Autonomous Vehicles: Can We Have Our Car and Drive it Too?
By Anthony Tortorici
Edited by Kyu Ri Kim
The moral dilemma of autonomous vehicles... Since the beginning of the discussion over driverless cars, we have been presented with a question that sparks a discussion. This question has shown up at parties as a quirky litmus test for your core values.
When presented with the option, does an autonomous vehicle sacrifice itself and its driver to save the life of a young child who is crossing the road?
The benefits of the inevitable wide-spread use of autonomous vehicles have been quantified and analyzed again and again. Considering that 90 percent of all traffic accidents can be attributed to human error, we can assume there would be a great reduction in traffic accidents with the use of driverless vehicles. This is one benefit of the use of autonomous vehicles. In addition to the safety of pedestrians, these vehicles promise to be more kind to the environment, too.
Furthermore, autonomous vehicles will benefit from many of the advantages electric cars have today, with a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and in turn, a reduction in emissions they emit. In addition to the mechanics of the vehicle (which benefit the environment) the vehicles will be programmed to use less gas per mile traveled. Vehicles will be able to operate in an eco-friendly way, slowed acceleration and more coasting, which is in contrast to the way many drivers operate their vehicles now.
Are these benefits worth the costs? If the vehicles do offer what they promise, being environmentally friendly and safer for pedestrians, the demand for their use will be high. Peter Calthorpe says autonomous vehicles "cause congestion, eat up energy, exacerbate sprawl and emit more carbon per passenger-mile."
Peter is talking about the use of single or no occupant autonomous vehicles, and he is right. The only way embracing autonomous vehicles as a viable alternative that will improve society is for them to be higher volume transit vehicles. Peter calls it "autonomous rapid transit." If autonomous vehicles are used for transit and are capable of carrying a high number of passengers, we can have our cake and eat it (or it eats itself? autonomous cake?) too. Higher volume transit options instead of single driver options for autonomous vehicles will prevent the streets from being consumed by the law abiding, slow flow of driverless cars. Instead we can reduce the volume of vehicles on the road along with the amount of accidents that happen, while maintaining or increasing the number of passengers moving around the city.
Considering higher volume transit vehicles provides an answer to the moral dilemma presented above. It is easier to justify programming a higher passenger volume vehicle to save itself and its many passengers, sacrificing a lone pedestrian in the process.
We can pair autonomous rapid transit with development for a safer, more sustainable city, following the New Urbanism ideals of more walkable, transit oriented cities.
Figure 1. Dedicated center lane for autonomous buses.
Edited by Kyu Ri Kim
The moral dilemma of autonomous vehicles... Since the beginning of the discussion over driverless cars, we have been presented with a question that sparks a discussion. This question has shown up at parties as a quirky litmus test for your core values.
When presented with the option, does an autonomous vehicle sacrifice itself and its driver to save the life of a young child who is crossing the road?
The benefits of the inevitable wide-spread use of autonomous vehicles have been quantified and analyzed again and again. Considering that 90 percent of all traffic accidents can be attributed to human error, we can assume there would be a great reduction in traffic accidents with the use of driverless vehicles. This is one benefit of the use of autonomous vehicles. In addition to the safety of pedestrians, these vehicles promise to be more kind to the environment, too.
Furthermore, autonomous vehicles will benefit from many of the advantages electric cars have today, with a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and in turn, a reduction in emissions they emit. In addition to the mechanics of the vehicle (which benefit the environment) the vehicles will be programmed to use less gas per mile traveled. Vehicles will be able to operate in an eco-friendly way, slowed acceleration and more coasting, which is in contrast to the way many drivers operate their vehicles now.
Are these benefits worth the costs? If the vehicles do offer what they promise, being environmentally friendly and safer for pedestrians, the demand for their use will be high. Peter Calthorpe says autonomous vehicles "cause congestion, eat up energy, exacerbate sprawl and emit more carbon per passenger-mile."
Peter is talking about the use of single or no occupant autonomous vehicles, and he is right. The only way embracing autonomous vehicles as a viable alternative that will improve society is for them to be higher volume transit vehicles. Peter calls it "autonomous rapid transit." If autonomous vehicles are used for transit and are capable of carrying a high number of passengers, we can have our cake and eat it (or it eats itself? autonomous cake?) too. Higher volume transit options instead of single driver options for autonomous vehicles will prevent the streets from being consumed by the law abiding, slow flow of driverless cars. Instead we can reduce the volume of vehicles on the road along with the amount of accidents that happen, while maintaining or increasing the number of passengers moving around the city.
Considering higher volume transit vehicles provides an answer to the moral dilemma presented above. It is easier to justify programming a higher passenger volume vehicle to save itself and its many passengers, sacrificing a lone pedestrian in the process.
We can pair autonomous rapid transit with development for a safer, more sustainable city, following the New Urbanism ideals of more walkable, transit oriented cities.
Figure 1. Dedicated center lane for autonomous buses.
 |
Source: New York Times (2018).
|
Super interesting thoughts. I have always been a fan of giving multiple passenger vehicles dedicated lanes of traffic. Especially if those vehicles are driving themselves! Individually owned autonomous cars are a fun idea, but you did a great job explaining why that might not be the end goal for environmentalists and urban planners.
ReplyDeleteThis is the first I've heard about higher capacity autonomous vehicles and I think it's a super interesting thing to consider! At first glance, autonomous rapid transit seem to be a nearly perfect form of travel with increased safety and minimized environmental effects. I'm looking forward to following the technology and seeing how it contributes to the current urban form.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder what impacts AVs will have on employment. Do you think the tech will increase employment or result in greater unemployment?