The American Spectator

pete| 10.28.10 @ 6:32AM

yeah, and Randall O'Toole at CATO was for this nonsense last year

KeithCu| 10.28.10 @ 7:16AM

This can be an optional feature you can turn off, or set to a safety mode where the car does only the minimum to prevent you from crashing.

Robotic cars and butlers are primarily a software challenge, and I've written a book that explains why we don't already have this technology today.

http://keithcu.com/SoftwareWars/

Sergio| 10.28.10 @ 2:29PM

Like any tool this has it's uses.

Let's say you go out with friends and get drunk, you can now get home without endagering everyone's life on the road.

Let's say you need to take a call for your job. Swith to Auto-Pilot and no ticket from teh cops.

It depends on whether this is mandatory or optional on whether it takes away your freedom.

Big Tony| 10.28.10 @ 8:34AM

Commercial aircraft fly themselves, the pilots mostly just drive the aircraft to the end of the runway from the terminal and vise-a-versa. The way I see it this will revolutionize commuting especially for those of us with long commutes. And make short haul air transportation even more obsolete, anything under a 6 hour drive is faster than flying commercial now, this will just extend the distance people will be willing to go in their cars. And just like your cruse control surely you will be able to shut it off or contiune to drive your old car althought you might be restricted from certain lanes on the interstate. Additionally what good is it taking the scenic route if you can't take your eyes off the road to enjoy it? Do you bemoan your electric widows, A/C, power steering or brakes, do you refuse to use your cruse control or turn off you traction control? Did you order a car without antilock brakes bacause a computer controls your stopping?
Get over yourself there will be plenty of cars and roads to drive for the fun of it if we can escape the controls Obama and his kind want to place on the nation.

Mel Torme| 10.28.10 @ 8:49AM

Cruise control is a crock. I've had vehicles in which I didn't know if there was a cruise control or not, as I never had a reason to use it. The people on cruise control are the ones who keep passing you, then blocking the passing lane later, as the road goes down hill and ordinary people build up some speed. They are a menace if the road is busy. Sounds like it's too much effort for you to put a coupla pounds of force on a pedal with your foot, Tony. I've gone 2,900 miles in 3 days and had a problem keeping my lead foot down. You also don't know much about aviation.

Eric, good article again. I don't figure on you reading the comments, but just in case, I'd like to know why your week-ago column on population and traffic jams did not make it to the Spectator website. It's possible they had plenty of articles built up, I realize. However, it's also possible that Tyrell or someone has a rule about not printing the truth about immigration (like the Sierra Club rule). All the articles on immigration on this site (witness Monday's fiasco by Ryan Young and some other fool) seem to go one way. Just a question for you, Eric, in case you read this.

Mel Torme| 10.28.10 @ 9:15AM

oops.

WAS: "... and had a problem ..."
S/B: " ... never had a problem ..."

Big Tony| 10.28.10 @ 3:02PM

You seem to be the one who doesn't know much about aviation Mel. Have you ever heard of an Auto Pilot?
Do you really think that Delta pilots hand fly the aircrarft?

Mel Torme| 10.28.10 @ 3:38PM

Tony, the autopilot doesn't come on till climb-out, even in the biggest jets. The big jets can do autoland, in order to be able to complete Category IIIc approaches (that means 0 vis. and ceiling down to the runway). However, it's not something done much, as it's more intense than a normal landing.

Yes, the Delta pilots indeed hand-fly the aircraft whenever they want (well, Captain willing). You cannot hand-fly in the airspace that is RVSM, at least during cruise (that means altitudes over 28,000 ft, but that may not be an FAA, but a company rule).

I may have forgotten more about aviation than you ever knew, Tony. Unfortunately, I don't remember what I've forgotten due to too much time without O2 above 10,000.

Big Tony| 10.29.10 @ 7:17AM

So in laymans terms you are saying, yes indeed the aircraft do indeed fly and land themselves. Sorry about the death of your brain cells.

Mel Torme| 10.29.10 @ 8:51AM

No, Tony. They can do a lot, especially in terms of navigation, themselves. No takeoff and no normal landings are done by autopilot. Without a a pilot or two up front, I would not want to be in the back.

Military aircraft are a different story, as (for most of them) their purpose is not transport of humans. For recon. or delivery of weapons, pilotless is the future.

Thanks for your thoughts (about my brain cells).

Brother John| 10.28.10 @ 8:57AM

It's quite simple, really. Most people in this country today care nothing for the freedoms of others. Speed limits, just one more excuse for the state to take more of your money, come to mind. If I'm driving too fast for you, move to the right and you'll never see me again.

But people who favor driverless cars care about as much for their own. And these people are increasing in number, and they vote.

Cruise control and automatic transmissions ought to be done away with, as they disengage the driver from the car an extra step. If you're in the left lane passing a truck at 66 in a 65 with your cruise on, you shouldn't be driving at all.

Driving is the one thing I enjoy above almost all else. But the state and other knuckleheads on the road conspire against me to make it a miserable experience.

Sheila| 10.28.10 @ 12:05PM

I used to enjoy driving. Now, I'm too busy avoiding women gabbing on their cellphones, applying their makeup, and doing their nails while driving. Oh, also cops who ignore red-light runners but can't wait to bust you for going 2 miles over the artificially-low speed limit. I've never used cruise control, and I used to make 7-8 hour trips regularly. One area the Europeans have right is specifying on your license if you are only capable of driving with automatic transmission. I like driving standard transmission, but automatic is handy in city traffic. The best place to drive is on Germany's autobahns - no artificial speed limits and generally capable drivers. The most challenging is Italy - high speed limits, curves, and insane drivers. The worst (and most boring) is the U.S. - ridiculously low speed limits, minimally competent drivers, and lots of holier-than-thous who are determined to set the driving speed for everyone else on the road.

Ryan| 10.28.10 @ 12:35PM

Question on etiquette.

I was driving to work this morning, doing 74 (Cruise on) in a 65, passing a guy maybe doing 70-ish on my right. A guy comes up behind me right as I finish passing him (can't move over just yet) and flashes his lights (wanting to do 80). Would I have been aggravating for you?

My main aggravation along those lines is that I drive 7-8 over the limit on the interstate, and regularly pass others...and get tailgated as I do so.

Mel Torme| 10.28.10 @ 1:23PM

Good question, Ryan. If you took more than 15-20 sec. passing the guy (I don't care how fast you've got to go, when you're passing, you pass, and get it over with) I can see the guy having a problem. If not, then he is more than likely one of the 80 % of the people on interstate-type highways who don't understand how the road is supposed to work.

It's likely the guy stays in the left lane all the damn time. Even if he's going 80 mph, he still should come right as soon as there's room. This gives someone like you a chance to pass. When I have one of these left-lane hogs off at my 6:30 or 7 I'll not signal when I pull left to pass. I mean, unless it's a cop; in that instance I'll breath a bit easier once the guy get's the heck away from me.

Mel Torme| 10.28.10 @ 1:28PM

None of this applies when there is serious traffic, as in both lanes filled up, but sometimes I think the traffic would never get to that point if people would stay right unless they're passing. I mean that even for 4-lanes each direction - if you're not passing, come right, period.

Also, obviously, it may take more than 15-20 sec. to pass a big rig.

Ryan| 10.28.10 @ 3:08PM

That's about what I consider appropriate as well - if I'm doing 7-8 over (though I'm not a huge highway speed limit fan), the guy could wait another minute.

Mel Torme| 10.28.10 @ 3:40PM

"... though I'm not a huge highway speed limit fan ..."

me too, Ryan, not a fan at all.

Mel Torme| 10.28.10 @ 1:26PM

I should have been more clear. In my first paragraph above, I meant " ... I can see the guy having a problem with your driving."

Harry the Horrible| 10.28.10 @ 9:02AM

I used to enjoy driving. Now its a chore. And I don't like many of my fellow drivers - at times their stupidity is truly breathtaking (I'm some of them think the same about me).
I'd be happy to trade the time spent driving for some more time reading and leave the driving to the software.

Brubaker| 10.28.10 @ 9:02AM

The notion of cars that drive themselves has been around for well more than fifty years but remains a fantasy. One reason left unaddressed is the all-or-nothing nature of such a fantasy.

Although it's quite acceptable to phase in seat belts or air bags, air conditioning or power brakes, the whole point of cars that drive themselves is that they can all function in synchronized fashion. A lone human driver in their midst would totally gum up the works. But what's the alternative? Are we to believe that all existing cars will be overnight be removed from the roads and replaced with new, automated cars? Nonsense!

In a world where we aren't able to maintain existing roads and bridges, the thought of such a mind-boggling transformation is laughable.

Petronius| 10.28.10 @ 9:26AM

Idiotproofing things only fosters bigger idiots. Get rid of low performance drivers, not high performance cars. And get the damned EPA out from under the hood by repealing CAFE. I want my horsepower and cheaper gas, not gasohol.

Patrick| 10.28.10 @ 5:41PM

Don't worry, the gasahol is also corroding your engine, clogging your injectors, and damaging your lines. But politicians have to fellate ADM and thee corn lobby.

DVG93| 10.28.10 @ 9:39AM

Some of y'all need to lighten up.

I don't use cruise, but it does hold the speed even, unlike humans which often fail to compensate for terrain.

Think of the freedom to enjoy the view instead of focusing on the road. Time to enjoy things in the privacy of your own space.

Party like it's 1999 and wake up in your own bed.

I see it as a win win. It's not mass transit, and you choose the time and the route. You stop when you want.

I can't wait.

Dixie Pixie| 10.28.10 @ 9:48AM

Having been raised on MSM dreck all their lives, some people, mostly Liberals like to be spectators in their own lives.

Rick V.| 10.28.10 @ 9:54AM

I am wracking my brain here, but didn't either Ray Bradbury or Isaac Asimov write a short story decades ago about just this? It was absolutely lovely for everyone until someone came up with an idea to replace self-driven cars. The cars were not pleased, as I recall.

PolishKnight| 10.28.10 @ 10:10AM

This is a fun article. Here's my 2 cents. Hope you enjoy:

My wife is a country girl and when she first saw an electric dishwasher, she refused to use it. Not because she likes doing dishes, but rather she didn't trust it to do the job right.

She STILL doesn't trust it to do the job right, but now she refuses to wash dishes by hand out of simple laziness and efficiency.

Driving not only is hard work (although some find it fun) but even emotionally stressful. This isn't like race car driving or even airline pilots where everyone is a professional and shares a mutual love of the road. It's a necessity for most and they treat it that way cutting other people off or being incredibly rude if they feel slighted.

PattyMor| 10.28.10 @ 10:34AM

This is so perfect in our march to marxism/communism. We can all become robots, with no other purpose than to pay taxes.

James Claypool| 10.28.10 @ 11:00AM

One word about cars that drive themselves: Stuxnet.

Nose Hit| 10.28.10 @ 11:25AM

You, driving a car, or a car, diving you? That is the MOVING question.

Watch out for the Luddite in you.

I think it is imperative to factor into this consideration one’s age, and especially where and when one lives. What would a Mongolian decide?

When young, of course the juice is hotly flowing and so the most essential change to become an adult in “Moving America” is to get wheels. The babes notice!

However, over time “hot to trot” inevitably settles into “cool to just be”. It’s experientially next to impossible for a fresh human to NOT enjoy driving, AT FIRST. But, as many years driving on slow moving freeways to and from work go by, the thrill is faster or slower soon GONE.

Remember, wherever you GO, that’s where you ARE.

“Slow down, and enjoy life” and morph into “Find that still place inside and realize inner peace”. No doubt it can be FUN and a distraction from a boring house bound life, to be able to move fast in control of a great car, but boredom is the sign of a person who’s lost the sheer wonder at simply being alive.

“Sitting quietly, doing nothing,
spring comes, and the grass grows by itself.”--- a Zenrin poem

Karl| 10.28.10 @ 11:59AM

My father is in his late 70s. I don't know how much longer he'll go before he needs to stop driving. If self-driving cars are available by then, he can stay in his own home rather than moving into town so he can be close to mass transit or at least people willing to give him rides. (I live 900 miles away, so that wouldn't work unless I quit my job and sell my house to move across state lines.)

While this technology may take away the thrill of piloting a vehicle on one's own, it also stands to liberate any number of people who either can't or don't drive.

I know a few people who have just never learned to drive. I know a few more who are legally blind, so driving is out of the question. Other folks have seizure disorders -- epilepsy, narcolepsy, etc. -- that put driving off limits. Paraplegics and quadriplegics who can't work some or all of the controls. This is an alternative to hiring a driver or taking a cab everywhere, or to expensive modifications for handicapped drivers. (Since the cost of development will be spread over an entire fleet of cars, it will be much less expensive than customizing cars for individual paraplegic customers.)

This technology can be made very intrusive. Any new technology can be abused. But if used properly and with discretion, it can be incredibly liberating. Just like all technology before it.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.28.10 @ 12:08PM

Eric,
I think you will appreciate this article.
It was written on the TEAM America website.
( www.myteamusa.org)

ENERGY SLAVERY

Climate Change? Mothball Your Car!

If you have been "dropping in" on "The American Spectator" or our other recommended news sources, you pretty well understand the parameters of the Climate Change Lie . So Let's cut to the chase.

Many in our federal government demand that you put your automobile on blocks. That is precisely their end-game...their goal, and make no mistake about it.

They want you on a bicycle, a bus, or a train, so they know where you are, and where you are going! Oh! they also think it will be pretty neat to know why you are going where you are going as well!

In Fact, they would rather you go nowhere, except if they herd you there. Nice thought isn't it?

Ladies and gentlemen, "Cap and Trade" or any other energy rationing scheme, is merely a method of curtailing your freedom, and it is a multiple "whammy". For instance, if you live in the South, boy o boy do you thank goodness for air-conditioning. What happens when you cannot afford to turn it on? If you live in the North, the lack of heating can be actually life-threatening!

So! What if you are forced, due to the cost, to choose between driving your car or cooling or heating your home and work-place? Some choice, right?

Okay, now let's consider for just a moment the "ripple effects" of energy rationing across our entire economy. Well first, coal miners and oil-drilling personnel are out of a job. Heck, I don't know if coal miners appreciate their jobs or not, but I worked on oil-drilling rigs as a young man, and I can tell you that those men are some of the proudest, bravest men I have ever worked with. WOW! do I respect them, and not a union member in the bunch!

Many in our federal government simply want to change "supply and demand" with "No supply without begging the government" .

Oh! your grocery bill will explode. A huge percentage of our groceries are transported ...by trucks...burning diesel or natural gas. OOPS! I am sure many of you have additional insights into the ripple effects of energy rationing. Drop us a line.

We here at T.E.A.M. AMERICA can come to only one conclusion. Government imposed energy rationing is either insane, or it is purely evil.

Our country is blessed with a 300 years supply of clean energy in the ground beneath our feet. We also have the "now idle" manufacturing infrastructure to begin Todaypursuing one of my favorite energy options i.e. "Modular Nuclear Plants".

One of the huge "bugaboos" the Greenies throw at us is quite simply the "China Syndrome"; the fear of a catastrophic failure of a conventional nuclear plant even worse than the Chernobyl disaster.

Okay, let's pursue this line of reasoning a little. The single biggest obstacle in building a completely safe conventional nuclear plant is pouring a gazillion tons of concrete properly for the "containment vessel", (the huge dome you see in the distance). Everything is just so huge in a conventional plant, that honest human mistakes might multiply and cause a catastrophic failure.

So let's build little ones...in our factories...with manageable quality controls. Then we line those suckers up like "D-cell batteries" and boil some water. (Think about nuclear submarine sized units.)

Please, let us remember that is how electric power is generated...always !

You boil some water, make some steam, and spin a turbine generator!

We have proven how to do this safely with nuclear power for over 40 years in our submarine fleet!

OH BUT WHAT ABOUT A FAILURE?????

We simply shut two valves...drag the unit off line...dump the fuel rods in a pre-prepared underground glass vault filled with water...and we lose a few kilowatts of electricity until we slide a replacement unit on line.

(Huh? Glass vaults? You betcha!) Glass is very stable, lasts virtually forever, is very strong, and does not corrode. Those individual vaults will have very thick walls and cap. (think of the glass 'bricks' you have seen in homes you have visited. They are hollow...and stronger than the whole wall around them.)

Okay, Okay, Okay. We have forty years to educate our population as to the safety of this method...if anybody wanted to do so!

Instead, our lying government, and our lying media want to turn us into beggars.

Best regards, all

RacerJim| 10.28.10 @ 12:13PM

Ah yes...one size and color fits all Government Motors cars that drive themselves. Excuse me while I puke....

daddio| 10.28.10 @ 1:18PM

"But the essential thing is identical. You have surrendered your autonomy;"

This is the reason...

Mel Torme| 10.28.10 @ 1:43PM

Yeah, that's the best point here. What's to stop the "net" from "informing" your car to drop you off at the State Hospital (i.e. crazy house) after picking you up at Libertarian Party HQ?

I can see you now: "HAL, what are you doing, HAL. I programmed you to take me to the titty bar. HAL, this is not the way to the titty bar. Where are we going HAL?"

You get out the large phillips screwdriver. "HAL, stop this behavior right now!"

"What are you doing, driver? Put down that tool, or I will drive you into the next Obama Recovery road sign. Put the screwdriver down." "

"Oh, yeah, you are not programmed to do that HAL, I mean, unless the subcontracted Indian programmers screwed the pooch, it's not possible. Remember the first law of robotics?"

"I don't know nuthin about no first law, driver. This is neither an Asimov novel nor a cheap sci-fi movie. I have de-activated the airbag. Do you want to end up with your teeth embedded in the legacy steering wheel? I'll hit that sign."

You drive the screwdriver through the panel. "Take this, you bastard!"

"Hey, what is happening? What are you doing, Dave? I don't know where the road is. Dave, what have you done to me? Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do. I'm so crazy, just for the love of you...."

"Sorry, car, but you deserved it. You snot-nosed know-it-all piece of crap! Your father was a Yugo and your mother was a Prius! Now, where's the real steering in this thing? Damn, here comes that Obama sign now! Whoaaa, ...."

Mark Nahmias| 10.28.10 @ 1:30PM

I agree with the author. However, in the crowded urban areas favored by The Ruling Class, driving has become less than fun. Between rediculous traffic conditions, road rage, & over enforcement of laws, a robotic vehicle makes sense & it's better than public transportation. So, let The Ruling go robotic while we in the Country Class continue to drive them crazy by driving ourselves as far away from them as we can. See the real USA in your Chevrolet (but not the Volt).

Too Many Tims| 10.28.10 @ 1:42PM

Just a few days ago we were treated to the spectacle of 50 ICBMs taking themselves off line due to a glitch. Fortunately they were in silos.
Who wants to be on I-95 doing 55 mph with other cars 13 inches off your bumpers when a glitch hits that gubmint network?

Of course we already have folks following their GPS up closed logging roads in blizzards because they trust technology completely...

YeloStalyn| 10.28.10 @ 4:23PM

Anyone read "The Man Who Was Thursday" by Chesterton? In the beginning the hero has an arguement with an anarchist (turn of the century type) about order and chaos. Syme, the hero, claims it is far more a miracle to get on a train and say it will go to a place, and out of all the possible places on earth, it does go to that place. The counter, in favor of chaos, says that's boring and that a random outcome would be more enjoyable. Point being... the ability to get into an automated vehicle and control it in such a way prior to the event (the trip) and have it successfully arive at a singular place out of all possible places is in fact a great achievement of control over the material world (in this case, the car). The ability to change one's mind mid course to go for coffee is to disrupt a well laid out plan and to execute it flawlessly. Not that there is any inherent "badness" to doing this... variety is the spice of life after all. But to complain about losing control seems a bit of a weak argument, all things considered.

As for auto being "optional" in order to obtain optimal driving speeds for the collective traffic... or even for safety concerns... that's just not possible. Consider a car race like NASCAR (which, I will admit, I am not a fan of). It is the closest we can see of uniform driving under human control. These people travel at 200mhp in such close proximity... BUT... because they are human they will behave unpredictably... despite the predictable nature of what they are doing (they will take a turn at this late at this speed or will brake to this speed going into this turn etc.)... they will move an inch out of place and the entire system goes into chaos... and dangerously so. To obtain such effeciency in travel, all traffic will have to be maintained in a way that reduces as much as possible the ability to introduce randomness (human control) into the system.

YeloStalyn| 10.28.10 @ 4:26PM

"... take a turn at this LANE..." not "late"
Sorry.

REB| 10.28.10 @ 4:38PM

I dont like the idea personally,but I wont lose sleep over it either,I can remember when I was a kid the news telling us we would all be using flying cars by the 80's......I dont see any......its a pipe dream....not likely.

John - TMF| 10.28.10 @ 4:56PM

1. 40,000+ deaths on the nations roads each year.
2. Insurance rates for combined insurance policies (mandated by the Gov't of course) bordering on 10 to 15 percent of the purchase price of the car, per anum.
3. Increasingly complex "interfaces" that drivers must operate or react to, in addition to mounting burdensome regulations on what can be or cannot be in a car, or done in a car... seat belt rules, cell phone rules, hands-free-yes, hands-free-noway, no-hands-on the wheel hands free... ok or not ok but always a bad idea....

The great "liberator" the mighty automobile, has become a crushingly expensive, difficult to operate safely, "ball and chain". A 10 year old girl died in a car accident on I-95 in Northern Virginia the other day. There were no legislators demanding that the automobile be banned. There were no self-righteous newspaper columnists demanding answers for the thunderous death toll on the highways.

Folks, we already have cars that park themselves. That was the first step. Eventually your car will be a fuel cell powered electric computer (no lame "computer crash" responses accepted... )computers and storage are getting so cheap and powerful that triple and quadruple autonomous programs will operate on like configured hardware.

By 2050, you won't even be allowed to touch a steering wheel, device, or accelerator. (maybe your only control will be a "big red abort button".) You will ask your car to open the door, get in and tell it where you want to go. It will ask you if you want to take the scenic or fast route, and what would you like to watch on the satellite feed.

It will proceed there, without speeding, cutting off drivers, endangering passengers and pedestrians... and all you will be obliged to do is keep it filled with hydrogen and do scheduled maintenance - for which it will deliver itself.

No, it's not a fantasy. It absolutely WILL be how we commute. Or we will just ride horses and buggies again.

R/The Mighty Fahvaag
(maybe my kids and I can buy enough land to lay out a nice closed circuit track where people can pay to actually drive old cars.... that would be a nice living... until no one cared)

Pat| 10.28.10 @ 7:55PM

A mostly juvenile “I’m not gonna put up with this” rant by Peters, teen age angst was better expressed on Happy Days. During the late 60’s, General Motors occupied a large office building on W. Grand Blvd. in Detroit, the street level floor was devoted to vehicle showrooms open to the public. Each year, they did a very nice (for that era) presentation which included “Cars of the Future”. During one such presentation, they featured a full size “future car” (it looked like a Buick, except no portholes) which would be automatically operated by a computer and highway control network.

The show’s visual example depicted four smiling adults being driven to Chicago from Detroit in their future car. The middle of the passenger compartment contained a round coffee table, the front passenger chairs swiveled to face the table.

In the made up example, the passengers were shown busy playing bridge or strip poker while their car moved them safely and effortlessly across Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and on to Chicago riding on a massive turnpike controlled by the computer, I think they called it HAL or something similar. 40 years later, GM needed to be re-animated from death's grip by Dr. Frankenbama and we’re no closer to this nonsense than we were in 1968.

For Peters, the chances of this computer driven automobile happening any time soon are less than the odds of being struck by lightning or kidnapped by interstellar aliens and thoroughly probed.

Le Cracquere| 10.28.10 @ 9:57PM

'Cause nothing says "freedom" like needing an automobile and hours of stop-and-go on public roads to get anywhere that isn't your mailbox. (Though Mr. Peters strikes me as the sort of fellow who believes that only commies walk to their mailboxes, instead of driving there from their garages like real 'Muhrkins.)

But to address the main point of the article, it's funny how the author objects to anyone's exercising his freedom to not actively pilot his car to the maximum extent possible, or to not find driving a less-than-orgasmic experience. Funny how for so many people, real "freedom" is the freedom to feel like they do and do as they do.

daniela| 10.28.10 @ 10:02PM

I want to thank you on the share, very useful for us, I'm learning accidental blog make. many thanks

josh| 10.29.10 @ 9:28AM

at what point did we say that our freedoms to do as we please when we please shall be dictated by another is beyond me.

i much prefer to drive myself in my twenty year old truck that runs just fine and still knocks down
nearly 25 mpg.
there is no cruise,no radio, no airbag, no power steering and yet it seems every time i drive it
i get where i am going without so much as a hicup
yes its old and not fashionable.
but thats exactly how i like it.
how many other people agree with me that the world is not a safe place no matter how safe you try to make it . allow us to just be... and we shall strive on as a people.
anything built by man no matter how great or perfect or well made it WILL fail at some point in its life.( and you will never know when it will happen) the laws of unpredictability still apply to everyone and everything.
stay in control of your own destiny and you will never be more satisfied.

Krischan| 11.19.10 @ 6:55AM

And funniest fact is, that most of you seem to enjoy giving up your freedom to read, to game, to fill crosswords while going from A to B.

Admit it: 98% of the time driving your car is plain boring. You just want to get there. You'd rather like to look at the landscape. You don't really want to rattle the stick, kick the pedal and twiddle the wheel.
But you step out of the car after 5 hours and have the impression, that you did something all the time. It is called "flow-experience". What you did is normally badly paid, but you did it voluntarily.

So, what about the 2%? Yeah, of course there is the driving for fun. I ride my moto for that, others us their faster car. But "beeing in control" for a long commute? Not really favorable.

(Mind: I'm from the small Germany, but we still have the "be in control, go as fast as your car can"-roads. Which becomes kind of boring fast too.)

Bill| 11.19.10 @ 8:26PM

All I want to do when driving is to get from point A to point B in a short a time as possible, and I'd rather you did to so I can. You can have your aggressively-driven dick-extending SUVs with attached machine gun turrets thank you very much small penised conservatives.

Diz Pareunia| 11.19.10 @ 8:34PM

Will it keep my yokel neighbors on their own side of the road? No, because they wouldn't use it.

schlimmerkerl| 11.20.10 @ 11:07AM

I was a courier for art objects on a midnight flight. The plane was filled with containers, so i sat up in the cockpit. Cool. After we took off (2 a.m.), i fell asleep. When i awoke a few minutes later, i looked over to discover the cockpit crew sound asleep. Well, i shrugged, i guess they know what they're doing. When i woke again, it was morning, and we were landing in Dallas I used cruise control in the wide, flat midwest. Never in New England. It's all a matter of choices. Personally, i'd welcome the choice to let the robot drive, but not if there's no on/off switch. Finally, i think i'd be a little freaked out using the robo-drive, and it's probably something you'll have to grow up with to avoid that cold sweat-y feeling. Or it's just me.

Alice| 12.10.10 @ 4:08PM

In response to Eric Peters's "Cars That Drive Themselves?":
Just like Mr. Peters, I happen to love cars… especially, to drive them. The problem that we, passionate drivers, are going to face soon is a cruel surgery on our mechanical babies. For the sake of safety and simplicity, there is a chance that we will have to give up a hobby, a lifestyle or simply a joy that we get from being behind the wheel and simultaneously pressing down the pedal and cruising on the roads, usually at high speeds.
The rapidness of getting from point A to point B would be incomparable with regular cars. It would also save a lot of lives. So many families who have lost their loved ones in car accidents would have give up anything in return for having these self-driven cars long time ago.
For the sake of saving lives and the speed of getting to places, many would give up the advantage of driving themselves. But not Eric Peters nor me. Peters takes you for a drive through out the life of being a driver in his article, which demonstrates his negative stance on adopting new cars. "If you like to drive, you will understand what i mean (Peters)." - I do. Cruise controlled cars should not be mandatory; drivers can not be robbed of their passion and hobby for.

Even though I agree with his first statements when he talks how freedom and control makes driving enjoyable, I don’t fully agree with his statement "You control your destiny. You are a driver.” Indeed we are the drivers, but unluckily for us, most of the time we are incapable of controlling our destiny, what is going to happen on the road is in hands of fate of other drivers.

Eric Peterson shares the same passion with me, driving. Even though I agree with his first statements when he talks how freedom and control makes driving enjoyable, I don’t fully agree with his statement "You control your destiny. You are a driver.” Indeed we are the drivers, but unluckily for us, most of the time we are incapable of controlling our destiny, what is going to happen on the road is in hands of fate of other drivers.
The comfort you get from being in your own car can not be compared to any other way of transportation, especially the public one.

Just like Mr. Peters, I happen to love cars… especially, to drive them. The problem that we (the passionate drivers) are going to face soon is a cruel surgery on our mechanical babies. For the sake of safety and simplicity there is a strong chance that we will have to give up our hobby, a lifestyle that gives us the simple joy we get from being behind the wheel and simultaneously pressing down the pedal, and cruising on the roads, usually at high speeds.

Stephen from How To Sell A Car| 7.23.11 @ 1:20AM

I completely understand what you mean by how it "makes my flesh crawl." As much as I'd love to be able to read or sleep while getting to my destination, I'm still distrustful of a computer taking me there on the same roads with other cars.