Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!grep.co.uk!frank
From: frank@grep.co.uk (Frank Wales)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Techno Terror
Message-ID: <9105061824.AA27242@watchet>
Date: 6 May 91 18:24:15 GMT
References: <1991May4.223805.847@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 22

Richard Mason:
>So old cars and non-conformists aren't forced to participate -- if you
>like to drive and don't want to be flattened by a superfast automatic truck,
>just stay out of the computer-controlled lane.

In the same way that pedestrians are barred from motorway-class roads
(Interstate highways, etc.), the "locally-driven" traffic must be separate
from the "remotely-driven", or there will be disasters waiting to happen on
every major road.  Assuming that a completely safe computer-controlled
system for traffic could be built, one of the things which is necessary
to maintain safety is control over its operating environment.  It seems to
me that the only practical way to do this is to have a physically enforced
separation, or one drunk driver or car with a blowout would be all it would
take to orphan a neighborhoodful of children.

Having said that, I don't think there's a good reason to object to the
*principle* of controlled traffic flow; it's kind of like being in a taxi,
just the driver is elsewhere.  All you have to do is be able to trust the
driver, and that's merely an absolutely staggering implementation problem.
-- 
Frank Wales, Grep Limited,             [frank@grep.co.uk<->uunet!grep!frank]
Kirkfields Business Centre, Kirk Lane, LEEDS, UK, LS19 7LX. (+44) 532 500303