After securing a new job, I found myself with the option of walking home. Having worked for nearly a decade in central London trains, this was a new experience. It would keep me active whilst saving costs. Win, win. 

However walking home, I swiftly realised that the whilst the roads did have pavements, the individuals tasked with creating them had clearly not walked the path. Frequently, there would be crossings with no colour lights. This coupled with drivers routinely failing to indicate before turning and vehicles that regard indicators as accessories rather than a feature with a function, makes crossing such roads tricky, to say the least. Then, there are paths which are partially fitted with colour lights. These are somehow more dangerous than not having them as it is not clear which portion of the road is covered by such lights. 

This isn’t even accounting routes which entail pavements that abruptly end.

Why am I saying all this?

Reading the book, Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez (2020), the author highlights how transportation has been designed to favour males and their travel habits over that of women. This experience, I’ve highlighted, is perhaps a reflection. 

Drivers, historically dominated by men, would not face any issues with the situation described. As a driver, having limited colour lights enables the driver to judge and drive smoothly. No random lights stopping your way. As for indicators, does it matter? After all, it is a left turn. It would not make a significant impact on other drivers. In some cases, although the pedestrian does have right of way, drivers voice their anger and place then blame when issues arise on such pedestrian. 

However, there is a bigger concern. Self-driving cars.

In the book Hello World by Hannah Fry (2018), she outlines the concerns self-driving vehicles pose and their challenges. Mainly, if it gives way always to others, there is a high risk it may be “bullied”. 

But, what is the alternative? 

Fry’s case was for roads akin to motorways to be build. This is understandable. No distractions, less risk and no vehicles being bullied. 

Sounds great. 

However, reverting back to the Perze and her findings, such changes are likely to have a negative impact on women and those who would not use such services. If roads are made to be driverless safe, it would entail blocking pedestrians, and cyclist. 

These would favour one section of the population over the other. In addition, vehicles and their owners play a lot more tax than the pedestrian and cyclist. 

In other words, what is the possibility that roads such as that i had described increase? What is the future we are designing? Are we designing a world that would be better for all or for a potion of the population?

Perhaps, the theory of a self-driving car safe roads is fiction. Perhaps the cars could coexist with current interface. In this case, the trolly problem raises and therefore, as Fry writes, cars that could be “bullied”. 

Also, could we feasibility have a vehicle that runs a risk of endangering the passenger? Whilst morally we can understand the arguments that if the car deems so it would risk the life of its passengers to safe a life or a baby or a group of individuals. However, if our lives are at risk, would we put money into such item?

After all, whilst the trolly problem does arise, automotive companies have an inherent benefit of their consumer. The driver/passenger. 

This is not a article which outlies how self-driving cars should operate. I know nothing. It instead, aims to draw upon the teaching of Socrates: “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” (2023) I simply noticed an issue and I an unsure of a feasible path whereby the issue does not become aggravated. The roads were not designed for all individuals who use it. If as Perze attributes it to the lack of diversity and AI is widely noted to be lacking in diversity, should we be concerned?