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

  • In-vehicle automation of safety compliance and other traffic violations
    January 24, 2012
    David Crawford explores new initiatives in enforcement. Achieving the EU’s new road safety target of reducing road traffic deaths by 50 per cent by 2020 depends on removing legal and institutional barriers to the deployment of new enforcement technologies, stresses Jan Malenstein. The senior ITS Adviser to Dutch National Police Agency the KLPD, and a European-level spokesperson on road and traffic safety, points to the importance of, among other requirements, an effective EUwide type approval process for fr
  • Joi Dean: "I believe that we can always figure out a solution to things"
    December 11, 2023
    Joi Dean, CEO of the Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority, has been appointed second vice president of IBTTA for 2024. Adam Hill finds out about what drives her to leave a legacy
  • ITS advancement lays beyond benefit-cost analysis
    May 29, 2013
    Shelley Row, former Director of the US Department of Transportation’s ITS Joint Program Office, gives her views on the way forward for the industry. We, as intelligent transportation system (ITS) proponents and engineers, tend to be overly fixated on benefit-cost data. We want decisions to be made on logical grounds for which benefit-cost calculations are optimal. While benefit-cost data is necessary, it is not always sufficient. We can learn from our history where we see three broad groups of ITS deploymen
  • A change of tack
    December 18, 2017
    For some time, it has been evident that the quickening pace of technological advancement has been outpacing the ability of legislators to introduce new laws and amend existing legislation. One example was, apparently, UK legislation specifying that vehicles are fitted with filament lights which was drafted to outlaw acetylene lamps but a century later delayed the introduction of LED technology on vehicles.