Cyclists have criticised proposed changes to the Highway Code which will allow self-driving car users to watch television while in motorway congestion, describing the measures as ‘terrifying’.
The Department for Transport (DfT) today announced that, following a public consultation, updates will be made to the Highway Code which will lay out the responsibilities of motorists using self-driving cars.
While vehicles that can drive themselves are currently not permitted on the UK’s roads, the DfT claims that Britain’s first approved self-driving cars “could be ready for use later this year”, with the planned changes set to come into effect this summer to support the early deployment of the technology. A full regulatory framework is expected to be implemented in 2025.
> Cycling and the law: how will your rights be affected by driverless cars?
The Highway Code revisions will allow the users of self-driving cars to view content that is not related to driving on built-in screens. However, as the DfT points out, this is likely to only apply when the vehicle is travelling at slow speed, such as in congestion, on motorways.
According to the proposals, motorists must be ready to resume control of the vehicle if prompted, such as on the approach to motorway exits.
It will, however, still be illegal to use mobile phones when the car is in self-driving mode, “given the greater risk they post in distracting drivers”.
The changes will also state that insurance companies, not individual motorists, will be financially liable for crashes involving self-driving cars.
> The ethics of self-driving car collisions: whose life is more important?
“This is a major milestone in our safe introduction of self-driving vehicles, which will revolutionise the way we travel, making our future journeys greener, safer and more reliable,” Transport minister Trudy Harrison said in a statement.
“This exciting technology is developing at pace right here in Great Britain and we’re ensuring we have strong foundations in place for drivers when it takes to our roads.
“In doing so, we can help improve travel for all while boosting economic growth across the nation and securing Britain’s place as a global science superpower.”
> Self-driving cars? No, walking and cycling “must remain the best options for short urban journeys” says DfT
However, the proposed changes have provoked a mixed reaction among cyclists and other road users.
Transport commentator and cycling advocate Christian Wolmar, who sits on the board of the London Cycling Campaign, tweeted in response to the DfT’s statement: “The failure of the government to understand that it is essential to distinguish between fully self-driving cars and Level 3 where full attention is required at all times.
“There is no halfway point where you can watch films but still be ready to take over. This will kill people!”
Illustrator Steven Falk said: “As a keen cyclist, the thought of encountering self-driving cars, with ‘drivers’ watching films rather than the road, terrifies me.”
The Guardian’s political correspondent Peter Walker, however, noted the limited scope of the government’s proposals:
Not all cyclists, it must be said, are opposed to the DfT’s vision of a driverless future:
Add new comment
36 comments
I guess this will be down to how reliable the software and systems are, if the car is driving itself and you have no safety related input needed, i.e. the car can stop/avoid collisions then the "instant switch" may not be needed - i.e. you are only taking over once the vehicles begin to speed up - or you need to change lanes/depart the motorway.
If the software is not that reliable then it should not be used at all, and the driver should be in charge at all times.
Again - I think you've answered your own question. But just like Cars 1.0 the commercial, political and social pressures (probably in that order although eventually everything's driven by lots of "me want!") will mean that the pressures to accept "good enough" / "works most of the time" and find a way of justifying that will be immense.
Its irrevalant to cyclists. Unless they are illegally cycling on a motorway or in their car and get a low speed shunt.
Thats not to say its a good idea - its not at the current level of technology. This is a Govt in love with its own fantasy reality as per usual although it has some partial merit to test legislative and industry structures for handling these incidents.
At the moment.
(I suspect there will be a lot of 'mission creep', where the same legislation gets used in an increasingly wider range of circumstances...).
Personally, I think Christian Wolmar has hit the nail on the head.
It's shit.
Driving requires attention and it's difficult to switch focus between tasks which require a lot of attention. Modern cars already insulate and cocoon drivers from reality and this will make it worse. For older drivers there's also the consideration that eyes take longer to adjust from near to far focus. As Peter Walker states all this is some way off for now but I wonder if it will turn into another smart motorways debacle. There's also the recent ruling that drivers of self-driving cars won't be legally liable in the event of an accident if they weren't actively driving at the time.
I agree and would add that this is not infrequently the case currently. E.g. drivers of non-self-driving cars are already not held legally liable because they weren't actively driving at the time. Or - to give the legal process its due - a magistrate / jury couldn't be convinced that someone else hadn't made themselves temporarily invisible or thrown themselves under the vehicle's wheels.
Pages