Driverless chaos? LTDA chief warns autonomous vehicles could clog London’s roads and create new safety dangers
- Perry Richardson
- 2 days ago
- 2 min read
Concerns over the growing push towards autonomous vehicles have been raised by the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association (LTDA) Chairman Paul Brennan, who has questioned whether self-driving technology is solving genuine transport problems or creating new ones.
Writing in the latest edition of Taxi Newspaper, Brennan said discussions with council officers across London have revealed increasing interest in autonomous vehicles, but he believes the technology poses significant risks for the capital’s roads and communities.
Brennan said that while some view autonomous vehicles as a threat to the taxi trade, his primary concern lies elsewhere. He argued that the greatest danger would come from the impact large numbers of driverless vehicles could have on congestion and road safety in one of the world’s busiest urban environments.
“If autonomous vehicles become widespread, the biggest threat is not losing customers, it’ll be the likely chaos and congestion caused by them struggling to cope on London’s complex road network,” Brennan wrote.
He pointed to the operational differences between human-driven taxis and autonomous vehicles. Unlike professional drivers who stop work at the end of a shift, Brennan warned that driverless vehicles could continue circulating or repositioning themselves throughout the day, potentially increasing traffic levels.
“Many council officers openly acknowledge that the number of private hire vehicles already contributes significantly to congestion,” he said. “If autonomous vehicles are introduced at scale, what happens between jobs? They do not go home or stop off for lunch. They do not finish a shift.”
The LTDA chairman also highlighted several recent incidents involving autonomous vehicles, including examples of vehicles entering restricted areas and making dangerous manoeuvres. Among the incidents cited was a vehicle that reportedly crossed into a live cycle lane near Blackfriars Road while attempting a turn, forcing cyclists to take evasive action.
Brennan also referred to a widely reported incident in Harlesden where an autonomous vehicle drove through a police cordon at a murder scene. According to Brennan, the vehicle failed to recognise police tape despite detecting emergency vehicles with flashing lights nearby.
He further referenced an incident involving an autonomous vehicle travelling the wrong way through the Kingsway tunnel. Brennan argued that such events demonstrate the limitations of current systems even after years of testing and development.
“These incidents occurred despite extensive mapping, favourable weather conditions and years of testing,” he wrote.
The concerns extend beyond London. Brennan noted that similar problems have been documented in the United States, where autonomous vehicle fleets have been operating on public roads for longer periods and on a larger scale. Reported issues have included vehicles blocking emergency responders, entering restricted zones and requiring remote intervention.
A particular concern raised by Brennan is the continued presence of human safety operators during many autonomous vehicle trials. He questioned how systems would perform when those safety drivers are no longer present.
“What should we expect when they are no longer there?” he asked.
Brennan also suggested that many local authority officers are unconvinced that autonomous vehicles will improve conditions in their boroughs. While recognising that councils may have limited powers to prevent deployment, he said there remains uncertainty over the wider public benefit of the technology.
His article concludes with a challenge frequently raised by critics of autonomous transport systems: “What problem are autonomous vehicles solving and for whom?”
