Anna McCarthy
Professor Sabatino Mangini
English 100-58
04 November 2015
Room For Debate
I don’t think driverless car are a good idea. When researching the topic I found the article “Are we ready for driverless cars?.” In this article there are four debaters: John Villasenor, Ryan Carlo, Nidhi Kalra and Scott Le Vine. The thought of driverless cars is ridiculous because it relieves people of using their brain, takes the responsibility off of them, and hurts business for car services like taxi companies, Lyft, and Uber.
The overall argument of the debate is that driverless cars are the wave of the future as long as the government can regulate it. The opposing argument is that a driverless car doesn’t have the ability to go out of its pre-programmed algorithm and make the same moral decisions that human drivers would have to make if faced with something like an unavoidable accident.
John Villasenor a professor of Electrical Engineering and Public Policy at the University of California, Senior fellow at Brooking Institution and Member of the World of Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Cybersecurity believes we cannot afford not to create driverless cars. He states in his column that it could lower the chances of injury as well as death caused by motor vehicle accidents. John Villasenor says that the new technology has already contributed to the safety of drivers with things such as better “electronic stability control,” which improves the car's ability to take turns and to handle slippery surfaces. This one technological advancement in and of itself has saved 2,200 lives from 2008-2010.
Ryan Calo a law professor at the University of Washington, Author of forthcoming article “Robotics and the lessons of cyberlaw.” Mr. Carlo is the second debater mention on the page for driverless cars on the New York Times Room for Debate website. He thinks a special agency needs to be put into place before a driverless car becomes readily available and legal. He used the example of when Toyota’s were malfunctioning a while ago the Department of Transportation (a government agency) couldn’t handle it, so they asked NASA for help.
Nidi Kalra is a informational scientist at the RAND Corporation and director of RAND'S center for decisions and making under uncertainty, is co-author of the report “Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policy Makers.” Nidi Kalra has stated that driverless cars should be on the road as soon as they are safe and can handle things like predicting human nature of human drivers, tricky terrain, detailed road rules, weird objects in the road, and bad weather.
The fourth debater is Scott Le Vine. Scott Le Vine is a transportation planner and research associate at the Centre for Transportation and studies at the Imperial College in London. Mr. Le vine thinks that there is ethical tradeoffs and too much risk. the Technology doesn’t have the capability of morals and can only follow its preprogrammed algorithms. He uses the example of an unavoidable crash where you are going to hit something and your choices are a) a mom with a baby in a baby stroller, b) a elderly couple, or c) a brick wall. Le Vine says a human would be able to make that decision in the heat of the moment, but a driverless car couldn’t. He also ask the question will human drivers be happy with a driverless car that will be programmed to follow the letter of the law and won’t speed?
Driverless cars would be great for people who legitimately can’t drive or have a hard time driving. For example it could help people who are elderly, handicapped, or dyslexic. But, on the other hand it is just another way to dumb down society as a whole and remove the brain building life skill of learning how to drive. It also relieves the responsibility of their actions aka be able to get drunk instead of staying sober to drive safely. On top of that it would take away the business of taxi drivers, uber, and lyft.
Marie Cheour had her first article published in 1995, and she has since published more than 40 articles in peer-reviewed publications such as "Nature" and "Nature Neuroscience." She has worked as a college professor in Europe and in the United States. Cheour has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology from the University of Helsinki. Marie Cheour wrote an article on how the brain works while driving for livestrong called “Parts of the Brain used while Driving.” In her article Cheour backs up how much you use your brain while you drive. She covers all of the parts of the brain you use, but for example when driving Marie Cheour says you use your frontal lobe to judge dangerous situations, plan routes, control memorized body movements, and make descions.
In reguards to drunk driving it wouldn’t save the driver from injury because if they were hit by a regular car with a drunk driver in it they be betting their life on the computer reacting in time. If they are in the driverless car and had to switch it over to manual while drunk they would be driving impaired. In the article “Why Autononomous cars won’t end drunk driving” it says some states are putting out laws that still fault the driver if they are drunk and a accident or traffic infraction happens while they are being driven by their driverless cars drunk
I think that it is great that we have so many technology advances that have came out and are coming out. When will too far be too far though? Will we see it? Is something that promotes laziness or carelessness ever okay?
Professor Sabatino Mangini
English 100-58
04 November 2015
Room For Debate
I don’t think driverless car are a good idea. When researching the topic I found the article “Are we ready for driverless cars?.” In this article there are four debaters: John Villasenor, Ryan Carlo, Nidhi Kalra and Scott Le Vine. The thought of driverless cars is ridiculous because it relieves people of using their brain, takes the responsibility off of them, and hurts business for car services like taxi companies, Lyft, and Uber.
The overall argument of the debate is that driverless cars are the wave of the future as long as the government can regulate it. The opposing argument is that a driverless car doesn’t have the ability to go out of its pre-programmed algorithm and make the same moral decisions that human drivers would have to make if faced with something like an unavoidable accident.
John Villasenor a professor of Electrical Engineering and Public Policy at the University of California, Senior fellow at Brooking Institution and Member of the World of Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Cybersecurity believes we cannot afford not to create driverless cars. He states in his column that it could lower the chances of injury as well as death caused by motor vehicle accidents. John Villasenor says that the new technology has already contributed to the safety of drivers with things such as better “electronic stability control,” which improves the car's ability to take turns and to handle slippery surfaces. This one technological advancement in and of itself has saved 2,200 lives from 2008-2010.
Ryan Calo a law professor at the University of Washington, Author of forthcoming article “Robotics and the lessons of cyberlaw.” Mr. Carlo is the second debater mention on the page for driverless cars on the New York Times Room for Debate website. He thinks a special agency needs to be put into place before a driverless car becomes readily available and legal. He used the example of when Toyota’s were malfunctioning a while ago the Department of Transportation (a government agency) couldn’t handle it, so they asked NASA for help.
Nidi Kalra is a informational scientist at the RAND Corporation and director of RAND'S center for decisions and making under uncertainty, is co-author of the report “Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policy Makers.” Nidi Kalra has stated that driverless cars should be on the road as soon as they are safe and can handle things like predicting human nature of human drivers, tricky terrain, detailed road rules, weird objects in the road, and bad weather.
The fourth debater is Scott Le Vine. Scott Le Vine is a transportation planner and research associate at the Centre for Transportation and studies at the Imperial College in London. Mr. Le vine thinks that there is ethical tradeoffs and too much risk. the Technology doesn’t have the capability of morals and can only follow its preprogrammed algorithms. He uses the example of an unavoidable crash where you are going to hit something and your choices are a) a mom with a baby in a baby stroller, b) a elderly couple, or c) a brick wall. Le Vine says a human would be able to make that decision in the heat of the moment, but a driverless car couldn’t. He also ask the question will human drivers be happy with a driverless car that will be programmed to follow the letter of the law and won’t speed?
Driverless cars would be great for people who legitimately can’t drive or have a hard time driving. For example it could help people who are elderly, handicapped, or dyslexic. But, on the other hand it is just another way to dumb down society as a whole and remove the brain building life skill of learning how to drive. It also relieves the responsibility of their actions aka be able to get drunk instead of staying sober to drive safely. On top of that it would take away the business of taxi drivers, uber, and lyft.
Marie Cheour had her first article published in 1995, and she has since published more than 40 articles in peer-reviewed publications such as "Nature" and "Nature Neuroscience." She has worked as a college professor in Europe and in the United States. Cheour has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology from the University of Helsinki. Marie Cheour wrote an article on how the brain works while driving for livestrong called “Parts of the Brain used while Driving.” In her article Cheour backs up how much you use your brain while you drive. She covers all of the parts of the brain you use, but for example when driving Marie Cheour says you use your frontal lobe to judge dangerous situations, plan routes, control memorized body movements, and make descions.
In reguards to drunk driving it wouldn’t save the driver from injury because if they were hit by a regular car with a drunk driver in it they be betting their life on the computer reacting in time. If they are in the driverless car and had to switch it over to manual while drunk they would be driving impaired. In the article “Why Autononomous cars won’t end drunk driving” it says some states are putting out laws that still fault the driver if they are drunk and a accident or traffic infraction happens while they are being driven by their driverless cars drunk
I think that it is great that we have so many technology advances that have came out and are coming out. When will too far be too far though? Will we see it? Is something that promotes laziness or carelessness ever okay?