Self-driving cars ahead of their time
Self-driving cars are back in the news again, mainly because a) the Automotive Press Association recently held a conference on the subject revealing how close the technology really is to being consumer-ready, and b) Tesla recently announced it may join forces with Google, the leading proponent of the driverless car.
The allure, of course, is easily understood. Driving in traffic, commuting to work and the bimonthly long-distant trek to visit ailing parents are the very definition of tedium. Who would not want to shirk that awful monotony? Simply engage the autopilot, fire up the old iPad or tilt the seat back and take a snooze while the onboard cameras, sensors and computer do all the heavy lifting. The promise is that selfdriving cars will relieve their humans from any responsibility from the care and handling of their automobile. Or will they? In the short term, the answer is almost assuredly not. Indeed, even though Google has trumpeted the blind being transported by its selfdriving cars, chances are liability laws will require that the self-driving automobile of the future, or near future at least, be co-piloted by a supposedly attentive human. Yes, even if the car can navigate its own way between Leslie and Steeles in Toronto all the way to Eagleson and Hazeldean in Ottawa, you will have to remain Johnny-on-the-spot as the backup system. In other words, rather than napping or catching up on some long-ignored emails, you may have to remain at the ready just in case the onboard computer goes on the fritz. For me, choosing between driving to Ottawa or occupying the driver’s seat with nothing to do, is simple. The former, as boring as it seems, would still be the more palatable option.
The self-driving car is a smorgasbord of complementary technologies — proximity sensors to determine if there are objects nearby, communications devices that allow cars to “talk” to each other, and GPS software that guides us along our route — all controlled by computer software and hardware. Who among us has not been confounded by an onboard navigation system completely discombobulated at the prospect of what appears to be a simple right turn? Not to mention that what works in southern California (where Google has done much of its testing) may not function so well in less perfect conditions; indeed, a recent test of a hightech BMW 7-Series saw both its forward-facing radar and its rear-view camera taken out by the combination of the snow that Canada is famous for and the sand that the province of Quebec uses to combat it. Yes, computers are more reliable than humans. No, they are not infallible.
This leads us to the third and probably most difficult point of intransigence: Who will accept legal responsibility for the conduct of self-driving cars? Currently, the onus is on the human being behind the wheel as the responsible party. Of course, whenever the guilty party has even the slightest suspicion that the car itself may have been a contributing factor, the lawsuits start flying.
Leaving the legal system to make sense of technical issues that confound the most brilliant of engineers seems like a fool’s paradise.
I leave you with one other quandary. Do self-driving cars mean drunks can get home from bars in their own automobiles, which may be better than an inebriated human? There are also the questions of who is acting as backup and do we want to use technology to encourage bad behaviour?
Though a self-driving car would make my commutes to Ottawa more palatable, I suspect it will be one of those technologies that’s technically available before we’re ready to use it.