One look at the headlines is all it takes to confirm the obvious. The novel coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic has completely upended society, and the automotive industry has been left tumbling in its wake. As General Motors races to reconfigure a production facility in Indiana to produce new life-saving ventilator equipment, one has to wonder – how could technology help us lessen the impact of a future pandemic? Could autonomous vehicle tech like Cruise Origin play a role in curbing the spread of dangerous, infectious diseases?
It’s an interesting thought experiment, and considering the benefits that autonomous vehicles have to offer, it certainly seems possible. Driverless taxis like Cruise Origin could fill in for public transportation during an ongoing pandemic, providing services when large gatherings of people should be avoided. With just a few riders on board, rather than the masses of people typically seen on a bus or train, the transmission rate could be significantly slowed. Add in the cost savings of autonomous vehicles, and the services could be affordable as well, or even made free in times of crisis.
What’s more, without a driver onboard, there’s one less person to infect, and riders could completely self-isolate by taking a ride solo. Another possibility would be using driverless vehicles to quickly transport patients, supplies, and equipment without risking exposure to a driver.
Autonomous vehicles could take things even further by tracking who is going where and who they are with. Granted, this raises questions over privacy, but in this particular thought experiment, let’s stay objective and simply look at the possible benefits that autonomous vehicles could provide.
For example, what if a driverless taxi came equipped with sensors that could read a rider’s skin temperature and respiration rate, or used microphones to record excessive coughing or sneezing? A system like that could recognize symptoms and flag the vehicle as contaminated, sending it in for cleaning before rejoining public circulation.
At the same time, we have to consider the vulnerability of autonomous vehicles with regard to reliance on public utilities. If the electrical grid falls, or there’s disruption in the information network, that fleet of driverless taxis could suddenly become useless. Throw a deadly pandemic on top, and the result could be disaster.
Regardless, autonomous vehicles do present some interesting benefits. What do you think, dear reader? Let us know in the comments, and make sure to subscribe to GM Authority for ongoing GM news coverage.
Comments
during a pandemic, public transportation of any kind is a mistake. A couple hundred people will still be transported per vehicle per day. At least new York taxis drivers have an operator still there to do a quick wipedown of handles and a Lysol spray. Heres a novel idea, personal ownership! that way everyone’s germs stays put! but wait, that’s to capitalistic for hippies???
Obviously, the ideal response to a pandemic is no public movement at all. Unfortunately, that doesn’t line up with reality. People still need to get from A to B, whether it’s for food, or medicine, or supplies, or to get to work at a critical business that remains open. Also, not everyone has access to their own personal car, whether it’s for financial reasons, or their living situation doesn’t permit it (urban environment, no access to garage, etc).
I have no desire for an autonomous vehicle or public transportation for that matter.
The last thing people want to do right now is share a vehicle like this with any one. Even riding in it after someone else is a big no. This virus gives people pause on this stuff.
driver or no driver, who wants to ride a bus? this entire AV thing is a head scratcher.
gm’s corporate goal is zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion. this pandemic is doing a pretty good job at all three.
On the contrary: I think this virus will set back the “mobility” and “self driving” movement back years. Could you imagine if these were a significant part of everyday transportation? They would have been taken off line stranding people but not before thousands could potentially be infected.
Why would they be taken off line?
Because they may have a computer virus.
These things would be incubators for the spread of viruses and disease. Figure if there is one person who had the Coronavirus and spread it to others on the shuttle, potentially hundreds could be infected in a short period of time. Hence, public officials would sideline these they way they did restaurants and group gatherings.
Also, the way the Origin is set up, it would not meet the 6-foot “social distance” criteria.
This all may be a moot point anyway. Ford and GM are talking about austerity measurements in light of this pandemic, and I would not be surprised to see AV programs and research take the brunt of the cuts.
I mean, people are getting bedbugs after using ride sharing. Driverless or not, that won’t change the fact. However, let’s say this was what we decided to do.
“For example, what if a driverless taxi came equipped with sensors that could read a rider’s skin temperature and respiration rate, or used microphones to record excessive coughing or sneezing?”
Who determines what is excessive coughing or sneezing? 2 coughs or sneezes in a 5 minute window? You’ll be flagging every vehicle for total decontamination daily during allergy season, maybe even more than once per day. The vehicles would spend more time being cleaned than actually doing what they were designed to do. A skin temp sensor serves you no better, Skin temperature can be up to 10 degress lower than core temperature.
Point is, ride sharing won’t lower the curve of a virus. Use of my own vehicle that I can disinfect afterwards, now that actually works.
“But not everyone has a personal vehicle”
Correct, but we have this thing called delivery services. Especially in those areas that don’t permit cars. Bit of a big business there.
Hoffa –
Thank you for your in-depth response.
“I mean, people are getting bedbugs after using ride sharing. Driverless or not, that won’t change the fact. ”
Ride sharing AVs would not be a panacea, rather, they could be a favorable alternative to public transportation when large crowds of people should be avoided, as I stated in the article.
“Who determines what is excessive coughing or sneezing? 2 coughs or sneezes in a 5 minute window?”
There are algorithms in development that can help to determine this.
“A skin temp sensor serves you no better, Skin temperature can be up to 10 degress lower than core temperature.”
There are infrared thermometers in use right now to help screen for potentially sick travelers. Granted, the accuracy of said thermometers is questionable, but that can obviously be improved upon if the impetus is there – such as in a pandemic. Combined with other data (such as the sneezing and coughing algorithm I mentioned) and you could have a rather robust system in place. Theoretically of course, after all, these are just ideas.
“Point is, ride sharing won’t lower the curve of a virus.”
Don’t know why you’re so sure about that.
“Use of my own vehicle that I can disinfect afterwards, now that actually works.”
Agreed 100%
“we have this thing called delivery services. Especially in those areas that don’t permit cars. Bit of a big business there.”
Delivery services are great, but hardly cover everything. What about folks that need to get to work? What about essential goods that aren’t always available via delivery? What about getting across town to take care a family member or child? What about people who don’t have access to the Internet? What about people that can’t afford delivery services?
“Ride sharing AVs would not be a panacea, rather, they could be a favorable alternative to public transportation when large crowds of people should be avoided, as I stated in the article.”
Agreed, the point is that their usage now vs when they are deployed on a larger scale when there’s a pandemic, which you outlined in the article, is that diseases will spread. With somewhat limited usage now vs on a massive scale as you’re proposing that number will only go up.
“There are algorithms in development that can help to determine this.”
Which algorithms would that be? The point is that the number of coughs or sneezes doesn’t determine whether someone has a communicable disease. Seasonal allergies cause lots of sneezes and on a more rare note, coughs. Regardless, it would take the vehicle out of service for much of the day.
“There are infrared thermometers in use right now to help screen for potentially sick travelers. Granted, the accuracy of said thermometers is questionable, but that can obviously be improved upon if the impetus is there – such as in a pandemic. Combined with other data (such as the sneezing and coughing algorithm I mentioned) and you could have a rather robust system in place. Theoretically of course, after all, these are just ideas.”
Regardless, how would that register especially in the case of COVID-19 when between 30% and 80% are asymptomatic. You’re relying solely on “well technology will advance cause pandemic”. Haven’t seen a tech bomb for the 700,000 in the US alone that will die from heart disease this year.
“Don’t know why you’re so sure about that.”
So people shouldn’t ride a bus because of a disease, but a shared ride is fine? Not to mention you agreed with my point afterwards where I use my own vehicle and disinfect it as a way of not contracting a disease.
“Delivery services are great, but hardly cover everything. What about folks that need to get to work? What about essential goods that aren’t always available via delivery? What about getting across town to take care a family member or child? What about people who don’t have access to the Internet? What about people that can’t afford delivery services?”
Companies that want to stay in business will expand. But you mentioned urban areas where there are no cars, that’s why I mentioned delivery services, In those cities, delivery services will deliver anything you want minus certain things like guns and ammo. How will people get to work? Walk? Bike? Carpool? This isn’t rocket science. Across town to take care of family? Same thing. You seem to think I’m crapping on ride sharing as a whole. I’m not, I”m pointing out how your pipe dream of nothing but AV Taxis will not keep people healthy in the way you’re presenting in the article. Lastly, if they can’t afford a delivery service or have no internet, how will ride sharing even help them? You can’t call a ride service and you can’t pay for it. “Oh but make it free in a pandemic” We won’t always be in a pandemic. Rethink your dream and come back when it’s reality based.
“Agreed, the point is that their usage now vs when they are deployed on a larger scale when there’s a pandemic, which you outlined in the article, is that diseases will spread. With somewhat limited usage now vs on a massive scale as you’re proposing that number will only go up.”
I never stated AVs would *stop* the spread of a pandemic, just that it *could* help to *slow* the spread compared to public transportation where masses of people (dozens and dozens) are crammed together.
“Which algorithms would that be?”
Research on your own how artificial intelligence is being used in the medical field, including the recognition of illness. There are countless reports and studies on this.
“The point is that the number of coughs or sneezes doesn’t determine whether someone has a communicable disease. Seasonal allergies cause lots of sneezes and on a more rare note, coughs.”
My point was never that coughs or sneezes determine someone has a disease. My point was that kind of of thing could be *one data point* in a system used to determine if someone was sick.
“Regardless, it would take the vehicle out of service for much of the day.”
How do you know that? This is all speculation, so why not have a system that automatically cleans the vehicle as soon as the potentially infectious passenger exits?
“Regardless, how would that register especially in the case of COVID-19 when between 30% and 80% are asymptomatic.”
Again, I refer you to my previous statement that AVs are not a panacea. It sounds like you dramatically misinterpreted the post.
“You’re relying solely on “well technology will advance cause pandemic”. Haven’t seen a tech bomb for the 700,000 in the US alone that will die from heart disease this year.”
You’re still missing the point. Please re-read the second paragraph of the original post to find it. The possible advances in medical technology are purely tangential.
“So people shouldn’t ride a bus because of a disease, but a shared ride is fine?”
Second paragraph of original post.
“Not to mention you agreed with my point afterwards where I use my own vehicle and disinfect it as a way of not contracting a disease.”
… and?
“Companies that want to stay in business will expand. But you mentioned urban areas where there are no cars, that’s why I mentioned delivery services, In those cities, delivery services will deliver anything you want minus certain things like guns and ammo.”
Incorrect. Delivery services are great, but they cannot deliver *everything* to *everyone*. Maybe one day in the far-flung future, but in the present, people still need to step out of the house every so often, even in an emergency.
“How will people get to work? Walk? Bike? Carpool? This isn’t rocket science.”
It might seem simple to you, but reality is far more complex than this. What if it’s too far to walk? Inaccessible by bike? No one to carpool with? For a lotta folks, public transportation and ride sharing are literally the only options.
“You seem to think I’m crapping on ride sharing as a whole. I’m not, I”m pointing out how your pipe dream of nothing but AV Taxis will not keep people healthy in the way you’re presenting in the article.”
You seem to think I’m arguing to replace all modes of transportation with AV taxis. I’m not. Try re-reading the article.
“Lastly, if they can’t afford a delivery service or have no internet, how will ride sharing even help them? You can’t call a ride service and you can’t pay for it. “Oh but make it free in a pandemic” We won’t always be in a pandemic.”
I was addressing your assertion that delivery services would solve the issue. They don’t.
“Rethink your dream and come back when it’s reality based.”
The funny thing is, Cruise Origin is already here, and like I said in the post, “could fill in for public transportation during an ongoing pandemic, providing services when large gatherings of people should be avoided.” Go ahead and give the post another read, then take another swing 😉
Fewer vehicles on the road is a need for congested cities. Also combining the AV ride with thermal scanning technology and more is definitely the way to go.