EDITORIAL – Driverless vehicle technology impractical

General Motors Corp. executives announced that cars that drive themselves – a technology as… General Motors Corp. executives announced that cars that drive themselves – a technology as impractical as it is innovative – could be ready for sale within the decade.

GM parts suppliers, along with university engineers and other automakers, are currently working on vehicles that would be capable of driving, navigating and even parking at their destination.

“This is not science fiction,” Larry Burns, GM’s vice president for research and development said in an interview with the Associated Press.

GM has stressed the technology’s potential to improve highway safety by cutting down on accidents caused by human mistakes as an incentive for developing the technology.

The cars, which would incorporate radar-based cruise control, motion sensors, lane-change warning devices, electronic stability control and satellite-based digital mapping, would be designed to take on all of the tasks of a human driver – and would function almost like our current system of cruise control.

Drivers would be able to turn the driverless function on and off at their own discretion.

It’s hard to even take this announcement seriously.

Sure, the idea of allowing cars to drive themselves is awesome in theory, as long as it stays that way. Global positioning systems and satellite mapping systems have led drivers astray in the past.

Plus, sudden and variable obstacles – a deer, for example – on the road could be virtually undetectable until it is too late.

While the same obstacles could – and often do – cause accidents with human drivers, it’s easier to assign liability in accidents when humans are driving the car.

Imagine if two vehicles set to driverless mode collided – which car would be liable in the crash?

The driverless function also invites the notion that motorists need not be attentive and aware while at the wheel.

It’s hard to imagine how the system, which takes away an element of driver responsibility, could even be regulated.

While we’re assuming a driver couldn’t be, say, asleep at the wheel with the driverless mode on, what if he were engaged in a conversation or not paying attention and a glitch in the program led the car into a crash?

Would the police issue a reckless driving citation? While these are all viable obstacles that GM, other automakers and government officials will have to address before we see this technology, the biggest obstacle might just be lack of interest.

A lot of people like driving, they like having control of themselves and their surroundings.

Most of the features contributing to the driverless function are already available and could be used to promote traffic safety without taking away the responsibilities of steering and braking from the driver.

Finally, the driverless function, which is clearly representative of the potential for future automotive technologies, begs an obvious question: If we can develop cars that drive themselves, why do the majority of vehicles still run on gasoline?