Daily Archives: 7 March 2012

Automobile Automation

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s L. Gordon Crovitz is writing about the really quite nearby future of driving.  There is an upside to this:

Tom Vanderbilt, author of the book Traffic, writes: “After a few minutes the idea of a computer-driven car seemed much less terrifying than the panorama of indecision, BlackBerry-fumbling, rule-flouting, and other vagaries of the humans around us—including the weaving driver who struggled to film us as he passed.”

There’s a downside, too, beyond the aspects of the (still very important in my not at all humble view) sheer joy of driving my car and the need for a human to be in control of his machine, rather than the other way around:

[T]he legal and regulatory system will need to accept that driverless cars sound risky only compared with cars driven by error-prone humans.  Among looming questions certain to be relished by plaintiff lawyers: If people aren’t driving, who will be liable for accidents?  Car makers?  Manufacturers of GPS hardware?  Software companies?

The answer to the liability question is straightforward and easily enforced, though.

The larger problem I have with such a system is this.  We need to improve, vastly, our computer and communications systems security before such a thing becomes viable and truly safe.  In an age where we can’t even protect our power and water grid, much less our Space and Defense systems or our GPS use, from either foreign or domestic hacking, why would we want to expose our transportation grid to similar hack jobs and shutdown?

Qualified Opinions

Posted on by
Reply

Do we allow those around here?  Even Massachusetts may be coming around.  Governor Duvall Patrick (D, MA) is looking at his state’s business regulations with a view to reducing their footprint on…business.  The Wall Street Journal is reporting that, among other things, he’s going to insist on what amounts to a business impact statement before a new regulation can go into effect.  The regulator proposing a new rule would be required to answer such questions as

Is this likely to encourage or deter the formation of business?

which is standard pap, but then Duvall cuts to the chase with a follow-up:

Who did you consult from the small business community to come to this conclusion?

Hmm….

The governor’s look includes rescission/tweaking of such regulations as a requirement that a hair salon owner selling her shop to an employee must first close down while the state processes associated paperwork, and a requirement that funeral directors must hire full-time apprentices only; part-timers are barred.  He’s also looking at an additional roughly 800 regulations across 60 state agencies.

Time will tell whether this is a serious look, or primarily politically useful tweaks, but it’s a promising start.

There is reason for skepticism.  Last year, President Obama made a big deal about the regulatory review process he was initiating.  That, though, has turned out to be a sham, consisting of minor changes to minor regulations without addressing his overall regulatory environment, which has been entirely anti-business.