Up until not long ago, research and development efforts around autonomous driving focused on the vehicle. Automobile and technology companies disseminated their vision for futuristically designed vehicles wherein passengers could even sleep during their trips, and which would make mobility fully efficient, safe, clean, and equitable. Over time, following the involvement of other actors (researchers from different fields, administrations, traffic management centres, etc.) in autonomous mobility, this idealistic vision was discarded.
On the one hand, vehicles acting fully autonomously (that is, working only with the data they themselves collect from the environment, processing it individually, and making their own decisions), would have to be programmed with very conservative parameters (gaps, lane-changing premises, etc.) for safety reasons. However, even then, safety could not be guaranteed and congestion levels would increase. Numerous research studies have shown that only mobility based on connected vehicles cooperating at least via V2V and V2I communications (i.e., among themselves and with the infrastructure) has the potential to alleviate congestion and accidents. Moreover, for this cooperative mobility to become a reality, vehicles would not need to be fully autonomous: instead, a high degree of automation would be sufficient. Automation could help improve the current situation as long as vehicles share their data and objectives aiming at benefiting the entire system. Uncoordinated AVs would instead make ‘selfish’ decisions: they would choose their routes, individual speeds, lanes, lane-changing behaviour, etc.; overlooking possible disturbances to other vehicles and to the network’s efficiency as a whole. On the contrary, traffic would become more efficient if AVs were to cooperate. AVs cooperation involves an exchange of information and joint and coordinated decision making from a global perspective, prioritising the whole system’s performance over individual benefits. It has been proven that AVs cooperation would be beneficial even in a mixed environment, i.e., with cooperative autonomous vehicles (CAVs) sharing roads with traditional vehicles. And these benefits would reach the whole traffic stream.
On the other hand, concerns about climate change and the Coronavirus crisis have helped spread a warning that many traffic engineering experts have been pointing out for years: mobility cannot be based on private cars, even if they are ‘clean’ (e.g., electric) and automated. If the private vehicle rate is too high, congestion will persist, the environment will continue to be damaged (because of electricity generation, exploitation of natural resources, etc.), and a host of other negative externalities linked to traffic that are present today will not disappear. Together with economic and practical shifts, the concern for sustainability must foster a change in mindset that has so far only taken place in small niches of urban society, whereby vehicle usage is deemed more profitable than vehicle ownership. As such, an important objective is a better amortisation of passenger vehicles through sharing; however, the real backbone of mobility at all levels (urban, regional, national, etc.) must be public transport. Therefore, public transport must be the centre of efforts in terms of automation, connectivity, and sustainability, among others. Soft modes of transport (walking, cycling) are also called to play an important role; however, they cannot be presented as the only or primary solution as they are not suitable for all users or for all types of journeys. Also, with the aim of reducing private cars’ role, initiatives such as MaaS (Mobility as a Service) for multimodal, seamless, and integrated transport are being developed. They take advantage of technological and communication advances, are based on clean vehicles and can be tailored to each user’s needs. For all these reasons they are now seen as the solution to traffic-related problems, replacing the announced film-inspired private autonomous vehicles.
Within this larger process towards change, with a few exceptions, car companies’ involvement has been insufficient. Undoubtedly, they are aware of this, albeit slow, progressive shift in users’ and administrations’ mentality. They will continue to sell vehicles, though not at the rate they did in their heyday. Therefore, if they do not update their business model, they are bound to lose money and competitiveness. That would not be good for them, the regions they operate in, nor their employees. Instead of trying to be an active part of this change, most car companies seem to be unresponsive or simply reactive, as exemplified by their slowness in pivoting to electric vehicles, which was practically enforced by the authorities. Some of these companies have made other attempts, such as acquiring companies dedicated to the development of traffic simulation software or getting involved in the shared mobility business. However, most of them abandoned these new fields soon after, suggesting these moves were not the result of good planning, but rather sudden decisions or tests.
Automotive companies, for their own sake as well as society’s as a whole, should leverage their great potential to co-lead the paradigm shift that is taking place in the field of mobility. Years ago, they demonstrated their ability to innovate, manage, and grow, and they have the potential to do that once again. Their current efforts to achieve vehicle automation will certainly pay off and benefit society once they stop focusing exclusively on private vehicles and start collaborating with other stakeholders. Car companies should prepare a plan to change their business model gradually, in accordance with the times, whilst contributing ideas and strategies enabling the kind of efficient, safe, sustainable, and equitable mobility that we all want to see become a reality as soon as possible. They have made our lives better once and they can do it again.
Contenuti correlati:
