FOR the erudite Dot Nicholson, may I be the Advocatus Diaboli to Philip Roe’s Papal Bull (“Driverless cars will never be safe”, Letters, April 6)?

Motion, in whatever form, inevitably poses risk, but, I would think, the incidence of accidents caused by driverless cars, though

sadly yet another factor, will be reduced by technical advances, and, in any case, be hugely offset by that caused by driving under the influence of drink/drugs, defective eyesight (I’ve given up), using mobile phones, speeding, boy racers, unsafe overtaking, and human misjudgement generally, and the relative incidence of each will be demonstrated by the respective levels of insurance premiums.

Further, those not legally permitted to drive, due to physical impairment, will be able to enjoy their newly-given independence.

And what about the safety factor of other forms of transport - and the examples of Concorde, Torrey Canyon and - PR’s own favourite for jibes - Titanic?

Presumably driverlessness will be optional.

Had it been compulsory, the benefit would have

outweighed all others - by “driving” Jeremy Clarkson et al from my TV screen.

Alan Appleby,

Stockton Lane,

York