Self-driving cars don’t need human drivers, but apparently need government

The Orange County Register blog Orange Punch ^ | 3-1-2012 | Mark Landsbaum

[landsbaum]

This is a new one on us: there’s something called “autonomous vehicles” inching off the drawing board and onto the freeways.

These self-driving cars apparently are spawned by techies at Google, Caltech and other places. According to the L.A. Times, the cars “use radar, video cameras and lasers to navigate roads and stay safe in traffic without human assistance.”

Seems interesting. It couldn’t but help that mad rush on the 57 we navigate every morning and evening.

But wait...

[marktwain]

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has done the most to develope these. If president Obama wanted a legacy, making autonomous vehicles a reality in all the US would go down as a milestone in technological history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge

[LeopoldvonRanke]

Absolutely-

Making it a mandate that all cars produced be ‘autonomous’ will be the next thing that comes up to the plate.

Imagine a world where to get into your car - you have to pay a toll, and the car won’t turn on unless the government says it’s ok. The government offers you free ‘autonomous cars’, ostensibly for public safety.

The government can now track where you go and when, and at no time are you free.

The government can pull you off the road at any time, turn off your car, shut it down. If you aren’t in control - who is?

[marktwain]

It could be done that way, and we should certainly work to prevent it.

However, current autonomous vehicles do not need any feedback to any outside grid or network. They are “passive” collectors of gps data and do not send data outside of their interior. They offer the potential to give a lot more privacy than they take, because they have the potential not to require a licensed driver.

Consider that you could go on the freeway for a 6 hour trip, and take a nap until you reach your destination or need to fuel up. The potential for saving manpower and increasing productivity is very large.

[humblegunner]

But wait...

(Excerpt)

No, I'm not going to give you a hit.

Nice try at a teaser though. It's cute how you treat Free Republic as a hit farm.

[marktwain]

I see it coming about as an evolutionary process. First level steering and braking as an improved, super cruise control, then full autonomous driving on Interstate only, with the requirement for a driver to be on-board, then full autonomous driving in cities and rural areas, finally, in a couple of decades, full autonomous driving without a licensed driver on board.

It could be the next best thing for freedom before the air car.

[LeopoldvonRanke]

Yeah, well I don’t want a ‘passive collector’ of GPS data anywhere near my vehicle. I don’t use GPS for anything. I use maps - and I can navigate just fine.

If it requires GPS to operate, then the government has access to the movements of everyone. This is a problem.

“Consider that you could go on the freeway for a 6 hour trip, and take a nap until you reach your destination or need to fuel up. The potential for saving manpower and increasing productivity is very large.”

I should write a science fiction story like Philip Dick to illustrate just why this is a bad idea.

[marktwain]

Why do you think the government has access to data for anyone using GPS?

It does not.

GPS is a receiver. It does not transmit. The only way the government can get access to GPS data (outside of cell phones, which is another issue, and far more dangerous, in my opinion) is to take the GPS from you and remove the data.

[TalonDJ]

If it requires GPS to operate, then the government has access to the movements of everyone.

I am an engineer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of GPS. This is 100% false. Whoever told you this is a liar or un informed. Whatever website you read this on is probably full of lies. Don't trust me? Then don't trust anyone else in the internet either.

[TalonDJ]

I see it coming about as an evolutionary process.

Yeah it would be. First you have fully automated cars. Then the DoT wants transponders so that they can monitor traffic levels and pollution. Then we give them access to a traffic control center so we can 'relative congestion' and redirect cars to alternate routes when traffic is heavy. Then they want to give police an override to stop your car. For your own good. At each stage the people don't have much say because they don't even know how to drive anymore. And is it really that different to trust an on board computer or big brother traffic control? The technology is cool but the social implications make me shudder.