The visions surrounding “self-driving” or “autonomous” vehicles are an exemplary instance of a sociotechnical imaginary: visions of a future technology that has yet to be developed or is in the process of development. One of the central justifications for the development of autonomous vehicles is the claim that they will reduce automobility related death and injury. Central to this narrative is the assumption that more than 90% of road crashes are the result of “driver error.” This paper describes the process by which this statistic has been constructed within road safety research and subsequently accepted as a received fact. It is one of the principal semiotic components of the autonomous vehicle sociotechnical imaginary: if human drivers are responsible for ~90% of road crashes, autonomous vehicles should in principle be able to reduce road death and injury rates by a similar percentage. In this paper, it is argued that death and injury are not an aggregate of events that can be distributed across the three central variables of traditional road safety research: the driver, the vehicle, and the environment. The autonomous vehicle sociotechnical imaginary has embraced the central assumption of road safety research, that road violence is not an intrinsic property of automobility but is contingent because largely due to driver error. On the basis of this assumption it has been possible to configure autonomous vehicles as the solution to road violence. Although sociotechnical imaginaries are typically oriented towards the future, it is the significance of the autonomous vehicle sociotechnical imaginary in the present that is the focus of this paper. Autonomous vehicles are not the radically transformational technology their proponents claim but simply the most recent of a succession of automobility sociotechnical imaginaries. They are not transformational because their promotion ensures the continued reproduction of more of the same: namely, more automobility.

No abstract

No abstract

Since the appearance of automobiles on public roads, violence has been a constant, intrinsic property of automobility. Carl Schmitt's concept of a nomos, constructed on the basis of primordial, violent acts of land appropriation, equally describes the history and processes by which automobility has rhizomatically expanded across the globe to become a hegemonic mode of transportation and mobility. The nomos of automobility is a bracketed space wherein a permanent state of exception holds. On entering this space we are reduced to the status of what Giorgio Agamben has referred to as homo sacer: bare life who may be killed without homicide having been committed. The nomos of automobility is constitutive of the visible spatial order, not only of the bracketed space that is the road but the spatiality of the globe. It has transformed space and inscribed new modes of being within the lifeworlds of humans and other terrestrials.

No abstract