Will robot drivers tailgate, too?

I would like to offer a few predictions based on my observations of traffic and information I read in a Washington Post article by Ashley Halsey III that was reprinted in the Columbus Dispatch.

The article describes advances in automotive technology - Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication - that will allow motor vehicles to communicate with each other by radio to help avoid collisions and traffic congestion.  The article described how pile-ups might be avoided by automatically applying the brakes on a vehicle if a vehicle several car lengths ahead had to stop abruptly.  The article also described how V2V systems might suggest alternative routes if a driver were to come upon a congested area.

I predict that the unintended consequences of this technology will be that we will realize that most drivers need to be retrained.  I also predict that many drivers will report V2V systems as malfunctioning when they work as intended.  Either that, or V2V systems will have to be configured to inform drivers in a diplomatic manner that they are not driving safely.

The illustration that accompanied Halsey's article showed an example of the driver of one vehicle being notified that the vehicle behind was following too closely.  This made me wonder if the driver of the vehicle in the rear would be notified that he or she was following too closely.  If so, would the V2V system override the driver's operation and decelerate or brake?

My experience while driving in traffic has convinced me that I am the only driver on the road who understands the concept of an assured clear distance.  If V2V systems are programmed to alert drivers that they are following another vehicle too closely, or to automatically slow the vehicle down so as to create a clear and safe distance, vehicle owners will report the systems as malfunctioning.  They will not believe that they are following too closely, and will not understand why they are receiving such alerts or why their vehicles are slowing down when they do not want them to do so.

Discrepancy in the understanding of a clear and safe distance is probably one issue that will cause drivers to believe that V2V systems are malfunctioning when they are not.  There are bound to be other issues.  These issues will greatly add to the cost of V2V systems and greatly reduce their efficiency and effectiveness.  It will probably take another two generations before V2V systems can bring about any real reductions in collisions or fuel savings.  By that time, drivers will have learned to drive with V2V systems in their cars.  They may even have a better idea of what a clear and safe distance is than present drivers do.

Everyone complains about religion, but Jesus did something about it.

The Crucifixion and the Resurrection are - and should be - central to the Christian faith, but Jesus chasing the money changers from the Temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 21:12-13) should be central to spreading that faith. That act addresses the contempt that many people have for religion.

Jesus was a revolutionary, but not the revolutionary that people expected Him to be. When He entered Jerusalem, people expected Him to lead a revolution against the Roman conquerors. Instead, one of the first things that He did was to rebel against His religion.

By chasing the money changers from the temple, Jesus acknowledged that religion was a racket. He signaled that a person should not have to have money to be saved. Jesus sent a message to those who most need to hear it that we should not have to pay to worship. God does not demand a price for His love.

Christianity has a bad reputation because church leaders through the centuries have used Christianity as a racket. Fortunately, we have the scriptures to tell us what Jesus really preached, if only we read them for ourselves. The Gospels provide many other examples of Jesus challenging the assumptions of the pious.

Zachary Louis Johnson, 1963 - 2012

My old friend, Zachary Louis Johnson, died from pancreatic cancer March 22, 2012. His wife told us that he did not want a funeral. This did not surprise me. When I asked him about ten years ago why he would not attend the funeral of Ricky Davis, he told me that he and Ricky did not like funerals.
Since Zach did not want a funeral, he probably did not want an obituary. I will not reveal details of his life, just some of my own memories of him.

Zach and I were business partners in Stevens & Johnson Communication Services in the 1990s. We did business to business telemarketing. He was a natural at networking. He was genuinely interested in people. We always say that a person had a great sense of humor after they have passed, but this guy really knew how to make people laugh. He was a jokester and a prankster.

I remember a Saturday in the mid 1990s when I was severely depressed. I was talking to Zach on the telephone, and he said something that made me laugh. I wish I could remember what it was. I started to laugh, and made myself keep laughing, and laugh hard. Zach was probably thinking, “C’mon, it wasn’t that funny!” Maybe not, but by making myself continue to laugh at Zach’s comment, I was able to start finding my way out of my depression. Nothing happened overnight, but Zach gave me the kick start that I needed. I wish only that I could have returned this gift of the healing power of laughter when Zach got his cancer. I did not learn of his problem until a couple of weeks ago.

We will miss him.

Am I Liberal or Conservative?

The recent controversy over funding of contraception has made me question whether I am liberal or conservative. I have always thought of myself as a liberal, though conservative on some issues. I have always believed that a person’s sexual behavior is his or her own business as long as it does not harm anyone else. The contraception controversy causes me to think that maybe I am more conservative than liberal. I believe that government should stay out of private business as much as possible. The government should get involved in private business only to the extent of protecting citizens who are incapable of protecting themselves.

The controversy over the funding of contraception is more evidence of a widespread sense of entitlement. Women may have the right to access to birth control, but that does not compel anyone to provide it for them. Not paying for something is not the same as denying someone’s rights. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees our right to say what we want, but that does not mean that the government or our employers are compelled to buy air time on radio or television so that we can say it.

Not only that, but health insurance provided by employers is a benefit, an incentive. Employers offer it because if they didn’t, they would be less competitive at attracting the employees that they need to run a business. If our government mandates what kind of coverage they have to provide, it seems to me that that employers will have more incentive to not provide health insurance. It is already getting to be expensive and complicated. If a religious organization or a private businessperson objects to paying for a morning-after pill on religious grounds, that is their business. They just need to make that clear during the recruiting process, so that anyone considering a job with them can make an informed decision.
If contraception should be between a woman and her doctor, then it should be between a woman and her doctor. It should be her responsibility. If a woman thinks that her employer should pay for her contraception, then it is up to her to negotiate that with her employer. If the employer refuses, the employer has not denied the woman her right to access to birth control. It just means that she needs to consider whether she wants to stay with that employer or find one who will hire her on terms that are more acceptable to her.

Sense of Entitlement

The protests about the decision of the Susan G. Komen forthe Cure Foundation to stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood is more evidence that many people in our society are plagued with a sense of entitlement.  The foundation is a private organization, and should be able to allocate their dollars as they see fit.  It is not the business of United States Senators to urge a private foundation how to spend their money.  It strikes me as particularly odd for a politician, namely New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, to say that “Politics have no place in health care.”

Mayor Bloomberg was probably referring to the politics of abortion, since the original reason that the Komen Foundation gave for stopping funding to Planned Parenthood was that Planned Parenthood is under investigation.  They are investigation because of allegations that they used federal funds for abortions.  The reason that I say that the protests over this decision point to a sense of entitlement is that if the Komen Foundation does not wish to fund an organization that provides abortions, that is their decision.  It is a private organization, answerable to its donors. 

It makes sense for the Komen Foundation to provide funds to an organization such as Planned Parenthood if Planned Parenthood provides screenings and information in such a way that it furthers the mission of the Komen Foundation.  At some point, though, the directors of the Komen Foundation must make a calculation.  If they receive feedback from donors that they do not want their dollars being used to help an organization that provides abortions, they must calculate whether they will lose donations if they continue to support Planned Parenthood.  Just because the Komen Foundation has provided funds to Planned Parenthood in the past does not mean that they are obligated to continue doing so.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a right to an abortion, but that does not mean that anyone is obligated to finance that abortion.  I have a right under the First Amendment to self- expression.  That does not mean that the Columbus Dispatch is obligated to publish my letter to the editor.  I may have a right to become a Rastafarian, but that does not mean that the government or anyone else is obligated to purchase ganja for me to practice that religion.  My son has the right to own a firearm under the Second Amendment, but that does not mean that I deny him that right if I decide not to give him a rifle on his eighteenth birthday.

How the Komen Foundation distributes funds is not public business.  Therefore, members of the United States Senate have no business writing letters to a private foundation about that foundation’s decisions on how to allocate funds.  Our senators need to pay attention to the nation’s business.

Please Do Not Tailgate

We have had snow and sleet fall here in Columbus, Ohio recently. Such weather usually brings about comments from people I know about road conditions and how bad people drive here in Central Ohio. One comment I remember from last winter still gnaws at me. A Facebook friend asked other drivers not to stop too fast when the roads are slippery. If you think the drivers in front of you are stopping to fast, you are following too close.

I have mostly overcome my road rage, but I still have an issue with tailgaters. I overcame my road rage by assuming that I am invisible whenever I get behind the wheel of a car. This technique is not always effective when dealing with tailgaters. I pull over and let tailgaters pass whenever I can, but sometimes it would be dangerous to pull over to the side of the road. I have the impression that many drivers do not understand what a clear and safe distance is. They seem to think that they are supposed to follow as closely as possible to the vehicle in front of them. They do not seem to understand that they would not be able to stop in time if the car in front of them were to stop suddenly.

Snow and ice make maintaining a clear and safe distance between your vehicle and the vehicle in front of you even more important. A good way to avoid tailgating is to observe the three second rule. Maintaining a clear and safe distance is much easier to do if you are not texting or talking on the phone while driving. Please do not tailgate.

Racism and Bigotry

A Facebook friend commented on my last blog post. She argued that we are not born racists, but are taught racism. She asked if we do not continue to teach or children to be racists, can we finally be free of racism. I see her point, but I have the impression that we are born racists. I believe that early humans had to be leery of people who looked different than they did. This is a survival mechanism. 100,000 years ago, if you saw someone who looked radically different than you did, it would be a signal that you have new competitors for resources.

There is a difference, though, between racism and bigotry. An educated and open minded person can quickly overcome the shock of seeing another person who looks and sounds different than anyone else they ever met. A person can be racist and still have love for his or her fellow human beings. Many abolitionists believed that Africans were intellectually inferior, but believed that slavery was not justified under any circumstances. Bigotry is different. A bigot has malice in his or her heart for those who are different. Bigotry is learned. I do not believe that we are born bigots, but learn it from our parents, teachers and friends at school. We do need to be careful about what we say around our children about other races, religions and lifestyles. The best way to teach our children not to be bigots is to remember to “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” (Matthew, 7:1) and “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:5)