Regulatory Theater

If you have bought a recent model automobile, you have undoubtedly noticed that you do not have the option of steering the car without some "help" from robot-assisted lane tracking.  There is no setting that allows you to steer your car without at least some tugging on the steering wheel by the robot.

The reason for the ubiquity of the technology is a mandate by regulators in the EU, which effectively mandates it for the rest of the world.  Listen to find out why they did it.

Transcript

Regulatory Theater

 Good day to you, and welcome to Fascinating!  I am your host, Rik, from Planet Vulcan.  My ongoing mission on Planet Earth is to spread seeds of a way of thinking, a way of thinking based on a deep understanding of natural processes.  

 As the sophistication of the average Earthling’s thought processes increases based on the sort of contemplation of nature we are recommending, we believe you will gradually abandon the ineffective, and often counterproductive, programs so many of you now believe to be good ideas.  As these intelligent design proclivities you have inherited from feudal times wane, your societies will improve and will take you in the direction of more prosperous and satisfying lives.

 Senior contributing editor Prego de Nada has a gripe and he wants to vent; and not just to vent, but to use the thing that has provoked the gripe to illustrate a larger point about the ineffective, and often counterproductive, nature of so many attempts at intelligent design.

 Prego writes:

 I bought a newer car recently, and one of the things I really like about it is adaptive cruise control.  Adaptive cruise control uses radar to sense the presence of a vehicle that is ahead of you, and if you are going faster than that vehicle, it will slow you down and then maintain a safe distance between you and it.  A very useful feature.

 But it didn’t take long to discover that there is another feature which accompanies the adaptive cruise control, and they call it robot-assisted lane tracking, or lane tracking assistance (LTA).  There are several levels of “assistance”, the strongest of which is lane centering.  With lane centering the car is almost on autopilot, although you still have to keep your hands on the wheel. Automated lane centering can be a useful option in some circumstances.

 There is a downside to the way this technology has been implemented, however, and the downside is that you have a robot tugging on your steering wheel even when you don’t want it to and even when it is demonstrably unsafe.  I asked my dealer about the option of turning it off, and they showed me a toggle switch which they told me does so.  

 But turning the switch off doesn’t actually turn the robot all the way off.  As long as the cruise control is on, the robot still tugs at the steering wheel when it senses that you are moving towards one side of the lane or another, and it tugs quite aggressively if you actually cross the paint without first activating your turn signal, and you have to wrestle with the steering wheel to reassert your own control and get your vehicle back onto a safe heading.

 This is supposed to be a safety feature, but is it really?  I for one would like to have the option of disabling it, because even though it might on rare occasions prevent accidents, like if you were to fall asleep at the wheel, it continually compromises your ability to steer the car manually.

 And even if you turn off the cruise control completely, it still doesn’t turn off the robot completely – it just doesn’t tug as aggressively as it does when the cruise control is on.  There is no option available that returns complete steering control to the driver.

 I find it maddening to have to compensate for the robot’s incessant and almost always unnecessary, and often unsafe, intervention.  

 So I looked into the reason why there is no option of turning it off and taking control of the car’s operation.

 And surprise, surprise – the reason why my car works the way it does is because of government regulations which mandate the technology, and not because the manufacturers themselves decided it was a good idea.

 And here we have a teachable moment, because the regulators, as regulators always seem to do, have used a tunnel-vision, problem-solving approach rather than a more intelligent and effective tradeoff approach.  They have defended their regulations because they have statistics which have led them to conclude that injuries and fatalities would be reduced by a technology that prevents unintended lane departures, such as drifting into an adjacent lane or running off the road.

 Let’s say for purposes of discussion that the expected benefits actually materialize and that there are no downsides.  How much of a benefit would it be?

 It turns out that lane departure accidents are a relatively minor contributor to overall accident statistics.  The best-case scenario is that injuries and fatalities would be reduced by 0.2% - 0.4% overall if the mandated technology is installed and is actually used by drivers.

 And we haven’t yet mentioned the negative effects, such as the effect of the distractions, and the effect of the over-reliance on the technology by some drivers, who tend to become more complacent and nonchalant when they believe they are protected, and then pay less attention to what is happening around them.

 And what about the annoyance drivers have to endure over and over again from the numerous false positives produced by the technology?  Regulators gave no weight at all to this consideration.

 And what about roads where the lane markings are unclear or ambiguous, or where they differ between jurisdictions, to a point where they don’t just defeat the technology’s intent, but actually give it more than it can handle?  

 What about bad weather, heavy rains, or water and slush thrown up by the tires of other vehicles, or snow on the road?

 And what about the additional costs of production and the consequent increase in car prices?

 And what about the frustration we feel when we would like to get our hands on the necks of the people who have done this to us, but cannot pin down the accountability?

 There ain’t much to add after all the subtractin’ is done.  But the regulators in the EU who bestowed this “benefit” on all of us (manufacturers do not produce different cars for the rest of the world) didn’t bother with any of the subtractin’, and now for the moment at least we are all stuck with it, even though the overall effects of the regulation are quite likely a net negative. 

 This is just one more example of regulatory theater, parading the intentions of the do-gooders rather than the likely results. The price of the ticket to this performance is too high.

 Thanks to Prego for this essay.

 I invite you to have a listen to the next Fascinating! podcast and a look at the next video on our YouTube channel.  You can find access to all podcasts and videos on our web page, fascinatingpodcast.com.

 Please recommend Fascinating! to your friends if you find the lessons from nature in these essays personally valuable.

 I would also like to announce the imminent publication of a book based on the central theme of the podcast, which is emergent order, soon to be available on Amazon.  The title is “Cultivating the Sociome:  Governance Without Governors”, authored by friend of the podcast Eric Moon.

 Theme music:  Helium, with thanks to TrackTribe.

 Live long and prosper.

 Practice the art of winning without defeating anyone.

 Savor your experiences.

 Treasure your memories.

 Anticipate a happy and rewarding future.

 And respect nature’s wisdom.