Skip to main content

Taking stellar prospective

Astronauts report that the sensation of seeing the Earth from space is extremely humbling; revealing both the wonder of our world and its fragility with a level of clarity they have never experienced before, or after. From space everything the Astronaut has ever known is but a small green and blue blob that can be masked by the smallest obstruction. And from that distance all the countries in the world are equally far away and their inhabitants cannot be divided into rich or poor, by religion or colour.
December 19, 2013 Read time: 3 mins
Astronauts report that the sensation of seeing the Earth from space is extremely humbling; revealing both the wonder of our world and its fragility with a level of clarity they have never experienced before, or after. From space everything the Astronaut has ever known is but a small green and blue blob that can be masked by the smallest obstruction. And from that distance all the countries in the world are equally far away and their inhabitants cannot be divided into rich or poor, by religion or colour.

So what would somebody with such a perspective make of the ITS industry and how would they see it evolving? Well perhaps the latest report on the GNSS market from European Space Agency, which is busily launching satellites for the Galileo constellation, may give an insight – it makes interesting reading.

The report predicts that by 2022 the number of GNSS devices will quadruple to around seven billion. Europeans and those in North America will each have three while in the rest of the world two people will share one device. And the majority of those devices will be smartphones.

With that level of penetration, it is almost certain that every person who can afford a car will have a smartphone and even in the less developed economies it is likely that half of the passengers on a bus will have a smartphone.

While smartphones will not give the level of connectivity, speed and accuracy required for some safety critical functions, the astronaut looking from afar might well ask – why not embrace smartphone technology in areas where it can be useful? They could reason that utilising the technology large sections of the travelling public already own by must be the quickest and most effective way to achieve many of the ITS industry’s aims.

While many in the ITS industry might argue that the more dedicated, time-critical and accuracy-dependent safety features will bring the greatest safety gains, it is undeniable that as end-user cost of technology rises, the numbers benefitting from that technology diminish. Although this rather ethical dilemma may not weigh on the minds of commercial businesses developing ITS systems, it will be a factor in the decisions of politicians selecting which technology should be adopted in any given country or region.

So even in affluent democracies, the cost and effectiveness of potentially lifesaving ITS technology may not be seen as being as important as systems offering convenience or protection (albeit at a lower level) to a greater number of people. Politicians love to communicate with the masses and as such may view the advanced driver assistance system in a new car as being of less importance than an app that allows smartphone users to check travel information for their journey ahead. This is despite the fact that the in-vehicle system may save the life of the driver and/or other road users while the app would only tell users of a delay.

So the answer must be to strive for technical perfection in preventing accidents, cutting journey times and automating driving, parking and the like without limiting advances to the minority of people who can afford a new vehicle.  Drivers of second hand vehicles, mass transit users, cyclists and pedestrians have an equal claim to share in the benefits of technical progress - and probability the easiest and most equitable way to achieve that is by utilising the smartphones many already own.

Related Content

  • October 27, 2016
    The downside of driverless vehicles
    Driverless cars will have a detrimental effect on congestion and security while the road safety benefits can be achieved sooner and cheaper using ADAS, argues Colin Sowman. Many Governments are consulting about the introduction of driverless vehicles and even running trials. As 70% or 80% of crashes are caused by human error, the promise of a crash-free future of driverless, self-driving or autonomous vehicles (call them what you will) is alluring, as are the claims of reduced congestion and lower emissions
  • March 24, 2015
    Taking the long view of ITS
    Caroline Visser believes the ITS industry must present a coherent case for consideration of the technology to become part of transport policy and planning. As ITS advisor and road finance director for the International Road Federation (IRF) in Geneva, Caroline Visser is well placed to evaluate quantifying the benefits of ITS implementation – a topic about which there is little agreement and even less consistency. She is pressing to get some consistency in the evaluation of ITS deployments through the use of
  • June 4, 2015
    The future looks bright for ITS
    Professor Eric Sampson talks about the past successes of ITS, its potential for the future and the challenges the industry faces. If anybody should know when Intelligent Transport Systems started that person is Professor Eric Sampson, a visiting professor at both Newcastle and London City Universities. Having spent 40 years working for the UK’s Department of Transport and other public administrations, Professor Sampson now supports the European Commission on ITS systems and advises ERTICO ITS-Europe and ITS
  • May 29, 2013
    ITS advancement lays beyond benefit-cost analysis
    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