Human Psychology Concerning Automobiles
Applying the principals mentioned about war to Automobiles
How would this apply to automobiles? Should we allow people to die and suffer until “they learn” to
stop drinking and driving? It appears that humans are more afraid of getting caught driving drunk
than they are of having an accident while driving drunk. The statistics for 1999 were that 38% of
deaths from automobile accidents were related to drunk driving.
A car breathalyzer, also known as an ignition interlock device, requires drivers to give a breath sample
prior to starting their cars. If the breathalyzer detects a certain amount of alcohol, the car simply will
not start. A car breathalyzer is a barrier to drunk driving.
Often used by the courts as a combination punishment and deterrent to those convicted of DUI, the
device is installed in the defendant's car. These permanent alcohol detectors are professionally
installed, often at considerable cost, which is, of course, paid by the offender. These car breathalyzers
are not infallible. A willing passenger who has not imbibed could, in theory, blow into the device to
fool it into letting the car start. If the passenger isn’t drunk and the driver is, why not let the passenger
drive? The passenger could be under age, I suppose. The device manufacturers are working on
improvements to prevent such cheating.
I am not under the illusion that people are going to change their fundamental nature. People have been
dying in wars and in car accidents for many years and they don’t seem to “learn from their mistakes”.
I met a woman whose son was brain damaged by an automobile accident and her whole life is centered
around taking care of him. Her point was that not only do 43,000 humans die on this country’s roads
each year, but that 1 million are seriously injured. Such statistics are more meaningful when you meet
the mother of a young 25 year-old who is incapacitated and that has to be taken care of for the rest of
his or her life.
It appears that governments are increasing the use of breathalyzer technology to save lives. I believe
that this spreading use of car breathalyzers will reduce the deaths on the highways by at least 1000
persons per year. Using the ratio of serious injuries to deaths this would also avoid about 23,000
serious injuries.
As you know, I fully approve of using technology to improve human behavior. Cheetahs and humans
evolved on the plains of Africa. Cheetahs have been clocked at 70 miles per hour. One could claim that
cheetahs have evolved to run 70 miles per hour. But one would be hard pressed to prove that humans
evolved to drive machines at 70 miles per hour. It would be interesting to determine the “death and
serious injury” statistics for Cheetahs.
I assume that using robots to drive cars would be the next logical step after breathalyzers. Robot
driving could cut the number of accidents by at least 90% and probably more. Robots aren’t perfect,
but they are not likely to be distracted by cell phones, conversations with passengers, simply falling
asleep or being drunk. Would using robots for this purpose also cause a moral problem in your mind?
Is using robots to eliminate those deaths and serious injuries really that “frightening”?
When fuel injection was first introduced into automobiles, it was quite expensive. Now, years later, it
is inexpensive. In a similar manner, robotic control of cars will be expensive at first and less expensive
as time goes on. Let’s assume that modern quality cars will last 10 years. This is a figure that I hear
being suggested recently. If insurance on a car is $1200 per year for a 16 year-old and averages that for
the life of the car, that would be $12,000. When the additional cost of a robot controlled car hits
$10,000, it will become economically feasible for some drivers. When you add in the fact that you are
less likely to die or get seriously injured, I believe many people will pay $25,000 per car for such a
feature.
My “job” is to communicate these advantages of technology and remove people’s fear of progress.
Obviously I am not very good at my job. Maybe I should take some courses in “communication”.
Barack Obama likes his Blackberry and the Secret Service is going to provide him one with a “super
encryption package”. A commentator on NPR noted that young people identify with Barack as they see
him slip out his Blackberry, check it for messages and then slip it back in his pocket. Such activity is
considered “cool” by young people. In addition, Barack says that he is going to be transparent with the
stimulus package and use the internet to display the actual spending of money. To me, that is a very
cool idea.
These observations make me feel that perhaps the youth are more appreciative of modern technology
and that perhaps I am not going to be very successful convincing older people that technology is
beneficial.
Humbot
Next
Applying the principals mentioned about war to Automobiles
How would this apply to automobiles? Should we allow people to die and suffer until “they learn” to
stop drinking and driving? It appears that humans are more afraid of getting caught driving drunk
than they are of having an accident while driving drunk. The statistics for 1999 were that 38% of
deaths from automobile accidents were related to drunk driving.
A car breathalyzer, also known as an ignition interlock device, requires drivers to give a breath sample
prior to starting their cars. If the breathalyzer detects a certain amount of alcohol, the car simply will
not start. A car breathalyzer is a barrier to drunk driving.
Often used by the courts as a combination punishment and deterrent to those convicted of DUI, the
device is installed in the defendant's car. These permanent alcohol detectors are professionally
installed, often at considerable cost, which is, of course, paid by the offender. These car breathalyzers
are not infallible. A willing passenger who has not imbibed could, in theory, blow into the device to
fool it into letting the car start. If the passenger isn’t drunk and the driver is, why not let the passenger
drive? The passenger could be under age, I suppose. The device manufacturers are working on
improvements to prevent such cheating.
I am not under the illusion that people are going to change their fundamental nature. People have been
dying in wars and in car accidents for many years and they don’t seem to “learn from their mistakes”.
I met a woman whose son was brain damaged by an automobile accident and her whole life is centered
around taking care of him. Her point was that not only do 43,000 humans die on this country’s roads
each year, but that 1 million are seriously injured. Such statistics are more meaningful when you meet
the mother of a young 25 year-old who is incapacitated and that has to be taken care of for the rest of
his or her life.
It appears that governments are increasing the use of breathalyzer technology to save lives. I believe
that this spreading use of car breathalyzers will reduce the deaths on the highways by at least 1000
persons per year. Using the ratio of serious injuries to deaths this would also avoid about 23,000
serious injuries.
As you know, I fully approve of using technology to improve human behavior. Cheetahs and humans
evolved on the plains of Africa. Cheetahs have been clocked at 70 miles per hour. One could claim that
cheetahs have evolved to run 70 miles per hour. But one would be hard pressed to prove that humans
evolved to drive machines at 70 miles per hour. It would be interesting to determine the “death and
serious injury” statistics for Cheetahs.
I assume that using robots to drive cars would be the next logical step after breathalyzers. Robot
driving could cut the number of accidents by at least 90% and probably more. Robots aren’t perfect,
but they are not likely to be distracted by cell phones, conversations with passengers, simply falling
asleep or being drunk. Would using robots for this purpose also cause a moral problem in your mind?
Is using robots to eliminate those deaths and serious injuries really that “frightening”?
When fuel injection was first introduced into automobiles, it was quite expensive. Now, years later, it
is inexpensive. In a similar manner, robotic control of cars will be expensive at first and less expensive
as time goes on. Let’s assume that modern quality cars will last 10 years. This is a figure that I hear
being suggested recently. If insurance on a car is $1200 per year for a 16 year-old and averages that for
the life of the car, that would be $12,000. When the additional cost of a robot controlled car hits
$10,000, it will become economically feasible for some drivers. When you add in the fact that you are
less likely to die or get seriously injured, I believe many people will pay $25,000 per car for such a
feature.
My “job” is to communicate these advantages of technology and remove people’s fear of progress.
Obviously I am not very good at my job. Maybe I should take some courses in “communication”.
Barack Obama likes his Blackberry and the Secret Service is going to provide him one with a “super
encryption package”. A commentator on NPR noted that young people identify with Barack as they see
him slip out his Blackberry, check it for messages and then slip it back in his pocket. Such activity is
considered “cool” by young people. In addition, Barack says that he is going to be transparent with the
stimulus package and use the internet to display the actual spending of money. To me, that is a very
cool idea.
These observations make me feel that perhaps the youth are more appreciative of modern technology
and that perhaps I am not going to be very successful convincing older people that technology is
beneficial.
Humbot
Next
 | |  | |  | |  |