The Driverless Car Revolution – Amazon Review

Driverless Car Revolution: buy mobility not metal

by Rutt Bridges

Review for Amazon.co.uk **** 25 June, 2015

Highly recommended, but …

Mobility Not Metal is an impressively clear and comprehensive account of the potential of the driverless car revolution – with a significant omission that we will come to shortly. It provides an intelligible description of both the technology on which it depends, and the extraordinary pace of its development. The essence of the mobility vision it presents is a world transported by Uber without the drivers. It also presents convincing evidence that it will be possible for this technology to operate safely for all road users, both in and outside cars.

Bridges is clear that driverless cars will be a massively disruptive technology, and identifies the potential winners and losers in the revolution that he forecasts. Per mile travelled it will be hugely cheaper, safer and more efficient for all travellers, but especially for those denied a driving licence because of age, disability or disqualification. The potential losers include the motor manufacturing industry (far fewer cars will be needed), motor mechanics (the new “Autos” will be much more reliable and less expensive to maintain) and an army of drivers (from those driving taxis and delivery vans to pizza delivery boys on bicycles). He is clear that the gains will greatly exceed the losses – driverless cars “will have a profoundly positive influence on all of us and our planet as well” – and that the winners will prevail – Chapter 1 is entitled “How your world will [not might] change.”

He argues his case with the help of a number of American vignettes: “For simplicity’s sake, we’ll focus just on mobility services in the U.S., provided to city and suburban markets by electric vehicles.” More specifically his demonstration of the economic advantages of driverless cars is based on their potential use in Denver: “The City and County of Denver will be the theoretical test market for the Mobility economic model.” And herein lies a problem.

Bridges’ vision of the future of driverless cars is global – he speaks of its impact on “our planet” – and he envisages its principal market being “densely populated metro areas” everywhere. But by global standards the city and county of Denver are not densely populated. 82% of its commuters currently travel by car, truck, or van, mostly from sprawling suburbs. The other favourite demonstration laboratory for driverless cars is Mountain View California also, by global urban standards an area of extremely low settlement density. How, one might ask, would the self-driving car cope in a truly densely populated metro area such as London with a population density more than 150 times that of Mountain View?

This question is not addressed. Truly densely populated urban areas have dense pedestrian traffic and, increasingly, dense cycling traffic. And, after many decades of neglect, it is now official policy in most such areas that these modes of travel should be encouraged. How might driverless cars manage in such areas?

Most of the video demonstrations of driverless cars that I have been able to find show them performing on roads from which cyclists and pedestrians have been excluded. Where they are shown interacting with pedestrians and cyclists the pedestrians and cyclists are very occasional impediments, and the driverless cars are shown responding very deferentially. They are, according to Bridges, “inherently polite” and programmed to be “the ultimate defensive drivers”. It is difficult to see why, at the busy times of day when driverless cars would be most in demand, they would not suffer deferential paralysis in areas with high volumes of pedestrian and cycle traffic.

Bridges observes “it could be the regulatory challenges and not technology that pose the greatest risk for bringing the benefits of driverless cars to the people of the planet.” He fears that America might not rise to these challenges and asks: “Will America let politics and bureaucracy block real progress?” If not he fears that China might steal the lead in the race to bring his vision of progress to the world.

But he offers no clue as to how the challenges posed by high pedestrian and cyclist densities might be met. What regulatory changes would be needed to allow Autos free movement in such areas? His book does not acknowledge the existence of the problem. A challenge readers might find interesting: Google “China (or Netherlands) bicycles” and click on images, and then devise a set of regulatory changes that would allow Bridges’ Autos to share the streets with the traffic in the pictures displayed.

Buy this book. **** is a compromise. This is essential reading for those seeking to understand the evangelical enthusiasm of the advocates of driverless cars and the extraordinary wealth and political muscle of their promoters, and fearful of the consequences for pedestrians and cyclists who threaten to impede their progress.


Self driving cars and the child-ball problem

“…if a ball were to roll onto a road, a human might expect that a child could follow. Artificial intelligence cannot yet provide that level of inferential thinking.”

This quotation from 2012 has already been overtaken by the extraordinary progress in the development of self-driving cars. But programming a self-driving car to anticipate a child following a ball is the easy part of the problem.  The tricky bit is programming the car’s response. read more


Risk: mathematical and otherwise

Draft of essay commissioned for a special issue of the Mathematics Enthusiast entitled “Risk: mathematical or otherwise”. Still time to make changes so critical advice welcomed, especially from mathematicians.


What role might mathematicians have to play in the management of risk? The idea of turning a risk, a possibility of loss or injury, into a “calculated” risk, a quantified probability of loss or injury, is one that has obvious appeal not just to statisticians and mathematicians – but to large numbers of others who would like to know the probability of failure before pursuing some intended course of action.

Conclusion: even when risks can be calculated with great precision, they can only be used to inform judgment, but not substitute for it. And it matters who is making the judgment. Read more …



A bargain

From time to time I check on Amazon to see if anyone is buying my 1985 thriller Risk and Freedom – not many.

But views about its value vary widely. The act of reading it, and transforming it into a “used” book, apparently increases its value enormously – I would like to think so..

risk and freedom


1 Comment

Risk and Freedom is a book of historic significance. Published in 1985 and out of print for many years it continues to have a profound influence on road safety policy. It provides the first coherent application of the concept of “risk compensation” to the management of risk on the road. Risk compensation is a term coined by Canadian psychologist Gerald Wilde in the 1970s to describe the behavioural adjustments of people to perceived changes in safety or danger. In Risk and Freedom Adams applies the idea to a wide variety of road safety measures – seat belts, helmets, speed limits, alcohol limits, crumple zones and other crash protection measures, improved brakes and tires, and accident blackspot treatments, to name the main ones.

The idea that risk compensation could explain the failure of such measures to achieve their promised benefits was, at the time, unanimously dismissed out of hand by highway engineers, vehicle designers, and regulators. Today it is widely accepted as mere common sense, and serves as the basis for the new, and increasingly popular, shared space schemes. The most obvious explanation for the success of these schemes is Adams’ argument that road users are not obedient automatons, but alert and responsive participants in what Adams calls in his last book, Risk, “the dance of the risk thermostats”. Also, unlike most books on this subject it is well-written and entertaining.


Global Warming: a debate re-visited.

I have posted a near final draft of what became chapter 9 of my book Risk, published in 1995. The process of writing it transformed me from a firm believer in man-made global warming into a climate change agnostic – a position to which I still adhere. In 1995 it seemed  to me that most of the explanations being offered for what was happening to the climate were extraordinarily crude and simplistic relative to the complexity of  the system that the participants in the debate  purported to understand. I choose to call myself an “agnostic” rather than a “sceptic” because this appears to me to still be the case. The sceptics cast doubt on the “fact” of warming – I simply don’t know.

However my sympathies have shifted in favour of the sceptics in response to the disgraceful treatment of Professor Lennart Bengtsson after he recently proclaimed his scepticism and joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It is difficult to imagine a scientist more honoured and qualified to comment on this issue. The vicious personal response to his expressions of scepticism to me speaks volumes for their lack of confidence in the strength of their case.

I intend soon to post a review of these almost 20 year old thoughts – after deciding which ones I still agree with.  But meanwhile …


Fun-loving singles

I recently discovered (thanks Jim) that my website had acquired a sideline in the form of a service for fun-loving singles wearing not very much, and keen to get in touch with others similarly attired. Although many of the postings might be said to have had a risk theme I have decided to focus, for the moment, on less exciting issues such as seatbelt laws and ISO 31000.

Apologies to all disappointed users of the alternative service.

Best wishes



ISO 31000: an update

For those new to ISO 31000  – Risk management – Principles and Guidelines – published by the International Standards Organization – my profoundly negative view of it can be found in earlier postings .

ISO 31000 has spawned, at the moment of writing, 2.9 million Google hits. I cannot say that none of them addresses the concerns raised in my earlier postings – only that I have not seen them addressed. ISO seems to be simply a flag unto which people project whatever is currently bothering them about risk management – without making meaningful connection with ISO 31000 itself. Since it costs CHF 116 it is possible that many have never read it.

This post however addresses a different problem. In an attempt to monitor what was going on in the ISO 31000 world I joined a linked in website called G31000 . It is run by Alex Dali, possibly ISO 31000’s most enthusiastic promoter. He is the owner of an entity called G31000 that describes itself as “The Global Platform for ISO 31000”.  He has a website- and  claims  that his company –  The Global Institute for Risk Management Standards – has 10,001+ employees. So, I thought, a useful portal into the world of ISO 31000. Google maps helpfully provides a view of its headquarters at 6 Residence la Sabotte, Marly-le-Roi, Paris, France.

Screen Shot 2014-03-30 at 22.24.45
 It is not clear whether these are the homes of some of the 10,001+ employees, nor exactly where in this complex the office of the owner is to be found.

Monsieur Dali’s Linkedin site  purports to be a forum for exchanging ideas about ISO 31000.

I say “purports”. I have been a contributor to this forum in the past, but not recently – but I have kept a watching brief. A recent post by a regular contributor, Ian Dalling captured my interest: “Allen [Allen Gluck  vice-president of G31000], this news is very welcome. The incident [the temporary shutting down of the G31000 Linkedin website] has shaken people’s confidence – it would be good if you or Alex could elaborate further on what caused the incident and positively state that there was no truth in any of the accusations?”

And a follow-on post from Dalling: “given the web gossip may I ask the current status of Madeline Le Blanc within this LinkedIn Group?”

Why Madeleine LeBlanc might feature in web gossip damaging to G31000 is explained here . Her profile claims that she currently works for JLP Events. I phoned the only JLP Events that I could find on Google and they denied knowing anyone of this name. We know that she has been trading under a false photograph. Does she exist? This is not a trivial question. Madeleine.LeBlanc@G31000.org was the email address used in various exercises in the past soliciting significant amounts of money, e.g. http://www.slideshare.net/dali1010/toronto-conference-booking-form-4-16.

At this point I joined the discussion with a post of my own: And at the same time might we have some information about Formascope. I can find lots about this Formascope – http://www.societe.com/societe/formascope-443194733.html – but almost none about this Formascope – http://www.verif.com/comptes-annuels/DALI-ALEXIS-490167905/ – except that it hasn’t filed any accounts of which this website is aware [A notre connaissance, cette société n’a pas déposé ses comptes annuels].”

This appears to have been a sensitive inquiry. Formascope is a company listed on M. Dali’s profile so, I thought, a legitimate subject of inquiry in  the light of the “web gossip” about which Dalling was seeking reassurance. My post appeared briefly before being removed without explanation. And shortly thereafter the Comment Box was removed, ending the discussion – without either of Ian Dalling’s questions receiving an answer.

The message then became clearer:

Screen Shot 2014-03-30 at 22.49.25

There is nothing that pricks my curiosity more than being dropped into the Orwellian Memory Hole. So I took a closer look at the G31000 website – starting with Formascope.    It features in his profile under the heading “Managing Partner” where it is described as a “Training company specialized in global risk management”. If you click on “Managing Partner” you get taken to a list of 100 people who all have “managing partner” in their job titles. Their connection with G31000, if any, is not made clear.

If you click on Formascope here you get an even more intriguing response. You are taken to a page that introduces you to five people without names – two of whom do not even have faces. Certainly they have impressive job titles. Three are “Chefs d’entreprise”, one is “Directeur” and the other “Président”, a position I thought reserved for M. Dali himself . This impressive list of leaders sits uncomfortably alongside the only information I could glean from a Google search: http://www.verif.com/societe/DALI-ALEXIS-490167905/ – namely that Formascope, a company with 10,001+ employees, has not filed any accounts.

If you click your way through the rest of Alex’s Profile you are rewarded with other interesting information. Click on “President” and you get another list of 100 people, all called President. If you click on Global Institute for Risk Management Standards – “The Global Platform for ISO 31000” – you get further confirmation of the fact that he is president of a company with 10,001+ employees!

Clicking on “Managing Director” Atlascope brings up another 100 people all called “Managing Director” but no information about Atlascope.

Click on …. Well perhaps you get the idea.

Perhaps there are simple answers to Ian Dalling’s questions that M. Dali has not yet had time to provide, and explanations for the questions raised by my amateur Internet sleuthing. If so I will be happy to publish them.

Although I have been highly critical of ISO 31000, it makes one point in its introduction with which I am in full agreement: the effective management of risk, it says, will “improve stakeholder confidence and trust.” My brief perusal of the G31000 website and experience of  (and blocking from) one of its associated discussion forums has inspired neither.

Another, more energetic and wide-ranging, inquiry into the activities of G31000 is being conducted by Christopher Paris of Oxebridge. See:

http://www.oxebridge.com/emma/?p=2870 , http://www.oxebridge.com/emma/?p=2668 , http://www.oxebridge.com/emma/?p=2628, and



Screen Shot 2014-04-01 at 11.38.11


A prize!!

This is a graphic record of the event. Jeremy Harrison, the head of the Institute of Risk Management, is laughing because I have just called him a sneaky bastard for inviting me to dinner without warning me that he had this in mind. And I am looking bemused because I was – and still am. I think the photo captures the lifetime bit fairly accurately.

lifetime award

PS It weighs 4 kilos.


Been there. Got the T-shirt.

Yesterday was Risk Day in Birmingham’s Town Hall with numerous events and speakers focused on the theme. My contribution was rewarded with a conference T-shirt.



I suggested that since The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has its headquarters in Birmingham they might like to come over to take part in a discussion about Britain’s seat belt law. Sadly the chair provided for them remained unoccupied.



They will never get the T-shirt. Had they shown up I would have asked them to justify the absurd claim on their website that Britain’s seat belt law has saved 60,000 lives: “We were instrumental in the introduction of the first seat belt law in 1983, with the compulsory wearing of seatbelts thought to have saved 60,000 lives.”

RoSPA’s persistence with a claim that they have to know is nonsense – http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/02/11/open-letter-to-tom-mullarkey-ceo-of-the-royal-society-for-the-prevention-of-accidents/ – is a deepening mystery. For more on seat belts see –  http://www.john-adams.co.uk/category/seat-belts/ .


Slides from my lecture on the public perception of risk

Powerpoint presentation delivered at Imperial College on October 14th 2013.

Older posts «