Could we ever learn to love driverless cars?

David Hasselhoff in Knight Rider David Hasselhoff in Knight Rider: the future of motoring?

Google's engineers have tested a self-driving car. But could motorists ever really let go of the wheel?

No more pile-ups, no more road rage, no more exasperated cursing as you stall at the lights.

Reading the paper during the morning commute, enjoying the scenery rather than staring at the tarmac, cutting your transport costs down to a fraction.

The promises of automatic, driver-less cars like those currently being tested by Google in California are many and varied.

Environmentalists say they could slash carbon emissions. Safety campaigners hope the removal of human error could reduce the number of road casualties which, in the UK alone, numbered 2,222 deaths and 24,690 serious injuries in 2009.

But, like a sticky clutch, the nagging doubts persist.

Could a planet with 350 million Top Gear viewers ever willingly surrender the joy of pushing down on the accelerator, the thrill of the open road? Will we ever have enough faith in technology to step inside 2,500kg of motor vehicle with no-one at the controls?

It's not as though the idea is especially novel. The notion of a "smart", driver-free motor vehicle has long persisted in science fiction, most memorably - at least, among aficionados of kitsch 1980s tea-time television - in the form of KITT, David Hasselhoff's sentient car in the series Knight Rider.

And real-life scientists, too, have been intrigued by the idea for many years.

As far back as 1977, engineers at the Tsukuba Mechanical Engineering laboratory in Japan produced a self-driving car which reached speeds of 20mph (32km/h).

In the following decade, a robotic Mercedes-Benz tipped the speedometer at more than 60mph (97km/h) on traffic-free streets. By 1994, scientists had developed a vehicle that was able to negotiate its way through three lanes of Paris traffic.

Annotate image of google car

The Darpa Grand Challenge, a contest sponsored by the US defence department, pits driverless cars against each other over courses nearly 100km (60 miles) long. And driverless taxi pods are already transporting passengers around London's Heathrow airport.

Most recently, Google's cars have negotiated 140,000 miles (225,260km) - including navigating San Francisco's streets and crossing the Golden Gate Bridge - using radar sensors, roof-mounted video cameras and a laser range finder which lets it "see" other vehicles, according to the company.

This long lineage prompts the question: why aren't we, already, abandoning our cars and hailing self-driving taxis to take us to work? Surely it would be cheaper, more fuel-efficient, and leave us less vulnerable to dangerous drivers.

Undoubtedly, many technical issues still need to be ironed out. If a desktop computer bluescreens the crash is metaphorical. If the complex network of computers required to navigate a car through a typical urban commute fail, it's all too real.

Dr John Baruch, of the University of Bradford's school of computing, informatics and media, believes the automotive industry has deliberately refrained from investing in such technology.

He notes that air passengers are more than happy to fly in craft steered by auto-pilot, and is confident that all it would take to transform our way of getting around would be a dedicated team of engineers and a few million pounds of investment.

But this, Dr Baruch believes, would bring its own set of negatives - undermining the very concept of private car ownership and drastically reducing the number of vehicles on the road. He envisages robotic taxis summoned on demand replacing cars sitting idle in driveways for most of the day.

Start Quote

Quentin Willson

Any system would have to be 150% reliable before anyone would put their faith in it”

End Quote Quentin Willson Motoring journalist

As a result, he suspects the major car manufacturers have dragged their wheels when it comes to development.

"They're against it because it would make cars into white goods," he says. "They couldn't sell you the experience of driving - but it would cut costs, we wouldn't need so many cars on the road, and there would be fewer accidents.

"I don't believe people would miss driving to their offices. I'd rather read or get on with some work than sit in a traffic jam staring at someone's exhaust pipe."

All the same, many remain sceptical. The motoring journalist Quentin Willson believes the idea is a potentially valid one that deserves research and investment. But he says we will have to go a long way before we put our such a level of trust on a daily basis in robot drivers.

"The pleasure of driving is already being eroded in this country, anyway," he concedes. "But I suspect that any system would have to be 150% reliable before anyone would put their faith in it.

"The human brain can react quickly to the blizzard of information we're confronted with on the roads. By contrast, we know what sat nav is like - it takes you on all sorts of circuitous routes.

"It's a terribly laudable idea but I don't think it's going to work."

Only time will tell whether this utopia will come to pass - and, indeed, whether motorists will be prepared to surrender the pleasures and frustrations of life behind the wheel.

Below is a selection of your comments

Quentin Willson says a system needs to "150% reliable". Gven that the existing system of people driving their own cars leads to thousands of deaths a year, the current system is far less than than 100% reliable at present.

Mark, Leeds

This fundametally goes against the whole purpose of private transport. I for one would never trust my life or that of my family to a robot driving a car, there will always be situations where a human will be needed - just like a plane's auto pilot.

Dave, Portsmouth

People talk about it having to be really reliable, but they forget that human drivers are unreliable and easily distracted, which computers would not be. I'm in favour of this idea and would happily sit back and relax knowing that the car is driving itself more safely than I ever could.

Steve Jones, London, UK

The analogy with aircraft isn't strictly true, even the most advanced commercial airliners still have a highly trained crew in the cockpit ready to take over from the computers if something goes wrong.

Tom M, Cardiff, UK

Pre-Hasselhoff we had driverless cars in the Beezer comic in the 1960s in a strip about a robot-served future. Only problem was the machines rebelled and cars were sent flying off the motorways. Even then I was intrigued by the idea and still wonder why such an obvious step towards road safety has not been pursued with more enthusiasm. Top Gear has a lot to answer for. Remember, it's not all about you!

Tony Cooley, Walsall

How can we be sure that a Google-controlled car will take you where you want to go? More likely, it will take you to the premises of companies who have paid to be at the top of their search list, or bombard you with adverts along the way. "We are now passing Astrabucks. Would you like to stop for a Mochafrapuchino with hazelnut syrup?"

Graeme Wilson, Dunfermline

I'm a bit confused about the link between the need for a driver and personal ownership of the car. One look at the contents of my car whilst it sits idly on a driveway (currently mainly rubbish but also damp wetsuits boots and a pushchair) would show why no-one else would want to drive it.

Michael, Edinburgh, UK

Of course, to be sure, it would be good to have a human driver ready to take over when needed. You could also further drive down costs and reduce traffic and pollution by making the car larger and sharing it with other people going to a similar place. Hang on, this is sounding familiar... If we seriously want to reduce traffic, pollution, etc, why don't we invest more in public transport?

Rachel, Scunthorpe, UK

If it will legally drive me home drunk from the pub, then I'll have one. Otherwise, what's the point!

Sid, Worksop, UK

Why would you own one? You'd order one from the central, underground, multistorey car park. There would be no cars parked along our suburban roads and no need for a garage. No capital outlay, with the resultant depreciation. Can't bring it on soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

Richard, Guildford, Surrey

Would the liability of any accidents and deaths incurred by these vehicles solely lie with the car manufacturer or the driver? What if the driver hit someone but stated the car malfunctioned or vice versa?

David, Manchester

And 100 years ago a man had to walk in front of every car with a red flag!

Niels, Leeds, UK

More on This Story

In today's Magazine

From other news sites

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.