Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Driverless Cars and Sobriety
I’d like to make a prediction: driverless cars — which are back in the news — will undermine our culture’s strong censure of drunkenness. I think we will revert to the kind of relaxed view toward mild inebriation that was the case in, for example, pre-automobile England.
Giving ordinary people the power to control high-speed vehicles initiated a unique era where anyone might wreak unintended violence upon innocents through a mere moment’s inattention. The driverless car era will bring that to and end and, consequentially, the stigma against being tipsy will fade. I predict people will look back on this era with pity and horror (probably over drinks).
I’m not saying this will be a good thing; I’m just making a prediction. Certain drinking habits, now hidden, will come to light and we’ll learn about the true extent of alcohol consumption and high-functioning alcoholism.
How else might driverless cars change the culture?
Published in Culture, Science & Technology
Lets bring back some more of the high-functioning smokers too.
On the upside: we won’t need to worry so much about Granddad getting behind the wheel at age 85.
But Type-A drivers (like myself), who understand that urban driving is really a competitive sport (I hope to qualify for the first US Olympic Driving Team) will be devastated when driverless cars take over.
Good question. Personally, I predict a major systemic foul up some day where nobody on the roads survives. But everyone knows I’m an optimist.
Another thing, if the cars stop, it will be like Democrats on a broken escalator. Nobody will be able to make them go or get where they are going.
Interesting argument, though I wonder if there’s already a difference between folks with access to public transportation compared to areas where cars are the only option. That’s not just a rural vs. urban thing, but it is that, too.
Another thought, in twenty or fifty years, if there’s a software glitch, will there be anyone left who understands how to drive well enough to diagnose and fix it?
Oh, wait, of course there will be, since plenty of people will have played driving simulation games.
This is already happening with Uber and Lyft. I heard a comedian talk about Austin while here, and I can’t find the video, but the bit went something like this:
Comedian: So I’m here in Austin for SXSW
Crowd: WOOO
Comedian: Yeah it’s great. I’ve gotta say though, I’ve seen “keep Austin weird” a lot. Austin’s not weird. Austin’s drunk.
Crowd: WOOO
Comedian: Seriously, I don’t think y’all understand alcoholism here. I tell my friends at home I’ve been hammered for three days, they say “dude, you have a problem”. I tell that to someone here, they say “it’s ok, have some brisket tacos.”
Crowd: WOOO
The crowd loved it, and it accurately represents many people’s attitudes towards alcohol, especially during festivals & whatnot. “Day drinking” is in vogue (especially on weekends), as is “boozy brunch”. Uber and Lyft remove the temptation to drunk drive. Self-driving cars will do the same
We will become even more of a “kept people” than we already are. The freedom to travel freely, one of the most important freedoms but rarely recognized for it, will greatly diminish. We will be dependent on the bureaucracy that operates the Driverless Auto Grid Network. Our movement will be highly-regulated, our cars will be automatically shut down if we travel too much. We will hear about the travel-gap, and how unfair it is that the rich are able to travel more than the poor. The solution to this problem will be to have travel redistributed.
Econ talk last month addressed driverless cars. Bottom line it won’t happen in our life times except in very specialized experimental areas. The issue is, can a programmer two years ago anticipate everything a real live driver can easily react to today. Better have a designated driver. Besides ubber solves the problem, so drink up but smoke your cigar before you get in the ubber car. Anybody here ever been to Andres Carne de Res outside Bogota? They are miles from Bogota but they’ll drive you home as Colombian authorities have gotten very serious about drunk driving and people often leave Andres stuffed with out standing food and very inebriated.
On the assumption that driverless cars really take off and that at least some places reach the basically-nobody-owns-a-car-anymore model, it’ll be interesting to see how that affects people’s finances and credit. That is, big-city dwellers are going to be even less likely to take out big loans than before. On the other hand, that may free up resources for other things.
There are a lot of obstacles to clear before driverless cars are a standard mode of transportation. I’m glad for the reasons Drew described. But pieces of the technology are already turning up in some cars and will trickle down to more and more as safety features. As a parent of teenagers and daughter of over 80 parents, I think those features will be irresistible.
This.
And also: it’s actually better for everyone if people like me get driven around rather than drive ourselves. I drive a LOT, and because of this, I get bored and complacent.
On the other hand, I have to drive off-road quite often, and my experience with Googlemaps and GPS is that Big Brother, however disinterestedly benevolent, is not quite as conversant with Maine’s logging roads as he would need to be to get me where I’m going. On top of this, once no longer traveling on the hard, I’m often navigating by odd directions (“the staging area is just beyond the big stand of pines… look for the little creek on your right…”) assisted by chaplainesque intuition (surprisingly accurate). So I’ll have to have a driverless car that I can take over from when necessary. But it will be bliss to get back into the thing after a long day, pick up my knitting and say “home, James…”
B-double-O-Z-E, BOOZE!
Sadly, current projections indicate high credit card loans and college tuition loans. Those tech gadgets get expensive quick.
I’ve been working on Olympic qualification for years, but at mid-40s have to admit my reflexes have slowed slightly. Back in high school and college days, I could have kept up with Ken Block on a gymkhana course.
But your first point is a good thing: the biggest reason we moved my grandfather to assisted living was he went for a drive and ended up 80 miles away from his destination. Dementia put an end to his driving days, and it killed him.
Cars driven by real people are the epitome of freedom!!! But only if you can drive. If you are too young, too old, too handicapped, too blind, too poor, too sleepy, or too drunk to drive, cars are the opposite of freedom. Or if you have to chauffeur an hour or so a day for any of the above, cars are an anchor on your freedom. I can’t wait for driverless cars. Soccer moms can’t wait, either. Driverless cars will make the world a lot more fun (and cheap) for whole a lot of people.
I didn’t even think of that! Driverless cars will lower the age one can travel by car unaccompanied. Sorting out exactly which age will be tricky. Expect the government to make that decision for us.
Just like how Y2K totally happened.
Look, major systemic technological foul-ups do happen, but so far they’ve never been as apocalyptic as the doom-sayers predict.
e.g. When the entire Eastern Seaboard experiences one of its infrequent-but-arguably-inevitable blackouts. It’s expensive. Society is inconvenienced. People do die. Civilization doesn’t collapse.
(Furthermore they happen because the technology is old, not because of an emergent technology that went haywire.)
The events that cripple societies are cultural (and most often intentional, like an invasion or a revolution), not technological.
Agreed. I hate the development of driverless cars. I think the results will be fewer, but far more cataclysmic accidents, as inexperienced, inattentive, and perhaps inebriated occupants of vehicles occasionally have to take control of the wheel.
But here’s one way it may change society: fewer pre textual stops by police officers. if the driverless car is always following the law, unless you have a taillight out, if you’re a drug smuggler a driverless car is a boon for business, and significantly reduces risk.
Sorry not buying it. I have book from the 70’s that said a computer will never beat a the best human chess players. When the first DARPA Grand Challange happened in 2004 people were thinking it would be years before anybody won the course. Next year 5 teams won. This can happen and it will happen.
The drive thru menu will have more items that take two hands to eat.
The passenger only lane will have the window to the vehicle’s right.
The road to authoritarianism is bumper-to-bumper with driverless cars.
How much of the 1960s “Mad Men” alcoholic culture stemmed from the fact that Manhattan office executives rarely drive themselves anywhere?
Would New York have become the locus of advertising, fashion, art, literature, and media, if all those people commuted by car and therefore had to stay sober, or did booze lubricate the creative industries?
Meanwhile, the temperance movement was centered more around the industrial centers. Booze kills in a factory or a mine, and an owner couldn’t very well keep his employees sober if they saw he was half-bombed himself every day.
Sorta helps explain the hypocrisy of politicians when it comes to matters of vice. Of course they don’t behave the same way they say a factory worker or a retail clerk should behave. The jobs are different.
(Or, to put it another way, General Grant didn’t have to stay sober because he didn’t need to aim a rifle.)
Agreed with Drew, only I’d take it a step further. We wouldn’t be allowed to drink alcohol in driverless cars. “Why not?” Exactly. That’s just how the hippie mind works. Your overseers know what’s good for you.
But long before we get self-driving vehicles, if we ever do, we will get vehicles that automatically inform authorities of every driver misdeed and inconsequential mechanical failure.
I’m kinda surprised that Cornish Pasties never became a thing in North America after the proliferation of the Drive-Thru, considering that they were (allegedly) invented to be eaten with one hand (miners with dirty hands could hold the thick edge without getting the rest of the meal dirty, then throw that bit away).
Perhaps they will become more cataclysmic but I don’t really buy it. The change of one computer fouling up is really good. The chance of 90 computers fouling up at once (outside of foul play) is not very good. We see multi-car pileups all the time mostly due to weather and I can’t really see that happening.
Remember folks we are all bad drivers. Yes I mean you. Unless you are Dave Carter or a professional driver you really aren’t very good at it and the computer will be much better at it than you are. Also I think we are verging on conspiracy theories with the “government will start limiting our travels” line of thinking.
Driverless cars will not be allowed to happen.
Our government is much too enamored with light rail and public transportation where it has control of how, when and where people travel and live. The freedom of travel that a car gives is very much an American value but America is becoming more like Europe and like Europe wants everybody to live in the city, travel by rail whenever possible, bus when it is not and to walk or bike as much as they can.
Indeed. You won’t eliminate the impetus for government surveillance and control by preventing driverless cars.
Governments could have already mandated speed limiters that prevent any vehicle from going faster than 100 kph. They haven’t done it in over a hundred years of automotive history because voters would punish them for it.
How much governments are able to manipulate driverless car technology for their own benefit will be up to the voters to decide. It’s no reason to abandon altogether the pretty clear benefits this technology can potentially provide.
I am excited. Bring in the driverless cars!
Humans are objectively terrible at driving cars. I’d much rather let robots do it.
Also, I want to be able to do work during my commute.
Yes but the time you are suggesting predates technology that monitors what’s in a person’s blood, breath, etc. A breathalyzer are now an attachment to your smart phone. A complete one can be purchased for around a $100. Other cheap analyzers will eventually be on the market. I can easily see a time that law will require to you blow into these machines, maybe a drop of blood before going into any public area for “safety” and legal reasons. Our society, especially government, very seldom increases freedoms or gives up control. Now that the drinking genie is back in the bottle, it will not be allowed to escape again. No other evil genies will be added to the bottle with it.
Damn kids will start to play chicken with the driverless cars.