Regulation vs. Sense of Life

The thrust of John Stossel's recent piece on driverless cars was to marvel at the relative restraint Californian regulators showed after problems surfaced with the GM Cruise.

I share his relief, especially after reading the following:

Image by Dllu, via Wikimedia Commons, license.

[M]ost people who try them like them.

"It's one of the few things you can do today that makes you feel like people must have felt 100 years ago," says [former Argo AI executive Alex] Roy. "First time they saw a light bulb, first time they saw a plane."

Fully driverless cars are here, and they're a very good thing. [bold added]

Stossel is correct to note that this new technology is life-saving and that regulation is its main threat.

But, despite his clearly good intent, I think Stossel understates both the threat and the benefits, as good as lives spared from accidental deaths may be.

Overregulation? This marvelous new technology exists as the mercy of the reasonability government officials. This would not be a problem in a world where independent agencies like the Consumers Union competed to provide us with the information we need to strike the best balance between innovation and safety.

And as for the spiritual lift Roy describes, it is arguably an even greater crime that our nation's sense-of-life is in danger of being slowly snuffed out by such a circumstance. I have no doubt that a vicious cycle of cultural risk-averseness and omnipresent regulation is a major part of why it is now so rare to enjoy the thrill of a new technology.

Americans need to see the evidence of -- and experience the feeling of -- human efficacy that new technology affords much more often than we have in recent times.

-- CAV