Investing in Humans vs. Investing in Technology: Urambo's Unfinished Drafts #4

"Urambo Tauro" (urambotauro)
11/07/2020 at 19:49 • Filed to: unfinished drafts, safety, technology

Before Kinja shuts Oppo down, I’ve decided to go ahead and hit Publish on a bunch of my old drafts that I never got around to completing. Some of these are going to be a little rough, so be prepared for unfinished rambling trains of thought, run-on and dead-end sentences, and lazily pasted comments that I meant to expand upon.

The problem is not that we don’t have autonomous cars yet. The problem is not that people continue to drive older cars that lack the latest safety technology. The problem -when it comes right down to it- is drivers who are not investing themselves in the act of driving . That’s the root cause here.

There are two avenues by which one might look for a solution to universally fix poor driving:

Enhance driver abilities through stricter training, and incentivize good driving by making it harder to get a license and easier to lose it.

Give up on humans altogether and double down on automating everything.

To be fair, either one of these could eventually pay off. Whether you increase driver competence, or create a competent system to do the driving, you will still end up with better drivers, reduced collisions, and improved overall safety.

Either option presents its own unique set of advantages. Automated transportation could improve roadway efficiency in ways that human drivers could never attain. And changing traffic patterns can be as easy as implementing a software update that would instantly affect all autonomobiles. No learning curve, no adjustment period.

But perhaps investing in humans would be more rewarding. For one thing, we wouldn’t have to wait nearly as long as we would for autonomous cars to overcome all those technological and legal hurdles. It won’t change driver behavior overnight, but

Another advantage of improving human drivers is

We don’t need more airbags. We don’t need !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . What we need is better drivers.

The NHTSA wants to make safety happen by altering variables that they can have more direct control over. Hence, the focus on adding more “safety” technology. This tech increases safety by preventing (blind spot monitoring, autonomousmatic emergency braking, etc.) and mitigating (airbags, crumple zones, etc.) crashes. But these things don’t kick in until the last second... after driver error has already occurred.

Does this technology really make us more safe, or less so? No doubt, many lives have been saved by the activation of these systems. But they also lend a false sense of security to drivers whose lives are no longer at stake. Crashing becomes a mere inconvenience, as the driver must find alternate means of transportation. The consequences are reduced, and the driver is m

As technology increases, so does the average driver’s dependence on it.

If you want true crash prevention, you have to address driver error. After all, whose responsibility is it to make our roads safer? Traffic safety might be the NHTSA’s raison d’etre , but that doesn’t mean that we should act like it’s their job. It’s our job. All of ours. And not just those who drive, but ALL users of the roadway.

But these are all things that can be fixed right now , at zero cost, voluntarily, by every driver.

Ultimately, this all points to a future where every aspect of the car’s operation is automated, but for now

But if safety is the end goal,

Unfortunately, the NHTSA’s !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! in driver education doesn’t bode well for the idea of fixing the problem at its source.

You may see that as our salvation, or as the Armageddon of gearheaddom.

Either method, taken to its extreme, will yield good results. I favor option 1 for many reasons, not the least of which is its accessibility to people with lower incomes. The enhanced training might be more expensive than it is now, but not nearly as much as autonomous cars.

Think you’re a good, safe, attentive, and skilled driver? Too bad; your new-vehicle purchase needs to be equipped with ABS, ESC, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , and even airbags.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Seat belts have been mandatory since 1968. Airbags have been mandatory since 1998

But what does this have to do with safety technology? There’s nothing here to specifically condemn

Now those number d no necessarily indicate that technology is making things worse. But it does show that it’s not making things better, either.

Customers are becoming mroe and more comfortable with cars that will warn them if something happens to be int heir blind spot, and you can bet the same thing is goingt o happen with automaatic emergency braking AEB

But if it’s safety we care about, there’s no need to wait for our autonomous overlords. We have everything we need to prevent most crashes right now . And it doesn’t cost a dime because it’s not about money; it’s about simple effort.

Right-of-way is one of the biggest things that needs more driver attention. Two vehicles cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and that’s why right-of-way exists. Somebody gets to go, and somebody has to wait. It’s already established, and learning how it works was presumably part of each driver’s test to get a license in the first place. We have everything we need to create safer roads, but it’s a team effort.

The way I see it, there are two ways

But becoming a better driver is within any driver’s grasp right now . It doesn’t cost a dime because it’s not about money; it’s about simple effort. Right-of-way is one of the biggest things that needs more driver attention. Two vehicles cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and that’s why right-of-way exists. Somebody gets to go, and somebody has to wait. It’s already established, and learning how it works was presumably part of each driver’s test to get a license in the first place. We have everything we need to create safer roads, but it’s a team effort.

http://mustangforums.com/forum/off-topic/726495-driverless-cars-automated-driving.html

can be solved by the implementation of more technology, or less

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Perhaps the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! could be of use

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

DISCUSSION (5)

flatisflat > Urambo Tauro
11/07/2020 at 20:31

We have everything we need to create safer roads, but it’s a team effort.

I think this is the crux of it. And it’s easier and will have more reliable results (eventually) to put the onus of safe roads in the hands of fewer people (autonomous vehicle system programmers, etc.) vs. relying on every single car-bound individual on every single car-bound outing they take.

Also technology-based innovation something something capitalism something something profits.

Chariotoflove > Urambo Tauro
11/07/2020 at 20:50

Long read. But I agree with it in principle. The problem is that so much of America requires a car for people to live and work. That moves driving from a privilege to a de facto necessity such that it’s viewed as a right. That unfortunately means that raising the bar with increased requirements will be seen as discrimination and impossible to enact.

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > Urambo Tauro
11/07/2020 at 21:17

Another solution would be to spend less money on the military and *gasp* (defund the) police, and spend some of that money on enhancing public transit. The idea that public transit should be profitable is entirely an American Capitalist idea. ( The idea that we can solve safe t y with technology is *also* an American entrepreneuri al invention) The word “public” should imply that it’s a service, not a business. And yes, it WILL cost money, but it will enhance freedom (including for those that can’t even pass current bars for vehicle ownership/operation) as well as enhancing safety for those who continue to operate vehicles on -now less crowded- roads. I mean really, this is a self-serving idea, because without so many bored, distracted, nervous, ill- equipped drivers on the road I (we) could have fun on the twisties again...

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > Urambo Tauro
11/07/2020 at 22:55

So improvement is always good, but it’s not like we haven’t been on a great trajectory. Vehicle Miles Traveled are way up, but the slope on deaths per mile is excellent.

Kinja'd!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

I applaud your suggestions on driver engagement. We are human and prone to error and distraction, so certainly less error and less distraction would surely mean less deaths.. I expect technology will keep the trajectory going down. I don’t see an urgent need though to panic and legislate old cars out of existence. But we will see. We may get exactly that.

Urambo Tauro > John Norris (AngryDrifter)
11/07/2020 at 23:52

The problem I have with looking at fatality rates is that it’s not a particularly useful metric. It puts the focus on the consequences of the worst crashes, without providing any insightful data. The best thing that fatality stats can do is help create attention-grabbing headlines and inspire people to do something about it.

Trying to prevent deaths is an honorable, b ut vague goal. However, if we focus on preventing all crashes -even the ones that result in “mere” injuries and/or property damage- there’s so much more to gain. Looking at overall crash stats, we could then extrapolate if driving behaviors are actually improving or deteriorating from one year to the next. Because that’s the root cause that needs addressing.

Unfortunately, those overall crash numbers seem to be harder to find. NHTSA’s yearly overview stopped including overall crash numbers in favor of fatalities a few years ago. Trying to find them elsewhere has become increasingly difficult, part of why this post lingered in my drafts folder for so long without ever getting finished.