The Tesla-Apple-Google dilemma: Will humans be banned from driving?

Damn. Just as it appeared that driving cars might get exciting again, what with the arrival of electric vehicles en masse, it appears that particular luxury might be taken away from us.

As one technology advance gives us EVs, another related technology advance is threatening to take away that pleasure by giving us autonomous driving. And the reality is that this may not be just an option for bad or lazy drivers. It could become mandatory, and that leads inexorably down a single path, to the point where humans are banned from driving.

We’re starting to hear a lot more about the concept of “shared mobility”– a new era where the mix of electric vehicles, autonomous driving and shared vehicles, and a bunch of smart software and innovative business models – changes the way the global car industry is structured.

Already, Apple is investing more than it has in iPads, iPhone and Apple watches combined – and 20 times more than mainstream car manufacturers – on shared mobility R&D.

According to analysts at investment bank Morgan Stanley, it is looking to capture a share of the $2.6 trillion shared mobility industry that could dwarf its current smart phone market. And that could just as easily jump to a $10 trillion a year market in a matter of years.

And here’s the thing about “shared mobility”. One, it makes smarter use of an asset, personal motor cars, that are probably only used on average one hour a day. And then it maximises use of a share vehicle by doing away with the biggest bottleneck, finding and hiring a human to drive it. And then comes the issue of insurance and safety. If a robot and smart software can avoid traffic accidents and deaths, will authorities risk the human factor?

But can you make an EV at half the price of that one?
Are we really that close to banning humans from driving? The issue was raised by one Morgan Stanley analyst, Adam Jonas, in a recent conference call between Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk and market analysts a few weeks ago.

“Once high volumes of statistical data for your autonomous miles are collected and analysed, I can’t help but get out of my mind,” Jonas began.

“I have this image of you and some CEOs of other auto companies and CEOs of other software and tech hardware firms testifying in Congress about the urgent need to replace these dangerous purely human-driven cars on the road with available affordable and proven, even L2-L3 technology or semi-autonomous that’s ready for introduction to dramatically improve the epidemic of traffic fatalities as like a national public health and safety priority.

“Am I crazy, Elon, about kind of that type of – that role for people in your position to play armed with the data empirically? And if I’m not crazy, then how soon do you think it would take for tech firms like you to have a sufficient quantity and quality of data to be able to make such a scientifically proven case?”

Musk clearly didn’t want to be known as the party pooper who wanted humans banned from driving, so he played a straight bat.

“Well, I already feel like – I mean, Tesla will argue for autonomous driving, but we’re not going to argue against manual driving,” Musk said.

“And I believe people should have the freedom to choose to do what they want to do. And, yes, sometimes those things are dangerous, but freedom is important.

“And if people want to drive, even if it’s dangerous, they should be allowed to drive in my view. But then the autonomous safety systems should be in there such that, even if you’re in manual mode, the car will still aid you in avoiding an accident.”

So, where are we going here?

I dug up a report written by Jonas and other Morgan Stanley analysts, into this shared mobility market that promises to upend huge industries – auto, oil and personal experience – and turn it into a new commodity, shared services.

It warns that human driving may quickly be seen as a major social health and safety risk that can be addressed by technology.

“We anticipate the urgency of tech proponents to communicate the benefits of autonomous cars to regulators and consumers that could change the perception of human driving as a public health and safety risk,” the authors write.

“Even if human driving can (and must) continue on public roads for many years to come, consumers may quickly perceive the task of operating their own vehicle as a risky lifestyle choice.”

They cite reports that traffic fatalities are likely to top 35,000 in the US alone. Worldwide, the figure was estimated by the World Health Organisation at 1.24 million in 2013. That is the equivalent of 3,400 per day. And that is probably underplaying the reality, particularly in China and India.

So what does this future look like? We’ll follow up in the next few days on a scenario for the world’s first autonomous city. But as Morgan Stanley underlines, it will take a brave and visionary city mayor to press go on autonomous driving and put transport into the hands of robots that can work intelligently and write their own programming.

“We do not for one moment wish to make light of the serious moral and ethical issues that surround increasing levels of responsibility of vital human functionality to a network of connected robots that can work ‘intelligently’ or write its own programming.

“Certainly no mayor wants to be the first elected official blamed for the death of a citizen by a robot, even if that robot correctly followed its software program.”

It will all come down to data. It will take millions, if not billions of kilometres of experience with semi and fully autonomous vehicles before this actually becomes a thing.

“In our view, the burden of proof will be on the tech firms to show that their early autonomous cars are not just safer than human driving… but potentially many thousands of times safer per mile than human driving,” the Morgan Stanley analysts note.

But coming it is. National politicians had ignored the issue until president Barack Obama raised it in his last State of the Union address in January.

He called for a 21st century transportation system and this was followed by a more detailed proposal from the White House that calls for an investment of $2 billion per year to launch a “new generation of smart, clean vehicles” and “pilot deployments of safe and climate smart autonomous vehicles”.

The budget also proposes $400 million per year to ensure these technologies are safely integrated into America’s transportation system. “Once again, we go back to the desire for the federal government to address the high incidence of motor-vehicle related fatalities and injuries on US roads,” Morgan Stanley wrote. “Our view is that the stakes are potentially too high for government to ignore this issue.”

lutz autonomous vehicleThe report notes that Sweden is conducting a test on autonomous vehicles and the UK is providing numerous autonomous driving, including this fully-electric “Lutz Pathfinder” pod that will have a top speed of 15mph and will transport commuters from the Central Train Station to the city center in Milton Keynes.

And don’t think there will be an economic argument against autonomous vehicles. Apart from the lives saved, Morgan Stanley says the payback time for autonomous driving could be as little as 18 days – yes, that’s 18 days.

That’s based on its assumption that the incremental cost (added costs) of autonomous driving over the price of current vehicles could be as little as $5,000, and that the worth of a human driver is $100,000. Based on an incremental cost of $155,000 and a driver cost of $30,000, the payback is still just 5 years and two months.



“At today’s prices, we estimate that the various hardware components needed to achieve full autonomous capability cost less than $US5,000 per car, which means that, together with R&D and other costs, the customer would pay a premium less than $10,000.

“We believe this is a reasonable premium to pay over a regular car given the benefits to the customer of a car that can drive itself. By the time fully autonomous cars are ready to be commercialized in 5-7 years, we expect the cost to be cut at least in half, with higher volumes and more mature technology.

“In fact, we believe autonomous vehicle technology is a smaller leap than full electric vehicles — which still need unknown battery breakthroughs in a lab or significant macro disruption to make them viable beyond being niche vehicles.”

Comments

14 responses to “The Tesla-Apple-Google dilemma: Will humans be banned from driving?”

  1. DevMac Avatar
    DevMac

    Even prior to the creation of autonomous vehicles, there are plenty of humans that should have the privilege of driving taken away.

    Fewer human drivers can only be a good thing.

  2. Brunel Avatar
    Brunel

    No ban!

    Insurance should take care of it – the premiums should be much higher during human mode.

    Thus only enthusiast will hold the steering wheel.

    1. DevMac Avatar
      DevMac

      Potentially registration costs, licensing, and punishments should also be raised. Insurance premiums are only part of the overall difference between autonomous and human control.

      For example, if you choose to actively drive, and then hit a pedestrian or cyclist, then there’s the potential for much higher criminal penalties because you chose against the (theoretically) safer option.

      There are lots of “human habit / cultural” issues to be overcome with autonomous vehicles.

  3. Michael Dufty Avatar
    Michael Dufty

    I think human driven cars will be around for quite a while just because we are used to them. Have a look at Motorcycles, they would fail all car safety regulations by a huge margin, but we still get to use them legally. Insurance is not that expensive.

    As with the previous article the bit about shared vehicles being better because private cars are only used an hour a day doesn’t work because everyone wants their car in the same hour.

    1. Mike Jubow Avatar
      Mike Jubow

      They will never be able to compulsorily go to completely autonomous control of vehicles. There will have to be some dual control vehicles allowed. I live well off the highway and use my vehicle on-farm as well as using it for supply runs to town once or twice a month. It is insane that I should be expected to own two cars when one is economical. Also. how am I to get my autonomously controlled vehicle from an off highway location to the highway if I can’t drive it? It is time for a bit of commonsense to enter the discussion.

  4. MaxG Avatar
    MaxG

    Can hardly wait for that — no more clowns doing silly things… enjoy a smooth ride and look out of the window… rather than watching the speedo… and no more fines either — how good is that?!

    1. Dispassionate Avatar
      Dispassionate

      You will have to pay network charges again then Max!

  5. Chatteris Avatar
    Chatteris

    The sooner the better. Most collisions are caused by human error and the casualties are of world-war proportions. The holdouts who want to drive their own cars will probably be allowed to do so in places where they can’t do any damage, rather like smokers today.

  6. john Avatar
    john

    With out a doubt the number of people killed and more importantly seriously injured due to the inability of people to drive is a major cost to society.
    In my humble opinion most should not have a licence to drive a legal weapon called a car.
    We have the technology and we could easily fix the problem by for instance putting in a readable cable down every street or road to ensure that it is impossible for two vehicles to interact in a collision situation.
    A simpler solution would be inbuilt hardware in every vehicle.
    Once every vehicle is retro fitted with technology and built with the same awareness technology then because they interact the vehicle; a people mover will never have an interaction that is going to lead to collision.
    Implementing a hardware – software solution will not take away the idea that I am in control but enhance the ability of using a common service provided convenience as in a road.
    Frankly i would remove about 20% of drivers licences because they are totally incompetent.

  7. Marcel Avatar
    Marcel

    Insurance companies will take care of it once they find out how much lower the risk of autonomous driving is…

  8. Adam Grant Avatar

    One form of control may be replaced by another. Once all the cars on a road are networked together, drivers in a hurry will likely be able to pay for access to the fast lane, with one’s car negotiating deals with nearby vehicles. If you’re not in a rush, you can make a few dollars per trip by instructing your car to pull aside to let others pass. (Making a profit will be unlikely, however, as the roads will be charging maintenance and congestion fees for every second you drive on them.)

  9. ben Avatar
    ben

    Autonomous electric “cars as a service”, sounds perfect. Why have a car sitting in the garage or carpark for 80% of the time when you don’t use it? Accidental deaths, road wear and tear, noise, car damage, will all go down. Congestion too. This will need to be integrated with electric mass transit such as trams, and cycling / walking for denser inner city areas. It also allows for increased densification along arterial routes as there will be less noise and pollution

  10. neroden Avatar
    neroden

    No. Partly because there’s all kinds of weird rural driving situations which “self-driving cars” are no good at, and will not be any good at in my lifetime. Try to tell one of these self-driving cars how to drive across a field.

    We probably will raise the drivers’ license standards by a lot, though, and WE SHOULD DO THAT ANYWAY. I also expect to see “automated cars only” on expressways.

  11. Miles Harding Avatar
    Miles Harding

    I wouldn’t be so quick to proclaim the death of the driver or the rise of the autonomous car.

    I think the story has failed to adequately differentiate safety and commercial goals of vehicle autonomy:

    If it’s about safety, then preventing the driver doing dumb things and causing harm should be the goal. Safety does not equate to banning human drivers.

    Business models, such as Uber, (lets strip the ‘shared mobility’ veil) benefit greatly from eliminating the (second?) largest cost in operating a vehicle.

    Nor should we be fooled by the idea that a commuter’s car is readily re-deployable after the worker has completed their journey. This logic fails to apreciate the properties of peak hour. All the commuters want to move at the same time causing a bottle-neck effect in most of our cities. Once at their daytime locale, the car is not needed and spends its day stored in a parking lot. Exactly the same thing happens with buses and trains, where half the fleet returns to the depot for the day.

    An autonomous vehicle future dominated by cars will likely result is severely congested roads, as an easily conducted ’empty’ trip is just as congestive as a full one. We may see the rise of totally automated (unmanned) traffic jams as operators choose to ‘park’ their vehicles on the roadway, avoiding garage fees.

    If, by shared mobility, we take it to mean multi-occupancy vehicles such as buses and vans, we are much more likely to find a useful solution. While the bus driver’s union may not like it very much, eliminating bus drivers and moving more to a demand model has the potential to greatly improve the effectiveness and sustainability of transport, allowing much more flexibility in times, bus size and routes than is possible with present fleet of 60 seat route buses.
    [edit: the bus driver may still be needed to stop the patrons destroying the inside of the bus at night and on weekends.]

    I seriously doubt a company like Apple, who have made their fortune selling over-priced obsolescent stuff to the adoring masses, while simultaneously sucking all the coins from their purses will be very successful in an envrionment where the cost per trip is rationally evaluated.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.