Driverless Cars Are Probably Not The Answer You’re Hoping For
“People are so bad at driving cars that computers don’t have to be that good to be much better.” ~ Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Andreessen Horowitz.
Web Pioneer Marc Andreessen certainly raised a good point in his stance in support of self-driving cars. Self-driving cars, technically known as autonomous cars have gone from a wild fantasy to a possible reality to an inevitability in a few quick years. The intricacies regarding the existence of cars that can drive on their own are not even in debate now, the heat of the topic has well shifted to just how greatly they are going to impact our lives.
While Google had been chasing this possibility in its side project since 2009, which later developed into its own thing by the name of Waymo, it has since garnered the attention of big shows like Tesla and Uber. Both have shown enthusiastic participation to the cause and have made other tech giants take notice as well.
It is a revolution waiting in the wings. Driverless cars would be everywhere in no time. They have nothing but positives on offer, not just for the end customer, but for the environment and the dismal state of our cities as well. And all the big companies clamoring for a share definitely points toward them being the ‘it’ thing for times to come.
But can self-driving cars really save our cities? The problems faced by cities today are not just because of cars that are driven by people. So changing that particular variable of the equation while everything else stays constant is not the magical solution as it is so presented. If anything, it’ll complicate things for the worse.
The greener side
There are a lot of positives on display when it comes to self-driving cars! Most require immense work in the area of technologies like Artificial Intelligence to see the light of day, but to say they are impossible is unwise. Waymo recently received its permit to test drive in the state of California. Uber has announced its desire to continue with its test drive too. So it’s definitely happening and overcoming its tumbles along the way.
Driverless cars are more than just electric cars. The term autonomous (how the name was settled upon is its own story) means self-governing. They aren’t just running on electricity instead of fuel, they are performing on their own with little to no human input. So all you have to do is sit back and relax, as John Krafcik says, and the car will take you to your destination — all by itself.
How that affects people on a personal level is quite clear. Commuting to the workplace or commuting in a city, in general, is nothing short of a hassle. No one wants to waste their morning squeezed inside buses and subways or stuck in traffic jams cursing the system. With self-driving cars, you can have those precious hours of your day back, while you are driving to work!
You can read a book or play games on your phones as your car drives for you. Plus, the cars moving in compact formulations will also allow for more space for other vehicles as well as pedestrians. They will park on their own too. Meaning no on-road or unethical parking. Meaning even more space.
Though the most talked about prospect of the innovation of e-cars has always been making a world without road accidents a reality. Drivers that are all-computer artificial intelligence will not make mistakes human drivers do. Humans are prone to rash driving and making emotional decisions in the heat of the moment. The result has been quite alarming — as the death toll on the roads has risen to around 1.3 million per year according to the WHO. Cars going driverless will certainly save thousands of lives.
The not-so-green side
Cars without drivers seem like the next great invention since the wheel. They appear to be the solution to an array of problems posed upon the urban lifestyle of today. But all the great promises do not seem to hold under the lenses of practicality. The biggest positive a car that drives on its own offers would also turn out to be its biggest detriment in the long run. And that is: Space.
It is true that cars driving in computer-directed paths will save space. But how long can that last? If you’re familiar with the Downs-Thomson paradox, you will know how fickle this particular ‘solution’ is. As roads become better and wider, more people will be on them. The reduced commute timing won’t last as long as the roads will reach the same congestion level after a certain period of time.
More cars also need more space to park themselves. A car spends 95% of its life just sitting lifeless. And that needs space. Having enough cars to take people from home to work and back will result in wasted miles and idle hours for the cars. Again, needing space. Parking issues are a huge menace to the city life and having more cars doesn’t seem like an apt solution.
The concept of making cars affordable loses its charm when literally everyone can own one. E-cars will become something akin to cars-on-hire like Ola and Uber. Them not consuming expensive petroleum, now not even requiring the cost of a driver makes them too affordable for the general public. It is entirely possible that e-cars end up suffering the same fate of cars-on-hire.
It’s the same concept after all. A lot of empty rides, miles and time mar the cars-on-hire services as the people are forced to go along their co-passengers’ journey for short distances they would have preferred walking to. And if they don’t share, well, that may be leading into a bigger problem.
By far, the biggest, most insidious harm self-running electric cars are destined to cause is to the public transport. The availability and affordability of cars falling under the good old buses and trains would lure people away from them. But public transit is not something that needs a replacement or even an alternative for that matter. It is the very means of commute that hold the cities together, carrying the most number of people in numerous trip for affordable prices.
If every single person going by trains & buses decided to go by e-cars, then the traffic congestion is bound to touch new heights. If a single coach of a metro train carries 50 people, that flat-out translates to 50 cars on the road. 30, if people really do share. That is still 30–50 extra cars on the roads than need be.
So all of that more than brings us back to zero. You can even go ahead and say it brings us well below it!
Moral of the story
Self-driving cars are an ambitious step toward creating cities like never imagined before. The intent to bring the comfort of cars to people who can neither afford nor have them due to age constraints is one worth working for. So are the lucrative benefits they offer.
But they are not foolproof. They have their limitations that need to be worked around. The fact that they have not yet hit the roads in full force in wake of numerous hindrances is the testimony to how hard it all is. A combination of such high-level technologies gift wrapped in a single automobile needs time to be honed to perfection.
Most importantly, we need to treat driverless cars as a welcome alternative to the clogged traffic of cities, and not a replacement of any means. In fact, we should focus on lessening our dependence on cars and promote other means. This way, people can have a healthy number of options in front of them to choose from.
Cities flourish when people have the freedom to choose the way they wish to move around at their own convenience. Walking suits some, some prefer the bus. In a few years, who knows, self-driving cars may be one of the happy solutions people would be going for.
This story is published in The Startup, Medium’s largest entrepreneurship publication followed by +391,714 people.
Subscribe to receive our top stories here.
