person that I ever knew and knew me by name was a multi-millionaire. He said to me one day after he had experienced heavy traffic that he would be glad when gasoline reached ten or fifteen dollars a gallon so that he could get to work on time. Though that is a little ironic, it shows the mindset of the rich among us.

  6. JC says:

    Some years back I took a train from Fort Lauderdale Florida to Washington DC. The standard Amtrak run. It took 24 hours to get there. 24 freeking hours.

    I could have driven my car from my home to DC and back to within 2 hours of my home in that time.

    The proposed “high speed rail” in California is a boondoggle that will Make Feinstein richer.

    Never mind that it goes from nowhere to nowhere….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *