Charter for Emerging Technology

Online tracking could be used to prosecute those who constantly and willfilly violate the Coronavirus Act.

Hardly inspiring examples.
Programming computers to recognise types of traffic (including human traffic) is hardly new.  It is what is done with the data that is important. Other than in minor tasks, the impacts of such decisions can be too important to be left to an uncontrolled machine.  This has to be a human choice; a human accountable to the public in some form or other.

Perhaps GoL should produce a technology innovation introduction priority list upon which Londoners vote to produce a ranking of importance?

For me it would be electric driverless public transport?  Both buses and large parts of the LT underground system follow precise routes, at set speeds to adhere to a timetable, ideal for this type of operation.

By the way, there is a grammatical error in explanatory text; the last word in the penultimate sentence of the third paragraph should read 'are' rather than 'area'.

I think new tech has transformed our lives in quiet ways as well as the obvious ones.  Think EFTPOS and getting rid of horrible dirty coins and notes!  But there need to be controls and feedback mechanisms to check and monitor that new tech is not harmful or discriminatory.

I really hope, when it's safe to travel again, that London Underground ticket machines continue to take cash.  I don't have a credit or debit card.  I don't have a smartphone either (and don't want one).  So much new technology leaves me behind.

Dear London Mayor,

Before developing 'nice to have tech', invest in this system to protect Londoners from harmful noise.

Please use noise camera technology with Speed Cameras. Excessive noise from motorcycles fitted with illegally modified exhaust pipes that create up to 120db (far in excess of the 85db legal limit of a lorry or car) is harming the mental and physical health of adults and children in London. This is especially bad on the Highway E1, Tower Bridge and Tower Hill and gives London a dreadful reputation for being noisy and dirty.

Moist of the motorcycles with noisy pipes enter the City from 7am ahead of financial markets opening and after 4pm when workers leave the London.   

Illegally modified exhausts may also invalidate the riders Certificate of Motor Insurance meaning they are not insured in the event of a collission. The Metropolitan Police and City Police are ignoring this offending which has increased during lockdown despite complaints and an increase in the cases of mental health during the pandemic.

As the Department for Transport report showed last year, noisy exhausts causes serious health issues to humans and animals. 

If the Met Traffic police are not able to tackle noisy motorcycles then the GLA and City of London Corporation should use technology like the Noise cameras piloted in London.

The UK Insurance Industry is led by London and should take the lead with the Police and GLA to prevent illegally adapted exhaust pipes by warning vehicle oweners that it is an offence to modify their vehicle in this way and why. 

Motorbikes are a great form of transport and provide great enjoyment to many - sadly, the irresponsible actios of a few are giving them a bad name.

You are travelling in the second of two buses on identical routes. The leading one continues whilst the other has instructions to stop short of the previously stated destination. Is it not possible in such circumstances for the leading bus to be held for sufficient time, perhaps less than one minute, for passengers in the second bus to transfer to the former? If so, overall passenger satisfaction would be increased at negligible cost ( and this possibly with use of only common sense when re routing instructions are given rather than awaiting new communication technologies?)

Force for good if applied well and that's really the key here. We need real oversight and real consequences for abuse. I like the idea of the charter but it needs to be binding or have a negative attached to affect real change. Name and shame at the very least via ads taken out in press and projected on the sides of building. Show people what giving their data could get them and what they give up etc. All the tech mentioned has to potential to change thousands/millions of lives but it needs to be wielded and watched or it'll just serve to make the rich, richers and the powerful more powerful. 

Technology and innovation is a fantastic means of improving our way of life and cannot be ignored. Britain has led the world in technological and innovative advancement and ideas for hundreds of years, however unless some high flyer in the City (Not only London) has thought of it many innovative ideas do not get a fair chance or trial.

Londoners are being poisoned every day by deadly noxious exhaust fumes but the Goverment and the Mayor keep saying that we are all going to be driving electric cars soon and we have CAZ and ULEZ so we will all be ok. Get real, thats at least 20 years away (if ever) diesel and petrol cars will be on the road for 10 years at least after the ban on selling new ones comes into force. 

This week sees the re-opening of the inquest into poor Ellie Kissi - Debrah's tragic untimely death by exhaust pollution, how many more lives will be lost? 

Our innovation company have been corresponding with London and many, many others to trial a system that removes these deadly exhaust fumes at the source, but we have been totally ignored by Boris, Grantt Shapps, Sadiq Khan and every other politician we have written to.

Help innovators like us to save lives, we have even offered installations for free outside of schools, why spend a fortune on monitoring, we all know the fumes are there, we can taste them everyday as can our children. Please look at www.pollutionsolution.co.uk and help to remove the killer fumes. Action needs to be taken now, We have a solution that will help in saving lives, listen to us Sadiq Khan and stop hanging your hat on electric vehicles, people cant afford them, cant charge them and the alternatives are un-reliable, expensive and breeding grounds for viruses. Yes this is a commercial venture, we all have to earn money to live, give innovative SME companies a chance.

I can honestly see the benefit of new technology. I had the unpleasant experience of travelling on crutches. I arrived at my station to find the lift wasn't working and there was no way of contacting someone to help me up the stairs. I also have Ulcerative Colitis: sometimes, when travelling, I need to dash to a loo really quickly. I contacted TFL and was told I'd need to contact every station on my journey and ask the manager to allow me access to a staff loo if they had no customer loos. I just gave up. I feel new technology will work really well for disabled people. I think it will make service providers more accountable. Artificial intelligence is a great way of getting better information out to people so, where I've had to speak to a person in the past to understand the cheapest way of travelling, AI (properly developed) will really improve this. Algorithms again - if supporting human decisions and with caution - can really improve the speed, efficiency and consistency of decisions. I have the rosy view that tech will reduce the racism of stop and searches (I am white but it feels like black people are stopped if they drive a nice car!). I do feel the ethics need to be set out and very much welcome an Emerging Technology Charter. Brilliant stuff. 

The question 'Do you consider new technology and innovation in London a force for good, bad or neither?' is nonsensical. There was no option to say Both! Some technology can be useful but some can also be dangerous, either health-wise like 5G or in terms of influencing bad decision-making if computer algorithms are allowed to take over without human control, like the school exam result fiasco showed this summer. People in power and many of the general public tend to get too excited about the potential of new tech., often without really testing it properly and looking at the full long-term outcome of using it. Technology should be a tool to help us in a positive way, not take over so we end up being obsolete and powerless. We have seen examples of both, and it worries me like some mentioned in the earlier comments that many people will end up disadvantaged and left behind by total introduction of new technology and no other options available. Not everybody has the financial means to buy the latest gadgets, and not everybody has the head for technology and can manage to follow technological progress at the speed it is taking over at the moment. We need to make sure we can accommodate everybody and make sensible decisions that are good for most people, not just for some. Machines are not humans and no matter how much we teach them, they don't have compassion, empathy or common sense, and can easily go wrong or break down which can leave us completely stuck and unable to do anything. They can also be corrupted and manipulated by the wrong people, like hackers, which is really dangerous. We must make sure we control technology, not let it control us.

The comments I've read encapsulate what I was going to say. DO not exclude elderly or socially/financially disadvantaged by taking away the chance to use cash. At least 20 percent of the population does not have access to computers or smart phones. Not being able to park your car because you don't have a mobile phone is not right. By all means advance us technologically, but make sure existing things work properly first. And don't waste our money! Life is tough enough with covid . I'd rather have more police on the street than cash free ticket machines at a station. By a long way. 

Plans to introduce new technologies need to take more account of the people who may not be in a position to make use of them, and who could indeed be at a serious disadvantage if changes to existing services etc. are uniformly imposed in an absence of awareness of the possible consequences. (Camden Council's proposed abolition of parking-permit scratchcards is an example.) It seems to be widely assumed that everyone nowadays has a smartphone and/or laptop/Ipad. This is obviously not so. The people most at risk of becoming the victims of unimaginatively imposed technological developments are the elderly, and people struggling on low incomes or benefits - i.e. the very people who are already disadvantaged.

This is typical of the Mayor and the Assembly. It's much more exciting to talk about "new" or "emerging" technologies rather than making sure the ones that already exist actually work in the city.

The appalling broadband speed where I live has meant I have been unable to work from home during the coronavirus pandemic despite having a job where this would be possible if the broadband worked. My local Labour council promised to do something about this over six years ago but haven't bothered to do anything.

I have zero faith that the involvement of the mayor or the assembly will make things better in the emerging technologies field and every expectation that they will make it worse.

I work in technology and data so make my living out of it. That does however give me a really good view of both the positives and negatives. I do believe in general technology is a force for good but it is also abused. Big companies use it to generate data - your data - which is used more often to their own advantage than to yours. It's vital that the Mayor and public bodies put the interests of citizens first through things like charters and policies that really protect citizens' rights and helps ensure that new technologies are introduced in the best interests of wider society and not those purely interested in making money.

Positive in theory but there must be a real focus on giving the overall picture rather that selective data to push a policy or process - cross rail an example plus effect of new local road initiatives - what happens to bus times when all traffic funnelled down few roads 

Technology is one of the unavoidable changes of human life. Instead of fighting it, new governance and rules must be designed to protect the wider public and prevent profiteering at the expense of the wider community. Technology should be use for good and any technology that uses public resources (like public data and personal data) should be owned partly or fully by the public and the community.

Dreadful internet speed and infrastructure plus slow rollout of 5G is the basic stumbling bloc!