They are 'building' something that we do not 'need'. The general public is not clambering for one of these mindless 'vehicles', cool as it might be, and no doubt a status symbol to be the first on your block to have upmanship, nor is the public even 'ready' for something that 'thinks' for them, 'drives' for them, and doesn't even 'need' a human in the first place. Except that it Does need a human.... Humans built it, and it only 'knows' what humans have 'taught' it, but it does not 'know' everything that a human actually knows. There's no way to do that. Anything created, and built by humans is subject to fail. That's forgivable if it's something like a can opener, or a mobile phone, but when it comes to something that can actually kill someone if it goes haywire, then it is not so forgivable. There's no way that an autonomous motor vehicle can be programmed to deal with Every situation that it might encounter while on our roadways. Even humans, with all the experience we have driving vehicles cannot always deal with every emergency encountered on our roads, as the death rate can attest to. To allow a machine to ply our roads while it depends on the information stored in its 'brain' which cannot possibly deal with all the variables it will encounter, is absolutely foolish. They have created something that we do not need, simply because they can. And their goal is not simply to make our lives 'easier', as if driving a motor vehicle is the hardest thing you'll ever do, but because they are looking at the $$$$ returns for their investors, and themselves. It's called Profit. But it's profit at the driving public's expense. Not only that, but consider the potential headache for government agencies that regulate Motor Vehicles. If you own a 'driverless' M.V. what kind of test do you take when you want to get your D/L. Send your car to the D.M.V. while you sit at home playing on your I-Pad? If it runs a light, how does a cop pull it over, who gets the ticket, who gets the fine? If it runs over a pedestrian, who gets sued, if you are the victim, how do you find recourse, what insurance company is crazy enough to insure your 'driverless' car? As greedy humans, we always 'want' more than we actually 'need'. This thing is a 'want', Not a need. We are bombarded day in and day out with things some manufacturer want us to buy to make life 'easier'. A vacuum cleaner with a 'headlight' for instance, for those nocturnal house cleaners? But seldom is there something that we actually 'need'. It's all about 'want'. It's not likely, no matter the raving promises of the industry, that these vehicles will make our roadway any safer. Drivers education, lower speed limits, less powerful engines across the board, we don't need race cars on our already crowded and dangerous streets, vehicles better designed to survive a crash, are just a few ways to make driving safer. If you want to read your book or tap a nap while traveling in your car, be the Passenger and let someone else drive, and Not a 'driverless' car! A 'driverless' car may be a 'want' for some, but it is Not a need by many. 
;)
;) 
No comments:
Post a Comment