Why People Still Fear Driverless Cars

Thank you to Giles Kirkland for the guest post below. Giles is a car expert and new automotive technologies passionate with over a decade of experience in the niche. He constantly researches on the latest studies, cutting-edge findings, and perspectives for the future. Keen on increasing his own knowledge as well as helping to educate others, he shares his expertise with tech enthusiasts and drivers across the globe. You can find him on Twitter and at Oponeo.

For decades, people have been looking forward to autonomous vehicles as they’ve always been considered to be the future of modern cars. Lately, they’ve become an active part of the news as major players like Tesla, Uber and Google have began experiments and testing. Most media outlets refer to these vehicles with praise. However, if you look closer, you’re sure to find mixed opinions. While some people are incredibly happy about the technology, many are still afraid of it.

The ethical dilemma: Will self-driving cars make moral decisions in the same way human drivers do? Drivers are required to make split second decisions that they make on moral grounds and some people think machines will be incapable of making such a choice.

The latest research shows that autonomous vehicles can be given the ability to make such moral decisions by using some simple algorithms, yet it’s still unclear if they will choose between saving the driver or killing less people.

Fear of losing control: People fear losing control in many areas of life. Aviophobia, the fear of flying, is a great example. Just like dreading the thought of not being able to control a plane, many future passengers still fear letting go of their steering wheel. So there are solid grounds for this phobia. On the other hand, human driving is not error-free and the chances of it occurring could be minimized with autonomous cars.

Lack of understanding: Whenever a new technology is introduced, the lack of understanding is what causes most of the non-acceptance. Many people are afraid of driverless vehicles because they fail to understand them. A little awareness and education regarding this topic would go a long way and would definitely improve the way self-driving cars are perceived .

A questionable track record of safety and comfort: The first fatal driverless car crash happened in March this year. While it led to Uber temporarily suspending its self-driving programs, it once again raised the question about the driverless car’s bad track record for crashes. However, when you compare statistics, the number of collisions per miles driven is much lower for driverless cars.

Claims about self driving cars making people queasy have also recently appeared. Fortunately large companies such as Uber are coming up with ideas that will resolve the problem fast.

Employment issues: Most technological advancements come with the fear of unemployment as technology tends to replace human workers. In this case, it would mostly be taxi and truck drivers who could lose their jobs. Hopefully, this technology will bring new opportunities and society will eventually adapt to the change and benefit from it.

Driving as a hobby: Many people choose to drive just because it is something they enjoy or have fun doing. Self-driving cars should in no way cause them to miss out on fun. There most likely will continue to be a market for such enthusiasts. Perhaps some models will have both options, to be driven manually and autonomously.

There are definitely some serious concerns regarding driverless cars, but most of them have already been or will be addressed and the pros surely outweigh the cons. In fact, according to one study, self-driving cars are expected to reduce traffic accidents by as much as 90%. The existing issues hopefully will be resolved soon and this new technology will make our lives much more safer, efficient and convenient.

Posted in Driverless Car Impacts | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Some Considerations Regarding the Uber Accident

As everyone in the world knows, a driverless vehicle hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona. This is, of course, heartbreaking because any human death is a tragedy. We are waiting for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to conduct an investigation, but let’s be honest – the damage is done!  If people weren’t already skeptical of driverless vehicles, now they’re completely fearful of driverless vehicles.

I believe this incident raises a few specific considerations:

  • Regulations – This incident happened in Arizona where there are no driverless regulations. Moreover, the federal regulations still have not been passed. At this point, I don’t think it matters WHAT is in the regulations – the federal government (ideally) or even state governments need to put some rules in place. Regulations will need to evolve over time and they won’t prevent every incident while the technology continues to be developed, but I do think it will provide comfort to the traveling public that there is some oversight.
  • Technology readiness – The investigation will provide more insight into the fault of this incident, but it’s important for everyone to acknowledge the limitations of the technology as it stands today. The driverless technology has the potential for significant safety improvements on our roadways, but today’s technology is not yet ready to be deployed in all situations.
  • Pedestrian safety/infrastructure investments – This is not a driverless issue; this is an infrastructure design issue. Sidewalks and signage are just a couple of the infrastructure investments that can make roadways safer for pedestrians. Maybe this incident will highlight this issue as well? I doubt it…
  • Ethics – If driverless vehicles are going to, ultimately, save lives – is it OK to sacrifice some lives as the technology is developed? Logically, this may make sense, but I’m not sure our society is ready to accept that.
  • Public relations – Private companies are introducing the driverless technology around the world. This comes with risk and, clearly, Uber is experiencing the downside of that risk now. I believe it is these companies’ responsibilities to educate and respond to society about these incidents. I look forward to seeing how Uber responds in the coming days/weeks.

Sadly, this was going to happen at some point – it was just a matter of when…and how it would be handled (by both the private company and the government). How are the driverless stakeholders around the world responding to this incident?

Posted in Driverless Car Impacts, Government Considerations | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Driverless Vehicles for Kids?

As someone who is imminently expecting to deliver my first child, I often think about what driverless vehicles will mean for the transportation of children. I know that parents everywhere are dreaming of the day when they don’t have to “chauffeur” their kids from one activity to the next, but what does this really mean for transporting our youth? And is it really the panacea that parents are expecting?

Some of the concerns I’ve heard…and how they could be addressed:

  • Are these vehicles safe enough to transport kids? I have to believe that driverless vehicles will not be used for transporting children alone until their safety has truly been proven. As stated in this Wired article, school buses are often the last vehicles to adopt new technology – both for funding reasons and the long life-cycle of the vehicles.
  • What happens when the kids start fighting and require adult supervision? Of course the vehicle would be equipped with remote monitoring and communications, so, seemingly, an authority figure could observe any concerns (e.g., kids fighting) and discipline them via the intercom. If needed, the vehicle could be re-routed. Or, as this article suggests, laws could specify a minimum age or even require them to take a maturity test before allowing them to travel in a vehicle without adult supervision.
  • How can we be sure the kids are getting to and from their destinations safely? Interestingly, federal data suggests that “kids are most at risk when they’re boarding or alighting buses, not when they’re riding them” (per the Wired article). Driverless vehicles may provide more direct point-to-point service than the current school buses that rely upon a network of bus stops. And, someone will still need to be at home to receive the kids (driverless vehicles won’t be able to do EVERYTHING!).
  • How can we be sure kids are getting on the right vehicle and being routed to the appropriate destination? Facial recognition software is just one of the many technological advances that could combat this issue. Moreover, school districts and/or regulations may still require an adult presence on vehicles transporting kids; the benefit is that the adult’s skillset could be childcare-focused, as opposed to driving-focused.
  • Should we be concerned about privacy issues? Yes, we should be! And I would argue that we expose our kids to privacy issues when we give them SmartPhones, allow them to create Facebook profiles, and give them “Smart Toys.” I would expect appropriate regulations and protections to be in place by the time we’re at the point to send our kids in driverless vehicles by themselves.

Once parents learn to trust the driverless technology, I have to believe transporting kids via driverless vehicles will be an important market segment that both public agencies will continue to serve (via some version of school buses) and private companies will try to capitalize on. Clearly, I’m an optimist regarding how this will play out, but I know this is a controversial topic. What do people think?

Posted in Driverless Car Future | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Four Reasons Public Agencies Take a Chance on Driverless Transportation

Despite making headlines on a daily basis, driverless vehicles are still a relatively nascent technology. Automakers and tech companies run tests around the world and a few cities have even ventured into true passenger operations, but the technology is far from ubiquitous. In fact, fully automated vehicles, also referred to as SAE Level 5, do not yet exist. Driverless technology continues to be newsworthy because automakers and technology companies around the world invest millions and form unprecedented partnerships to further its development. However, considering the state of the technology, why would (or dare I say, should) public agencies to become early adopters of driverless technology while it’s still in its infancy?

1. Introducing AVs to society in the right way

Generally speaking, it’s better to be proactive than reactive. Whether an institution is a city, transit agency, department of transportation, or even a private business park, it’s in a position to envision the ideal use of driverless vehicles and create policies, regulations, and rules that fit that vision. For example, city officials may recognize that they do not want zero-occupancy driverless vehicles clogging their streets, or transit agencies may recognize that they want to see driverless shuttles feeding into to their transit systems, so they can put the regulatory and policy framework in place today to make that a reality in the future.

2. Early adopters become the leaders and experts

The Contra Costa Transportation Agency (CCTA) took a risk and became one of the first public agencies in the United States to introduce driverless shuttles. Public and private organizations around the world now contact the agency inquiring to learn from their experiences in hopes of replicating their successes. They are now viewed as a well-respected industry leader.

3. Early adopters know how to prepare their organizations

An organization can help their stakeholders understand the benefits of the technology and the key activities needed to reap those benefits by introducing it early on. For example, the City of Arlington (Texas) introduced driverless shuttles as part of their innovative transportation pilot program. These shuttles transport people within Arlington’s Entertainment District.

As Arlington Mayor Jeff Williams stated, “It’s a great opportunity for us to do these pilot projects, for us to actually test them in our community and for our citizens to be able to look at them and see if they work here and what their opinion of it is. We want to see how this technology performs, where it is best utilized, and how it can be harnessed to potentially serve the city’s transportation needs in the future.”

4. Early adopters garner the fame and glory

Obviously, the intent of incorporating driverless vehicles into a transportation system is for improved safety, better mobility options, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, etc, but we would be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge the media potential. As researchers continue to advance driverless technology, it’s the “firsts” (e.g., “first public road deployment,” “first winter weather deployment,” etc.) that make the headlines. Public agencies have the opportunity to become a part of this media frenzy by adopting autonomous transport technologies early on.

New technologies can introduce uncertainty and risk, but they can also have tremendous benefits. Public agencies can introduce new technologies early and in incremental ways that allow for the benefits to far exceed those risks. Based on the millions of dollars invested in driverless vehicles globally, it is clear that this is a technology that’s here to stay. At this point, it’s really just a question of who will adopt them first?!   Would you agree?!

Posted in Driverless Car Future, Government Considerations | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Some of the Funnier (Less Obvious) Implications of Driverless Vehicles

At this point, most driverless vehicles advocates (and even opponents) are well aware of the key (positive) consequences of driverless vehicles: improved safety, better mobility – especially for the elderly and disabled, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, etc, etc. Over the years, I’ve seen some fun articles and heard some great concepts about the less-discussed (and, of course, less serious) implications of driverless vehicles. Please note that most of these are associated with Level 5 autonomous vehicles, so don’t hold your breath for these to happen in the next decade…

  • More drinking (and less drinking and driving) (see this article)
  • More sex (“Experts Warn” in this article)
  • Better or worse health (depending on how cities respond, based on this article)
  • More scrap/junk cars due to obsolete manual cars and shorter life cycles for driverless cars
  • Less organs available for transplants due to less accidents (see this article)
  • Less vehicle theft
  • Less roadkill (see this article)
  • Growing garage remodel industry (due to less car ownership and/or remote AV parking)
  • Less hotel demand on road trips (people can just sleep in their cars!)
  • Less short-distance airplane trips
  • Less missed doctors’ appointments (due to better transportation options)
  • No more waiting rooms needed at auto maintenance shops
  • No more speeding tickets (or City revenues associated with them)
  • No more car chases (or at least the nature of them will be quite different)

I could go on and on!  Please comment and add more to this list.  It’s a fun mental exercise, even if it is far in the future!

Posted in Driverless Car Impacts | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Driverless Vehicles: Who’s Paying?

There are some amazing statistics regarding the lower operational costs driverless vehicles. Costs are likely to be reduced thanks to not paying for a driver/operator, less mechanical parts (so less wear and tear), electric power (likely) as opposed to gasoline, and greater vehicle efficiency due to smoother acceleration/deceleration and even better routing. Whether or not this all comes to fruition, someone will still need to pay for their operations. And, of course, someone (a person or an organization) will still plan on profiting from these operations.  Here are some of the business models I’d expect to see:

  • Individual Ownership: Though it’s my least favorite, I expect that individuals will continue to buy vehicles and automakers will continue to profit from these purchases. Many of these individuals will keep these vehicles only for their own use, which means the vehicles are sitting idle the majority of the time (similar to today). On the other hand, we’re already seeing companies (like GetAround) enable private vehicle owners to “lease” these vehicles for hours at a time; driverless vehicles will only make that easier for those willing to share.
  • OEM Ownership: As Ford, GM, and other automakers recognize that private ownership is likely to decrease, many of them are looking at alternate business models. The most prevalent one we’re seeing forming today is the automaker/ride hailing service partnerships. Uber has established partnerships with Toyota and Volvo, Lyft has partnered with GM and Ford, Volkswagen has partnered with Gett, and the list goes on. While individuals will pay for the cost of each ride, both of these companies stand to profit.
  • Private Businesses/Campus Owners’ Circulation: Similar to how Google is operating its own fleet of buses today, I expect to see more and more private business owners, developers, and college campuses provide transportation services in and around their campuses. Since less people will own cars, there will be a greater need for these circulation services. The business model for this arrangement could vary widely. Some businesses/campuses could pass the cost on to the riders, but many may absorb these transportation costs into their operating costs – especially if it reduces their parking footprint, increases the productivity of their workforce, or attracts more people to live/work at their site.
  • Government: Government will continue to play an important role in mobility and driverless vehicles will be one “tool in their toolbox.” Government may continue to own vehicles (e.g., driverless shuttles integrated into their transit system), but they also may pay per ride (paying mobility companies or fleet owners) as they shift their business model. This will likely depend on the costs as well as their region’s mobility needs as the rest of the business models fall into place. I would expect the government to constantly be evaluating: “Are all neighborhoods getting equivalent mobility coverage?” “Does the unbanked population have access to mobility services?” Etc.
  • Shopping Transportation: This is probably the newest concept amongst this list. As online shopping grows in convenience and affordability, brick-and-mortar stores will likely look for novel ways to entice people to their stores. Driverless vehicles could be the draw. It’s possible the shopping experience could begin and end in the car, including everything from customized/targeted advertising, personalized shopping, seamless payments, and “door-to-door service” (where a customer would never need to step outside if the vehicle literally pulls into the building!). The options are truly endless and, higher-end stores could see the operational costs of providing a driverless car service become a part of its marketing costs. Other stores may realize this is necessary for survival!

This list, of course, does not consider the cost of roadway infrastructure or who is going to pay for that, but that’s another discussion altogether! What other business models have I missed?

Posted in Driverless Car Future, Government Considerations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Is Mobility-as-a-Service (MAAS) the Next Transportation Silver Bullet?

Since I first started working in the driverless space, I’ve heard about how driverless vehicles will solve everything…. the transportation silver bullet we’ve all been waiting for!  Thankfully, that line of thinking has dissipated and there have since been many studies, papers, and news articles about the potential risks of driverless vehicles: the transition time could have more accidents than less, roadways could see an increase in both single- and zero-occupancy vehicle trips, and public transit could become obsolete (amongst other risks).  It’s been great watching industry stakeholders evolve their thinking and now the discussion seems to be focused much more on proactive policies, regulations, and investments that can be made to advance the driverless technology, but mitigate those potential risks.

I now worry we’re seeing the same “silver bullet” thinking with regards to Mobility-as-a-Service (MAAS). MAAS refers to the use of web and app-based tools to provide people with integrated, customized, and on-demand multi-modal transportation information and fare payment options. A simpler way of putting it is that I can plan and pay for my journey via one app – even if it involves taking a driverless shuttle to a train station, taking the train, and then using a bike share bike (so there are a mix of public and private providers). Seemingly, MAAS is integral to a transportation utopia – people have customized, reliable transportation information at their fingertips, which can help them make transportation decisions that don’t necessarily involve a single or zero occupancy vehicle.

Well what happens if the MAAS provider is not a neutral party?  What happens if the MAAS provider has something to gain by getting people to use, for example, a ridehailing service instead of public transit? Or what happens if the MAAS provider does not keep up-to-date information regarding the public transit service?  Or if the MAAS algorithm doesn’t align with a City’s goals? Clearly, most of these questions hinge on the MAAS business model – who is both creating and paying for the service? To date – there are a range of business models cropping up and the industry is quickly evolving.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m a huge fan of MAAS applications and I do believe they have the potential to solve some of our largest transportation challenges. Similar to driverless vehicles, however, I think it’s important that we consider the pros and the cons….and cities should build proactive implementation strategies around this thinking. Would you agree?

Posted in Driverless Car Development, Government Considerations | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments