DetN's Daniel Howes Gets One Wrong, Mostly

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

When Daniel Howes was a European correspondent, I had nothing but respect for his work. Since relocating to Detroit, my former main man has lost the fearless objectivity he displayed in his e-missive from across the pond. Lately, Howes’ column has blended piercing glimpses into the obvious, recaps of well-known events and a newfound ability to not say anything much. Today, like yesterday’s AutoExtremism, Danny finds his inner TTAC. Only one problem: “Jobs bank end won’t halt D.C. bias” channels Howes’ anger at Washington’s hypocritical bailout minders. Sigh. Moral relativism—those evil bankers got their money without a public humiliation and strings made of piano wire—may give hope to the hometown crowd, but it’s an old, moldy, shoddy shibboleth. Danny should know better. How many times does one have to say that two wrongs don’t make a right? I mean, he’s WAY off target. Again.

“The people writing the checks to those who gorged on easy money in a consumption-crazy economy reserve the right to hold whoever they want accountable even as they give others a pass.

“How do we know the dough (notwithstanding legitimate unemployment and food stamp benefits) will be well-spent? We don’t, which can’t so easily be said about automakers that have used the past few months refining—and making public—their plans for using taxpayer loans (not grants).”

Loans, my ass. We’ll never see that money again. Transparency, my ass. We still don’t know who really owns Chrysler, and I don’t hear The Detroit News clamoring for this information. And Chrysler’s public relations assault on their viability plan is insane: trucks for Nissan, Chinese imports, EVs, a tie-up with FIAT (or someone else, now, according to Jim Press), etc.

If there is a moral high ground here, none of the recipients of what Howes rightly calls “Bailout Nation” are on it. In fact, the ground belongs to the media, if they would but occupy it. It’s a shame that one of the journalists best qualified to seize that territory seems content to sip brandy with the generals while the guys in the trenches are looking at the business end of wholesale slaughter.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 8 comments
  • Robert Farago Robert Farago on Jan 29, 2009

    Ronnie Schreiber: Examples? Links?

  • Ronnie Schreiber Ronnie Schreiber on Jan 30, 2009

    Robert, I can't find it at the DetNews site but Howes had a long "no more business as usual in Detroit" piece in December. McElroy's done a radio commentary for years on WJR or WWJ and has frequently taken the Big 3 to task for various stupidities.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next