Since they first appeared on our radar in 2011, TreeHugger has been a bit obsessed with self-driving cars, or autonomous vehicles (AVs). Readers have often questioned this obsession, asking what they have to do with sustainability or green living. In response I have noted that where we live and how we get around are among the most important drivers of sustainability, and that AVs might well fundamentally reshape where and how we live, that they might destroy our cities or remake them. They will cause massive change, but a big question has been, how soon?
Writing in Backchannel, Mark Harris suggests that it is sooner than we think. He says everyone has hopped on the autonomous bandwagon and that things are happening very fast. It isn't just Google (now Waymo) anymore; Ford, BMW and Volvo are all introducing AVs.
...in 2015, a horde of startups and newcomers burst onto the scene, eager to explore the boundaries of self-driving technologies—and the rules surrounding them. “2017 will show us that limited deployments are technically, legally, and socially possible, even under today’s laws,” says Bryant Walker Smith, a professor at the University of South Carolina.
Other companies are jumping in to bring down the cost of the technologies involved; Nvidia now sells a AV driving supercomputer in a water-cooled box that may show up in Teslas, "But it faces stiff competition from automotive suppliers Bosch and Delphi, as well as two Bay Area startups founded by ex-Googlers — Nuro.ai and an as-yet-unnamed company being run by the company’s well-respected former self-driving car lead, Chris Urmson." He concludes:
The first self-driving car experiments are over, and the results are clear. The technology is feasible, becoming increasing affordable, and has a multi-billion dollar potential market. But in 2017 the tough work of scaling and commercializing begins. Concerns remain about the safety and reliability of the autonomous vehicles, especially in their interactions with their human operators and other road users. Truly high-definition mapping is still in its infancy and expanding the zones of AV operation will be a slow, painstaking process.
More at Backchannel.
We have spent a lot of pixels on this issue in 2016, discussing the when and the what. Here is some of the discussion:
How self driving cars might change our cities, and when
This has been the billion dollar question, when? Peter Walker of the Guardian talked to Anand Babu of Sidewalk Labs, a google spinoff, who “believes cities could be fundamentally reshaped by the mass arrival of shared, driverless cars, something he forecasts to happen sooner than many people think.”
Christopher Mims of the Wall Street Journal, who has a nose for technology, isn't so sure.
To many industry insiders, these claims are largely hype. They’re not false, but they abuse the terms “autonomous vehicle” and “self-driving,” which evoke images of hopping into a car, entering a destination and disappearing into sleep, food or our phones. That is not what we’re going to get by 2021. It won’t happen for a long time, maybe decades. It is all about the definition of autonomous and self-driving.
I personally have been pretty negative about the impact of self-driving cars, believing that they will lead to serious sprawl and that they will not work very well in cities (reasons to follow) but changed my mind on December 21 of this year, when I learned that the vast majority of crashes involving distracted driving do not involve cellphones or radios, but in fact are caused by daydreaming or being "lost in thought." Add all the other distractions, like smoking, looking around, playing with the audio or just talking, and you have moving disasters waiting to happen. Basically, most of us are terrible drivers, which is why 37,000 Americans died last year and 2.35 million were injured, at an estimated economic cost of $230 billion. The autonomous vehicle has got to be a lot better at this than humans. More: How can we design cars to reduce distracted driving?
..you will be able to escape your cramped apartment in the city for a bigger spread farther away, offering more peace and quiet, and better schools for the children. Your commute will be downright luxurious, quiet time in a vehicle designed to allow you to work or relax. Shared self-driving cars will have taken so many vehicles off the road—up to 80% of them, according to one Massachusetts Institute of Technology study—that you’re either getting to work in record time or traveling farther in the same time, to a new class of exurbs.
I keep thinking of Frank Lloyd Wright's Broadacre City, where basically, suburbia goes forever, now connected by AVs. More: Will self-driving cars fuel urban sprawl?
I sounds so grand; hyperloops, autonomous cars, the return of suburban office parks, drones dropping lunch dropping out of the sky, all that green space sucking up carbon. I can't wait.
Many of the people in those suburban houses are baby boomers, and as I have noted on MNN, It won't be pretty when boomers lose their cars. Some, like author Jane Gould and MNN's Jim Motavalli, think AVs might be the answer to their problems of mobility.
But guess what: Boomers like things just the way they are, and are uninterested. The comments to this post were telling; "I think most boomers remember how reliable Windows Operating Systems are and don't want to die when their 'car computer' crashes with them in the back seats! " and "HA! You'll have a massive uphill battle convincing older generations.They've used your computers with their dodgy reliability and insanely buggy software!!". They are not computer illiterate like their parents, but don't trust them with their lives. More: Boomers balk at autonomous vehicles, even though they will help them the most
Driverless and autonomous vehicles (AVs) will be transformational. With the right planning, they offer the potential for a better quality of life, economic growth, improved health and broader social connections, by offering convenient and affordable mobility to all of us, regardless of where we live, our age or ability to drive.
I described it as "a lovely vision; as the transformed street shown above demonstrates, there is no longer any need for traffic lights or signs, since the car knows what is allowed where; there is no permanent parking; there are not even any lanes. Pedestrians are crossing everywhere because the car knows to avoid them." And it is, it so impressed me that when I was in London I sought them out and visited their offices. It is not just a lovely vision, but they are lovely people. More: How self-driving cars might improve our cities and towns
Smart streets in future cities — it looks to me — will likely be built not for hurtling suburban SUVs but for happy people and the slow robots that take them where they want to go.
More: In praise of the slow car
Instead of adapting our cities to accommodate new transportation technologies, we need to adapt new transportation technologies to our cities in ways that make them safer, more efficient, and better places to live and work.
Pedestrians know that drivers typically have no interest in running them down. So why not simply step out into the street and assert the right of way? In part, because they also know that there is a small probability that the driver is inattentive, intoxicated, or sociopathic, or that the vehicle may be unable to stop in time.
But if they know that the car is a computer that is programmed not to hit them, they might just walk right out. Millard-Ball lays out a couple of possible scenarios, including more rules for pedestrians, which is the one that I think is likely. More: Will pedestrians and cyclists bully self-driving cars?
Now that we live in an automobile culture, it's only natural that our leading technologists seek transportation solutions that build on the automobile. After all, they are more expensive (and thus profitable) to manufacture than any sort of mass transit, and their costs are externalized to individual consumers, who see them as high-tech status symbols rather than financial obligations.
“The real issue is control,” Hesselgren explains. “Trains and tubes have controls; cars don’t. Autonomous cars do, but they don’t work well with pedestrians, cyclists and other unexpected elements. The only way you can have a high-capacity car network in a city is to have a dedicated track.”
Instead of putting the people behind fences or up on elevated walkways, they generously put the AVs in tubes underground. I was dismissive at first, but on a second look concluded that the idea was not so crazy, noting that it is still a silly idea for a seven percent solution, with a bunch of people sitting alone in their cars watching videos, but cannot be so easily dismissed as I originally did, because there are some critical insights." More: Another look at PLP/Architecture's CarTube
Why we don't need self-driving cars, but need to get rid of cars
We don’t need new ways to use cars; we need new ways to not use them. Because here’s the thing people keep forgetting to mention about driverless cars: they’re cars.
She goes on and wins my heart, by suggesting alternatives:
Apple, Tesla, Uber, Google and various auto manufacturers’ pursuit of driverless cars is an attempt to preserve and maybe extend private automobile usage....That’s not the future. That’s dressing up the past. We need people to engage with bicycles, buses, streetcars, trains, and their own feet, to look at ways they can get places without fossil fuel.
More: Why we don't need self-driving cars, but need to get rid of cars
There are a few more that I could not fit in to the story line, below in related links.