THE notion of cars that can safely navigate motorways and other roads without a human driver behind the wheel still seems to some people like a futuristic sci-fi idea. But self-driving cars are already a reality, of course, and in Britain the Westminster Government is determined to see fully self-driving vehicles on our roads by 2021. A few months ago it unveiled plans for an autonomous bus service on the Forth Road Bridge.
The autonomous vehicle (AV) industry is potentially colossal, with one recent estimate suggesting that it could be worth as much as $7 trillion by 2050. Forecasts have been made that AVs will have a beneficial impact on the annual global total of traffic fatalities, said to be around 1.3 million – especially given that the vast majority of these are attributable to human error.
But the problems thrown up by AVs have been debated endlessly. What will be the effect on global car-ownership when combined with the rise in popularity of services such as Uber? How much will it cost to get our roads infrastructure and mobile-network coverage ready to cope with AVs? Who exactly would be to blame in the event of an accident? What will be the effect on car insurance? Will there have to be sweeping amendments to existing road regulations? How will AVs deal with a deep pothole? Can AVs deal with unpredictable jaywalkers? How safe will cyclists be? The death of a woman killed by an Uber self-driving vehicle in Arizona last year has done nothing to quell many concerns.
As the Scottish Law Commission says today, the startling new technology that has enabled self-driving cars raises a host of legal and ethical questions which the public has yet to engage with. Driverless cars, some lawyers assert, could could be programmed to make moral decisions about who to collide with in an accident.
These are not trifling concerns, easily dismissed. Clearly, much remains to be explored and addressed before AVs become a quotidian reality.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here