The death of Elaine Herzberg, hit by a driverless Uber research vehicle in Tempe, Ariz., on Sunday, was a terrible accident. But before entertaining any knee-jerk reactions to ban or restrict driverless cars, it’s important to recognize, as Tempe police chief Sylvia Moir says, that early indications suggest neither Uber nor the supervising driver in its vehicle were to blame.
It would be easy to blame Uber for the accident, and that’s what the Amalgamated Transit Union wants to do. In the wake of the accident, it released a statement calling for Congress to pass more regulation on autonomous cars and trucks. “We are helpless bystanders caught in a corporate gold rush while these profiteers rush these self-driving multi-ton missiles onto our streets and highways long before they are ready,” ATU International President Lawrence Hanley said. “It’s time to put the brakes on autonomous vehicles.”
Not mentioned in the statement was how many people were killed or injured after being struck by taxis and buses being driven by people. Such accidents are so commonplace that they are not national news, unlike the rare accidents caused by driverless cars.
The incendiary comment quoted above is perhaps what you would expect from a union that represents industries incapable of competing with ride-sharing firms like Uber and Lyft. Ride-sharing services offer better service at lower cost, so it’s no surprise that taxi unions have resorted to fear-mongering in pursuit of crippling regulation or worse.
Pushing their supporters in the Democratic Party to obstruct ride-sharing firms at every turn, unions seized an obvious opportunity in the Tempe accident.
Uber and legislators should not give in to union fearmongering, and foreclose on a world in which driverless or semiautonomous cars save thousands of lives from untimely deaths caused by human drivers. When Stephenson’s Rocket ushered in the age of steam trains in 1829, it also killed a member of Parliament. The accident was not used to prevent a new epoch of safe and efficient mass transportation.
The most important societal gain from autonomous vehicles is that which unions claim is their greatest weakness: risk to life. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, between 30,000 and 40,000 people have lost their lives due to road traffic incidents in each of the past 10 years. How many might be saved by eliminating human error?
Ultimately, labor unions would have us view Uber and other driverless vehicle experiments as final products, demonstrably and unacceptably risky. But these programs are very much a work in progress, years from reaching the point of common usage on public roads.
Unless and until technology is capable of winning popular trust, riderless vehicles will not be readily available. But if, as we believe, popular trust will gradually follow the development of better autonomous vehicle technology, many lives will be saved.
Distracted driving, tiredness, intoxication, confusion, health conditions such as poor sight, or driving-related stress: All these concerns will be ameliorated by the rise of autonomous vehicles. Computer-driven cars also have better reaction times, faster route choices, and more efficient fuel consumption.
Federal regulation wouldn’t do anything other than damage entrepreneurship, innovation, and ingenuity. Cracking down on this research would slow prospective economic gains. After all, as with the Obama administration’s overregulation of the commercial drone industry, if the government restricts driverless car research, developers and their investors will relocate to more welcoming pastures. Instead of American cities and states benefiting from the investment and intellectual property opportunities to follow, it will be European nations.
Let us not foreclose on the bright futures lit by the headlights of autonomous vehicles. Policymakers must allow the private sector to be fastidious in its high-speed pursuit.
