Driverless cars

On February 11, 2015 the UK committed to development of driverless car technology in a big way. Outside of the O2 stadium in London, 4 driverless-car prototypes were unveiled which will actually be milling around on public streets. For its part, the Department for Transport committed $29M (US) to the development of 4 centers to accommodate the R&D. British Business Secretary Vince Cable estimated that the driverless car industry will be worth $1.4 Trillion (US) by 2025. Based on their financial commitment, the British government is interested in carving out their share of the mother-load.

On this side of the puddle (it had been a pond, but the world keeps getting smaller), we are seeing that players such as Chevrolet and Mercedes-Benz are jumping into the driverless-technology fray. No great stretch as some cars here have already been parking themselves. For its part, Google jumped in with both feet about 3 years back and started developing a driverless system called Google Chauffeur. Likely part of their ongoing commitment to incrementally take over the world.

In other news, while cruising through the career sections of various auto manufacturer’s websites recently my eye was caught by a position Ford Motor Company is trying to fill. The positions title? Infotainment System Engineer.

So, my prognosis is as follows: Twenty years from now, your basic young/urban professional awakens to an egg frying itself on the range and toast already on the plate, lightly buttered. After downing his automated repast and chasing it down with his equally automated frappalatté-da (the machine did get his name right!), he springs out the door with his cellular phone/PDA/tablet in hand and jumps into his electric driverless-car. Although it is already late November, the car is warm. Having sensed the owner had finished his breakfast, it turned on its heater 45 minutes earlier. After a brief series of voice-recognition commands, the car boots-up and unplugs itself from it modular charging dock. Putting his heated cup into its powered receptacle and docking his cellular PDA/tablet thingy into an i-Pod’ish slot on the carnival-ride restraint bar in front of him, he proceeds to watch the morning news and crunches his PowerPoint slides while the car quietly and efficiently takes him to work.

The plus side? The traffic segment on the news is gone… The once obligatory attractive traffic-girl has segued into recording on-demand integration-app reviews and can be watched on an auxiliary screen on the dash. The apps may be downloaded real-time via the cars’ built-in 40G data-connection with the purchase costs being automatically appended to the car-lease.

I am conflicted.

Based on some of the driving behaviors I’ve seen recently, I’d swear some cars were already driverless. The operators were still behind the wheel though, but so enraptured in their smart-phone that they were oblivious to the traffic around them.  And so it appears that there is indeed safety to be had, deaths to avert and additional “productivity” to be gained by this automotive technological onslaught.

So is it irony or insanity that allows us to say “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” and develop even more technology to avert the looming disaster that developing technology has caused us in the first place? Have to keep that ball rolling I guess.

                                                                                                                                                               © 2015 D.W. Williams

Bony Monroney

No, not misspelled, although I can hear those of you who are familiar with post doo-wop oldies start to hum in the background as I type. Ok, let’s back up. Ever wonder where the now ubiquitous new-car window stickers came from? Was it always called just a window sticker? Just why do we need all that information anyway?

Well, hold on for the ride as we venture into government oversight 101. It may get a little bumpy.

Like many (if not all) pieces of federal legislation it started because folks with financial interest lobbied for a change. Way back in 1955 the senate’s Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee was tasked to examine automobile manufacturer’s pricing practices. It seems that various dealerships were grieved and vocal about manufacturer’s lack of pricing disclosure, and alleged that manufacturers were being abusive with their franchising policies, giving preferential treatment to some dealerships and forcing others into red-ink. And so the Interstate and Foreign Commerce committee underwent political mitosis and formed another in its likeness, the Automobile Marketing Practices subcommittee.

Like most issues that fall under federal scrutiny the resulting legislation may not have been what was originally sought. While dealerships did get their day in court, literally and figuratively, they also got the camera turned on them. Typically in Washington, once allegations start getting slung around everyone is invited to the food-fight.

On the retail end of marketing, it had become common practice that more inscrutable dealerships would fudge sale prices up by including varieties of erroneous charges. These artificial costs allowed these dealerships to appear to either mark the sale down or offer more for your trade-in, both of which can look very attractive to a retail customer. Dealerships that were forthright and worked off of actual margin couldn't compete.

Ironic, as the actual final cost would be about the same either way.

As a result of these concerns being tabled, motioned and seconded, a subcommittee senator from Oklahoma named Almer Monroney drafted and sponsored a new bill in 1958. The bill required that auto manufacturers attach a price-sticker to their product which included suggested retail pricing and the itemized cost of options and transportation. This would, it was believed, level the playing field for consumers so that they could really see what their money bought and dealerships couldn't hide behind artificial trade values. A two-bird, one-stone solution. Monroney’s bill passed, and in January of 1959 the American public started seeing the now infamous window sticker, originally known as the Monroney sticker in honor of its founding father.

Legislation can only address what it can foresee, and eventually OE’s and dealers did the financial shell-game and started working around these restrictions with varying tiered dealer-refunds, which we now call holdback. The net outcome is that once again nothing to do with pricing is as it appears, so with most domestic cars if you get fabulous “at invoice" retail pricing, you can rest assured that there are still several hundred, if not several thousand dollars left on the table.

So the Monroney sticker eventually evolved and assumed different, yet equally irrelevant disclosures such as average fuel economy and estimated annual operating cost. And that my friend is the condensed version of Almer Monroney and his ever-present window sticker.

© 2014 D.W. Williams