Where we live: Automatic vehicles raise control issues

By Kristine Porter

In September, I attended a summit about automated vehicles at a resort in the Poconos. It’s a topic that often comes up for discussion in my household, and I wanted to learn more about how far the technology has progressed.

You see, I’m one of those people who really likes to drive. I don’t want to turn over the wheel to the car’s computer. Sure, there are times I wouldn’t mind putting it on autopilot, but most of the time I’m happy being in control.

At the summit, Mark Rosekind, a former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, made a persuasive argument for vehicles being completely automated — no steering wheel at all. He said that 94 percent of vehicle crashes have been linked to human error. Recognition error is the largest cause, followed by decision error, performance error, other human errors, and nonperformance errors. Service faults (roadway and atmosphere) are only a small fraction of the reasons for crashes. He said safety will be at its highest when all vehicles are automated and there are no steering wheels. Of course, he also acknowledged that this type of technology is several decades away.

Here’s where I’m torn.

On one hand, I think Mr. Rosekind and many of the people working on automated vehicle technology, from automakers and the software industry to the federal government and insurance companies, are genuinely convinced this will save lives. And I like that, too. But on the other hand, I feel like it’s an infringement on my freedom to choose to drive or not to drive. After all, it’s pretty hard to have your hands on a wheel that isn’t there.

Rosekind said that in 2018, 36,750 people died in crashes nationwide. That’s a little more than 100 people every day. If you took humans out of the equation, then that number would drop by 94 percent, he said, or 34,545 people who wouldn’t die in a vehicle crash. Of course, if a few of them get struck by lightning instead, I’m sorry, your time is just up. But I digress, that is a lot of lives saved each year.

Maybe automated vehicle gurus can come up with podlike cars that transport people who would otherwise call for a taxi, Uber or Lyft, and let people continue to have the option to drive themselves.

I know some people think I’m being silly, worrying about something that is decades away when I’m elderly and might actually need a pod. Maybe it is, but today is when the people developing this technology, the people in the insurance industry, the people in our government — the people in control — are deciding what is best for us. I don’t think this should be a “let’s convince the public this is what is best for them” kind of thing. I think this should be “what does the public want for themselves” and how can we adapt this technology to benefit them without taking away freedoms.

On the market today are vehicles with a variety of automated technologies that assist drivers. You’ve heard of some of them: adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, automatic emergency braking, rear cross-traffic alert, parking assist, exit warning to protect cyclists and teen driver technology.

I like technologies that assist drivers with their driving and parking. And automated vehicles would be great for the blind or for the elderly, who like me someday don’t want to give up their independence but maybe shouldn’t be driving any more.

I guess what I’m saying is that I like the idea of being assisted; I just don’t like the idea of giving up control altogether. Fair?