In a May 2017 post, I set a goal of losing 30 lbs by year end, to again get down to the 190’s. Unfortunately, that did not happen, and I actually gained 5 lbs from my year-end weight in 2016. Objectivity is an essential component of any successful endeavor, so this is as good a time as any to take stock what happened, and what might need to be done for 2018.

I track my weight every week, so since 2012, my end of year weight was the following: 195 (2012), 199 (2013), 200 (2014), 225 (2015, this was after my shoulder surgery in May 2015, where I lost much muscle mass and was limited in my exercise), 230 (2016), and 235 (2017). So excluding 2015, I have had an incremental gain average gain of around 4lbs. per year, with 2015 being the outlier. During this time, my exercise level has either stayed the same or even increased (averaging 2 hours a day, 7 days a week), and objectively, I really do not see much room for a further increase in my exercise level.  Although I could workout a bit smarter, I firmly believe that the real solution is food intake, and getting over a bit of the anxiety with overcoming the big jump that occurred in 2015.  Historically, otherwise large amounts of food, have not registered with me as too much, since growing up, our family eat an abundance of food.  My sense, I am particularly guilty of eating too much at breakfast, and while watching TV, and for 2018, those are two areas I will try to stay focused in avoiding. Also, instead of setting a ambitious goal of losing 30lbs in the year, I am just trying to focus on losing some weight by the end of 2018.

Looking at my weight chart for 2017, I got to a low of 224lbs. in April, but gained weight the following week, and the year sort of played out like that, in that I lost week one week, then regained weight the following week. I was unable to be consistent, and that is something I plan to focus on in 2018.

Otherwise, there were some exciting things i did in 2017. Some of those things included going to the Americas Cup in Bermuda and also playing golf, ski camp in Deer Valley with the Mahre brothers (see above picture), sat in the Paddock Club for US F1 GP at COTA, played a round of golf at Baltastrol, went to tennis camp in Stowe, won my group at a BMW autocross event, and attended racing school at BMW’s facility outside Munich. For 2018, the year will start off with a bang, with a trip to Australia, where I will complete my tennis grand slam (US Open, Wimbeldom, Roland Garros and the Australian Open), climb the Harbour Bridge, and take surfing lessons at Bondi beach. Also on tap, is to join a friend, on his 60’s birthday, driving a Ferrari on a race track. Honestly, not such a big deal for me, as my own car is almost as fast any current Ferraris, but this has been a deam my friend has had for a while, so I thought it would make a great event for the both of us. And I’ll see what happens from there. On the social front, still nothing lasting, so maybe 2018 will change all that — still trying.

That’s it for now. Looking forward to Australia.

As you can tell from previous posts, I am passionate about cars, driving, and motorsport. That is why I was fascinated by a November 16, 2017 New York Times article entitled “The Near Future of Driving: Eyes Forward, but No Hands at 10 and 2.” The article discusses how the author, Neal Boudette, was driving on an interstate in Michigan, with the car doing all of the driving for long stretches of time (acceleration, maintaining speed, braking, and maneuvering), with no driver input, and his hands off the steering wheel (“hands-free driving”). This feature was not in some futuristic car, but in a Cadillac you can buy right now.

Full autonomous vehicles are coming, and offer many advantages — one being that people with diminished capabilities or senses will be able to drive (e.g., older drivers who no longer have the capacity to drive, or physically challenged individuals who could never drive before). Now they can use a car to get around, without relying on others, or alternative transportation. Another advantage is that such cars can counter distracted driving, for example, when someone is bored, and stuck in traffic, the car can take over, allowing the driver sit back and enjoy the ride, rather than having to be constantly alert and stressed by the traffic around them.  Potentially, linked cars, with smart roads, will be able to diminish highway traffic flow, while also improving safety.

However, there are some significant drawbacks. One being the further loss of privacy since, for these autonomous systems to work, the car must constantly be updating its position, and transmitting that information to some central location. Big brother will always know where you are. Which points out another drawback — since these systems are computerized, they are also susceptible to hacking, so one or many cars could be hacked and intentionally crashed. Just recently, I read an article of how car thieves were using an electronic device, positioned near a car owners house, to amplify the signal from the car owner’s key fob inside the house (which is always broadcasting), and use the amplified signal to open, start and steal the owner’s Mercedes S Class, which was outside the owner’s house. Imagine the disastrous results if something like that happened on a large scale, and while cars are moving on a road.

A few years ago, my work took me to Microsoft’s cyber-security division in Washington State, and the topic of autonomous vehicles came up.  It was a meeting of attorneys, and my question was on the liability side of whether the car manufacturer or software supplier would be liable for crashes, and also, how would the car make moral judgments. Regarding the latter, consider the following scenario: your large SUV comes across a patch of black ice, loses control, and is headed for a head-on collision with an oncoming small economy car with a baby on board. In your car is you and a passenger, and you car’s computer decides it can take 3 courses of action to try and mitigate the carnage of the upcoming accident. The first action will avoid a full head on collision, but will likely get you killed, another course of action will also avoid a full head on collision, but will like likely kill your passenger, and the third course of action will leave you and your passenger injured yet alive, but the other car’s occupants will likely be killed. What will you car be programed to do?  That question is being hotly discussed by some people, and seemingly ignored by others.

These are just some of the issues society will be grappling with in the coming years. Right now, I am very happy to still have control of my car, but have the ability to engage or disengage driving assist technology (e.g., auto-cruise, lane departure warning, automatic braking, blind spot detection). By the way, the article’s author was wrong about one thing, right now it is best to keep one’s hand at 9 and 3 on the steering wheel, rather than 10 and 2 (as he suggests) and which has been taught in the past. What is current convention wisdom is that 9 and 3 provides better control of the car (that is why most steering wheels have indents at 9 and 3 for the driver’s thumbs), and also since upon deployment of steering wheel airbag, hands at 10 and 2 will be pushed into the driver’s head, whereas at 9 and 3, the drive might still be able to hold on to the steering wheel, and at worst, their arms would be pushed sideways. As an aside, I read an article by AAA which proposed holding the steering wheel at 8 and 4, which is also good should the airbag go off, but is an awful position for controlling the steering wheel, and in my opinion, should be completely avoided.