[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by artificer

The idea would be to have a computer controlled grid that knows where every car is, where they are going, and controls how they get there.

"A computer controlled grid"? Is this a physical grid? Or an electronic field? Specifically how will cars or traffic be controlled?

So you propose having a system where some higher authority knows where you are going, where you are and how and whether you can get to where you want to go - or not. Who is the controller and who is the controlled? This sounds a lot like some "big brother" authority to me.

Sometimes I am not completely sure of where I am going, even while I am in route. Would that be forbidden? Would we need special permission to change our minds?

No more blast and brake driving. No inattentive driving. Higher speed and closer/smaller lanes possible. Flow of traffic is optimized to keep everyone moving as quickly as possible, or with the most efficiency. Since the computer sees the entire grid, it can tell when it has to adapt to handle changes in the traffic pattern.

So - if I understand correctly, you will not be able to brake suddenly if a child runs in front of your car. (Oh, silly me - probably the child will also be required to wear an electronic collar so his actions can also be monitored at all times.)

You say "no inattentive driving". Why would anyone need to be attentive if the system you propose will solve all such problems? At what point does the concept of 'driving' (as opposed to being 'driven' by an overseeing system) become irrelevant?

You are advocating high speeds and close proximity. (IMHO, that increases risk.) If the system fails in any way, large or small, then what? A multi-car pile-up? Or a multi-lane standstill for hours? How is this any better than what we have now? Or will it just be on a larger, more catastrophic scale?

Once you take away all possibility of human fallibility, you take away that which we know as freedom. The nature of freedom includes the possibility of human error. Without that, we merely have a controlled, planned, regulated system, which we would not be allowed to override - essentially we will not be allowed to think and act for ourselves.

Please consider this: an extremely regulated system is NOT inherently beneficial. I will remind you that just as no bank should be deemed "too large to fail", and no oil drilling rig should be considered to be too advanced to fail, no humanly designed system will ever be totally infallible.

With the computer controlling the vehicles...

"The computer"? What computer? Nor do you tell us HOW the vehicles would be controlled. Or how the occupants of the vehicle will be controlled. (The devil is in the details, eh?)

...you wouldn't have to allow as much time between direction changes (stoplights) since you don't have to allow extra time for idiot drivers.

Please tell us specifically how your plan would urge someone to move on in traffic if they don't want to, or they can't, or they are zoned out on drugs, lack of sleep, out of gas, or whatever?

You could also design lighter vehicles because accidents would be decreased if humans aren't controlling the system.

Who is the "you" that you are describing here? Government? Automotive engineers? Who???

It sounds like you have blind faith in technology and those who would be in control of an imposed, systemic application of it.

Considering that they can't even fix the pot-holes, I don't see the investment into the infrastructure necessary to do this within the next 20 years, or until we run out of oil.

That's a realistic political assessment that is self-evident. But I would like to hear specific answers to the questions I posed of all your other imaginative ideas, to convince us of their merit.

Neither "we" nor the planet will "run out of oil". You may not be able to afford it, but, thanks to global politics, the Arabs and the Chinese will.

I notice that these imaginative ideas are offered by those who live in rural places like Wisconsin and Arkansas. Youthful, theoretical ideas are wonderful. Living in these non-citified places is probably also wonderful. But until you live in a big city or even an adjacent suburban area, you may not fully understand all the implications of the inherent problems involved, and such proposed solutions only LGOP ('look good on paper').

BTW - in cities we already have vehicles that do accommodate those who (for whatever reason) are non-drivers, taking them safely from place to place. They are known as BUSES.