Would that I could. As a previous post indicated, I am a reluctant user of cars and am a steadfast rail commuter (BTW, on arrival in NYC I walk the 20 blocks from Penn Station to my office at Rock Center, rain or shine).
> > [Me:] we should be
> > investing heavily in ... automated navigation.
>
> [JH:] Sometimes called 'driverless taxis'. But doesn't this fantasy
reveal
> exactly what it is that you do not like about the car: drivers.
> Imaginatively, you abstract from all the properties that you can live
> with, to isolate the one that really bugs you: the people who drive
> them. That's what makes cars attractive, though, that people
> decide for
> themselves where to go.
> Maybe the idea of lots of people making their
> own decisions upsets you. It doesn't me.
You obviously haven't gone fender-to-fender with many Long Island drivers. Seriously, it's the risk of people operating a car with diminished capacities -- due to age, inebriation, rage or whatever -- that concerns me. I'm fine with the idea of people "making their own decisions" about where to go, but I'd prefer that they exercise that choice by punching coordinates into their satellite-guidance system. I'm surprised that a high-tech enthusiast like yourself would dismiss this type of navigation as a "fantasy." Advanced satellite guidance systems are already on the market for consumer use, and I know that at least one university research team has driven coast-to-coast in the U.S., without any driver having a hand on the wheel, using a computerized system that kept their car a certain distance from surrounding vehicles.
Carl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/19990921/063e45d7/attachment.htm>