Skip to main content

Holding the line in the public interest

The pace of development and trials of driverless vehicles would lead many to believe they are the answer to all transportation problems. They are not – indeed self-driving cars will create more problems than they solve. Autonomous vehicle dominate the transport agenda because big business has launched a public relations battle to convince politicians, law makers and the public at large the driverless technology is unquestionably the solution to road deaths, congestion, poor air quality and other ills.
October 5, 2016 Read time: 2 mins

The pace of development and trials of driverless vehicles would lead many to believe they are the answer to all transportation problems. They are not – indeed self-driving cars will create more problems than they solve. Autonomous vehicle dominate the transport agenda because big business has launched a public relations battle to convince politicians, law makers and the public at large the driverless technology is unquestionably the solution to road deaths, congestion, poor air quality and other ills.

The only thing driverless vehicles really represent is a rosier future for auto manufacturers and other suppliers – much better than with widespread car- and ride-sharing (which could decimated sales), expanded public transport or the rise of Mobility as a Service (MaaS). That congestion cannot be solved with single occupancy vehicle solutions is not a consideration for auto manufacturers just as, it appears, road safety is not a consideration for the mobile phone industry.

America’s National Safety Council estimates that distraction cause by mobile phones is a factor in 27% incidents – that’s more than one million crashes a year - and one in three UK drivers admit to using a handheld mobile phone. Yet eight years ago a patent application assigned to Apple was filed for a system that detects which person in a moving vehicle is using the phone and then block operation if that is the driver. The patent was granted in 2014 but I believe this system has never been implemented (Apple had yet to reply to our emails and calls).

Maybe Apple is planning to follow Volvo’s 1959 example when the car company waived its patent rights to allow other manufacturers to use three-point seat belts; - although I doubt it. If and when this safety feature does appear, then I will be the first to applaud but I hold out little expectation of inclusion in the iPhone 7.

As businesses do not consider the effects of their products on the public, it is imperative that authorities continue to ignore any hype and fully investigate the implications of new developments to shape legislation in the public interest. And let driverless cars be a shining example of such diligence.

Related Content

  • ITS needs to talk the talk as well as walk the walk
    March 24, 2014
    The US automated enforcement market is in rude health as the number of systems and applications continues to grow and broaden. Jason Barnes reports. Blessed and cursed – arguably, in equal measure – with a constitution which stresses the right to self-expression and determination, the US has had a harder journey than most to the more widespread use of automated traffic enforcement systems. In some cases, opposition to the concept has been extreme – including the murder of a roadside civil enforcement offici
  • Counting on safety
    April 29, 2015
    The European Transport Safety Council is calling for the mandatory fitting of intelligent seat belt reminders, intelligent speed assistance and automatic lane departure warnings to all new vehicles sold in the EU. These are the latest of many systems introduced to improve vehicle safety and while technology can combat specific hazards, technology alone is not the answer. If it was, then the 60% of those killed in EU motorway collisions that were not wearing a seat belt, would have been wearing one and may h
  • Visible enforcement makes roads safer: study
    June 14, 2022
    US research shows that high visibility is factor in reducing dangerous driving behaviours
  • 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