City
Officials in Boston have recently announced plans to allow testing of driverless vehicles in the city.
As can be expected, citizens are expressing mixed-reactions to this news; as
far as I can tell, however, the populace was never consulted to give consent to
these tests – the decision was made by the Swiss “World Economic Forum” – and
we can only speculate that some corporation or other has or will be consulted
prior to any consent of the governed.
Boston is
notorious across the nation for its abysmal driving record. Whether the cause
is truly incompetent motorists, there is no doubt that there are serious safety
issues related to traffic in Boston – and across the river here in Cambridge.
(I have previously brought attention and called for action to increase traffic safety in Inman Square.) It is well nigh
possible that, some sunshine day, robotic vehicles (auto-auto’s, let’s call
them) will literally help to pave safer streets for Bostonians, students,
tourists, diplomats and all the others who must navigate the city gridlock. We,
The People, should soberly and logically consider whether this is a goal worth
pursuing for the world we shape for our children, and whether this course be
appropriate, after weighing the available evidence and considering differing
viewpoints; it is our duty as members of this great government (for that is
what every American citizen is by right) to look beyond our own prejudices for
or against this technology, and truly come to a majority consensus before we
set about to put our best wheel forward.
I will not
make any pretense as to where I stand at
the moment – personally I think this technology will only introduce new
elements of danger and uncertainty to what is already a hazardous situation
seriously in need of change. I believe the way to that change is through
expanding awareness and building dialogue. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians
must work together to construct a safer community for all. I want our children
to remember the legend of John Henry, to grow up with a sense of human dignity,
and the sincere belief that a man (or woman) is much greater than any machine
will ever be. We look to the
internet, rather than our elders, as a source of knowledge; we entrust a
disconcerting amount of our social lives and recreation to computers.
How can
auto-pilot prevent auto-accidents when the only thing known to crash more than a car is a computer?
Imagine a robot pedestrian in the middle of a crosswalk with a drunk driver
speeding towards it --- suddenly the pupils of the robot’s digital
photo-receptors glaze over; an hourglass or, depending on the manufacturer and
OS, rainbow circle starts spinning around and the giant hulk of metal just
stands there to be demolished. Human beings don’t “crash” in this sense of the
word nearly as often unless they are narcoleptic or junkies. I wouldn’t trust a
robot to cross the street at 2 in the afternoon; why would I trust a computer
to navigate the cross-traffic of cars, trucks bicycles and wheelchairs during
rush hour?
I wouldn’t.
But like I said, policy and social norms shouldn’t be the product of my silly
fears and tenuous analogies, but of the determined consensus of the community,
the true stakeholders in this matter, after careful consideration of the
available evidence.
Coincidentally or not, Tesla is
also making headlines for an alleged auto-pilot fatality in China back in January, just now making the news here, although there is already one acknowledge
casualty of their semi-autonomous vehicles in Florida this may.
We may not be able to stop this
technology from coming to the city eventually. Hopefully, once all the bugs are
worked out, it will truly create a safer urban environment for everyone – even
if it undermines countless jobs of working Americans in the process. But we
should have a say whether we want our neighborhood to be used as a guinea-pig
while the companies sort through all the errors that will supplant the dreaded “human
factor” someday soon – or won’t, if we take a stand. @dGabeEvau
No comments:
Post a Comment