Skip to main content

Visionary UK strategy ‘needed to unblock benefits of new motoring technologies’

The UK government Transport Select Committee has called for a Visionary UK strategy to maximise benefits of new motoring technology in its report, Motoring of the Future. The committee says new automotive technologies could unblock congested highways, deliver a step change in road safety and provide the basis for rapid industrial growth, but the Department for Transport (DfT) will need to develop a comprehensive strategy to maximise the benefits of new motoring technology, such as telematics and driverless
March 6, 2015 Read time: 3 mins
RSSThe UK government Transport Select Committee has called for a Visionary UK strategy to maximise benefits of new motoring technology in its report, Motoring of the Future.

The committee says new automotive technologies could unblock congested highways, deliver a step change in road safety and provide the basis for rapid industrial growth, but the 1837 Department for Transport (DfT) will need to develop a comprehensive strategy to maximise the benefits of new motoring technology, such as telematics and driverless cars, for people and businesses in the UK.

Following its wide-ranging inquiry, the committee calls on the DfT to: Clarify how the introduction of self-driving cars will affect the liabilities of drivers, manufacturers and insurers; Positively engage in setting European and international standards that will help UK manufacturers develop products suitable for export; Ask the Information Commissioner to update guidelines on the collection, access and use of vehicle data; Use data on driver behaviour held by the insurance industry and others to inform policy making and improve road safety.

Launching the report, Louise Ellman MP, Chair of Transport Committee said: "Motoring is being transformed by new materials, new fuels and information technology. The Government must do more to ensure that people and businesses in the UK benefit from this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."

She added: "The public need to be sure that new types of vehicles are safe to travel on our roads. The Government must do more to prepare for a transition period where manual, semi-autonomous and driverless vehicles will share UK roads. Transport Ministers must explain how different types of vehicles will be certified and tested, how drivers will be trained and how driving standards will be updated, monitored and enforced."

The 6187 Institute of Advanced Motorists gave evidence to the committee; IAM director of policy, Neil Greig responded to the report, saying:  “The next few years could see a confusing combination of computer and human-controlled vehicles on our roads so the legal framework must be clear on who is responsible in the event of a crash.  The way we train drivers will have to change to reflect this.

"The committee recognised our concerns about data protection. Computerised vehicles will generate information on an epic scale.  In the not so distant future a hacker could do more damage than a drunk driver. Getting system security right must be a top priority.”

Nathan Marsh, Smart Infrastructure leader at EY, also commented on the report: “The future of the UK’s integrated transport infrastructure will require adoption of smart technology. Autonomous vehicles across smart cities will be an integral part of this.

“The technology exists already with innovative ideas and pilot projects, such as driverless cars being trialled in Milton Keynes. However the reluctance for change and adoption by the motor industry, drivers and the lack of legislation means the brakes are on for now.

“We need to accelerate the development of huge scale projects, that are commercially viable and that can be integrated to the existing road network, or else the UK’s infrastructure potential will be consigned to the slow lane.”

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Majority of Brits do not think AVs will reduce accidents, says Axa
    December 3, 2018
    Three-quarters of UK residents do not believe driverless cars will improve road safety, even though 90% of accidents are caused by human error. In a survey of 2,000 respondents, insurance firm Axa says only a third of UK residents believe driverless cars would be better for the environment and only 25% think the technology will improve safety for pedestrians. Axa emphasises that motorists are confused by the definition of a driverless car as well as by what sort of autonomous technology is available in mo
  • Majority of Brits do not think AVs will reduce accidents, says Axa
    December 3, 2018
    Three-quarters of UK residents do not believe driverless cars will improve road safety, even though 90% of accidents are caused by human error. In a survey of 2,000 respondents, insurance firm Axa says only a third of UK residents believe driverless cars would be better for the environment and only 25% think the technology will improve safety for pedestrians. Axa emphasises that motorists are confused by the definition of a driverless car as well as by what sort of autonomous technology is available in mo
  • Transport problems need ''strong action from policymakers”
    June 7, 2012
    Taking advantage of the attendance of the heads of ITS Asia-Pacific, ITS America, Ertico – ITS Europe, and ITS Malaysia as the host nation of the recent 12th ITS Asia-Pacific Forum in Kuala Lumpur in April, ITS International initiated a round table discussion on the big ITS issues confronting the individual regions. For such a diverse collection of advanced and emerging nations spanning the globe, in terms of the advancement of ITS, a common single issue emerges above all others
  • Legalities of in-vehicle systems and cooperative infrastructures
    February 1, 2012
    Paul Laurenza of Dykema Gossett PLLC discusses the paths which lawmakers may go down on the route to making in-vehicle systems and cooperative infrastructures a reality. The question of whether or not to mandate in-vehicle systems for safety and other applications is a vexed one. There is a presumption on some parts that going down the road of forcing systems' fitment is somehow too domineering or restricting. Others would argue that it is the only realistic way of ensuring that systems achieve widespread d