Thursday, May 29, 2014

Cyber dreams in Google land . . .

Google technocrats have been in love with the idea of driverless cars for a while now. The idea is that there should be a car which drives itself to the destination you select, without the need for any human intervention. Using Google maps, and a GPS signal, Google figures they can get you anywhere, with enough proximity detectors on the cars to avoid bumping.

Oh, say. Has anyone ever been misled by Google maps, like, when the roads were changed, or closed? Does Google know where all the bike lanes are, when new ones are added? How about all the new little projections into what were usable vehicle lanes, to stick little nasty, grassy spots to collect water runoff and Starbucks cups? They didn't used to be there. In other words, maps need to change with changes to the roads, and the maps can't always keep up.

Of course, Google is concerned with safety, so they are going to put extra bump padding on the outer surfaces of the vehicles.

And here's the best part. Top speed will be 25 mph. Google says that even if there is an accident, with that speed, nobody should be hurt very bad. Oh, and it will be great if you want to get flaming drunk some night; your car will be your designated driver.

I can't wait. Just the thing to eliminate the stress of rush hour. Just sit in your car; let it drive you home while you play games, or text your friends, or read lies on your I-phone.

And there is always a rush hour stress as everybody is trying to get home and drivers must be hyper alert while driving in rush hour traffic. But, Google says no driving, no stress.

On the other hand, wonder how much the stress of rush hour will be increased when you are stuck following a driverless vehicle which refuses to go faster than 25 mph?

I suspect that it would take no more than a dozen self-satisfied, smug dipshits with Google smart/slow cars, strategically distributed, to make an entire city unlivable.

On the other, other hand, where's my flying car I was promised by Popular Science magazine, back in the fifties?

No comments: