It could be a bane or a boon. “Theres” ethical issues like the effect on jobs and tariff that we need to talk about
If theres one thing 2016 taught us its that political predictions are a mugs recreation. Prophecies about engineering and society, however, are at least a little easier. One happen thats going to wipe up against our noses during 2017 is the imminence of the driverless vehicle change, which is going to be a big one.
Around our house there is a new noise. Its my voice, in a colour of dictatorial bid, saying: Alexa, stop! Or perhaps, Alexa, play the Beach Boys; or Alexa, whats the weather like tomorrow? Yes, like thousands of others, I got the new Amazon toy for Christmas a small cylinder that can answer many questions with gargantuan rush and proficiency, play music, guild taxis, prescribe recipes and much else besides.
Yet Alexa, already transforming life in my household, is nothing compared to the changes that driverless automobiles are going to visit on us very soon. Not long ago this is only science fiction, but in 2016 we insured them tested on the street of Milton Keynes. Meanwhile, in San Francisco, a row between Uber and the position of California over licences attended driverless gondolas removed from the streets and the first lethal gondola clang in the US committing a auto on autopilot.
Next year the UK government hopes we will see trials of driverless gondolas on British motorways. So its time for some serious “ve been thinking about” whats coming down the fast lane in 2017.
Lets start with the positives. First, quite a lot of people who would be killed or mutilated on the roads if we carry on as “weve been” will be saved. It may seem counter-intuitive, but almost all studies on well equipped driverless gondolas advocate they are safer than those driven by humen. There is an additional safety advantage for women, who worry about late-night taxi trips. A driverless automobile might seem a malevolent invention to some people but it isnt going to assault you.
Driverless autoes should also greatly improve the urban landscape. We have become used to the ugliness of almost every street being strangled by parked vehicles, but there would be almost no point in most of us owning a vehicle. The cost of a cab travel is largely made up by the operator, and therefore neighbourhood rides would be dramatically cheaper.
It will seem outlandishly extravagant to blow tens of thousands of pounds on buying a piece of material you can hire whenever you need it for far less. Petrolheads on a Jeremy Clarkson knock will still want to own their gondolas, but for most people this will be a big saving.
So our streets will be clearer. And, because these will be electric cars, cleaner more. There will be required to be enormous new infrastructure systems gigantic garages to accumulate the cars so they can arrive swiftly when told. I wonder whether local improve works will live. We may investigate a return to the Thatcherite proposal for railway lines to be was transformed into roads, this time for driverless cars.
As for bus, at the moment we have a largely undiscussed transport apartheid between automobile owneds and bus useds. But if driverless gondolas operate then surely “theres been” driverless buses, which can be a lot smaller and most numerous than todays diesel-spewing vehicles. At the other point of the scale of assessments, automobile sharing and car pooling, already popular, will be extended: the distinction between individual exploiting a driverless minibus and driverless, large shared gondola could become meaningless.
Put all this together and I can imagine automobile owned, and automobile driving, being frowned on as much as opening a packet of fags at a family gleaning is now.
But tells turn to the dark line-up of this. First, the effect on occupations. There are just under 300,000 HGV drivers licensed in the UK and about the same number of licensed taxi and cab drivers in England and Wales. But these figures are possibly an underestimate of the actual numbers of professional operators, having regard to the black/ grey economy and the neighbourhood delivery drivers. Putting all this together, I wouldnt be surprised “if theres” around a million people in all the regions of the UK dependent upon driving others, or goods, or takeaways for their living.
But the numbers are simply the half of it. In an age of job insecurity, driving has become the default course that numerous beings, particularly mortals, keep their chiefs above liquid. If you cant find anything else, sign up with a neighbourhood cab conglomerate and spend long hours on the streets.
So the effect of this version of job demolition will be stern, and expect redistribution. Who will be the huge gainers from the driverless car change? Presumably the biggest vehicle business, and those at the forefront of the technology Tesla, Mercedes, Honda and the taxi companionships, like Uber. Both can expect to represent monumental earnings. How do you channel some of that money back into the economy to provide jobs for the former motorists?
Thats the age-old question about the taxation of multinationals. I dont experience any chance of national societies running out of things for human beings to do not with the care crisis, or the needs of the NHS, or the nearly endless amounts of environmental work to be done. Its about funding, by effectively charging the brand-new profits.
There are also safety issues. This entire plan depends upon the internet. A terrorist attack, or even a large solar flare, could knock everything out. The more interconnected “weve been”, the more vulnerable we are.
This is such a huge issue I would expect it to be a major political question for its first year ahead. As with most technological advances, driverless vehicles will be a wonderful future or a looming calamity, dependent on the political choices we construct. That, at least, hasnt changed. Has it, Alexa?