Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!husc3.harvard.edu!husc9.harvard.edu!mason3 From: mason3@husc9.harvard.edu (Richard Mason) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Techno Terror Message-ID: <1991Apr30.225521.755@husc3.harvard.edu> Date: 1 May 91 02:55:20 GMT References: <9517@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> <1991Apr30.020847.12423@osh3.OSHA.GOV> Organization: Harvard University Science Center Lines: 29 Nntp-Posting-Host: husc9.harvard.edu I think Chip and others overestimate the fanatical desire of people to retain control of their vehicles at all times. After all, what about automatic transmissions? What about cruise control? Aren't these cases where the user relegates some of "the fun of driving" to an automatic system? (And yes, a bug in that automatic system can be fatal: witness the Audis that unpredictably lunged into first gear and killed people due to a fault in the cruise control chip). An automated highway system would be just another step along the same lines. Look at it another way. Most people don't object to riding the subway, even though they're not in control of the vehicle and could be killed in an accident. What if the system were automated and the drivers replaced by computers? Obviously the system might or might not be safe depending on how well it was implemented, but I, for one, wouldn't be *inherently* prejudiced against the automatic system. Computer failures are not necessarily more frequent or more fatal than human error. And if you agree that people would ride an automated subway, why wouldn't they use an automatic highway? Statements like "people will NEVER give up control of their cars" remind of statements like "people will NEVER travel faster than thirty miles per hour", etc. -- "These things are pure science fiction! And yet they are all true." -M.O. Rabin =================================================================== Richard Mason | mason3@husc9.harvard.edu | All opinions are my own.