Autonomous Vehicles
Part B: Different challenges
By: Stelios Rodoulis
Previous Article Summary
On a previous article (“Autonomous Vehicles — Part A: Their impact on cities”), we focused on the characteristics of autonomous vehicles (AVs) regarding their technology, safety, economy, efficiency and how they can contribute to improve our quality of life. Furthermore, we described how AVs are expected to impact the cities, regarding the road capacity, road design, parking, public transport and infrastructure in general. The current article is focused on the challenges of autonomous vehicles and also provides a view from the author about driverless cars in Cyprus.
The challenges
Habits and culture take time to change and as with any advancement in technology, there are a number of obstacles to overcome before AVs can realise their full capability. Managing this change is critical and issues relating to planning, legislation and public perceptions require careful consideration before the introduction of AVs can become a reality.
Planning
At city level, AVs impact will be experienced in different ways according to a city’s age, size, morphology and transport provision. For example, the street layout in central London grew organically with horse-drawn carriages in mind and has remained relatively unchanged since the Roman times. Compare this with New York’s street layout in Manhattan — a grid pattern designed to be efficient and reinforced by car dominance. Arguably, from this point of view, New York’s relative age and grid layout is better suited to AVs. The challenge will be for city authorities and planners to carefully consider their city layout and plan for potential impacts.
Adoption could be accelerated where city cordons are created in response to motivators such as congestion becoming a serious economic disabler; allowing the investment in AV technology to become a compelling economic benefit. Cities with high density, high economic activity and a logical perimeter due to natural constraints or ring road infrastructure would be candidates for early adoption — Singapore, New York’s Manhattan Island or Inner London for example.
Social perceptions
Successful implementation of AVs will be partly determined by human acceptance. People’s attitudes and acceptability of driverless technology is likely to be gradual, improving as people experience and become more comfortable with the broader technological world.
People’s relationship with driving is complex, with concerns already voiced about the loss of vehicle control and the enjoyment many experience from this activity. However, perceptions on this are likely to differ greatly, with many seeing the benefits of technology taking over what is largely an inconvenience and a chore. Systems such as ABS and traction control have already replaced the finer skills required by drivers. Race tracks will continue to exist and perhaps become more popular for those who are passionate about manual control. In a future where AVs are the norm, the act or “art” of driving will become a nostalgic memory amongst older generations.
The generational gap is another challenge — Generation Y and Millennials are more interested in owning the latest smartphone, than getting a driving licence or desiring to own the latest hot-hatch. Younger generations want to be constantly connected. The Baby Boomers generation on the other hand have contrasting views about owning cars, driving and the so-called feeling of ‘being in control’ — which is usually a fallacy due road congestion and cost.
Safety
Many safety questions need careful consideration before AVs can be fully implemented. While it is estimated that AVs can potentially prevent 93% of the worlds’ road accidents (largely due to mitigating the risk caused by human error), it is inevitable that there will be mechanical or software glitches.
Even allowing for AVs with Artificial Intelligence, there are still uncertainties around how AVs would respond in particular scenarios. Humans can apply discretion and morals to certain situations. For example how will an AV choose between damaging itself and/or the people in it, or a child in its way? The Google Car has already shown that it can safely navigate itself around cyclists, but how will AVs anticipate the sometimes unpredictable behaviour of pedestrians or cyclists? An AV doesn’t have the benefit of either instinct or experience of human behaviours and potential consequences. Worst-case-scenarios need to be developed, for example, when AV infrastructure or hardware fails or even in case of a cyber attack.
Legislation and liability
A major barrier to the full implementation of AVs is liability in case of an accident, legislation and governance. Insuring a vehicle is a method of risk management. With cars currently being driven by humans there is a high risk of an accident due to the probability of human error. With the driver having little if any input in controlling a vehicle, then who is responsible in the event of an accident? Is it the software company; the carmaker, or the occupant? Will new methods of risk management be required and how will the car insurance market react to this technology?
The US is an early adopter of legislation for AV’s, accelerated by Silicon Valley start-ups and Google’s fleet of test cars. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued policy guidance around testing and includes plans for further safety research. Similar policies are under development at a European level but are still in its infancy.
Road to the future
Despite the ‘tipping point’ is a few years away, AVs have the potential to radically transform our cities and the way we move about them. While we need urban and transport planners to understand these trends, we must alos avoid hype and oversell the technology. Even the developers of this technology don’t quite know the final form it will take in 2025 let alone 2050. Long term planning is impossible at this stage — it must be done not with the knowledge of 2016 but with the knowledge of 2023. That approach — which is the norm in the high tech world, where the world is expected to constantly change — is anathema to governments and planners. For the near future we must allow driverless enterprise to flourish and then plan long term.
Instead, today’s knowledge can guide planners in what not to do. Planners must be humble and acknowledge uncertainty, not just in transport but in every facet of our lives. We must have critical judgment and try not to put big investments in things likely to become obsolete. What we plan today must have flexibility and adaptability at its core, because planning and infrastructure have long time horizons. Despite the uncertainties, we must start thinking on how to integrate of the upcoming driverless enterprise into our build environment and transport planning, in order to avoid mistakes of the past and plan better for the future generations.
What does it mean for Cyprus?
Cyprus has the worst road safety record in Europe — AVs offer an opportunity to put this right by early investment and adoption of AVs. In Cyprus, AVs would save lives and costs to the economy from Day One.
Cyprus offers good geography and natural boundaries for testing AVs. Being an island, traffic coming and out of the country is controlled. The Cyprus Government should aim to attract technology companies to test in Cyprus, or at least provide funding to Universities to start researching this technology and what it will mean for the island.
AVs have the potential to completely replace our inadequate public transport, including taxis. For example, subsidised Uber-like service can replace buses in cities. AVs offer many opportunities that we need to at least consider before investing in transport projects or products.
Cypriots will also need to change their behaviour and adapt; the ‘Diplokampino’ era will come to an end. Transport technology will bring disruption to Cyprus, but we must allow and support Driverless Enterprise to flourish — this will provide new sources of growth in the economy and offset job losses from the transport sector.
“I dream of an island where the streets are not dominated by traffic, no cars parked on pavements.
I dream of an island where road transport is safe, clean and sustainable — and AVs offers us the opportunity to make this vision a reality.”
We would like to thank Stelios Rodoulis for writing this article for CySE and wish him success in his future endeavours.
References:
1. World Road Association (2013), Road Accident Investigation Guidelines for Road Engineers
2. World Health Organisation (2013), Fact Sheet N°358
3. US Department of Transportation & NHTSA (2010), The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010. Report No. DOT HS 809 446
4. INRIX (2012), 2012 Traffic Scorecard
5. P.A.T.H (2012), Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways — California Program. Presentation by S. Shladover
6. Tientrakool P., Ya-Chi Ho & Maxenmchuk N. (2011), Vehicular Technology Conference (VTVFall), IEEE
7. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Research (2012)
8. ULTRA PRT website: http://www.ultraglobalprt.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/02/BPA2012PR.pd
9. Rodoulis S. (2011), ‘Driverless Trains in London: Perceptions and Reality’, University of Westminster
