A future in which cars communicate with roadside units to help
ease congestion, control individuals' driving habits, catch
criminals and ultimately open the way to cars without drivers has
emerged from a BCS debate.
The technology for such a future is already here, said
participants at the event, sponsored by the Department of Trade
& Industry and held under a rule of anonymity.
There are far too many cars on the roads in the UK, speakers
said. There has been a 50% increase in the number of cars over the
past 30 years and projections show another 50% growth during the
next 15 to 20 years.
The impact of petrol-driven vehicles on pollution and climate
change must also be considered. We need to know a lot more about
the road network and individual vehicles and drivers.
An intelligent transport infrastructure will provide an
opportunity to manage the traffic network better, easing congestion
and improving quality of life. It will be able to know the location
of every vehicle and how it is contributing to congestion and
pollution.
Relatively cheap technology for an intelligent transport
infrastructure exists already. This includes inductive loops that
measure traffic flow and detect potential road incidents, sensors
that detect pollution, in-car navigation systems, global
positioning systems to track vehicles, the emerging Galileo
satellite navigation system, simple electronic tags communicating
with transponders, and intelligent CCTV that can analyse
pictures.
The infrastructure is likely to evolve through increased use of
equipment in vehicles for navigation and road use charging. If
vehicles are equipped with intelligence and interact with the
roadside, there is wide potential: charging could be based on
distance, vehicle size, propulsion system, pollution, journey
purpose or congestion levels.
In addition there is potential for the vehicle to communicate
with the driver, providing information about road conditions.
But there is an issue of control and choice here: should drivers
be given information and left to decide what to do, or should they
be told what to do?
Both approaches are needed. In general, of course, people can
decide for themselves but in an emergency, such as the London
bombings, they need to be told what to do or where to go.
The potential for radical thinking is exemplified by traffic
lights. They are an old-fashioned means of communication. Today's
technology could replace them with an in-car display that tells the
driver what to do and stops the car if the instruction is ignored.
This is just one example of the system monitoring individuals'
behaviour and intervening if it deems it to be necessary. Speed
cameras could be used in a similar way.
Such control opens the prospect of all vehicles being driven
automatically. People could call for a car when needed, instead of
owning their own.
The gathering of information on individuals and their movements
raises privacy issues. The system would know where every vehicle
was, its speed, and whether it was breaking the law. Of course,
anyone concerned about privacy should be aware that mobile phone
services can already track people's locations.
Would the system be able to match human intelligence in making
decisions according to context? Could a driver take personal
control and override the system's predilection for safety - for
example, to accelerate away from a hazardous situation?
Would people give up their cars for better public transport with
better information or for automatic communal cars that could be
called for when needed? People do change when faced with new
threats and opportunities. For example, they might think twice
about face-to-face business meetings if the meetings were costed
properly and that cost was taken out of people's budgets.
There are real challenges - and opportunities - over the
purpose, individual applications, structure and technology of an
intelligent transport infrastructure and new thinking about the
potential of telecoms.