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

  • Road death toll increasing in poor countries, says WHO report
    February 20, 2019
    The latest figures from the World Health Organisation on road deaths make sobering reading – but they are particularly shocking when you consider how the relative poverty of countries contributes to high fatality rates, says Adam Hill Around 1.35 million people died on the world’s roads in 2016, while road traffic injuries are now the leading cause of death among young people, according to new statistics from the World Health Organisation (WHO). Perhaps the most sobering point from its latest research
  • DSRC holds the key to tomorrow's transportation
    June 15, 2016
    Dedicated Short-Range Communication (DSRC) technologies are poised to revolutionise transportation system planning, management and operations. But will widespread US adoption take five years, or twenty? As Ben Pierce of Battelle explains, the answer depends largely on which roadmap the ITS community chooses to follow for deployment.
  • TRL: In-vehicle tech is developing – but the driver isn’t
    August 19, 2019
    The evidence base for distracted driving has failed to keep up with technological developments, argue TRL’s Neale Kinnear and Paul Jackson. New research is urgently needed
  • 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