(my emphasis)Driverless cars
The recent Queen's Speech included the announcement of the Government's intention to introduce a Modern Transport Bill, which will (among other things) facilitate the introduction of driverless cars.
The adoption of driverless cars could be either a huge benefit or a huge disbenefit for the promotion of cycling and cycle safety, depending on how it is done:Cycling UK seeks assurances that driverless cars will not be permitted on roads other than motorways until it has been shown that they can reliably detect cycles and cyclists, and respond accordingly. Since cyclists negotiate for roadspace using eye contact, this is hugely important.
- It could lead either to large increases or large decreases in car ownership, depending on whether it makes car ownership normal among people who currently cannot drive (including children), or whether it substantially boosts the popularity of car-sharing clubs (enabling people to order a driverless car to come to their front door as easily as they can currently order an Uber car).
- Similarly it could hugely improve or worsen the safety and convenience of cycling. Fears that pedestrians and cyclists can simply run or swerve out in front of driverless cars – knowing that they would stop – could result in regulation that would severely restrict cycle movement. Conversely, the total adoption of driverless cars could mean motor vehicles being steered as precisely and predictably as if they were on rails. This would be extremely space-efficient, freeing up space for cycling. Further space could be freed up by reduction in car parking demand that would result from a marked shift from car ownership to car sharing clubs.
However, once the detection technology is reliable, we seek the rapid and complete introduction of fully driverless cars. We wish to minimise the time-period in which there is a mix of human-driven and driverless cars on the road, given that this transition phase will provide only disadvantages and no advantages for cycle use and cycle safety.
I commend Cycling UK for bringing up the issue generally. But I'd like to start a conversation about that final paragraph.
"This transition phase will provide only disadvantages and no advantages for cycle use and cycle safety." I accept that this is a possibility, but to imply that it is the only possibility seems wrong to me. I think there is another realistic possibility: that as soon as there are some autonomous vehicles on the roads, cyclists are safer, and as the proportion of autonomous vehicles increases, cyclist safety keeps on increasing. I refer to this as the "gradually safer" scenario.
Now as I said, this was a year ago. But I have also found a hint in 2017 that we may still have this mindset about a dangerous "transition period". Cycle-campaign-news-january-2017:
We also share concerns about the transition period.
If it does turn out that my "gradually safer" scenario is correct, then even the actual term "transition period" may be best avoided, as it might lead people to think in terms of everything already being planned in advance, including an 'endgame' for human-driven vehicles, and thus delay the potential early advantages of autonomous vehicles. (AKA self-driving vehicles)
My Proposals
1 - http://www.cyclinguk.org/current-campaigns A new campaign should be added, along the lines of "Vehicle Autonomy - Making Sure It's Done Right"
2 - The people within Cycling UK who are worried about a disadvantageous "transition period", should detail their concerns as part of this new campaign, but should not rule out all other scenarios unless they have documented a convincing argument.
Thoughts?
