The sales pitch for autonomous vehicles is seductive. Picture this: roads free from human error. Traffic flowing in perfect harmony. No more drink-driving fatalities. No more tired or distracted commuters causing collisions. No more mobility-limited individuals trapped at home.
Autonomous vehicles (AVs), we are told will democratise mobility, reduce emissions, and transform our cities into efficient and equitable spaces.
It’s a compelling vision.
But, because there is always a but, as with any revolutionary technology promise, we should ask ourselves: who’s writing the script, and who really stands to benefit from this particular version of the future? Is it the case that beneath the better future vision lies a more uncomfortable reality: the autonomous future is being built not as a public good, but as a platform for private profit?
The Gospel According to Silicon Valley
It is not unreasonable to ask whether the AV narrative has been deliberately shaped by coalition of tech companies, automotive manufacturers, and venture capitalists?
The messaging is remarkably consistent:
- AVs represent an inevitable technological evolution that will benefit everyone.
- Safety will improve dramatically.
- Cities will become more liveable.
- Transport will become more accessible and affordable.
This particular narrative has been so effective that my questioning it feels, could it be, wrong? almost heretical. Who am I to argue against safer roads or better accessibility? It doesn’t take too much of a closer look, examination of what is. I recall reading in Focus magazine in the early 1990s that self-driving cars would be mainstream by the year 2000. That promise remains unfulfilled.
The companies developing these technologies aren’t charities; they’re businesses seeking returns on incredible levels of investments. There is nothing wrong with this, however, a closer examination reveals a more complex reality where the vision of autonomous mobility solely reflects commercial interest, not public good.
But when the most persuasive narratives around AVs come from those with the most to gain, we must examine how those narratives are being used to justify choices, particularly when it comes to public safety.
Safety: The Unassailable Argument
Let’s start with safety, the most compelling argument in the AV arsenal. Human error causes roughly 90% of traffic accidents, so removing humans from the driving equation should, in theory, save thousands of lives annually. This statistic is repeated so frequently that it’s achieved the status of received wisdom.
The scale of the challenge is substantial. The Department for Transport’s latest provisional statistics for 2024 show that in reported road collisions in Great Britain there were an estimated 1,633 fatalities, 29,537 killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties, and 128,375 casualties of all severities. These figures represent real human tragedy and the scale of preventable harm.
But again, if you dig a little deeper the picture becomes more complex. Whilst AV technology may eventually prove safer than human drivers in certain conditions we are nowhere near that point. Current autonomous systems struggle with edge cases, unexpected scenarios, and the complex social interactions that characterise real-world driving.
More troubling is how the safety argument is being used to justify rapid deployment of partially autonomous systems that may not be ready. One manufacturers claim of “Full Self-Driving” beta, for instance, has been tested on public roads with paying customers serving as unpaid test pilots. When collisions occur the blame shifts back to human drivers who have failed to maintain attention or intervene appropriately.
The safety narrative also conveniently ignores proven alternatives such as Vision Zero programmes which implement better road design, reduced speed limits, and improve public transport, all interventions which have demonstrated significant safety improvements without requiring a complete technological overhaul of our transport system.
In other words, we are being asked to embrace complex, unproven technologies while often overlooking simpler, proven, and more equitable alternatives, a pattern that repeats in promises around accessibility.
Accessibility: For Whom?
The accessibility promise is a particularly seductive one. AVs purport to provide mobility for those who are less abled, those who can no longer drive, and for those who cannot afford car ownership. At face value it is a noble goal, but the reality is likely to be far more complex, and probably expensive.
Current AV development is focused overwhelmingly on private vehicles and ride-hailing services. These solutions serve those who can afford them, not those most in need of transport equity. A less abled person struggling with poverty isn’t likely to benefit from a £50,000 autonomous vehicle nor from premium ride-sharing services.
Meanwhile, the same companies promoting AVs as accessibility solutions have often undermined actual accessible transport. Uber and Lyft, now major players in AV development, have fought regulations requiring wheelchair-accessible vehicles in their fleets. Their business models have also contributed to reduced public transport ridership in some cities, potentially weakening the accessible transport options that people actually rely on.
True transport accessibility requires affordable, reliable, and truly inclusive options. This is more likely to come from well-funded public transport systems than from private AV companies optimising for profit margins.
Much like the accessibility narrative, the environmental claims made on behalf of AVs deserve careful scrutiny, especially when convenience, not sustainability, appears to be the ultimate driver.
Environmental Promises and Electric Dreams
The environmental case for AVs rests largely on their potential integration with electric power trains and more efficient traffic flows they claim to achieve in future. Autonomous electric vehicles, could, in theory, maybe, just possibly reduce emissions whilst moving people more efficiently.
But this conflates two separate issues: electrification and automation. We can have electric vehicles without automation, and automation without electrification. The environmental benefits attributed to AVs often derive from electrification, which could happen regardless of whether humans or computers do the driving.
Moreover, the environmental impact of widespread AV deployment remains unclear. If autonomous vehicles make car travel more convenient and comfortable, might they increase overall vehicle miles travelled? Early evidence from ride-hailing services shows that induced demand happens, so we end up in a situation where these services have actually increased congestion in many cities rather than reducing it.
Whilst electric vehicles produce no direct tailpipe emissions, they generate significant particulate matter pollution from sources that are often overlooked. Recent studies have found that electric vehicles can produce 10-17% higher PM10 emissions than comparable petrol or diesel vehicles due to increased tyre and brake wear from their greater weight. Although in a balanced view of things, the use of regenerative braking systems can reduce brake dust emissions but at the same time the heavier batteries mean more wear on tyres and roads and structures over which they roll. As Emissions Analytics found, the particulate matter pollution from tyre wear alone can be 1,000 times higher than modern exhaust emissions.
The manufacturing phase presents even starker environmental costs. Producing a typical EV battery generates between 2.4 and 16 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions, that’s about the equivalent to what a petrol car emits driving 6,000 to 40,000 miles. The human cost is equally troubling, with 60% of the world’s cobalt coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where child labour and unsafe working conditions remain widespread concerns.
The truly transformative environmental gains in transport come from modal shift: getting people out of private vehicles and onto public transport, bicycles, and their own feet. AV technology, as currently conceived, reinforces car-centric mobility rather than challenging it. That’s a problem.
And just as with safety and environmental goals, the touted economic efficiencies of AVs often mask a deeper question: who truly benefits from those efficiencies?
Economic Efficiency: Efficient for Whom?
The economic argument for AVs focuses on genuine efficiency gains: reduced collisions, lower insurance costs, optimised routing, and shared vehicle systems. These benefits are real and potentially substantial.
But here’s the crucial question: who captures the value from these improvements?
The efficiency gains from AVs depend entirely on public infrastructure – roads, traffic systems, regulatory frameworks, and decades of public investment in transport networks. Yet under the current model, these publicly-enabled efficiencies flow primarily to private shareholders rather than back to the communities that made them possible.
When a connected vehicle optimises its route using real-time traffic data, it’s leveraging public road networks and municipal traffic management systems. When autonomous fleets reduce the need for parking, they’re freeing up valuable public land. When accident rates fall, the savings in emergency services and healthcare costs benefit public budgets.
The question isn’t whether technological change should happen – it’s whether the value created by that change on public infrastructure should serve public interests or private profit. To answer that, we need to follow the money and ask who is positioned to profit from the AV revolution as currently envisioned.
Cui Bono: Follow the Money
So who really benefits from the autonomous vehicle revolution as currently conceived?
Technology companies stand to capture enormous value from AV platforms, data monetisation, and ongoing software subscriptions. The shift from one-time vehicle purchases to ongoing technology services represents a fundamental business model transformation.
Venture capitalists and investors have poured billions into AV companies, expecting substantial returns when these technologies mature and achieve market dominance.
Automotive manufacturers see AVs as a way to maintain relevance in an industry increasingly dominated by software and services rather than mechanical engineering.
Insurance companies and data brokers anticipate new revenue streams from the comprehensive monitoring and risk assessment that AV systems enable.
The public, meanwhile, is expected to provide the roads, regulatory frameworks, and social licence for this transformation whilst largely remaining consumers rather than beneficiaries of the value created. That imbalance calls for better governance and better questions about how we develop and deploy these transformative transport technologies.
Alternatives and Better Questions
This isn’t an argument against all autonomous vehicle technology. Specific applications like autonomous shuttles running fixed routes, freight logistics, or even in respect of agricultural operations, all have the potential to provide genuine public benefits.
But we should be asking better questions:
- How can transport technology serve public rather than private interests?
- What governance structures ensure democratic control over mobility systems?
- How do we capture public value from publicly enabled innovation?
The current trajectory of AV development reflects the priorities and power of those driving it. If we want different outcomes, we need different processes, specifically ones that centre public benefit rather than private profit. Which brings us to the heart of the matter: how we shape the governance of our transport future and who gets to decide.
Conclusion
The promise of autonomous vehicles isn’t inherently false, but it’s been carefully curated to serve particular interests. The benefits are real but unevenly distributed, whereas the costs and risks are often socialised.
Instead of accepting the AV revolution as inevitable technological progress, we should treat it as a choice about what kind of mobility future we want. That choice should be made democratically, with full consideration of alternatives and genuine accountability for outcomes.
The roads beneath these future vehicles remain public infrastructure, funded by public investment and meant to serve public needs. If autonomous vehicles are to travel these roads, they should do so on terms that serve the public interest, not just private profit.
Our mobility future is still being written. The question is who gets to hold the pen.
Next in the series: “Public Good, Private Code” will examine how algorithmic control of transport systems raises fundamental questions about democratic governance and public accountability.
References
Department for Transport. (2025). “Reported road casualties in Great Britain, provisional estimates: 2024.” Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2024
Stilgoe, J. (2018). “Machine learning, social learning and the governance of self-driving cars.” Social Studies of Science, 48(1), 25-56.
Milakis, D., Van Arem, B., & Van Wee, B. (2017). “Policy and society related implications of automated driving: A review of literature and directions for future research.” Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 21(4), 263-275.
Mladenović, M. N., & McPherson, T. (2016). “Engineering social justice into traffic control for self-driving vehicles?” Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(4), 1131-1149.
Legacy, C., Ashmore, D., Scheurer, J., Stone, J., & Curtis, C. (2019). “Planning the driverless city.” Transport Reviews, 39(1), 84-102.
Cohen, S., & Hopkins, D. (2019). “Autonomous vehicles and the future of urban tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 74, 33-42.
Docherty, I., Marsden, G., & Anable, J. (2018). “The governance of smart mobility.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 115, 114-125.
Gruel, W., & Stanford, J. M. (2016). “Assessing the long-term effects of autonomous vehicles: the case of vehicle lifecycle cost-benefit analysis.” Research in Transportation Economics, 61, 9-22.
Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). “Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167-181.
Bagloee, S. A., Tavana, M., Asadi, M., & Oliver, T. (2016). “Autonomous vehicles: challenges, opportunities, and future implications for transportation policies.” Journal of Modern Transportation, 24(4), 284-303.
Transport Research Laboratory. (2020). “Public attitudes to autonomous vehicles.” TRL Report PPR915.
House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee. (2017). “Connected and Autonomous Vehicles: The Future?” HL Paper 115.
