Ahh yes, theory...it always looks good on paper (or the magical screen)...until one has to actually implement it with budgetary and time constraints. Back in the mid-late 80s, I was implementing AGV (Automatic Guided Vehicle) systems for FMC used in newsprint facilities. I know a little bit about embedded technology. In those days it was wires embedded in the concrete by saw-cutting the floors everywhere the vehicles travelled. The AGVs followed various carrier frequencies each wire was a different freq. Today we have GPS. Both have their issues for precision control of something such as an unmanned 8,000 lb. machine roaming around in a facility.
Working in the world of implementing other peoples' automation theories daily, there's one thing that more often than not rings true: We always seem to arrive at the same point, where the rubber meets the road so to speak, when theory gives way to the reality of getting a project completed, on time, within budget,
and, most importantly, the unspoken assumption that end results will obviously function correctly and reliably. After all, that's what the clients are paying for. If not, lawyers are involved and heads roll. Very simple. Doesn't seem to be the case in the theoretical world of automotive autonomy. The theory of 'Good Enough' appears to be the norm as evidenced by the article above...as long as we meek consumers allow it to be so. Why? The cost of properly implementing what we seemingly desire and believe we must have is astronomical, unaffordable, and quite frankly unachievable in the current half-azzed way it is being implemented.
My real-world experience with the SBS reaction in the 2018 CX5 is that it nearly got me rear-ended, several times. Therefore, it and all of the other useless distracted-driver-assist technology is as OFF as I am able to make it in my CX5. Driving the old-fashioned, no-tech, way had never caused me to experience nearly be rear-ended in that manner that I've experienced and in such a short amount of time jumping in to and driving any vehicle. And I've driven pretty much everything with wheels that's street legal and not.
Certainly, if theorists would like to pony-up and deploy autonomous pace-cars throughout the land, at crazy stupid expense to themselves and not to me, to exercise their rights to their theories, then have at it. I'd then love to read the
independent report(s) detailing actual real-world findings. Including every traffic incident the things are involved in, or more likely, have caused. Personally, I'd just as soon run any of those rolling road-hazards straight off the road and in to a very deep ditch where they belong should one of them get anywhere near me. Oh yes, I believe Uber and Google have embarked on such theoretical fantasy endeavors...on public roads, gov sanctioned...and people have died. The theorists then deemed their rolling weapons not ready for deployment. Swell. News-Flash: they'll never be ready for deployment once the pipe-dreamers face the facts of what the proper technology to achieve such a fantasy on unpredictable, public, roads subject to unpredictable weather conditions will truly cost per vehicle.
I'd rather the gov concentrate on maintaining the antiquated automation they've already over-spent good money on and make it function correctly...traffic control devices and the public road systems themselves. Embed tech in to the roads? Seriously? Stop and think about what you're implying with a statement like that...again, another complete pipe-dream. Once again, in theory, excellent idea. Then that nasty reality happens. The powers that be are
still working to embed such tech in the nations rail systems. Decades now. What's the hold-up? The proper tech is, and has been, available and proven reliable. Same type of stuff I utilize every day. There's been how many train wrecks involving lots of dead people in the past few years alone? Rail systems, from an automation perspective, are fixed and highly predictable courses mind you. Very cut and dry, affected very little by weather and outside influences. And yet we're still diddling around, dragging feet, making excuses implementing very simple, proven 'safety' features. The hold-up is, of course, the
staggering amount of money involved w/ the automation required. We can add that to Bernin'-Through-Money's list of campaign promises.
Embedded road sensors? Unless it's for surveillance, I don't think so.
PennDOT has spent over half a million adding a few more cameras along Rte 30 here in Lancaster recently. And yet, no one has stepped up to the plate to upgrade the traffic signals at the very same interchanges that the cameras we're installed at. Interchanges that have been plagued by problems for many years. The township says the state should deal with it and the state says the township should pay. This back-n-forth has been going on for years. Meanwhile...congestion, backups, and the usual and very predictable (not theory) BS resulting from half-azzed automation, that no one maintains nor takes responsibility for continues to worsen. Yes, automation requires maintenance despite what people think. Set-it-n-forget-it doesn't work forever. But hey, now we have more cameras so we can watch the congestion on the evening news or our dumb-phones as a public service! Brilliant. Embedded sensors
. How many millions of miles of roads are there? Far more than there are rail lines. Yes theory is a wonderful thing. But then along comes Mr. Reality.
As it stands, we the consumers, have the privilege of beta testing all of this non-sense for the automotive automation theorists at our expense (and peril) by purchasing vehicles with this garbage installed. And we basically have no choice but to purchase it if one desires a new vehicle today. Not a fan of "no choice" when I'm spending my hard earn dollars. Especially when it is something I do not want, do not need, nor believe in. There's only so much money available to build in to a car the average Joe will be able to afford to pay for. Mortgage on a car...mortgage for a house? Which do you think is more important? Many can't afford a mortgage of any kind. Unnecessary half-baked tech isn't doing anything to help bring new vehicle prices down. Merely adding high costs at the time of purchase, and,
the pandora's box...repair time.
www.foxbusiness.com
