‘Driverless’ cars: a law unto themselves?

Self-driving cars may be on their way in, but do we really want to call them ‘autonomous’?

Keith Srakocic/AP
U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, gets into a self-driven car in Cranberry, Pa., Butler County,

I’ve been taking the buzz about “driverless cars” more seriously since I started noticing articles on how they will save people money on their car insurance.

I would have thought the issue would be insurers refusing to write any policies at all for these vehicles. But look at this, from MarketWatch: “Three insurance suppliers and an auto parts maker have warned in their most recent annual reports that driverless cars and the technology behind them could one day disrupt the way they do business.”

Forget the nightmare scenarios about bots hijacking your vehicle with you in it, or hackers jump-starting your car to crash it into the Lexus parked nearby. 

As these insurers see it, with fewer human mistakes made on the road, insurers will have to reduce their premiums. And fewer collisions will have an impact – I couldn’t resist – on the market for replacement auto parts.

Excuse me while I reach for a handkerchief.

Actually, what I’m interested in here is figuring out what’s the best word for these things. We could have called them automobiles. But that word is already taken.

A 19th-century coinage, it welded together a Greek word meaning “self” and a Latin word meaning, well, “mobile,” able to move. Automobile expressed the idea of something moving under its own power. It was initially used (the Oxford English Dictionary has an example from 1876) to refer to trams and other rail vehicles that had their own engine and didn’t need a locomotive.

By 1895, though, automobile meant essentially what it does today – a road vehicle with its own engine, typically of the internal combustion type, and room for a driver and several passengers.

It was a time of change in the field of transport. The OED cites this from H.G. Wells’s autobiography: “The bicycle was the swiftest thing upon the roads in those days, there were as yet no automobiles.”

Automobile lives on in formal contexts, but, as the OED forthrightly notes, car is now “the usual word in informal and spoken English.”

The auto, or “self,” aspect of the first automobiles referred to their engines. In the case of the self-driving car, “self” refers to steering – by the car itself.

“Self-driving car” is Google’s term for its big project, now being beta-tested in a number of states. “Driverless car” is also widely used, but I can see why the company chooses to refer to these things in terms of who is in control rather than of what’s missing.

The generic term that seems to be used in the technical journals is autonomous car, but that sounds rather ominous, and not just because of the near-rhyme. At the back end of autonomy is a Greek word meaning essentially “law.” To have autonomy is to be a law unto oneself, quite literally. Is that something people want for their cars – or themselves? After all, don’t people drive to be in the driver’s seat?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.