Discus ion question

Instructions:

There is no need to re-state the paper’s argument as you have done in writing an annotated bibliographic reference or an abstract, but rather , your evaluation is to be primarily about describing the worth and/or problems you see in the paper as it treats its topic. You are to evaluate the argument, how the paper’s thesis is developed, and the way the paper is put together.

Keep in mind that it is the paper  that you are to objectively evaluate, and not the author, whose name will be removed before you get the paper in any case. All of the insights and opinions that you offer in your Peer’s Paper Evaluation are to exhibit the same high standards for objectivity as was required for essays. The text of your Peer’s Paper Evaluation is to be 500 words, +/- 20 words. Do not count any reference citations you may use in your word count.

Finally, when scholars use the term ‘critique’ or “critical evaluation” - what your Peer’s Paper Evaluation is to be - this does not mean that your evaluation is meant to be ‘critical’ in the common pejorative sense of the word. What it means is that you need to use what you write to explore the findings and arguments of your fellow-student’s paper . You are to create an intellectual dialogue between the essay and your Peer Student Evaluation. As in the writing of your own essay, you will be asking the question, “is this true”, “is this proven”, and “what other things should be considered?”

Evaluation

The following rubric indicates those areas you should be focusing on in preparing your assignment, and how the instructor will weigh these components relative to one another.

critique the essay

Instructions:

There is no need to re-state the paper’s argument as you have done in writing an annotated bibliographic reference or an abstract, but rather , your evaluation is to be primarily about describing the worth and/or problems you see in the paper as it treats its topic. You are to evaluate the argument, how the paper’s thesis is developed, and the way the paper is put together.

Keep in mind that it is the paper  that you are to objectively evaluate, and not the author, whose name will be removed before you get the paper in any case. All of the insights and opinions that you offer in your Peer’s Paper Evaluation are to exhibit the same high standards for objectivity as was required for essays. The text of your Peer’s Paper Evaluation is to be 500 words, +/- 20 words. Do not count any reference citations you may use in your word count.

Finally, when scholars use the term ‘critique’ or “critical evaluation” - what your Peer’s Paper Evaluation is to be - this does not mean that your evaluation is meant to be ‘critical’ in the common pejorative sense of the word. What it means is that you need to use what you write to explore the findings and arguments of your fellow-student’s paper . You are to create an intellectual dialogue between the essay and your Peer Student Evaluation. As in the writing of your own essay, you will be asking the question, “is this true”, “is this proven”, and “what other things should be considered?”

Evaluation

The following rubric indicates those areas you should be focusing on in preparing your assignment, and how the instructor will weigh these components relative to one another.

What does a world of self-driving cars look like? Is it akin to something like an automobile version of the Jetsons? Is it the accident free utopia we would all expect it to be? Is it the start of the lazy, self-destroying lifestyles that led to population in Wall-E? Could it be none of those things? While self-driving cars are still in their infancy, the assists built into cars today and the expectations drivers have of them can provide the first glimpses of the future. This modern age of driving sees the advent of self-driving cars and features like auto-pilot which can keep a car moving without driver intervention for miles.

But what are the legal implications of the future state? What are the expectations of drivers and passengers? While insurance companies and law makers wrestle with the transition, their expectations are that drivers would essentially be liability free. But what implications are there for the public at large? Would people feel safer getting into a vehicle if all vehicles operated by the exact same set of rules? Are people more likely to indulge in vices like drinking knowing that they can enter a vehicle intoxicated and arrive home without risk of crashing? Has automation in other areas provided a glimpse into the potential complacency a general public may enter?

The following paper asks these questions and attempts to postulate the answers. It attempts to understand the direction this technology is moving and understand the implications to the public and industries at large. There are multiple companies working on varying levels of automation and the transition from vehicles that need full driver attention to those that require no input besides a destination is fraught with uncertainty.

There is no specific definition of a self-driving or autonomous car. Instead, there are degrees of automation. There are five distinct levels that begin at 0 (traditional vehicles with completely driver dependent intervention systems) to level 4 (where a destination is entered and no further driver interaction is required) to everywhere in between (Browne, 2017). Most vehicles with some kind of significant driver assisted mechanisms will fall into Level 1 or Level 2 (Hendrickson, 2019). Adaptive cruise control is an example of Level 1 while Tesla’s autopilot mode would be considered a Level 2. The degree that the driver’s input or attention is required determines the Level the vehicle is rated at.

There are significant challenges in designing autonomous vehicles that are practical. Ford in particular has been vocal when describing the difficulty of designing a vehicle that can follow the many and varied (from country to country) rules of the road (Boudette, 2019). This is compounded by unpredictable factors such as pedestrians, cyclists, poor road or weather conditions. The early results of algorithmic tweaking to derive a 100% collision free car have yielded vehicles that and constantly slamming brakes and a general nuisance to other drivers (Boudette, 2019).

Real world testing and results have provided significant data in terms of why current autonomous systems result in collisions. This article outlines the various reasons that self-driving cars have been involved in collisions. This can include: braking false positives (where another driver may slam on their brakes in situations that would otherwise make no sense), drivers not understanding the assist systems of their vehicles and what autopilot systems actually do (Cardinal, 2018). Some common challenges that haven’t resulted in collisions but are difficult to solve with software or hardware includes: emergency vehicles, pedestrians and weather/night conditions.

While the public’s expectations are that fully autonomous vehicles are around the corner (Boudette, 2019), the reality is much further down the road. Regardless of the research and development in progress at most automakers, market forces and competition require car companies to release incremental updates (Cardinal, 2018). These updates are a competitive advantage and differentiator. Ford cannot remain competitive hoping to achieve the holy grail of autonomous driving if Volkswagen has attractive stay in lane autopiloting features or the ability to handle turns in city. The result is an arms race to include new or improved features and technologies to attract buyer’s attention now, while using that data to improve and continue development of future automation algorithms.

Regardless of where most car companies are in development, there are a few organizations that are completely focused and committed to fully autonomous vehicle development. In this regard, Waymo is the furthest ahead (Waters, 2019). This company is owned by Alphabet (or Google’s parent company). Since there aren’t any regulatory standards, miles driven per human intervention is the currently accepted standard. This measurement marks the average number of miles a vehicle is operating completely autonomously and without any human intervention. This includes starting and stopping the car after starting the ignition and turning the car off once the final destination is reached.

The results are promising, but the progress of others confirm the expectation of a long development cycle before a full autonomous vehicle can be achieved. Waymo’s self-driving vehicles have reached an average driving period of 11,018 miles for one instance of human intervention. This is a significant gap with their closets competitor Cruise Automation which had a rate of 5,205 miles. While these figures do confirm that Level 4 self-driving cars are NOT about the hit the market, the trend is showing significant improvements (Waters, 2019).

Two critical components being considered now in the wake of autonomous development is legal liability and insurance (Browne, 2017). Legal debates have begun based on where the technology is today and what a fully autonomous future may look like. Questions are being asked such as: Who is liable in a collision? The driver/owner of the autonomous vehicle or someone else? What happens to insurance rates for those with autonomous vehicles and eventually the industry at large as more sophisticated technology is available and if eventually the majority or all cars are fully autonomous? (Browne, 2017)

One perspective is that drivers should be rewarded with lower premiums for autonomy capable vehicles while others argue that they are no safer as of yet. The argument is being made that the driver should be liable and yet some organizations such as Volkswagen have come forward and publicly stated they will assume liability for their vehicle’s roles in a collision (Browne, 2017). There is agreement that roadways with fully autonomous vehicles would lead to improved safety and less need for insurance, however, that end hasn’t been reached and there’s no general consensus at even a country level in terms of how to flesh out the laws that would govern it. As such, the current laws, remain.

It might be assumed that the public would consider both the technological capabilities of the vehicles alongside the legal implications but that isn’t the case. Most studies have focused primarily on driver perceptions of autonomous vehicles and a future in which they were common or standard. This paper will examine three studies in particular that focus on three distinct perceptions: driving experience in the future, perception of those who have driven in some kind of self-driving car and a study that examines driver’s perceptions on themselves and the public of an autonomous vehicle future.

In one study looking at 3000 Danes (Nielsen, 2018), drivers were asked to consider what the driving experience would be in the future. The sample group was divided into three specific segments: sceptics of self-driving vehicles, enthusiasts and those who identified as indifferent. Various other demographic data was collected to identify commonalities and divergences. While the general results were generally predictable (ex: sceptics were generally older and lived in more rural/country areas), there were some commonalities among the three groups. The first is that there was a perception and expectation that they would be relieved of the work and attention that is associated with driving. The second is that they would now have time to pursue other things and that they expected to be able to work autonomously in the vehicle. Regardless of where that person’s perception was on how good the technology or track record was, the general consensus among the entire sample size was that self-driving cars would translate into increased willingness to travel (Nielsen, 2018).

In one study that sampled 1500 drivers about their expectations of driving in autonomous vehicles vs traditional driving experiences (Raue, 2019). Drivers were given the opportunity to drive in an autonomous vehicle for comparisons. The study found that drivers were more relaxed and less anxious due to the perception that the car could make better decisions. There was a belief that the driver was under less risk and generally safer than if they had direct control. Ultimately, high interest in self-driving cars was driven by the perception of decreased driving risk, high trust of technology and the benefits of not having to focus on the task of driving to the same extent. Its is also important to note that the study was performed with drivers who had no experience with self-driving cars so that the study could be less biased (Raue, 2019).

In this instance, the author examined a variety of sources and survey data to describe some of the implications of self-driving cars and the perceptions of drivers to them (Riegler, 2019). The author detailed that the technology behind self-driving cars meant humans must “concede” a certain amount of control. The subsequent performance of the vehicle in turn allows drivers to feel more comfortable conceding more control or exerting less attention to it. However, the author does not get into any more detail in regards to the legal implications, implications of hacking or even social ramifications if self-driving cars became commonplace. The report does share some of the survey results that are indicative of where perception of self-driving cars and the various implications of those cars are perceived. That data is interesting in itself for what automotive companies or even a marketing company can do to continue shaping the message (Riegler, 2019).

If the legal implications are ignored for a moment as those considerations are early in development and can potentially influence driver/public perception, then all that is left is direct driver/public feedback. The above has established the baseline of the technology today and the work that has been done to understand the legal work being considered and the public psyche. Based on the available data, there are a few conclusions and assumptions that can be made.

Three different studies looking at three different perspective using three different control methods have netted similar results. There is overwhelming consensus that being in a autonomous vehicle today makes drivers/passengers feel safer, less stressed and able to spend their commuting time to other interests or needs. If the perspective of drivers and passengers is what it is today, it is reasonable to assume that these feelings would be reinforced and grow stronger in the face of fully autonomous vehicles. In fact, some of the questions specifically targeted those possibilities and the resulting perception remained the same.

The studies revealed that drivers expected to be safer in autonomous vehicles. It is reasonable to assume this would be reinforced if the majority or all of the vehicles on the road were autonomous. This perceptive is also similar to the perspective of insurance companies as outlined above. If anything, its is reasonable to assume that if insurance companies (who have significant amounts of driving data across a population) believe this to be true, that it reaffirms this perspective to be more likely correct/reality.

This is where the future becomes a bit more difficult to ascertain. While the advent of the internet changed the way business operated, it also changed the expectations of employers and employees in terms of work habits. Many employees are checking email and working outside of normal hours because they have access and are connected to the internet (Bort, 2016). While cell phones are an extension of the connectivity, they typically have the opposite effect where the social expectations in communicating (even during a work period) have increased (Patrick, 2018).

It would be safe to assume that if a driver no longer had to spend any time or concentration driving, that the time could be converted into work hours (being that there is significant connectivity today). That could change the standard work day and provide employees with more incentive to live further away if they can be productive from the confines of their driver during the morning and afternoon commutes.

The social changes would be significant. There would be no need for organizations like MAAD because intoxicated driving would no longer exist. The social pressure of limiting alcoholic consumption, having alternative transportation or even designated drivers would no longer be applicable. This would be due to drivers having the confidence that their vehicle could drive them home safely without risk to other drivers or pedestrians. People would be more willing to stay out later than before if they know there isn’t a risk of crashing because of fatigue and falling asleep.

Carpooling could gain traction as the burden of driving wouldn’t be placed on one driver (whether its accepted by one driver or rotated by the car pool). As traffic concerns should be minimal as all vehicles would be following the same rules, there would likely be a greater desire to travel in groups where brainstorming, work or just socializing can take place.

A willingness to travel more and experience new places would likely see a rise. Even if the actual cost of driving remained the same (in terms of fueling, wear and tear and regular maintenance), taking autonomous vehicles that wouldn’t required resting stops or alternating drivers (in conjunction with the other benefits listed above) would likely result in a wiliness to travel more by car as opposed to airplanes, trains, etc.

More time for yourself. In theory, any given person should have more time for themselves. By not having to focus on the act of driving or even paying attention to the drive itself, the public should have more time for either work or to pursue and develop personal interests. The public should be able to accomplish more. Whether they do so is debatable, a person who no longer has to focus on driving two hours each day would have two hours for something of personal interest whether its writing, learning or entertainment for example. The result should be an increase in relaxation, happiness and self fulfilment.

While the introduction teased a future akin to the Jetsons or Wall-E, the future could look more like a blend of both. Cars that move in predictable fashion would be akin to the former while the potential to waste the new gained time in a person’s life could lead to the latter. Regardless, the data points at the very least to a safer future. There are psychological and social benefits to that alone. In terms of the broader social contracts, those are more likely to improve and be more enriching. While work expectations will extend into the car as the internet and mobile devices extended work more into the home, it also creates an opportunity to change the modern work day. The expectations of a future of a safer, less stressful and happier life because of self-driving cars comes from the drivers and public themselves and as of now, there is no reason to doubt it.

Kevin Viana

Bibliography Bort, J. (2016). Are Your Employees Burned Out? Here's Why Your Expectations Could Be The Culprit. Retrieved from Inc.com: https://www.inc.com/business-insider/why-bosses-should-review-after-hours-email-response-expectations-tired-employees.html Boudette, N. E. (2019). Despite High Hopes, Self-Driving Cars Are ‘Way in the Future’. Retrieved from New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/business/self-driving-autonomous-cars.html Browne, B. A. (2017). Self-Driving Cars: On the Road to a New Regulatory Era. . Retrieved from ournal of Law, Technology & the Internet, 8(1), 1–19.: etrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.libraryservices.yorkvilleu.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=url,cookie,ip,uid&db=a9h&AN=129365681 Cardinal, D. (2018). Why Self-Driving Cars Keep Running Into Things. Retrieved from Extreme Tech: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/270049-why-self-driving-cars-keep-running-into-things Hendrickson, J. (2019). What Are the Different Self-Driving Car “Levels” of Autonomy? Retrieved from How To Geek: https://www.howtogeek.com/401759/what-are-the-different-self-driving-car-levels-of-autonomy/ Nielsen, T. A. (2018). On sceptics and enthusiasts: What are the expectations towards self-driving cars? Retrieved from Transport Policy, 66, 49–55: https://doi-org.libraryservices.yorkvilleu.ca/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.03.004 Patrick, W. L. (2018). How Your Cell Phone Habits Impact Your Productivity. Retrieved from Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/201807/how-your-cell-phone-habits-impact-your-productivity Raue, M. D. (2019). The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars. Retrieved from Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 39(2), 358–374. : https://doi-org.libraryservices.yorkvilleu.ca/10.1111/risa.13267 Riegler, C. (2019). The Moral Decision-Making Capacity of Self-Driving Cars: Socially Responsible Technological Development, Algorithm-driven Sensing Devices, and Autonomous Vehicle Ethics. Retrieved from Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice, 11(1), 15–20.: https://doi-org.libraryservices.yorkvilleu.ca/10.22381/CRLSJ11120192 Waters, R. (2019). Waymo builds big lead in self-driving car testing. Retrieved from Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/7c8e1d02-2ff2-11e9-8744-e7016697f225