Is California Insane?

We are all familiar with the stories of the California governor ignoring his own Covid-19 rules to dine at an exclusive upscale restaurant with friends and supporters and of the LA County Supervisor who dined outdoors at her favorite restaurant hours after voting to ban such activity as too dangerous but before the ban took effect. They go out and party, then lock down the people who elected them.

 

That’s just simple hypocrisy. That happens across the nation, although California does seem to have a talent for electing some real nutcases to various levels of government. 

 

We almost expect that kind of hypocrisy from any politician, most of whom are elected on the basis of their charm, good looks or name recognition rather than their ethics and intelligence. But that’s not why California stands out. Here are just two of many examples.

 

The Glock Company manufactures and sells guns. On their site they list the GLOCK 19, a 9 mm Luger. It’s a handgun with a magazine capacity of 15 to 33 rounds. It’s not unlike side arms carried by police. The site carries a warning, only one warning, and it has nothing to do with gun safety. It reads: “This Product can expose you to chemicals including lead [in the bullets?], which is known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other productive harm.” 

The sun can also cause skin cancer. Will they soon require that all doors that lead outside carry a similar warning? The danger of catching cancer from a gun falls far behind other, more immediate dangers.

 

Last August an estimated 3.3 million in California were “Facing [the] Largest Power Outages In Its History … Amid Record Heatwave.” On October 23 the news came:  “Due to extreme fire risk the utility is shutting off 466,000 customers between Sunday and Tuesday.” Then on December 5 the news read: “As parts of California rev up for another round of potentially fire-fueling gusty winds, Pacific Gas and Electric is warning 130,000 customers across 15 counties that they could lose power starting early Monday morning.”

 

Disregard the fact that many experts believe California added to the wildfire problem with poor forestry management. Just think about those stories in light of this headline from last September, “California Governor Signs Order Banning Sales Of New Gasoline Cars By 2035.” 

Picture hundreds of thousands of citizens stuck at home on a regular basis without electricity to charge their cars (or their phones). It’s just one more good idea – unless you can see the unintended consequences. California citizens can sit at home in the dark and applaud their governor for saving the planet. 

 

The antics of California would be funny if they weren’t completely crazy, and if the rest of the country weren’t slowly drifting in the same direction.

An Unlikely Future

A couple of interesting studies out of the University of Texas a few years ago cast a new light on the idea of autonomous (self-driving) cars. So far most people have been thinking only about the convenience of reading or legally talking on the phone while the car gets them to their destination or the fear of computers instead of humans behind the wheel.  But UT takes the idea in a couple of slightly different directions.

One group used computer simulations to investigate the effects of shared autonomous vehicles (SAVs), autonomous taxis, on the flow of traffic and on the need for personal vehicles.  They wanted to discover the dynamics of having an optimal number of Uber- or Lyft-type options, but without drivers, to satisfy the needs of an entire city.  

Personal vehicle inefficiencies arise from the fact that Americans have many more cars than they need.  Less than “17% of newer (10 years old or less) household vehicles are in use at any given time over the course of an ‘average’ day, even when applying a 5-minute buffer on both trip ends; this share falls to just 10% usage when older personal vehicles are included and no buffers applied.” That is a lot of wasted time spent sitting in a garage or parked on the street.

The simulation was for an average small city (like Austin, where UT happens to be located) with a fleet of self-driving taxis.  “Complete model results show how each base-case SAV serves approximately 31 to 41 travelers per day, with average wait times under 20 seconds. Less than 0.5% of travelers waited more than five minutes.”  During the rush hours more than 97% of vehicles were in use, 2% were en route and only 1% sat idle.  According to the model, one SAV could replace 11 personal vehicles, and customers would both save money and need never park a car again - at home, at work or at any destination.

Some of the benefits are obvious and some less so.  The waiting time is far better than a shuttle bus to airport parking. Transportation costs for customers are reduced by 50% to 75% when all costs are taken into account: fuel, maintenance, tires, insurance, downtown parking and depreciation.  Space in cities could be shifted from parking to other uses.  The vehicles could drive themselves to refuel/recharge, to cleaning stations and maintenance facilities, saving customers more time.  And more miles per vehicle would lead to faster fleet turnover, allowing earlier replacement of vehicles with cleaner and more fuel efficient models.

The second idea out of UT is more futuristic.  One professor proposes the idea of virtual intersections with no traffic signals or stop signs necessary.  He claims such systems would make travel safer, faster and more efficient.

As the autonomous vehicle approaches the intersection, it calls ahead to reserve a time to drive though.  A computerized intersection manager approves the request and times the interactions to allow safe passage. “This all happens very fast, and there is little stopped traffic.”

So there you have it, the unlikely future: cars buzzing along to the next destination with everyone relaxed, not worrying about traffic; personal garages converted into more living space and public garages converted into shops, offices or green space; with everyone saving money.  One problem is that it only works in cities with relative density.  Get into the suburbs and the country and it’s not so efficient.

Also, your car is more than a car.  It’s both a status symbol and a “big purse.”

Many get enjoyment out of the act of driving and take pride in showing off what a nice car they can afford. Can you picture a business tycoon trying to impress clients by squeezing them into the same kind of car everyone else is riding in – even given the ability to conduct undistracted business while riding to the destination?  And a wait of less than 20 seconds with the rare possibility of up to 5 minutes would still be too long for some.

A second objection is the storage value of the car.  It has all that junk in the back seat that you never got around to cleaning out.  It may carry your emergency hat, gloves, sweatshirt and umbrella, an extra energy bar in the console, and perhaps your favorite CDs or handgun in the glove box (depending on your state of residence and state of mind). 

These are ideas that look great on paper (or simulated on a computer), but likely won’t fly with the motoring public.  In some sense, that’s too bad.

Spread of Body Cameras

A couple of weeks ago, I published Sound Familiar? pointing out that spotting trends is not difficult with a little bit of critical thinking and imagination.  So autonomous cars lead to autonomous trucks or robotic taxicabs or mail delivery.

In this case I was thinking about body cameras as two people on TV discussed how to clarify when police were using appropriate force.  This should be much more reliable than cellphone video that may capture only part of the exchange or even eyewitnesses whose memory often reflects their own prejudices.

But it’s not that straightforward, as one source tells us.  “The implementation of body-worn cameras has gained increased attention and use among law enforcement professionals, who use them for functions such as obtaining evidence during investigations, promoting officer safety, and improving law enforcement community relations, and accountability. Police body-worn cameras present novel legal and policy questions.”  These include questions of constitutionality, especially regarding privacy.

In another case, there seems to be a problem of the novelty wearing off.  “D.C. police officers wearing body cameras reported using force about as often as colleagues who didn’t have them, and citizen complaints against the two groups were about even, according to a new study that bucks early expectations about the impact of the devices.”  The report found this surprising, but considering that they had them for more than three years, the initial feeling of someone always watching, on both sides of the badge, can easily erode.  Think about reality shows or the people who volunteer to have cameras in their houses.  Before long they start behaving as if the cameras weren’t there.

Another problem is that the cameras cannot be always on.  Omaha is working with a company that sells a device to activate the camera automatically when officers draw their weapons or stun guns.  Ordinarily they “are on standby mode until an officer presses a button twice to activate it. It then will record audio and video — including video from the previous 30 seconds.”  But when acting in self-defense or in immediate emergencies, drawing the firearm take precedence over activating the camera.

Just the same, other cities, the later adapters, continue to buy the equipment.  For example, a headline reads, “Peoria police officers to widely use body cameras by spring [of 2018].”

This brings me to my projection.  Where will this lead?  With so many cases in the news of sexual assault and other altercations, cases where it’s often one person’s or one group’s word against another, how long before more and more people begin wearing some sort of recording device on a regular basis?  Look how far cell phones have come in the last decade.  Millions of people carry more computer power in their pocket today than was packed into the entire Cassini spacecraft that just dove into the planet Saturn after a twenty-year mission.  

So how long will it be until vendors start selling designer body cameras for self-defense and entertainment?  We already have sports cameras selling for less than $100 – wear it on your forehead to capture the thrills of skiing or snowboarding.  Other more expensive versions are less than half the size of a smart phone.  Some non-law enforcement folks have dash-cams mounted in their cars.  In the not-too-distant future we’ll be buying broaches and other jewelry with cameras and everyone will want one.  It will be like the old spy-movie spoofs, “Please repeat that into this button.”  Imagine the constitutional and privacy questions then!

Risk Adaptation

Several years ago I mentioned partially in jest to my sister, at the time an elementary school teacher, that the stock market was doomed.  With all the safety features being implemented on playgrounds and other facilities for children, by the time they reached adulthood they would be too risk averse to want to invest in anything other than guaranteed accounts.  Farewell, stock market and entrepreneurship.

She immediately set me straight.  With padded playgrounds, instead of hanging upside down by their knees from the monkey bars, they were now hanging by one leg.  Reduce the risk; increase the risk taking.

That same idea came up again when I began to see the relationship between automobile safety features and careless driving.  And this is not new.

An article from 2006 tells of Researchers at Purdue, led by a civil engineering professor, that “determined that airbags and antilock braking systems do not reduce the likelihood of accidents or injuries because they may encourage more aggressive driving.”  The feeling back then was that drivers adapt to the new technology giving up some responsibility for safety “by becoming less vigilant.”

By 2012 technology and safety features and enhancements other than air bags and anti-lock braking systems became more common as they migrated to more cars from the luxury brands.  Some of these were vehicle crumple zones, stricter seat belt enforcement, side-impact protection, traction control, and better conceived speed limits.  According to another source, these were “all designed to save lives and make driving a less risky activity. However, despite all these safety measures, road accidents and fatalities have remained constant over the last few decades.”

Traditionally, safety innovations begin at the luxury level and work their way down, but today some of the autonomous vehicle research also contributes to the new technology.  Today we are beginning to see more backup cameras, collision mitigation systems, lane departure warning systems, blind-spot monitors, and drowsiness detection monitors.  Guess what!  A July article from Carfax cites their in-house study finding “that some drivers, especially younger drivers, may come to over rely on car technology safety features rather than basic safe driving habits.”

And just a few weeks later in an article principally about self-driving cars the Seattle Times confirms, “Driver-assist technology that keeps cars in their lanes, maintains a safe distance from other vehicles, warns of unseen traffic and slams the brakes to avoid rear-end crashes are rapidly spreading from luxury cars…But these automated aids aimed at improving safety are having an unintended consequence: They’re degrading driving skills.”  Drivers become lax through over-reliance on newer and newer technology.  Through interviews they confirmed that most drivers agreed that people tend to quickly become so comfortable with the technology that they would pay more attention to it than relying on their own driving skills; for example, listening for the warning chime instead of looking over their shoulder to check the blind spot.  But, of course as in most interviews, it’s always the other guy.

Driving is dangerous.  Better cars and better roads can’t totally change that.  This adaptation behind the wheel is as irresponsible as the grade-schoolers hanging upside-down by one leg, except if they slip they only hurt themselves, not their passengers or others on the road.

It’s also interesting to suppose where else this tendency to over-rely on technology may be leading, places where it's not so obvious because the consequences are subtler, hidden or delayed.

Sound Familiar?

It’s interesting how a little critical thinking can anticipate events.  Here is a list of just a few recent news items that looked so familiar in light of my entries on this site over the last six years.

Driverless vehicles:  Almost 4 years ago I asked the question, “What could lie ahead in the case of self-driving cars?”  I suggested driverless 18-wheelers moving freight from warehouses to stores, trash trucks with automatic lifts to both collect and drive the route, a robot to deliver mail from an autonomous vehicle sorting and filling the boxes, taxis with a touchpad to enter destination but no driver and even safer school buses with CCTV to take attendance and keep an eye on the children.

Today we have heard much about testing driverless trucks.  This Guardian article tells us the UK government has approved trials of convoys of semi-automated trucks on their highways.  “Up to three wirelessly connected HGVs will travel in convoy, with acceleration, braking and steering controlled by the lead vehicle, a concept named platooning.”

At the same time that Uber is testing self-driving taxis, in Ann Arbor, MI “Domino’s and Ford are teaming up to see if customers will warm to the idea of pizza delivered by driverless cars.”  It’s all coming true and probably faster than expected.

On another subject:  Many Americans look to our neighbors to the north to set the example for medical care, but recently Manitoba, “the only remaining Canadian province that covers a portion of chiropractic care” has reduced the per visit insurance by about 30 percent and it covers only the manipulation.  This according to Dynamic Chiropractic.

Only a few weeks ago I warned about the dangers and possibilities of fraud concerning chiropractic services.  Apparently most Canadian provinces address these issues by refusing to pay for any of it, letting citizens pay their money and take their chances.

Low-fat diets:  A new analysis presented at the European Society of Cardiology spanning more than a decade and considering 135,000 adult subjects from five continents reveals flaws in government dietary guidelines around the world.  “The ongoing Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) project has found both saturated and unsaturated fat intake linked to better heart health, that a high-carb diet is a better predictor of health risks than fat consumption, and that the health benefits of fruit, vegetables, and legumes like beans and chickpeas may plateau at three to four servings per day.

  

The dispute about the dangers of eating fat has been going on for almost 60 years.  Unfortunately, the political side crowded out the science.  As I put it earlier this year, "With virtually no evidence that eating less fat had any health benefits, [the authorities] assumed that 'if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same.'  But the research and the experience over many years could not confirm this conclusion."

On the subject of homeopathy:  Recently, a couple of negative articles arrived at my desk on this subject.  One listed almost fifty warning letters sent by the FDA to makers of homeopathic products over the last 10 years.  “Nearly all ordered the seller to stop claiming that products could effectively treat specific diseases or conditions. Some ordered the seller to stop claiming that products were vaccine equivalents. A few involved the failure to use good manufacturing practices.”

The second revealed that the Russian Academy of Sciences “has become the latest body to declare homeopathy has ‘no scientific basis’ and endangers people who believe it to be effective.”  I came to pretty much the same conclusion two and a half years ago in “Homeopathy – Does It Really Work?”

I’m sure there are at least several more, but these are the ones that stood out in my mind or happened to catch my attention.  Seeing some of the trends before they become broadly accepted requires only that one pay attention and try to stay strong in the five key dimensions.

Self-driving Cars

You can hardly turn around these days without hearing or seeing news about self-driving cars.  NPR interviews a Google engineer.  CBS does a segment with a Honda engineer.  Science shows on TV bring updates from the US and Europe demonstrating the latest features.  This article, for example, tells about work between Ford and MIT to give cars “intuition,” the ability to detect not-yet-visible dangers.  This all seems wonderful, but critical thinking and economic understanding often lead to discovery of unintended consequences.  What could lie ahead in the case of self-driving cars?

There are several steps in development.  We already have backup cameras and collision-warning/braking devices on some higher-end cars.  Even today “current vehicles can self-park, self-drive in slow-moving traffic and redirect drivers around heavy traffic. The second step will see vehicles communicate with one another, allowing them to wirelessly link up and travel together to ease congestion.  The third and final step, according to Ford, will be fully autonomous vehicles.”  The ultimate goal is the elimination of all traffic accidents, saving over 30,000 lives a year.

Imagine all the cars moving down the road at the same speed, evenly spaced, in a smooth flow, anticipating each other’s movements while the passengers relax and read, text or sleep.  It will be like having a personal chauffeur or riding on a small train.  It sounds like a dream.  Children born 50 years from now will wonder why we ever wanted to spend all that stressful time behind the wheel.

Now think more broadly.  If they can do that with cars, what about trucks and busses – and what about all the jobs that go with them?  Will future Americans just hop into taxis with no driver and enter their ID and destination on a touchscreen?  Will that smooth flow on the highways also include driverless 18-wheelers moving freight from warehouses to stores?  Will trash trucks, which have already replaced some workers with a hydraulic lift, soon replace the driver too?  Could someone design a robot to deliver mail from an autonomous vehicle?  Wouldn’t school buses be safer being driven by the computer than by a human, school buses with closed circuit cameras and other systems so that the kids dare not stir out of their seats?  Will all these jobs, including those of traffic cop, highway patrol and parking monitors, go the way of the elevator operator?  What happens to the insurance agents, processors, and investigators, and lawyers whose jobs depend on road mishaps?

It’s a short step from this seemingly innocent and very promising technology to a scary science fiction scenario; and with the prospect of saving 30,000 lives a year, there is really no stopping it.