The real benefits I see of this technology are out in more rural areas, rather than inner cities. The possibilities for small-scale, local public transport networks where running a bus with a human driver is currently infeasible. Ride hailing on flexible 'routes' between villages. It oculd save village pubs if you could reliably get a late-night taxi home for a reasonable price!
Sometimes I'll be arguing about an issue, and will remember what I think about a thing, but then have to go back and read my own argument to work out how I ended up thinking about it.
I think a big use of autonomous vehicles is to transport those who are either too old or too young to drive.
Within London, black cabs have filled this need. But outside the city, it usually requires friend or family to go and pick them up. The school run could be transformed.
I'm interested in your mentioning Amsterdam as a model. Our 11-year-old was there with school trip there last week and about the only negative thing they had to report of the entire trip was how much harder it is to cross the road as a pedestrian in Amsterdam, having to wait a very long time until a cyclist takes pity on you.
I’m typing this in Amsterdam! I would agree with this, the bike lanes are busy and cyclists are generally pretty fast too. As a Londoner I’m used to busy roads and I think it’s a bit harder to cross in them in Amsterdam.
Of course - there just isn’t a problem that needs solving! What’s the point of a driverless car? With all the tech needed etc, and legal responsibility etc? What issue are we trying to fix? Bad driving standards? That’s like fixing the health service by building a new village hall - useful maybe, but doesn’t address any obvious need. All it does is create MORE problems, which will need a solution. If we are goi no to spend loads of money on the roads, we should be actually fixing them - because the driverless cars rely on properly marked lines and signs etc to know what they need to do.
It’s just a colossal waste of time and effort for no meaningful benefit - other than to satisfy the tech nerds
The two obvious problems are that (a) humanity collectively spends a staggering amount of time behind the wheel, during which time they can't be working or reading or exercising or doing anything else that involves their eyes or hands, and (b) over a million people, many of them children, are killed on the roads every single year worldwide, and millions more are seriously injured. Then you get into smaller problems like "we devote a huge amount of valuable urban real estate to storage for cars that spend most of their existence parked", and "rural pubs are dying because people can't drive to them". Are autonomous cars the ideal solution to those problems? No! But do they help these problems on the margin without us having to rip up and rebuild our entire built environment? Yes!
All very good points! But…. While driverless cars mix with normal cars, it’s just an accident waiting to happen (literally!) We should do like Sweden did when they moved from driving on the left to the right overnight, and just switch everyone to driverless in a heartbeat!!!
The driver displacement point deserves more airtime than it usually gets. It’s easy for those of us who don’t drive for a living to wave it through as an acceptable cost of progress. The transitions that go badly aren’t the ones where the technology fails — they’re the ones where nobody planned for the people the technology replaces. Do you think London’s in a better position to manage that than the US, given how differently licensing and unions work here/there.
Difficult to say – I think something we have going for us is that we actually have a welfare state and a government that seems to care about people. So while I don't think we should protect jobs that technology can do a lot better, I think we're better placed to build new institutions/mechanisms to support people affected by technological displacement with retraining/etc.
The real benefits I see of this technology are out in more rural areas, rather than inner cities. The possibilities for small-scale, local public transport networks where running a bus with a human driver is currently infeasible. Ride hailing on flexible 'routes' between villages. It oculd save village pubs if you could reliably get a late-night taxi home for a reasonable price!
Couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I wrote about this a few years ago!
https://takes.jamesomalley.co.uk/p/twitters-transport-experts-are-wrong?utm_source=publication-search
I do have some of my own opinions, but now I come to think about it that piece is almost certainly how I formed my view on autonomous vehicles...
Sometimes I'll be arguing about an issue, and will remember what I think about a thing, but then have to go back and read my own argument to work out how I ended up thinking about it.
I think a big use of autonomous vehicles is to transport those who are either too old or too young to drive.
Within London, black cabs have filled this need. But outside the city, it usually requires friend or family to go and pick them up. The school run could be transformed.
Potential for an overall reduction in traffic?
If non-drivers are able to drive then that’s very likely to generate more journeys.
So although each journey will be shorter and simpler, there could be many more??
I'm interested in your mentioning Amsterdam as a model. Our 11-year-old was there with school trip there last week and about the only negative thing they had to report of the entire trip was how much harder it is to cross the road as a pedestrian in Amsterdam, having to wait a very long time until a cyclist takes pity on you.
And indeed this guide does make it sound very pedestrian-unfriendly, suggesting bikes take priority even when there's a zebra crossing or a green pedestrian signal: https://amsterdamwonderland.com/how-to-cross-the-road-in-amsterdam/
Anyway, what is it about Amsterdam you admire?
That just isn't my experience of Amsterdam at all. I remember it being lovely and walkable! The pinnacle of urbanism!
I don't think that, as you say, "the robotaxi trials are supervised by TfL". They are the consenting authority, the licensing and regulation is coming from DfT via the DVSA - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trialling-automated-vehicle-technologies-in-public/code-of-practice-automated-vehicle-trialling.
Also, see the Mayor's Question here - https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/autonomous-vehicles-and-blind-and-partially-sighted-people. The key point is this: "TfL is engaged with the DfT and CCAV regarding trials of AV technology in London. Currently, CCAV’s Code of Practice allows for trialling across the country without additional local permissions." Engagement is not supervising.
I’m typing this in Amsterdam! I would agree with this, the bike lanes are busy and cyclists are generally pretty fast too. As a Londoner I’m used to busy roads and I think it’s a bit harder to cross in them in Amsterdam.
A solution in desperate search of a problem. Pointless and stupid, as well as dangerous. Just…. No
Did you read the article?
Of course I did. His conclusions are all wrong
OK, could you explain why?
Of course - there just isn’t a problem that needs solving! What’s the point of a driverless car? With all the tech needed etc, and legal responsibility etc? What issue are we trying to fix? Bad driving standards? That’s like fixing the health service by building a new village hall - useful maybe, but doesn’t address any obvious need. All it does is create MORE problems, which will need a solution. If we are goi no to spend loads of money on the roads, we should be actually fixing them - because the driverless cars rely on properly marked lines and signs etc to know what they need to do.
It’s just a colossal waste of time and effort for no meaningful benefit - other than to satisfy the tech nerds
The two obvious problems are that (a) humanity collectively spends a staggering amount of time behind the wheel, during which time they can't be working or reading or exercising or doing anything else that involves their eyes or hands, and (b) over a million people, many of them children, are killed on the roads every single year worldwide, and millions more are seriously injured. Then you get into smaller problems like "we devote a huge amount of valuable urban real estate to storage for cars that spend most of their existence parked", and "rural pubs are dying because people can't drive to them". Are autonomous cars the ideal solution to those problems? No! But do they help these problems on the margin without us having to rip up and rebuild our entire built environment? Yes!
All very good points! But…. While driverless cars mix with normal cars, it’s just an accident waiting to happen (literally!) We should do like Sweden did when they moved from driving on the left to the right overnight, and just switch everyone to driverless in a heartbeat!!!
The driver displacement point deserves more airtime than it usually gets. It’s easy for those of us who don’t drive for a living to wave it through as an acceptable cost of progress. The transitions that go badly aren’t the ones where the technology fails — they’re the ones where nobody planned for the people the technology replaces. Do you think London’s in a better position to manage that than the US, given how differently licensing and unions work here/there.
Difficult to say – I think something we have going for us is that we actually have a welfare state and a government that seems to care about people. So while I don't think we should protect jobs that technology can do a lot better, I think we're better placed to build new institutions/mechanisms to support people affected by technological displacement with retraining/etc.