"Smart" Cars and Bad Ideas

Driving Us Crazy

According a March 9, 2022 article from the Washington’s Top News website, technologically-sophisticated systems are being introduced into new vehicles to watch drivers. “Those systems, which involve cameras and sensors, can also be used to determine if a driver has fallen asleep or is experiencing a medical emergency. Other technology already incorporated into the car can then be used to safely pull over the vehicle and call first responders if the driver is unresponsive.” Keith Barry, a car reporter at Consumer Reports, told the website that he believes the technology can be implemented in U.S. vehicles “within in the next three to five years.”

Technology’s alterations to the world of transportation are constant, and it is well to take them into account in a changing world, for further transmogrifying the roadways are the many high-tech automobiles now looked towards. And while it is difficult to nullify technology that might be used to ensure driver safety, or to take action in the event a driver is “unresponsive,” or to maximize efficiency in yet other ways, it is important to understand other results that it provides.

Indeed, for one can also reasonably expect such wide-reaching changes to be incorporated in the technology of self-driving vehicles. As we know, the introduction of autonomous vehicles into culture has been fueled by many things, including a supposed essentiality of reducing fossil-fuel dependency, efforts to make the roadways safer, and to even protect against what is called climate change. But those who espouse the need for these tools discreetly neglect to mention the consequences that come with the technology, assuming they are even conscious of them at all.

To be true, the eager driver yearning to get behind the wheel, or perhaps enter a vehicle absent of one, appear to be quite certain that these modernistic vehicles will take their place as the newest 21st century “freedom” or “right” on this highway steered by information. They unwaveringly contend, as all technophiles do, that technological innovation is synonymous with human progress. They envision no downsides to driving technology, and are ready and prepared to pay both the financial and cultural expenses for importing any and all tools that are made available to them.

But to to the few who monitor technology with a hostile eye, technology-laden vehicles amount to a more drastic form of repression than anything that might be procured from its worth. Certainly, for contrary to the claims of increased security when traveling, some maintain that introducing these new-fangled driving apparatuses to the populace has little to do with increasing driver safety, or to maximize efficiency, but is instead being put in place as a sophisticated ploy to control the movements of the public, as they relate to their vehicle.

Others purport that the concept of driving under the influence of technology carries with it the practicality of car owners facing diminished control over their property and even their physical bodies. In respect to self-driving vehicles, some maintain that, as a result of unpaid tickets, having a suspended license or some other minor legal infraction which is either real or alleged, such a device might soon possess the ability to identify a driver, lock the unsuspecting person inside and remotely transport them to the nearest police station against their will.

To be sure, for alongside the introduction of ever-connected smart vehicles, the government might also come to have the good fortune of controlling when such a vehicle may be drivable, where it can travel to, which route it will take to get there, how many stops it can make along the way, as well as many other unforeseen variables.

Others submit that, in the future, the government might also seek to shut down a citizen’s car, should they fall short in complying with their demands. Should a citizen be late on paying a government-mandated fee, the government might even have the power to remotely shut down their vehicle and make it inoperable until such a time that the bill is fully paid.

In helping to underline the point, we might consider the hypothetical yet clearly feasible occurrence of a supposed “smart car” deciding when and under what circumstances it may be handled. Assorted situations drivers of “smart” vehicles might soon encounter include, but are not limited to:

“Illegal substance detected. Cocaine. Doors locked. Destination rerouted to Los Angeles police department. Arrival estimated in 12 minutes,” or “I am sorry, an environmental protection immobilization order is in effect, as you have exceeded your carbon footprint for the week. This vehicle will move again on Monday, 5 A.M.,” or “I am sorry, a police immobilization order is in effect. Shelter in place, return to your home. This vehicle will not move,” or “I am sorry, your car registration has lapsed. Restore insurance coverage to continue. This vehicle will not move,” or “I am sorry, the requested destination is locked out at the moment due to public safety concerns. Please state a new destination or say ‘turn off’,” or “I am sorry, this vehicle is disabled until you make an insurance payment. The amount due is X. If you wish to make a payment now, please say ‘payment,’” or “Attention: Police checkpoint ahead. Doors locked. Please have your identification ready,” or “Police checkpoint off-route in vicinity. This vehicle has been randomly selected. Changing route. You will arrive at the checkpoint in 18 minutes. Travel to original destination will resume after being cleared at the checkpoint,” or “Police are searching for a car that matches your vehicle’s description. Operations are disabled until authorities determine your innocence. Officers will arrive in approximately four minutes. Doors are temporarily locked to ensure driver safety,” or “A pre-set vehicle-initiated scanning of your blood has determined that you are no longer designated as ‘fully’ vaccinated. Functioning privileges shall be restored upon the operating system confirming the driver’s updated medical compliance.”

Should you believe that the aforementioned examples I have just provided may be going too far, or that they resemble events scripted out of a science-fiction film, it is worth noting that analogous situations have already come to pass. In one such instance reported by CNET , police in Seattle, Washington, caught an alleged car thief by enlisting the help of car maker BMW to both track and then remotely lock the criminal in the very car he was attempting to steal.

And while this incident might be construed by some as a positive outcome of automatic-locking, the issue remains of who is to decide what constitutes a “crime” and who will be able to access the “remote control” system. Additional concerns such as legal recourse, should the feature happen to be abused or falsely applied warrants, I believe, further consideration. Others point out how thieves might use the auto-lock feature to trap a user inside their vehicle and carjack them, in addition to a driver not being able to exit a car that is on fire or under water because of an automatic locking malfunction.

Furthermore, the government, or so the thinking goes, might even be able to influence where a person lives and what job they will be able to perform based upon their control over an individuals personalized form of “smart” transportation. Some even suggest that once smart vehicle technology becomes fully normalized and accepted amongst the general public, only the super-wealthy will be able to afford the insurance premiums required to drive manually.

In understanding this, my aim is not to imply that driving technology cannot be of benefit in culture, for I am not ignorant of our culture’s clearly profitable tools like rear-view mirrors, airbags, windshield wipers, bumpers, power-steering and the like. I am simply attempting to show what “smart” driving technology might subtract, the consequences that might be yielded from its adoption, that being highly-efficient is not always cause for relinquishing control over their vehicle, that just because something is highly-technological does not always signify that it is in the driver’s best interest to have it implemented.

Nonetheless, the push for the abandonment of the traditional combustion engine is to only intensify, the result of which is that “smart” vehicle technology will be continually promoted. Furthermore, the gargantuan amounts of carbon emissions of Tesla, Toyota, Cummins and other notable players in the climate change agenda has not escaped the mind of those who are attentive to such matters. Likewise, the enormous amounts of carbon required to manufacture electric car batteries are also worth taking into account when considering the purported “green” benefits of electric vehicles.

But my missive here should not be taken to mean that I advocate for the restraining of “smart” driving technology in culture. For the truth is that the people must decide for themselves the path they wish to take in their transportation exertions, as it is their conclusion to make. But in a culture in which the construction of the Information Highway, as well as the novel mindsets it brings with it, is progressing rapidly, it is fair to question where this highly-technological road will lead us.

For now, the answer seems to be “smart” cars and bad ideas.