Sir, – On recent trips around Dublin and Ireland, guided by Google, I’ve frequently found myself being diverted away from the main roads I am familiar with, and instead following circuitous routes along country lanes, or around the twists and turns of residential estates.
The reason for such elaborate detours appears to be that, using live information about vehicles queuing at junctions ahead, Google has determined the primary route to be “one minute slower”.
But at what cost are these improved journey times purchased?
Measured by distance, these detours are typically longer than following the main roads, with frequent turns resulting in more braking and accelerating. These factors require additional fuel and result in more environmentally damaging emissions than the shorter routes. Queuing may be frustrating but, with modern stop-start engines, is more fuel efficient and more environmentally sustainable.
Manifesto media pledges — ‘Netflix levy’, legal reform in 100 days and €500m a year for RTÉ
Faye O’Rourke’s Christmas: ‘I have a reputation for overdoing it. I splash out. It’s not in my control’
Inheritance tax is a real bugbear for people who do not have children
‘I know what happened in that room’: the full story of the Conor McGregor case
Residents in estates now being recommended as alternative routes by Google must also feel aggrieved, as the number of stressed commuters “rat-running” past their homes multiplies. Minor roads, not designed for high volumes of traffic, risk being overwhelmed.
Google navigation currently includes limited preference options, such as “avoid toll roads”, “avoid motorways” and “prefer fuel-efficient routes”. It should be noted that even when the latter option is switched on, fuel-efficient routes are only selected when the arrival times are similar, meaning that less environmentally friendly routes will be prioritised when there is even a slight delay.
It should be possible to include additional preferences such as “avoid residential estates”, or to set the degree of delay that is acceptable before recommending less fuel-efficient routes. These options should be set by default, meaning that drivers need to consciously choose to prioritise their journey time over the environment, or over the wellbeing of local residents.
Users could also be given the opportunity to enter more details about the vehicle they are driving (make, model, age) and about loads they may be carrying or towing. This would allow the calculation of approximate fuel consumption, and of cost and emissions for each journey and route option, enabling the driver (and Google) to factor these considerations into route selection.
Such a facility would also avoid those periodic newspaper stories about unsuitable vehicles being directed by Google under low bridges or through narrow passes.
On one detour along a country lane, I came face to face with a tractor pulling a trailer. With other cars coming behind me (presumably also following Google), it took quite some time for us all to reverse to a place where we could easily pass, making a farce of the initial “one minute slower” decision that Google must have made.
Perhaps “Avoid roads less than two-lanes wide” might be another useful option. – Yours, etc,
JOHN THOMPSON,
Phibsboro,
Dublin 7.