Close
today i learned (til)

Autonomous Vehicles: The Road Ahead

December 5, 2023

Autonomous vehicles (or “self-driving cars”) was once a fantasy only seen in sci-fi shows and little kid’s drawings; but today, they are rapidly becoming a reality. There have been major advancements in technology over the last 20 years and the way we think about transportation is about to be revolutionized.

[1]

But how do self-driving cars drive themselves?

Well, self-driving cars utilize a massive amount of sensors, cameras, radar, and artificial intelligence to get a map of the world around them, navigate it, and drive without human intervention. Companies like Waymo, General Motors, and – most famously – Tesla are at the forefront of this technology. They’ve all invested heavily in research and development; in fact, according to a report by McKinsey & Company, self-driving vehicles could, by 2030, account for up to 15% of auto sales worldwide [2].

Many people – young and old – see the potential benefits of AVs. The most short-term impact is an increase in the safety of driving. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s research found that human error is a factor in 94% of serious crashes [3]. Due to the fact AVs operate without distractions, impairments, or human error, they could drastically reduce accidents, saving lives and improving health outcomes. Moreover, as AVs could communicate with each other, they could significantly improve traffic efficiency by reducing congestion and optimizing driving patterns.

There’s also, of course, the ecological angle. Self-driving cars are often electronic, presenting an opportunity for substantial reductions in emissions. A study by the International Transport Forum (ITF) at the OECD suggests that if managed properly, AVs could reduce energy consumption in urban transport by up to 50% [4].

However, the road to widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles is fraught with challenges. A significant hurdle is legislative and regulatory. Governments around the world are grappling with how to regulate this emerging technology. Establishing universal standards for safety and performance, adapting infrastructure, and updating road laws to accommodate Self-driving cars are complex tasks that require coordinated effort and time.

There’s also the concern about the economic impact, particularly job displacement in driving-related professions. 3.6 million Americans are truck drivers [5] and 5.6 million are Uber or Taxi drivers [6]; that’s 8.9 million workers, or 2.5% of the workforce that would become unemployed. While new jobs will be created in tech and maintenance, these will require a high level of education, proficiency in English, and other barriers that driving does not have. This will lead to a significant shift in the employment landscape that will hurt the most marginalized.

So while autonomous vehicles have the potential to revolutionize transportation, offering numerous benefits in terms of safety, efficiency, and environmental impact, the path forward requires navigating technical, regulatory, ethical, and societal challenges. We have to steer this innovation towards a future where roads are safer, commutes are smoother, and the environmental footprint of transportation is minimized.

Sources:

  1. “The Future of Self Driving Cars: Top Companies and Challenges.” TechAhead, 6 Nov. 2023, www.techaheadcorp.com/blog/future-of-self-driving-cars.

  2. Deichmann, Johannes, et al. “Autonomous Driving’s Future: Convenient and Connected.” McKinsey & Company, McKinsey & Company, 6 Jan. 2023, www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/autonomous-drivings-future-convenient-and-connected.

  3. “NHTSA Estimates Traffic Fatalities Continued to Decline in the First Half of 2023.” NHTSA, 28 Sept. 2023, www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2023-Q2-traffic-fatality-estimates#:~:text=An%20estimated%2019%2C515%20people%20died,and%20second%20quarters%20of%202023.

  4. Cazzola, Pierpaolo, and Philippe Crist. “Assessing the Environmental Performance of New Mobility.” Itf Oecd.org, 2020, www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/environmental-performance-new-mobility.pdf.

  5. “Number of Truckers at All-Time High.” Census.gov, 27 July 2022, www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/06/america-keeps-on-trucking.html.

  6. Campbell, Harry. “How Many Uber Drivers Are There?” The Rideshare Guy, 17 Mar. 2023, therideshareguy.com/how-many-uber-drivers-are-there.

0Likes
About Author

she/her/hers
Average Computer Science Enjoyer.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
What is Delusional Infestation?
today i learned (til)
What Even Is Cuteness?
today i learned (til)
Wildlife around campus
today i learned (til)
Common Cat-astrophes

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.