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

  • Dutch survey shows drivers are in favour of road user charging
    January 16, 2012
    'Keep it simple, stupid' is an oft-forgotten axiom but in terms of road user charging it is entirely appropriate. So says the ANWB's Ferry Smith. A couple of decades ago, it might have been largely true that the technology aspects of advanced road infrastructure were the main obstacles to deployment. However, 20 years or more of development have led to a situation where such 'obstacles' are often no more than a political fig-leaf. Area-wide Road User Charging (RUC) is a case in point; speak candidly to syst
  • Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: a solution or another problem?
    November 27, 2013
    Do Advanced Driver Assistance Systems represent a positive step forward for safety, or something of a safety risk? Jason Barnes discusses the issue with leading industry figures. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are already common. Anti-lock brakes or electronic stability control are well understood and are either fitted as standard or frequently requested by new vehicle buyers. More advanced ADAS features are appearing on many top-end vehicles and the trickle-down has already started. Adaptive
  • A coalition of the willing: iATL
    April 5, 2024
    A living lab on the streets of Georgia, US, is helping to improve traffic safety by real-world deployments of technology. ITS International talks to the founder and some of the partners at the Infrastructure Automotive Technology Laboratory
  • Does ADAS create as many problems as it solves
    September 23, 2014
    Victoria Banks and Neville Stanton [1] of Southampton University’s Transportation Research Group examine the real impact of creeping driver automation. Safety research suggests that 90% of accidents are thought to be a result of driver inattentiveness to unpredictable or incomplete information and the vision is that highly automated vehicles will lead to accident-free driving in the future.