The Argument for the "Right To Drive"

By

Not everyone welcomes an autonomous future - the Human Driving Association believes that they’re fighting against technology's war on driving. The organization is pushing back against autonomous vehicles in order to “protect people’s freedom of movement and right to drive their own cars,” promising that an AV future will have to take steering wheels out of member’s “cold, dead hands.”  


Although they seem extremist, the critiques of the HDA are grounded in valid concerns - right now, driverless cars are not proven to be safer than human-driven vehicles, and AV technology is often used as a solution to problems of congestion and pollution that could be solved in other ways (bike lanes, electric cars, better transit, etc…).  HDA founder Alex Roy notes that AVs lack uniform safety standards or regulation. Although a large number of states have not yet enacted any laws regarding AVs, every year that number is dropping.


As a lobbying organization with over 10,000 members, the HDA advocates for laws to require carmakers to include steering wheels in all cars and for every future car to be fully drivable by humans. The group is currently lobbying for a constitutional amendment to protect the human “right to drive.”


Advocates of autonomous vehicles dismiss HDA’s desire for laws that protect the right to drive. AI researcher Toby Walsh believes that the way to safer streets is through removing human drivers. However, HDA’s concerns about an unregulated AV future may be soon realized. In 2017, the House passed the Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research in Vehicle Evolution Act (SELF DRIVE Act), which allows AV companies to request exemptions from many regulations - if passed, states would not be allowed to enact laws regarding the design, construction or performance of autonomous vehicles. Although the bill died in the senate, many AV companies are asking Congress to pass it this year.

The existence of the HDA could be dismissed as Luddism by AV advocates, but they do act as a counterpoint to naive optimism about AVs solving the transportation issues of today.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular on the Blog

Final Policy Guidelines

By
Students, I was exceedingly pleased with the quality of your final presentations and wanted to share them publicly.  Here they are: Ridehail (TNCs) - Presentation , Guidelines Micromobility - Bikeshare and Scooter Share - Presentation , Guidelines Freight and Goods Movement - Presentation , Guidelines   Courier Network Services - Presentation , Guidelines Real Estate and Curb Management - Presentation , Guidelines Future Shared Vehicles - Presentation , Guidelines Mobility as a Service - Presentation , Guidelines
Read more

Take to the Streets! The (AV) Revolution is Coming

By
Image
When I think about new mobility and new technologies that enable it, I get most excited about the possibilities to remediate or reverse the inequities and injustices caused by our current autocentric transportation and land use regime. Our transportation system currently and historically on the biggest tools enabling systemic  injustice and exploitation in the United States and globally. Those who control our transportation system have turned it into the largest contributor to the climate emergency, perpetuator of environmental injustices, and catalyst for exploitation and expropriation of oppressed communities Consider the freeway riots, suburbanization and white flight, hyper-gentrification, and pollution burden. Transportation planning is implicated in all of these processes. It will also be instrumental in dismantling them. If we collectively organized ourselves, we could already have livable cities, mobility justice, and (significantly) decarbonized transportation system...
Read more

In TNC wage war, econ 101 is on the driver’s side

By
Image
Hold on tight, passengers, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride We frequently read and hear that ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft are money-losers and are unlikely to be profitable in the near future. However, given that both companies are trading on public markets with a combined worth of more than $80 billion, investors must be thinking they will reach profitability at some point. The question is whether this profit will come from higher prices charged to passengers, or lower wages given to drivers. In a recent New York Times Upshot piece, Austan Goolsbee, a well-known economist and former adviser to President Barack Obama, makes the case that, in this scenario, passengers will be footing the bill. Goolsbee substantiates his claim in a way that those of his of economics-trained ilk know how to best--via the theory of "relative price sensitivity." Economic theory predicts that those who are more sensitive to prices changes will pay less, while those who are less pr...
Read more