Skip to main content

Comment: ‘Sleepwalk into a new dawn? No thanks’

We need a grown-up discussion about the possible societal effects of driverless vehicles
October 19, 2021 Read time: 2 mins
Adam Hill, ITS International editor

Technological advances inevitably bring change. In many ways, this is positive. The list of inventions which have improved human existence, from the wheel onwards, is long and distinguished.

The ITS industry thrives on innovation – yet it is surely possible to suggest that not all technology is good for us. Parents may often feel this when they see how long teenagers spend looking at their screens. Having said that, good luck trying to take a smartphone off a teenager.

The idea of autonomous vehicles (AVs) is attractive. We can do it, so we will do it. But are there downsides to AVs? Leaving aside the thorny issue of their integration into existing traffic, are there other considerations we should be worried about? One of the arguments which is often made for AVs is their potential contribution to road safety, removing human error.

But are there other ways in which AVs could lead to more deaths and destroy more lives than their manual counterparts? My esteemed predecessor as editor of ITS International, Colin Sowman, argues that there are. In this issue of ITS International he outlines his thinking, looking at the human cost of greater automation in the transport industry. The potential for a rise in suicides – particularly among young men – is chief among his worries.

Not everyone will agree with this assessment. But at present, it is not even a point of view which is getting much of an airing.

If he is right, does that mean we should halt development of AVs? No, absolutely not. Does it mean we should ask more questions about the societal impact of AVs? Yes, definitely.

You can make a lot of claims for AVs, but saying they are an ally in the movement towards sustainable transportation may not be one of them. At a time when there is genuine, and justified, concern about greenhouse gas emissions, does it make sense to develop products which may bring the level of vehicle occupancy down to less than one?

AVs cannot be blamed for society’s problems – after all, there are hardly any on the road yet.

But to simply sleepwalk into a promised bright new dawn without pausing to have a grown-up discussion about the possible downsides? That would suggest we’ve learned nothing.

Related Content

  • change in the US transportation sector
    February 6, 2012
    Transportation for America's James Corless talks about the changes needed in the US's transportation policy. Anew report, 'Smart Mobility for a 21st Century America', highlights how improving efficiency through technology is critical as the US's population grows and ages, budgets tighten and consumer preferences shift.
  • Transport policy doesn’t operate in a vacuum
    April 7, 2014
    Intertraffic offers traffic planners and other transportation professionals the opportunity to view and find out about the latest cutting-edge technology in the market. Behind the scenes, engineers have been working away to solve the technical problems traffic planners are facing and some they didn’t even know they had. Indeed it seems the technology is now available for authorities to do almost anything: to detect, select, identify, measure, charge, prosecute, influence and inform the travelling public.
  • Innovation Awards: A winning formula
    March 21, 2018
    The Intertraffic Innovation Awards are a major feature of this event: over 60 high-quality entries were received this year. So, what does it mean for a company that wins? Czech company Cross Zlin won the overall title at the last Intertraffic. Tomáš Juřík, chairman and CEO explained the impact it has had on the company.
  • The AI revolution in transportation
    November 21, 2024
    Navigating the future of mobility means approaching AI as a powerful tool that, when wielded responsibly, can help us build transportation systems that truly serve people, says Alex Nesic