Do we really need GPS technology to tell us where to go?
By Jerome Simpson
SatNavs are those nifty little map-based toolkits that have become quite the rage recently. Based on satellite-derived global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, the technology helps you navigate from point A to point B by identifying (generally) the shortest route. Once uploaded with auxiliary data — e.g. speed limits, camera locations — the device uses real-time info that can also help you avoid the worst traffic jams. And with less distance covered at more constant speeds, it sounds great for the environment, too. But is it?
A quick poll of my colleagues revealed some interesting viewpoints. "GPS may mean more efficient route management, especially in urban areas, but this will eventually see haulage companies making three drops a day, instead of two — the so-called bounce-back effect," notes REC project manager Gabor Heves.
On top of this, "the shortest possible route may not always be the most navigable," says Chris Douglas, senior associate with UK-based consultancy firm Transport & Travel Research Ltd. "Consider a scenario where long-distance truckers take a 16.5-metre, 44-tonne articulated vehicle down an impassable winding rural road because they've trusted the GPS over their common sense," Douglas adds. Hmmm.
According to European Commission (EC) estimates from September 2007, EU freight transport will double in just the next decade, while levels of car ownership will likely have grown by 50 percent from 2000 to 2010. After digesting those numbers, try considering this: "Satellite navigation boxes [...] are no longer the preserve of luxury car owners in Europe. You now see them in the humblest vehicles," Paul Meller of the IDG News Service wrote this autumn. Just imagine the consequences of every driver heeding the advice of electronic real-time traffic updates. The sights I saw across the Benelux this summer, driving bumper to bumper at 90 km/h, will be replicated all over Europe!
Nonetheless, where SatNavs are concerned, the EC seems focused primarily on the bottom line. On September 19 the commission proposed to foot the entire EUR 3.4 billion cost of 'Galileo' (Europe's answer to the US-led GPS).
"Galileo is extremely important for the strategic autonomy of Europe," EC Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot explained. "We can't let the opportunity to manage [...] this advanced technology pass. Consumers are answering the question by buying more and more GPSs. Galileo will make money, and with the EU as its owner, it will generate income for the EU budget."
Again, hmmm. I'm inclined to think that EC money would be better spent on public rail infrastructure or expanded city planning budgets.
To be fair, my colleagues have also expressed their share of praise for SatNavs. "If you have to negotiate your way into city centres during rush hour, they help you arrive relaxed at your destination, on time and without daredevil feats," says one. "They can lead you better than a map in areas you don't know at all," adds another. Yet another colleague makes the fantastic claim: "GPS saved my marriage."
But, still, I have to ask: What is happening to our spatial awareness? What about our ability to read maps, or to interact with passengers and townsfolk? My belief is that SatNavs will simply increase our dependence on technology and external stimuli, further turning us into automatons and dummies. And, of course, anything oriented toward making driving easier just means we're going to be driving more, not less.
