I've been reading lots of interesting reports and research about driverless cars (which I've blogged about for the Birmingham Post before).

First up, there's a fascinating report just published by the law firm Gowling WLG and UK Autodrive on how driverless vehicles will need to be programmed with a clear and agreed set of rules for decision making.

In its report, The Moral Algorithm, Gowling WLG finds that concerns over the so-called "trolley problem", where a vehicle must choose between hitting defined individuals, may have been exaggerated, with most of the experts interviewed agreeing that driverless cars will never be programmed to make such distinctions.

That means that driverless car will use an algorithm to try to protect you and people in and around it but it will actually never be programmed to choose which people to save.

The technology simply isn't good enough to make these decisions, the report notes, and if it were, no government minister would support it anyway.

Nevertheless, the paper argues that harmonised safety regulations will be needed for other decisions, such as when it is permissible for a car to break the rules of the road, or when determining the 'assertiveness' of a vehicle when it interacts with other road-users.

The report concludes with a series of recommendations, including the development of policy on how the moral algorithm will operate in terms of major safety situations and a programme of public education and consultation.

Commenting on the outcome of the research, Stuart Young, a partner at Gowling WLG, said: "I think we need regulation for this emerging technology to provide reassurance to the public on safety and reassurance to commercial participants on what the regulatory framework looks like.

"Good regulation will achieve a balance of safety, commerce and legality."

Speaking about the dilemmas that could be posed once cars are required to make complex decisions, Tim Armitage, Arup's UK Autodrive project director, said: "AVs will drive to the speed limits and will not be distracted from the task of safe driving.

"They will make practical decisions based on their programming but they cannot be expected to make moral decisions around which society provides no agreed guidance."

All of which suggests that driverless cars will be dull and safe. But don't underestimate the genuinely revolutionary nature of driverless cars and their potential impact.

When thinking of driverless cars of the next decade, think of the autonomous taxi. You won't necessarily own a car but might summon one when you need one.

They could bring a raft of benefits as I've explored in Post blogs over the last few years, including less congestion, fewer accidents and less pollution, as well freeing up road space and car parking space for other use.

Driverless cars really could revolutionise urban mobility. All of which brings me on to another recent report, this time from the Rocky Mountain Institute in the US.

Its report 'Peak Car Ownership' argues that "the rise of automated mobility services could be one of the most interesting and complex disruptions of the modern era".

It also argues that a new mobility system could emerge in the next few years that is "superior to our existing system in almost every way".

It reckons that automated mobility services could capture two-thirds of the entire US mobility market in 15 to 20 years. There are some huge implications for car makers, according to the report.

What it terms 'peak car ownership' in the United States will occur around 2020 and will drop quickly after that. There will be winners and losers depending on how quickly car makers embrace new business models for mobility services.

It suggests carmakers that provide mobility services and autonomous vehicles could reap substantial profits.

The current mobility system in the US costs around $0.80 per mile and mature electric automated mobility service could as little as $0.30 per mile.

That difference of $0.50 per mile stacks up to over $1 trillion in total savings that will be split between society, consumers and the mobility service providers of the future, the report suggests.

A final point.

If the report is right and there is about to be a major shift away from car ownership towards using electric automated cars, planners can start to think about redesigning our cities in the future.

Far fewer car parking spaces will be needed, for example. More broadly, cities can be redesigned around people rather than around cars.

Professor David Bailey works at the Aston Business School in Birmingham