Sometimes headlines grab your eyes and don't let go. Either the message is simple, or it's complex enough to make you do a double take.

•••

My eyes caught a Sept. 18 article by Doug Newcomb of Wired Magazine. The headline read: "You won't need a driver's license by 2040."

•••

Hmm, Doug, you have my attention.

•••

I just had to devote some time to sit down and see exactly why I wouldn't have to take a number at the Department of Motor Vehicles a couple of decades from now and wait my turn to pass the eye test and get re-upped to operate my four-wheeled wonder.

•••

Come to find out the article is about autonomous (self-driving) vehicles. Technological advances being what they are these days, many are projecting that the human's time behind the wheel (and gas and brake pedals) are numbered.

According to the article "the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) recently released predictions that autonomous cars will account for up to 75 percent of vehicles on the road by the year 2040. The organization went even further, forecasting how infrastructure, society and attitudes could change when self-driving cars become the norm around the middle of the century."

•••

So folks, are you ready to sit back, enjoy the ride and let someone else do the driving? Remember, that "someone" probably won't be in the actual car if the prediction of 75 percent autonomous cars by 2040 holds true.

•••

While I was reading, I started wondering what changes our current road would have to endure to become compatible with robo-cars. The answer was soon apparent: "It's been assumed that the largest hurdle for autonomous cars is building the infrastructure. Not so, says Dr. Alberto Broggi, IEEE senior member and professor of computer engineering at the University of Parma in Italy. Broggi, the director of a 2010 project that successfully piloted two driverless cars on an 8,000-mile road trip from Parma to Shanghai, points out that two current types of self-driving cars will need less infrastructure, not more."

•••

The article goes on to state that vehicle-to-vehicle communication (V2V) is being evaluated currently in Michigan, which would be necessary to keep cars from colliding with each other. The V2V would also allow for vehicles to be monitored by a central station, which would coordinate traffic and route cars accordingly.

•••

I have to admit it would be freaky to be in a computer-driven car and approach a busy intersection for the first time. The central station would have the ability to either slow down or accelerate your vehicle to ensure that it made it through the intersection safely. It would take some time (Not sure if I have enough years left in me) to get used to that.

•••

I'm sure the insurance industry would take a hit if such a paradigm shift in commuting takes shape. They'd go from insuring two-handed drivers to insuring two-terrabyte drivers. With today's text-happy vehicle operators, I think I'll take my chances Big Brother.

•••

Logic tells me it would be similar to riding on a train, as you gradually get over the lack of control you have in your situation and eventually just sink back into your seat and enjoy the ride.

But logic also tells me that the train is following its rails, and the odds of a derailment are minute compared to the odds of a computer glitch sending your neighbor's Saturn sedan blasting into a downtown Spokane intersection at 50 mph during rush hour.

•••

Ah, technology. Making our lives easier and making our hair turn prematurely gray all at the same time.

Jerry Hitchcock, who would really miss holding the steering wheel with both hands and using his right foot to rev the engine, is a copy editor for The Press. He can be reached at 664-8176, Ext. 2017, or via email at [email protected].