IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2019 - 30

need to complement the solutions
above, especially in situations
where there simply is no physical space for additional vehicles. In the most problematic,
densely populated urban areas,
where land prices tend to be
the highest, e.g., [13], [14], allocating further space to roads
would simply be economically
unfeasible. The proposed alternative, i.e., multi-level (elevated) roads, could solve capacity
issues at arterial roads in some
contexts but would be virtually
impossible in protected townscapes and landscape environments or local streets and collector roads due to effects on
property values of increased
traffic intensity or pollution
[15]. Inability to do so would
make Wiseman's statement "no
need for the hassle of these
connections" invalid.

Assumption 3) The kinematic
properties of the vehicle allow
realization of traffic capacity gains
but also ensure that the environment is productive/enjoyable
One of the greatest postulated benefits of driverless vehicles involves
transformation of "wasted driving
time" into productive and enjoyable
time. The phenomenon has been
extensively modeled in the context
of rail, e.g., [16] and other public
transport. For driverless vehicles,
however, there exists a subtle interaction between the traveler's experience and ability to realize the postulated traffic gains via more dynamic
velocity and acceleration profiles
[17]. The fact that the latter are
responsible for motion sickness
remains one of the most problematic
issues for enabling driverless vehicles to become productive and
enjoyable environments (the issue is
less prevalent in rail due to different
acceleration profiles).

30

Assumption 4) Distribution of
activity duration at the destination allows enough time for vehicles to be parked and returned, or
extensive sharing (vehicle, ride)
are available and used

vehicles from accelerating and
decelerating; however, as explained
in Assumptions 2 and 4, traffic
capacity is expected to be an issue.
Evidence of air pollution produced
by trains was not provided in the article and thus, comparison could not
be made. Furthermore, there is progress in terms of reduction in noise
and light (from headlights and street
lamps at night; however, there is still
a way to achieve "silent and dark"
vehicles, which would be necessary
to limit nuisance to adjacent areas
(assuming no need for unwelcome
physical barriers and separation).
The light aspect is especially difficult as today's technologies enabling
driverless vehicles' operation often
rely on visible light, e.g., cameras,
computer vision [19].

This assumption reflects the need
for driverless vehicles to have sufficient time to travel to parking facilities and return on time when
required. Alternatively, they would
need to remain in local circulation,
effectively inflating not only fuel
consumption but also traffic, and
thus road capacity requirements.
Otherwise, there would need to be a
sufficient pool of vehicles available
to use, e.g., via sharing services, in
order to avoid lengthy waiting times,
affecting the generalized cost and
thus service level. It is not clear
from either Wiseman's paper or current knowledge how either of those
objectives could be met in reality.

Assumption 6) Driverless cars
improve health and safety
The key safety benefit of driverless
cars is that accidents related to the
presence of the human driver will
potentially be prevented from occurring as drivers who are not fit to
drive, e.g., those who have consumed alcohol [20] or are fatigued
[21], will not have to drive. However,
this argument was not presented by
Wiseman. Furthermore, as explained
in Assumption 1, mixed traff i c
could be expected and thus,
autonomous cars will essentially
interact with other types of road
space users including cyclists and
pedestrians [22]. Until conclusively
proven otherwise, the potential of a
collision between autonomous cars
and cyclists or pedestrians should
be part of the discussions of the
future application of driverless cars.
Finally, it was assumed that the
autonomous systems will not fail in
that they will continuously operate
as designed. It is worth mentioning that autonomous systems rely
on the capabilities of technological advancements [23], e.g., sensors

Assumption 5) Driverless vehicles
do not emit air and light pollution
This assumption is made by Wiseman to achieve postulated air pollution gains, which in addition to CO2,
NOx, and particulate emissions need
to also include noise and light pollution [18]. While there is an ongoing
progress towards cleaner vehicles,
especially those using sustainably
generated electricity, the issues of
charging or storing electricity and
associated infrastructure requirements (charging, transmission, distribution) are not trivial.
With respect to the environmental impact of transport and the
resulting health impacts, Wiseman
focused on exhaust emission control but such benefits should be
expected by both manned and
unmanned vehicles. Wisema n
could have argued that autonomous vehicles could enable steady
travel speeds that can reduce emissions. Again, this requires non-congested roads in order to prevent
IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

∕

JUNE 2019
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2019
