Cars That Drive Themselves - Why???????

The sole intent is to control the driver.  Report on the drivers action in real time for black box recording and/or real time transmission of all data regarding the operation of a vehicle.
  
Ford cars slow when they see speed-limit signs

The initial title of this blog entry was Driver less Cars - Why?  What is the point?  I picture a driver less car where the drivers devotes full time to the browsing the Internet while the car takes them to the destination.

The most stupid idea I can imagine!!!  However, nothing can be this stupid and have so much money invested in it without a purpose.

What is the purpose?

The cars will not be driver less.  The driver will sit behind the wheel, eyes on the road always ready to take command and control to over-ride the autonomous self-driving operation.  In the event of an accident caused by the driver failing to take control of the situation to exercise good judgment?  What will the driver say regarding their ultimate responsibility for safe operation?

The car made me do it?

Maybe it did.  Maybe the exact cause can be found in the failure of hard-ware and software systems designed to control the car and the failure could not be corrected by the driver within human response time of wet-ware and judgment application response time.

On the other hand, hardware and software systems designed to drive a car without constant human control (like speed control on steroids) will probably be less error prone than the average human driver.  For example:  Aviation accidents are investigated thoroughly.  Automated command and control systems operate the aircraft but most often the conclusion is that the accident was caused by pilot error like putting the wheels down on an amphibian aircraft when intending to land on water.  I am on the waiting list for delivery of an Icon A-5.  Land or water landing an the associated aircraft configuration is an important judgment decision.

I am becoming convinced here that the true purpose is not to create a driver less car and demonstrate is feasibility by controlling the car  from coast to coast or anywhere else without a human in the car but to ultimately place hardware and software systems control over the human driver of the car as well as recording for information generation purposes all actions the driver takes and the time and spatial environment in which they were taken.

This link is an excellent example of what I mean.  The Progressive Insurance dongle is another example that I have blogged about.  So is the Oregon plan to charge for road usage by mileage driven rather than a gasoline tax.  A plan that I have also blogged about.  So are the patents that Google holds on drawing and recording extensive information from automobile computer systems.

The sole intent is to control the driver.  Report on the drivers action in real time for black box recording and/or real time transmission of all data regarding the operation of a vehicle.

There will never be a car that drives around without an occupant.  Not even to drive itself up to a house to beep a horn or play the copyrighted tune that says your pizza is here.

The sole intent is to control the driver.  It is not to control the car.

That is such a good bottom line that I am going to leave it at the bottom but copy it and put it on the top as well.  It is the start and end of the most important answer to the subject question.  The follow on question is:  Why don't we see readily what the real purpose is when the simple term used to describe to idea is "Driver less car".

My spell checker tells me that "driverless" is not a word.  Therefore I use "driver less" which is a good term.  It means that the human driver will drive less and be monitored more.  Someday I expect that "driverless" will creep into the lexicon and be accepted as a legitimate word.  However, "monitored more" will never become "monitoredmore" as applicable to a human driver.  It is a clever framing of the issue that disguises the fact that the temperature of personal monitoring is approaching the boiling point without our recognition that we are being boiled.

Perhaps live lobsters would feel less pain if the same was applied to them rather than immediate immersion in the boiling water.  In either case they have no control over the process that leads to a conclusion.

An interesting comment I read at a later date:

"We are all beta testers for robots."