Autonomous Driving Technologies: A Plus or a Minus?

In the past two PGA Shows in Orlando, at least three companies have exhibited their autonomous driving systems for golf car-type vehicles. These companies are Carteav and the Oribay Group (TB Buggy), and Turing Drive. Interestingly, all three emanate from outside the U.S.—in particular and respectively, Israel, Spain, and Taiwan.

This article builds a scenario for sales growth in the U.S. and examines some of the possible drawbacks in market development.

What’s ahead in the process of adopting autonomous driving vehicles?

The current market for autonomous golf cars is largely focused on gated communities, college campuses, parks, and other similarly well-defined venues. These sorts of locations can be easily geofenced and may offer transportation as a service, as well as individual vehicle ownership.

Another aspect of these locations is that they minimize the possibility of unexpected obstacles and safety hazards. In addition, the sheer volume of activity with regard to vehicle traffic and pedestrian movement can be anticipated and planned for. Moreover, geofencing boundaries can be rigorously set up and vehicle activity closely monitored.

Such environments are, and have been, conducive to golf type vehicle use to begin with, so the technology upgrade complements the familiarity with GCT usage. Extending autonomous GCTs to suburban and urban streets and roads obviously is likely to encounter more obstacles..

Public roads and streets in urban and suburban areas

GCTs with low speed vehicle certified attributes qualify for street legal status. Actual operation of LSVs on public roads is governed by state and local provisions. Such previous most often include specified areas and routes where LSV travel is permitted. In theory driverless LSVs and utility vehicles would find a friendly environment for adaptation.

Even without autonomous driving technology, LSVs are likely to see favorable market conditions:
• Based on U.S. Department of Transportation statistics, over 70% of all driving mileage is within five-to-seven miles of the driver’s residence. (See https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-products-and-data/covid-related/distribution-trips-distance-national-state-and.)

• The number of trips that are up to up to 5-7 miles is many times the trips going for a greater distance;

• While numbers are not available, just by a casual search on the web, it appears that there are a growing number of public hearings across the country at the local level are dealing with the grass roots emergence of LSV usage on public roads.

These trends strongly suggest that LSVs will become a dominant feature of short distance driving activity in the not to distance future.

What can autonomous driving technology add?

The promise of autonomous LSVs are to make short distance driving safer, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly than using conventional vehicles, whether gas or electric.

Objections to autonomous vehicles

A recently published commentary on autonomous vehicles appeared in Smart Cities Dive, entitled “The Unseen Environmental Costs of Autonomous Cars,” by Jeral Poskey. https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/robotaxis-environmental-costs-ghg-sustainability/740947/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%20202526%20Smart%20Cities%20Dive%20Newsletter%20%5Bissue:70802%5D&utm_term=Smart%20Cities%20Dive He is CEO of Swift Cities, a transportation advocacy organization.

Mr. Poskey raised several objections, beyond the usual safety concerns, that were particularly insightful. To quote him, here is the thesis of his article: “While self-driving cars and robotaxis were once hailed as a solution to climate-harming congestion, they may actually make the climate situation worse. I believe they will have major unintended negative consequences with second- and third-order effects that will seriously undermine climate goals.”

While self-driving LSVs are not mentioned specifically, they could clearly be added, when looking at urban transportation environment, just as scooters and e-bikes could be. So, what are the issues?

First, DOT statistics point to increasing vehicle miles traveled (VMt). People are traveling more frequently and at greater distances. Thus, pollution from the transportation sector is growing whereas carbon dioxide emissions from other sectors; e.g., electricity generation, has declined. Porskey contends that driverless vehicles will exacerbate the VMT trend by encouraging people to travel more, especially in terms of number of trips.

Porskey also contends that robotaxis in particular will encourage longer commutes and give impetus to further movement into the environment of urban/suburban sprawl. Thus, autonomous driving technology not only increases VMT, but compounds the problem of traffic congestion. So, what emerges in the article is an advocacy for public transit. In particular, Mr. Porskey is pioneering the concept of an overhead cable car system for urban transport.

Porskey also sees the solution for the climate change “crisis” in building better cities, where people necessarily living closer together and closer to their work, as well as their day-to-day shopping, would effectively eliminate the need for cars for the most part.

Points to dispute

One clear point of contention with Porshey’s thesis is that he apparently assumes the increase In VMT—and thus, the increase in carbon dioxide pollution—will be forthcoming through the use of gasoline-powered cars. He mentions nothing about electric-powered vehicles.

Porskey points out the attractiveness of robotaxi flees to consumers. Commuters no longer have to worry about driving, thus allowing them to attend to other tasks, while in commute, and there is no need to worry about maintenance and insurance expenses among other costs. Neither is finding a parking space any longer a bother. So, if there is, in fact, a market for driverless vehicles, the issue devolves into finding the right vehicle that can avoid the double bugaboos of pollution and congestion.

LSVs emerge to save the day, the nation, and the planet

One of the key reasons that robotaxis would be, and are, attractive to consumers is that they offer the choice of personal convenience, in contrast to mass transit. LSVs offer this key ingredient as well. Moreover, they address the issue of carbon dioxide pollution, as most are electric-powered. In addition, they are immensely practical, offering sufficient cabin or bed space to put groceries and other goods, which are most often the object of short distance driving.

One clear new upgrades, which is about to hit mainstream product lines, is autonomous driving systems. Add to this personalized geofencing, which allows owners to chart the boundaries of their short distance driving, according to their own preferences and needs, and you have the ideal smart city (and suburban), climate-friendly vehicle.

Certain vehicle upgrades needed to take full advantage of the short distance driving market

The most essential upgrade for LSVs has been the introduction of lithium batteries. This upgrade has greatly diminished the problem of limited distance capability. What is no needed is the design and effective installation of fully weatherized cabins, assuring year around use of the vehicle.

So far, the industry has been reluctant to take this important step. Costs are a big factor. Nonetheless, this is what is clearly needed to exploit the short distance driving market. We make this prediction: The next PGA Show ill feature new, imaginative designs with regard to enclosure. We may even cross the line and escape the notion that LSVs are simply a form of golf cart.

________

Contact the Author: Steve Metzger at smetzger@smallvehicleresource.com.  Or check out our website at www.smallvehicleresource.com, where you will find an extensive database of vehicle models and can make side-by-side comparisons of vehicles based on a full set of specifications.