It has been argued that "advances" in technology
can have negative effects. Look at popular communication, for example. Voice
mail, email, instant messaging and text messaging, blackberries all have done
wonders in terms of convenience and portability, however has their use really
affected the nature of the message? While the Internet has proven invaluable in
educational terms, the predominant use of computers (or more specifically
keyboards) has had a dramatically negative affect on writing skills.
And we are not just talking about penmanship, here. Spell
checkers are found on just about every email and writing program available,
automatically correcting even the most egregious and blatant of errors. And
while this may be helpful for many people, their existence also retards any
incentive to learn the proper skills in the first place.
If the technology will always be there to back us up, why
should we make the effort?
Well, for one thing, you can cover a lack of skills to some
extent when aided by artificial intelligence, but at some point you are
actually going to have to deal with people in person, where hiding ignorance
will prove much more difficult. The short cuts and poor grammar found in
instant and text messaging for example, are finding their way into the
classroom. That has many people worried.
Many colleges and universities have had to resort to
offering remedial English and writing courses and implementing tests for
incoming freshman. The accepted SAT entrance exam now boasts a written essay.
Aside from writing a grocery list or anniversary card, when was the last time
you sat down and wrote out a page's worth of anything?
Such is the way technology can negatively affect our
society. The thing about bad grammar, however, is that it can't hurt people.
Unfortunately, the same can't be said about bad driving. If this year's auto
shows are any indication, then we are in for yet another onslaught of gadgetry
that's sure to make us even worse drivers than we already are.
One can lump automotive technology into two distinct
categories. There's the "infotainment" group, made up of things like
navigation systems, door openers, audio equipment, and so on which are designed
to offer us something in addition to driving, presumably to occupy our short
attentions while sitting in traffic. The other, more frightful group is the
"driving dynamic" one, which actually influence how our cars move
down the tarmac.
This group was originally limited to things of obvious value
like airbags, which have been as invaluable in automotive
safety as instant communication and the Web have been to prosperity in
worldwide commerce. However, we seem to have long passed the point of
diminishing returns as car manufacturers get even more creative with their
junk.
I would say the line was crossed back around stability
control.
As much as the car companies lay claim to advances in
safety, many of today's features are rooted in performance. One could make the
argument that some sort of electronic stability control or brake assistance --
which automatically lowers power or even applies a brake or two to regain
control when a car has entered a curve too fast and is swerving out of control
-- is progress. You could just as easily argue, though, that just the like the
grammar checker does with writing, it allows us to drive like complete morons.
Two examples that I find particularly alarming are lane
departure alarms and speed-adaptive radar. The latter will not only slow your
car in traffic, but bring you to a full stop and then accelerate again as
traffic warrants. At least in their current form, these are both technologies
with which the manufacturers got far too wrapped up in whether or not they could
to determine whether or not they should. Yet here comes another thing
other automakers will scramble to duplicate and implement in upcoming models to
satisfy some perceived need, and ultimately knock our fundamental driving
skills (if not attentions spans) down one more notch.
Ayrton Senna was killed at Imola in 1994 when his blue and
white Williams Renault left the track and collided with a concrete wall at 137
mph. To this day, the use of traction control, power steering, and active
suspension remain at the center of the controversial incident. While this may
be an extreme example, consider the fact that in 2004 8% of all drivers were
using a cell phone during daylight hours, and that they were subsequently four
times as likely to be in a collision. Should you think the "techno"
logical answer would be to use hands-free phones, the study included them as
well.
There is no question that cars are safer today than they
were yesterday. One must consider, however, if we are collectively better
drivers. I know that if I were driving a car with unassisted steering, drums
brakes and no seat belt, I would think twice about reaching for the radio dial
or Slurpee.
There is a time for everything, including technology. The
movement to "big brother" systems watching over the driver's
shoulder, however, is disconcerting. And because technology moves so quickly,
the auto manufacturers are better off sticking to the fundamentals were they
offer the most benefit, and not succumb to extraneous features that are subject
to near-term obsolescence. At last check my house had no less than two laptop
computers, two palm pilots, one digital camera, and a host of cell phones that
are either broken or outdated.
We have enough aggravation with technological garbage
already. We don't need it in our commute.
Ford CEO and Chairman, Bill Ford's strategy to "sit back" somewhat and observe what happens with GM, while not overly progressive, may actually pay dividends down the road. Ford has taken on an enormous task in trying to resurrect not only a company with nearly the same legacy costs, lukewarm product line-up, and increased competitive landscape of General Motors, but at the same time propping up an entire cornerstone of the domestic auto industry.
Recent Comments