How driverless cars will make your life worse

On the face of it, there’s something quite appealing about driverless cars. It will be like having a chauffeurdriven chario. Indeed, it might well be cheaper because you’ll be less likely to have an accident. Not only that, but we’re told journey times will be shorter because driverless cars don’t need to keep more than a few inches apart. And they’ll be quicker still if the inner cities are reserved for driverless cars only.

Needless to say, I’m not convinced. Will it really be cheaper to own one than a regular car? I accept that insurance premiums might fall, but what about the depreciation costs? With all that state of the art technology, it will be a bit like driving around in a giant iPhone. Indeed, out of date driverless cars might well be banned from the roads since the risks associated with them being unable to communicate with more recent models are potentially catastrophic.

Even if manufacturers can solve that problem, driverless cars will still age more quickly than regular ones.

What about the shorter journey times? I’m sceptical about that, too. If driverless cars really are all they’re cracked up to be, we’ll see a shift away from public transport. Elderly people won’t stop using cars when their senses deteriorate, freight will shift from railways to automated lorries and workers will be more likely to use cars for the daily commute.

Dr Zia Wadud of the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Leeds estimates that once driverless cars become fully operational, in about 20 years, we will see a 60 per cent increase in road usage.

Even if cities become driverless car zones, congestion won’t fall. After all, if the risk of being hit by a car is significantly reduced, as the evangelists of this new technology claim, people will be more likely to cycle or walk from A to B. And that in turn will mean more congestion, not less. No doubt some trains will still run, including the London Underground, But if fewer people are using them they’ll be unaffordable to all but the superrich.

And that is my main concern about this new technology — it will exacerbate existing inequalities. I’m not just thinking about the tens of millions of people who earn a living as taxi drivers in the developed world, most of whom will lose their livelihoods.

Suppose the only cars allowed in central London are driverless ones. Do you really think the regulatory authorities will insist they all travel at the same speed? More likely, the algorithms will be set up so you’re either in a slow car that never exceeds 20mph or a fast one that gets you to your destination as quickly as possible. You’ll be able to switch from one algorithm to another, probably in the course of a single journey, but only if you’re willing to pay through the nose. You’ll be crawling towards an important meeting, becoming increasingly anxious about being late, when a message will pop up on the dashboard offering to get you there in half the time for an extra £50.

So forget all this hogwash about a utopian, accident-free future in which you’ll be whisked from door to door in airconditioned comfort at virtually no cost. That’s for the birds. Driverless cars will be slower, more expensive and divisive. We should nip this technology in the bud. By arrangement with the Spectator