Furious (letter to i newspaper Dec 2015)

Tyson Fury may be a boxer and not a spokesman for The National Trust (Simon Kelner) but he is a world champion and, therefore, an influence in that particular way sports personalities often are with the young. With the Chief Inspector of Schools in England looking into what has been described as dangerous homophobic and misogynistic views being taught to some children, surely it's time Tyson Fury was silenced by the media. Sports achiever of the year, definately. Personality of any year, no way. 

Parental Control

I plunged my forefinger onto the page in an exaggerated gesture, as if to mark the spot where my reading had reached. The noise and the jolt to the book were enough to make her stop in mid sentence and stare straight at me. My old dad did same thing if my mum interrupted him when he was reading. I always imagined that in his Hornblower novels my dad was lost somewhere in the South Seas, invoking the admiration of his crew while battling storms and slovenly Spaniards. He'd have been the hero of his men, a father to them all, firmly guiding and saving them from themselves: those fighting dullards never knowing quite what to do for the best. And when he was bought back to reality by my mum's conversation, his disapproval showed.

And there I was, many years later, lost in my book when my wife interrupted. “I'd do anything for my kids”, she said, starting again after my little display of engrossed reader frustration.  I sat still for a moment, trying to make sense of what she was saying.

“You know”, I said, finally. “You're going to have to stop watching Strictly Come Dancing if it makes you like this”.

“Oh, don't talk rubbish”, she said. “It's got nothing to do with Strictly, it's those refugee mothers, risking all to give their children a chance of life, a future”.

“And endangering their lives in the process”, I said.

“They're doing what they think is best, even if it may kill them”, she said. “Having to put your child's life at risk in order to save it is the worst nightmare any parent can have. They must be suffering unimaginable emotional pain making decisions like that”.

“You didn't sound like that when Seddon junior got nicked by the police for theft”, I reminded her, “You wanted to strangle him”.

“No I didn't, I was just saying that. Anyway, he got in with the wrong crowd; he was always easily lead”.

“Easily lead”? I said. “At his expulsion ceremony, attended by you and me, the headmaster described him as the leader of the infamous year eleven shop lifting and school burglary squad”.

“Well, he's done very well for himself now. You said it yourself, getting expelled was a real shock for him, he pulled his socks up straight away”. Her youngest was not to be knocked.

But he's my son as well and I remember taking a slightly less forgiving, more robust position regarding his 'education'. What his mother doesn't know is that, soon after, and as soon as I was alone with him, I pinned him to a wall by the throat and instructed him on his future behaviour. I had judged it well and he was near to tears as I informed him that I would kick his backside to oblivion if he ever upset his mother in that way again. Looking back it's me that is close to tears thinking about it; as I say, he's my son as well. Something, though, had to be done, for him, for the best.

Anyway, back to my book. I was reading Robot Visions, Isaac Asimov's collection of robot stories, in which he reiterates the three robot laws: laws that govern the interaction between humans and robots. Basically, Rule 1 says that a robot cannot harm a human, or allow a human to be harmed. Rule 2, a robot must obey an order given by a human, unless it causes conflict with Rule 1. Rule 3 states that a robot must protect itself unless in doing so there is conflict with Rules 1 or 2.

Asimov's robots are invariably humanoid - androids designed to replace humans in some jobs but always intended to exceed human ability and so enhance our existence. In many ways I can see why that's the most popular vision of them and if robots were built to simply replace people, then what other form would they take. In reality, though, the most practical shape for a robot is one that best fits the job its intended for. Why have a robot that builds cars, for example, with hands to grip tools, when the arms themselves could incorporate the tools. Why have a car driven by a robot when a robot car can be built without space wasted on a driver.

These are the robots of our future. Machines formed to perform specific tasks. And as they become more sophisticated, more autonomous, laws that govern behaviour will become increasingly important. Even now we have systems in vehicles that take over the engine management and brakes to compensate for our driving mistakes. With the future bringing even greater control and much of the development and design for these automations done by machines themselves, a totally new set of ethics will evolve. Ethics administered not by people but by machines. Political correctness, the antithesis of our flawed idea of common sense, will be equaled by robotical correctness, as these computerised mechanisms  grapple with the enormity of what they're being asked to do - to look after us in the complexity that is our everyday lives. So, as we head towards full automation, it's not hard to predict the type of programming robotic trucks might have in order to save us from ourselves.

Why can't we chisel off just one more car in the inside lane before the exit slip? Because the automaton we're riding in thinks it's:

1. Not completely safe
2. Not fuel efficient, so unsound for the (human) environment 
3. Potentially damaging for the machine itself

Why can't we pull into the next fast food outlet? Because the robot vehicle thinks it's:

1. Not safe for our long term health (it would be the second visit this week)
2. The machine has already registered an unhealthy increase in our seat weight
3. They don't do discount points for any of our cards

Why can't we set off, now?

1. We haven't fastened our seat restraint
2. We haven't tidied the bunk of items that might fall and injure us
3. We haven't cleaned our teeth

All this in the new world of full automation, where robots replace, and on which we become totally dependent. With the control of industry, activity and life comes the responsibility for safety, well-being and environment. Our new home is an ordered one, where our parents are mechanisms and their hand logical and firm. And always in the best interest of us, their children.

70 in a 30

I had just sat down when he approached, fast, weaving between tables and chairs set out on the pavement outside the cafe. The last thing I hoped he'd do was stop but then he just crashed in front of me, right there, in the chair opposite. I even had my newspaper positioned on the table next to my latte, both waiting to be enjoyed, in peace. Sitting there is normally such a pleasure, occasionally glancing around at the tables to either side, their occupants doing their own thing, all of us at the same pace, all in our own space. Now all that was shattered.

I couldn't help myself but look up, the shock to the chair he had chosen to drop into was such that it seemed to shake the very paving slabs it rested on. And my glance was enough, our eyes met and he spoke, as if invited to do so by that most fleeting of contacts. The journey through my newspaper was now delayed. I took a last look at it, longingly, as if by doing so would somehow allow me to simply keep going. But his impact was too great for that and the influence of his presence too strong, and when he spoke it was obvious I was to be held up.

“Now that's a proper bike”, he said, looking at my Triumph Bonneville parked nearby. I nodded in recognition. He was right, it is a great motorcycle, not one of the old ones but a new model.

“Never really been into bikes”, he went on. “Cars, that's me. And speed, I love it. Acceleration, it's the thrill of acceleration I love. Always have. I've had loads of cars. Jags, sports cars, Mercs. I love Mercs, got one now.

“It's over there, my Merc. I had a bike once, only one I had. I was hammering along, had me mate on the back and some bloke pulled out in front of us. I locked up and ended up in a ditch, my mate went over the top and was thrown only knows how far. We weren't that bad, considering. But that was ages ago. I'm seventy, you know; and I've had a few motors, I can tell you.

“My young niece sometimes takes me out in her car. I recon my reactions are better than hers, as good as when I was thirty. She's terrible. She crawls along. She's got one of those electric things that uses its engine only when there's not enough left in the batteries. Useless, wouldn't go near one. My mate said he had the car for me, a three litre diesel, does a hundred and thirty. Wouldn't touch it; petrol, that's the only one for me, don't care about the cost, don't care what it does to the gallon.

“Only had one serious crash in all the years I've been driving – went into the back of a lorry and had to be cut out. That was years ago. You've got to have your wits about you these days. I had some bloke in front of me last year not pull away at some lights. Made me hit him from behind, did the front grill in. Not cheap on a Merc, I can tell you. It's like in those supermarket car parks, twice I've been hit. Once it was by someone pulling out of a space right in front of me, the other by a car speeding along as I was leaving a parking space. They don't look”.

And with that he spotted someone approaching. They hooked up together and left soon after, with only the briefest of nods in my direction. People were getting up from the tables around me, folding their newspapers in preparation to leave. In no time, the cafe emptied and the pavement flowed.

My Robot

It's no surprise that they've tested an autonomous truck on public roads in Nevada, USA - a machine that drives itself, actually on the road - we've been expecting it for ages. But now it's here you have to wonder where these automations will lead, and that's the thing: the road to full automaton is being laid, whether we like it or not. The question is, do we really want a world dominated by robotics, or is it just something being thrust upon us? From what I've seen there's denial from most quarters.

The American tests were reported in a recent magazine article that seemed almost apologetic when it referred to the driver relinquishing control of the truck. But this being an industry journal, so understandable it should attempt to reassure readers that a driver was still a key component. Publicly, manufacturers talk about the importance of the driver - while all the time edging us towards a driverless vehicle. And despite knowing that in terms of safety the driver really is the weakest part of the truck, we all appear to hang on to the notion that someone, a person, should be in control.

It is true that the benefits of automation are undeniable. Improved safety, efficiency and environmental improvements are all there, and not just the obvious ones. In years to come we could actually live in a world where our visual environment is not cluttered with enormous road signs or white paint markings and bollards. Roundabouts and junctions could change from bottlenecks of stagnation to those of continuous flow, as intelligent machines work together. But it's these road features that are themselves the signs of human control, like the steering wheel and brake pedal, and once they're gone the skills associated with them will also go, most probably lost forever.

So, are these automatons something we really want? The ready answer may be a resounding, no, but the truth is something different. Every change we make is geared to our perception of improvement. Smart phones, for example, are considered such an enhancement to life that we await the next upgrade with pretty hefty enthusiasm. But like all clever technology their ability to please and provide is partly based on collecting information about us, communicating with other machines and ultimately doing what they think best. After all, it's what we require of them. It's the same with vehicles: we demand ease and performance and the machine provides. Intelligent drive systems decide on appropriate gearing and power output; telematics assists productivity; GPS tells us where to drive; and safety systems help to keep us on the straight and narrow, and upright.

Few could wish to revert to trucks of the past in everyday work. Roping and sheeting, non-synchronized manual gearboxes, low power engines and stealing glances at a map book. Heavy clutch pedals, stopping at phone boxes, cold nights and waxed up diesel. No cruise control, noise, and a tinny radio. And oil and dirt. Our world has changed because of the advance of mechanisms both simple and complex. It's what we want and will continue to call for until full automation is ushered in and the machines take over completely. It's seen in all aspects of life: the gradual advance of intelligent, safe, fast, cheap and easy. Realistically, it'll probably be a few decades before we see a transport system with no drivers or even warehouse and transport office staff, but I hope when they do finally arrive these robots retain one aspect of human involvement: the desire to protect endangered species.

New Conservative?

Mark Steel seemed to ignore the most democratic option in his comments on the search for a new leader of the Labour Party (i newspaper. 12.6.2015).

In 1979 this country voted in the type of government it seems to have wanted ever since. Labour disappeared and a form of conservatism called New Labour took its place. This electable party of Thatcherites continued until the re emergence of Labour under Ed Milliband. Any new leader should seek what is, according to their beliefs, best for the country, as Miliband did, even if it consigns them to the opposition benches until the electorate changes its mind. It should be a matter of principle. The consiquences? That's democracy. 

Vacuous Celebrity - letter to i newspaper

Great to see, via Simon Kelner (i newspaper 29.5.2015) that the US has in Dan Bilzarian its own Russel Brand. The culture may be different over there but the popularity of vacuous, cheap celebrity with hollow aspiration is something we obviously share. Another reason, perhaps, to stay closer to Europe and the bliss that is language seperation.

What's New... Umm, on your favourite radio news programme

Newsroom presenter: "It's been announced by the Department for Transport that driverless cars could soon be seen on Britain's roads. Trials will, apparently, start at selected locations throughout the country in the near future. The vehicles will have radar and GPS, and systems that will help them navigate around other vehicles and avoid collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. The benefits, we are told, will be innumerable. Safety, the environment, they will all benefit. Could the panacea of a zero road casualty figure soon be a reality? No expensive road markings to clutter our surroundings, or unnecessary lighting to waste our precious energy resources. Fuel efficiency and reduced congestion are also claimed. Not forgetting that even more precious commodity in our increasingly busy lives: time. Does the thought of extra time to beaver away on whatever, while being driven to work by your car, appeal? Well, let's not waste any more time; our transport correspondent has the latest".

Transport Correspondent: "Yes, umm... It's been announced by the, umm... Department for Transport that driverless, umm... cars could soon be seen on Britain's, you know, umm... roads. Trials will, umm... you know, apparently, start at selected locations throughout the country in the, umm... near future. I mean, you know, umm... I mean, the vehicles will have, umm... radar and GPS, and, umm... systems that will help them, umm, I mean, umm... navigate around other vehicles, umm... and avoid collisions with pedestrians and, umm... cyclists. The benefits, umm... we are told, you know, will, I mean, umm... be innumerable. Safety, umm... the environment, they will, umm... all benefit. Could the, umm... panacea of a zero road casualty figure soon, you know, I mean, umm... be a reality? No expensive, umm... you know, road markings to clutter our, umm... surroundings, or unnecessary lighting, I mean, to waste our, umm... precious energy resources. Fuel, umm... efficiency and, umm... reduced congestion are also, you know, claimed. Not forgetting that even more, umm... precious commodity in our increasingly, umm... busy lives, umm... time. The thought of that extra time to, umm... beaver away on, you know, whatever, while being driven to, umm... work by your car, umm... I mean, none of us want to, umm... you know, waste time? Back to you in the studio".

The Need to Know (sent to Commercial Motor)

Great CM last week (16.4) not least because of the wonderful lead from Turner‘s, 'basic machine... because that‘s what small operators want‘, to your Chirchill Patriot.

But as much as I was pleased with Greame Turner‘s distinction between steering wheel attendants and drivers, I was less than impressed with the suggestion that those who say British automotive manufacturing is dead, ‘don't need to know'.

European major truck manufacture is a multi billion Euro business, a real chunk of which, should we have it, would certainly help diversify and bolster our economy. So, with the demand there and, according to you, the ability to build a British truck, why doesn't anyone?

The need to know is not just for the few, it is the right of us all, taxpayer, job hunter and pensioner alike. We are all dependent on the British economy. I'm pleased we build axles, but I'd rather a British company knocked out a few hundred trucks a month for the global market. I'm thrilled we invented the reversing alarm, but it would be better to own the factories that build the trucks they're fitted to.

So a CM article, please, for those of us who wish to know, why we don't have, in the current economic climate, any substantial British truck manufacturers.

truckingwrite@gmail.com

Just a Minute

Hello, and welcome to Just a Minute, the panel game where contestants are asked to speak on a given topic for just one minute without repetition, hesitation or deviation. In today's election special our panel consists of Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, SNP and UKIP. So, without further delay lets begin, and we'll start with you, Labour. A minute, please, then, Labour, on the subject of... economic recovery.

Buzz

And that's an interruption straight away from Conservative, even before Labour has had a chance to speak. Unusual to say the least. And the reason, Conservative?

Conservative: Deviation. Labour talking about economic recovery.

Ha, ha, ha. Very funny, Conservative, but that's your opinion and because of that not in the rules of the game. So, Labour, 60 seconds on economic recovery, beginning, again, now.

Labour: A Labour government  will make an economic recovery that is felt by all, not just the wealthy. We‘ll make the better off pay their fair share while the less fortunate contribute less...

Buzz

An interruption by UKIP, and the reason UKIP, please.

UKIP: Repetition of the word, less. '… less fortunate contribute less'.

Yes, a repetition indeed. So, UKIP, you have the remaining 44 seconds to talk about economic recovery, starting, now.

UKIP: As we have said on many occasions...

Buzz

That's an interruption by Conservative.

Conservative: Repetition. They admit it themselves, 'as we have said on many occasions...'

Ha, ha, but not a repetition within the minute allowed here and, therefore, again your interruption is not within the rules of the game. UKIP, please continue, you have 40 seconds on the subject of economic recovery.

UKIP: By restricting immigration we'll be able to safeguard services like the NHS...

Buzz

Yes, SNP, you interrupted on the subject of economic recovery. 

SNP: Deviation. Has UKIP been in hospital lately? The NHS wouldn't be able to operate without the immigrants that staff it.

A point taken, so I think we'll allow your interruption, SNP. You now have 35 seconds on economic recovery, beginning... now.

SNP: The SNP in Westminster will ensure continued recovery by not allowing England to break away from Scotland in any future referendum. Providing all services, free of charge, to the most deserving - and in some exceptional cases, to those outside Scotland – and by taxing the English... I mean, the rich, SNP will...

Buzz

Conservative, another interruption but this time a clear hesitation, I think, so Conservative you now have 20 seconds to tell us, please, all about the economic recovery.

Conservative: Economic recovery is all about a combination of creating the right environment for business to flourish and reducing debt, so we can spread wealth through full employment and have money to spend on services...

Buzz

Labour, you interrupted.

Labour: Yes, deviation. Full employment? Under a Tory government this has meant zero hours contracts. That, by definition, surely, is not 'full' employment.

Well, an interesting point..., which I think we'll allow on this occasion. Labour, you now have 10 seconds left on the subject of economic recovery...

Labour: We would do away with the zero hours contracts that have become the norm for many under this administration, not only are they damaging the...

Buzz

UKIP, an interruption from you. And tell us, if you would, please, why you interrupted Labour: is it, deviation, hesitation or repetition?

UKIP: Deviation. Labour has always supported zero hours contracts, it's just that back in the 70s they were called strikes. I remember turning up for work only to be told to go home, or not being allowed into work because...

Yes, but that's not quite what...

UKIP: OK, what about the Union run print works and docks, they sent...

Thank you, UKIP, that's as it may have been, but today we're talking of something completely different. Labour, you have 5 seconds remaining to talk to us on the subject of economic recovery.

Labour: A Labour Government would not only limit these unfair practices but also...

Ding

Well, there's the bell, so, congratulations Labour you have completed the first 60 seconds on our Just a Minute election special. Now, 60 seconds, if you would, Green, on another very important election subject. A minute, please, on the subject of... immigration.

Green: Red and yellow and pink and green, orange and purple and blue, I can see a...

Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz...

The Railroad.

Returning to a question raised in The Times back in February, which discussed replacing existing rail lines with roads. If I'm reading the signals correctly, soon, electronic systems will create not only driverless cars but truck and coach convoys where individual vehicles will travel within centimetres of each other, all controlled by the leading unit. At any time, a vehicle will be able to leave or join a convoy in order to complete its own specific journey. These new units will have all the advantages of railway and road transport combined in terms of aerodynamics, load capacity and versitility. With high speed distance travel already dominated by aircraft, the railway will soon be outmoded and unsustainable. What better use for their valuable space and significant routes than to be converted to tarmac.