Novelist Jon Wallace considers the science fiction implications of engineering stories that have caught his eye. This month, the future pros and cons of driverless cars
Since Mr Benz unveiled his patented motor-wagen, the car has helped define the way we imagine our future, as the most intimate expression of man’s relationship with engineering. Where bridges, dams and canals remain the boast of nations, automobiles are the boast of individuals. Where air and sea transport remain stubbornly mass transit (private ownership the domain of the few) automobiles empower us all, making each of us captains of our own little craft. Cars help define our position in society: our first car is a passage to adulthood. Our choice of car projects our status where we choose to roam.

It makes sense that scifi writers have so often used the car as a defining element in their future worlds. From Back to the Future 2’s flying DeLorean to Mad Max 2’s ‘Pursuit Special’, the state of the car has helped define the state of the future and, more importantly, provided the means for adventure on a broad, dazzling canvas.
Still, when we observe the car’s progress in the 21st century, those of a scifi disposition can’t help but feel a pang of regret. Visions of flying cars, once contemplated as an inevitable evolution, have become a sort of punchline. Worse, the car’s core appeal, that of a liberating symbiosis between man and machine, is under threat. As engineers confront the challenges of climate change, overwhelmed networks and our own safety demands, the driver is increasingly made merely another passenger. As the passing of steam ripped the romance from rail, could the end of petrol wipe out the wonder of wheels?

This month, The Engineer reported on a joint venture between Volvo and Uber to create a fleet of driverless taxis. Such automated traffic indicates a dreary future indeed: hardly what we’ve been led to expect by the chaotic cabs of The Fifth Element, or Red Dwarf’s ‘Hoppers’. Where automation has raised its head in scifi taxis, such as Total Recall’s ‘Johnny Cab’, our heroes have impatiently ripped it from its housing.
It’s here that we begin to see possibilities for stories. For the driverless car ‘revolution’ seems above all the fascination of giant corporations – the Googles and Apples of this world. Will individuals of the future submit so meekly to a chauffeured existence, drained of passion? We love our cars, and a forced transition to automation may be a rocky road indeed – particularly in the world of taxis.
A story could follow a band of black-cab drivers left destitute by the Uber hordes. Raging against the dying of their profession’s light, they wage a guerilla war on the automaton fleet; a hit-and-run campaign, where their unique knowledge of London’s streets allows them to evade capture. Peace talks get nowhere, until Uber officials consent to sit not across the table from their cabbie foes, but on seats behind them, communicating through a glass partition – that famously helpless position that gives cabbies the upper hand in any negotiation.
The conflict may spread. If we abdicate control of our cars’ performance, will we happily relinquish the status of speed? A story could take place in a world of totally regimented, creepingly slow traffic. Wealthy boy racers, denied the satisfaction of aggressive fast-lane antics, move from speed to height. Taking inspiration from recent Chinese bus designs, they commission towering bling mobiles carried on wheeled stilts – gold-leaf gondolas that sail above the obliging mass of homogenised epod vehicles.
But their elation only lasts for so long: motorway pirates emerge at street level, bands of former white van men and truckers, who abandon their pods, scale the stilts, and plunder the new tall ships for
their treasure.
It may not all be doom and gloom. Perhaps parents, freed of the unique stress of the family drive, may enjoy a much increased lifespan? Perhaps the traffic jam, rather than a source of frustration, may become a centre for entirely new forms of human interaction. Start-up company ‘Drive.ai’ is already testing automated cars with digital signage mounted on their roofs, using emojis to convey their intentions to other drivers. How might the use of such light shows evolve? Might the cars of the future, made of new meta materials, change shape and colour at our command, display becoming as much a part of human communication as the Peacock’s or the Frigate Bird’s?
We could follow the tale of two lovers, stuck in a crawling, endless traffic jam, drawn by each other’s intricate automotive displays. Deciding that they cannot leave each other, they programme their vehicles to reshape into a single new form, allowing not only their coupling, but that of the vehicles too – binding systems and engines into new ‘married’ forms.
When it comes to cars, anything is possible. JG Ballard said “the ultimate concept car will move so fast, even at rest, as to be invisible”, but it’s a fair bet we won’t see cars disappear just yet. Cars are too bound up with defining how we see the world, how the world sees us – and where we all are headed.
Jon Wallace is a science fiction author living and working in England. His new novel, Rig, came out in paperbook and ebook in June
Driverless cars, what I like to call “robocars”, need not be the domain of public transportation, taxis, buses, trains, etc. but also privately-owned transportation. Yes, people love their cars–over the alternative of being dependent on somebody’s else schedule, availability and goodwill. With a privately-owned car, you go where you want, when you want with whom you want.
Privately-owned robocars allow for all of that–with the added bonus of having your own built-in chauffeur dropping you off right at the door of your destination without having to walk across acres of parking lots, in rain, heat or snow, while going to park itself and pick you up from the door of your departure point. Robocars could even go to gas stations (“petrol stations” in the UK?) to refuel and/or to get maintenance work, oil change, lube job, etc. while you’re at work, school, the theater, shopping, etc. They could deliver or pick up your kids to or from school, after school events, playdates with friends while you rest comfortably at home–freed of anxiety of teen drivers being distracted by friends from paying attention to the road.
Robocars, freed from human limitations in senses, no blind spots, or distractions, no shaving or putting on make up or eating, could travel even *faster* than human drivers and have faster machine reflexes to respond to obstacles.
Moreover, robocars would return independence to the elderly drivers who lost their licenses due to infirmities of declining health. Pity the poor politicians who stand between the elderly electorate and regained independence through robocars. Said robocars could also liberate countless numbers of people with disabilities which disqualified them from having driver’s licenses the independence of private transportation.
Cars radically changed society. Yet with it came traffic jams, distracted drivers, drunk drivers, the annoyance of “commuting”, being forced to maintain constant attention as urban traffic crawls along or at the same sparse rural traffic on rural highways. Robocars would finally free us from that drudgery to work, to play, to read even to sleep. Long commutes instead of depriving us of more sleep would enable us to regain said lost sleep.
As with many such issues and surveys, the question about whether people would want a “robocar”, a car capable of driving itself, as with many question about technology, focuses on the wrong element, the object. The real enlightening question focuses on service, the benefit: Would people want their own built-in chauffeur? Sure, some would always insist on driving themselves, but far, far greater numbers would prefer to be relieved of that burden.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. And unlike public or commercial robobuses, robocabs, robotrucks, etc. privately-owned robocars do not have a built-in base of people against it but a huge market of people for it, people who might like “driving” but utterly despise the mindless drudgery of “commuting”. This give privately-owned robocars an advantage over public / commercial driverless vehicles.
…”as with many question about technology, focuses on the wrong element, the object.” Ken from Chicago -greetings to our humble blog! (and from Mike in Macclesfield, Cheshire (where the cheese and the grinning cat comes from!)
I like your comment: I used to teach at several Universities and posed the question to my ‘marketing’ students “yes, we want customers to buy X,y,Z but what is it they are actually purchasing.” Hence one can move on to the discussion : do we promote features or benefits: and finally “are you selling to the user or someone more senior in the organisation?” -[the later often wife, partner?] A good friend, in N York in the 70s recognised all the issues with private car ownership you define. He sold his cars (his wife had one too and both were often being vandalised, scraped, etc) and did a deal with the local taxi-firm for day-to-day use; and a well known rental firm (the one that used to try harder) for weekends. He paid the first $500 up front: but said “what I call, be there, I have already paid for this trip. As Herb said: “It certainly concentrated their minds wonderfully. ” He guaranteed to take the last hire-car in the pool every other weekend for again a flat fee. he had everything from a mini to a cadillac: but absolutely no ‘running-or-capital” costs. At the end of the first two years he was about $10,000 better off than ownership. There has to be a moral here for us all. [Incidently, we have just had a visitor from St Petersburg, Russia -not Florida! She does not need a car for the city -public transport is exceptionally good- and she had arranged to visit Stonehenge (200+ miles from our home) by train and a linked bus service: all booked from ‘home -ie St P’. That is surely the absolute solution. Best
Mike B