A protocol will have to be made for self-driving cars, as eventually a moral dilemma will appear, and the car will have to move in one way or the other. Sven Nyholm and Jilles Smids analyze a quote that “Driverless systems put machines in the position of making split-second decisions that could have life or death implications” (Nyholm, Smids 1276). However, they dissect this by saying that the idea of a self-driving car making a “split-second” decision is too humanistic, and it does not “carry over to the case of self-driving cars. Rather,
The article, “The Promise of a Post-Driver Life” states, car accidents occur every day, leaving someone seriously injured about every seven-seconds and one dead about every fourteen minutes (Humas). Surprisingly, driverless vehicles are on the rise and people do not know how to react or what to think about them. While the number of accidents on the road has increased over the years. Driverless cars could be a solution to help to mend the problem and help eliminate driver errors. Some people believe we should have driverless vehicles while others say they would be too dangerous. Many people in the United States feel driverless cars can create a decrease in the number of accidents, create a better traffic flow, and create greater mobility for those who cannot drive, while others say it would be too hazardous with possible computer malfunctions, cyber attacks, and relying on algorithms to make ethical decisions.
There are many times, where you just have to use your human judgement, and hope you’re right. Mathew Wall states that, “Driving isn’t just about technology and engineering, is about human interactions and psychology.”(Wall). So just because the car can sense the surroundings around it, and can try to avoid wrecks, it can’t read human interactions. Recently one of Google’s self-driving cars had gotten into an accident. Avery says that, “The other vehicle came into the intersection at 30 miles per hour, running a red light and hitting the Google car's right side, t-boning the car. Google said its car was traveling at 22 miles per hour at the time of the collision.”(Hartmans). It’s unsure whether or not a human would’ve been able to avoid this accident, but this is showing us how even this technology isn’t going to protect us one hundred percent. There are many things that can play into an accident beside environmental factors that are going to need to take much more technology before driverless cars are adequate. Plus who’s to blame if two driverless cars get in a crash? It’s not the human’s fault because they’re not
Right now self-driving cars and trucks are hitting the road and will soon be available to the general market . Major companies like Google, Tesla, Uber and Delphi are leading in autonomous cars industry. In the past few years, these companies have made great strides improving this technology. Addressing the concerns for this technology must be concluded before it reaches the general public. Given the current state of automobiles that don’t need drivers the American consumer needs to be mindful that moral decisions this technology is handling puts them at risk due to the fact that this is emerging technology, laws are being made that will shape this technology, and who is choosing who lives and who dies.
Many great technological feats have been accomplished in the past few years, one of the most notable would be the creation of self-driving cars. Along with the topic of what can be done with this technology, there is also the topic of what should be done with the technology from an ethical standpoint. Self-driving cars while not perfected are worth their innumerous benefits, despite the current limitations and drawbacks. Every year there are numerous incidents where the driver is responsible for a crash or even death. A self-driving car could be the very solution necessary to solving the abundance of accidents that occur daily across the nation. There are different levels of automation ranging on the amount of the drivers control of the vehicles. This technology is already being implemented in creative and helpful ways, and has been successfully tested.
I find it humorous that this week’s discussion on driverless vehicles is the same exact subject my wife and I were talking about on Sunday during our unscheduled trip back home from Kansas City, Missouri. Since this trip interfered with our other plans, we were discussing how pleasant it would be if our vehicle was one that was automated because we believed we had better things to do with our time. Actually, this idea was even more evident when we became stalled in a traffic jam due to a stalled vehicle on the road. Therefore, if I were a decision maker in regards to driverless vehicles, I would choose Egoism to be the most ethical pre-programmed crash decision software. (O.C. Ferrell, Fraedrich & L. Ferrell, 2013). The reason I chose Egoism
Since the beginning of self-driving cars which first began in 1925 with the creation of the Houdina Radio Control; a car operated by two cars, a transmitter, and an antenna, to now - the futuristic dream of these autonomous cars have transformed into the reality of cars we see now. These cars are nothing short of the new technology advances that have occurred over the past decade. However, with these advances many question whether or not these cars are ready to be sold, due to the fatal accident that occurred May 2016 involving the autonomous Tesla and a white truck. Due to the Tesla not being able to detect the white tractor because of technological issues, the tesla failed to stop, and since the driver was not prepared to steer, it lead to the fatal collision eventually leading to the death of the tesla owner. With the increase of these cars on the road, from companies like BMW, Daimler, Ford, Apple, Uber, and Google, this poses a serious threat to not only the people operating this autonomous vehicle but also to the surrounding drivers. I believe that autonomous cars should not be put on the road, and that these cars are not beneficial to the population.
Imagine sitting in a self-driving car. Time to kick back and relax, take your eyes off the road and have a meaningful conversation with your passengers. There’s just one problem. The car in front of yours stopped abruptly. You were not paying attention, so you cannot react in time. The computer has a choice. To crash into the car, killing you, or to swerve and hit the motorcyclist beside you, killing him. What choice should the car make? As a human, you could probably avoid killing anyone by quickly analysing the situation and do some maneuver that would avoid anyone dying, but so far, no computer can do that with enough speed. This is why Self-driving cars should be avoided. They do not give you more of an advantage, the
I would choose Deontology for the programming of the autonomous vehicles. “Deontology refers to moral philosophies that focus on the rights of the individuals and on the intentions associated with a particular behavior rather than its consequences.” (Ferrell, et al, 2013, p.159). Why some other life should be taken by the actions of the autonomous vehicle. The rights of the individuals in the video in the other lanes would take preference over the autonomous vehicles rights. Since, the autonomous vehicle would be programmed to not break the law and speed and follow safe following procedures; the vehicle should be able to withstand the impact. However, even if the impact is fatal, I believe the rights of the others in the vehicle should
In the case of an accident, I believe the autonomous vehicle should be programmed according to the utilitarian philosophy in order to be most ethical. The utilitarian philosophy would cause the car to react in a manner that would cause the least amount of harm to the least amount of individuals involved in the accident (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013). I believe this to be the most ethical way to program the autonomous vehicle since this would not force the vehicle or the programmer to choose the importance of one life over another. This route would cause the least amount of harm to all involved and will also free the driver of being the one to make the decision of which crash option would be deemed the safest crash option.
In this current year, autonomous cars are being tested and manipulated by automobile manufacturing companies around the world. Toyota plans to introduce its first models that are capable of self-driving to the market by 2020… and BMW intends to launch its self-driving electric vehicle, which it calls the BMW iNext, in 2021. The US Secretary of Transportation, Anthony Foxx, has even directly stated that he expects driverless cars to be in use all over the world within the next 10 years. While these cars are promising in that they could potentially reduce the number of car crashes- and thus, prevent many deaths from occurring- they also foreshadow many unavoidable ethical dilemmas. One dilemma that is commonly addressed relates to deciding how a machine should react in a dire situation where it can either choose to save the driver of a vehicle- killing innocent bystanders on the side- or to save the bystanders, while killing the human (who is also most likely also innocent) that is driving the vehicle. I don’t believe there is a way to create or find an absolute answer to this dilemma, as every person will have his or her own
In class and in previous readings we have learned that Ethics is involved in every aspect of Engineering. The article “Here is a Terrible Idea: Robot Cars with Adjustable Ethics Settings” is a good example that shows off the great importance of ethics in engineering. It is about the future adoption of autonomous cars and the ethical dilemmas associated with them. Specifically, it talks about the infamous Trolley problem when applied to autonomous cars. The scenario presented by the article consists of a person driving her autonomous car and not realizing that she is about to collide with five people crossing a road. The car could then save the life of the five people by quickly swerving into another direction. However, there is another person there, and if the car swerves she would be impacted instead. The autonomous car is then in charge of making the decision of what is the right thing to do in this kind of situation. From a utilitarian’s point of view, the consequences of an act are the only thing that matters for it being right or wrong. The right act is the one that will yield the maximum sum of pleasure for all entities involved. Therefore, in the trolley problem applied to autonomous cars, for a utilitarian the right choice would be to swerve right and kill that one innocent person instead of the other five people. Although not presented in the article,
Mant skeptics wonder how do you go about programming ethics into a car? These people cite the trolley problem as a thought experiment in automated vehicular decision making. Noah J Goodall who works with the Virginia Transportation Services wrote an article on the difficulties of having to quite literally program ethics into a car. Driving involves inherent risk and these self driving vehicles must be a comprehensive exercise in risk management. However, doing so can have unintended consequences. Goodall explains that self driving cars make judgement calls as it is to break the law. For example, Google allows their cars to go faster than designated speed limits to keep up with the flow of traffic as going slower might be dangerous to the vehicle and its occupants. Even in following the law Google’s cars make small ethical decisions. A 2014 patent was filed describing how Google’s cars position themselves within a lane closer to a small vehicle than a large one to maximize the vehicle’s safety. However, in programming cars to behave a certain way, humans are creating unintentional consequences in a device that takes everything literally. A simple example of this is what if cars were designed to prioritize the life of the pedestrian over all others. In the event a crash is imminent with a pedestrian the car is forced to swerve, this could kill the passenger or other people in society. In
First of all, making a moral decision in some emergency situation may be impossible for an autonomous car. Newcomb (2014) mentions the “tunnel problem” which was a hypothesis about autonomous cars in emergency. There was an autonomous car traveling in a single-lane highway, and a boy who was crossing inside tumbled when the car was going into a tunnel. The car had to strike either side of the tunnel entrance with sacrificing the life of passengers, otherwise hit the boy to death. In this situation, whichever the autonomous car choice, it will take the blame of immorality. Specifically, if an autonomous car was set as
In their article 'Autonomous Vehicles Need Experimental Ethics: Are We Ready for Utilitarian Cars?' Bonnefon, Shariff, and Rahwan (2015) argue that the development of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) comes with a slew of significant moral problems that can benefit from the utilisation of experimental ethics. Bonnefon et al. list the expected benefits that AVs will provide, such as improving traffic efficiency, reducing pollution, and, most importantly, that they are predicted to reduce traffic accidents by up to ninety percent (1). However, the authors point out that, in spite of all the good that will follow from the deployment of AVs, there will be unavoidable