Motor mechanics have a saying: the most dangerous part of any car is the nut that holds the steering wheel. This quip contains a significant truth—human error accounts for most vehicle accidents.
For example, in the UK and US, this figure hovers between 92% and 94%. One proposed solution to this problem is self-driving cars, commonly referred to as autonomous vehicles (AVs), which aim to remove the human element from driving.
Safety is a major driver in the development of AVs, and technological advancements have brought their commercialization closer to reality.
However, the success of AVs hinges on whether consumers are willing to entrust driving operations to an autonomous system.
Ironically, a key factor in this trust is whether the autonomous system aligns with the ethical decision-making framework that consumers rely on when they drive themselves.
Ethical Decision-Making in AVs: A Vital Concern
Dr. Tripat Gill, an associate professor of marketing at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada, specializes in understanding the factors that drive the adoption of technological innovations like AVs and artificial intelligence (AI).
His research focuses on the social impacts of these technologies and the ethical challenges they present. With AVs, this extends beyond their ability to navigate physical road challenges to include making complex ethical decisions.
This has led to extensive research in both computer and social sciences to determine the moral norms that should be embedded into an AV’s AI system. At the heart of this research is the concept of the “ethical dilemma.”
Exploring the Ethical Dilemma
A common ethical dilemma for AVs is framed as follows: if a pedestrian unexpectedly steps in front of an AV and the vehicle cannot stop in time, but swerving would put it on a collision course with two people, what should the AV do?
The scenario becomes more nuanced if the pedestrian is a child and the two people are adults does this distinction matter? Most studies focus on utilitarian dilemmas, such as sacrificing one life to save two or choosing between harming different types of individuals.
However, Dr. Gill has studied a less-explored dilemma: when the person at risk of serious harm is inside the vehicle.
In a 2020 study, Gill presented respondents with a “stay or swerve” scenario. He asked participants to decide what they would do as the driver of a vehicle and what they believed an AV should do if they were a passenger.
The scenario involved a pedestrian stepping into the vehicle’s path. Staying on course would seriously harm or kill the pedestrian, while swerving would likely result in the driver or passenger crashing into a tree or pole, potentially causing severe injury or death.
Insights from the Study
The study revealed that while most participants chose “swerve” as the preferred action, they were significantly more likely to select “stay” harming the pedestrian if they were a passenger in an AV compared to driving a regular vehicle.
Even when the vehicle’s value was increased or participants were subjected to immersive experiences like putting their hands in freezing water, the results remained consistent.
Although the majority still chose to swerve and avoid harming the pedestrian, passengers in AVs were nearly twice as likely to opt for staying on course compared to drivers.
Gill attributes this to differences in perceived control and responsibility. When driving a car, individuals feel responsible for their actions, and their moral intuition often compels them to avoid harming others, even at the expense of self-preservation.
In contrast, as passengers in an AV, they perceive less control and tend to attribute responsibility for outcomes to the vehicle itself.
Ownership of the AV, whether the vehicle is rented or a taxi, and whether the AV is seen as a “servant” duty-bound to protect passengers can influence this dynamic.
Challenges for AV Manufacturers
This tendency to attribute responsibility to the vehicle poses challenges for AV manufacturers, especially if they view ethical dilemmas as secondary to technical challenges like object recognition, weather navigation, and road sign interpretation.
However, Gill’s research suggests that consumers do not share this perspective.
To explore consumer priorities, Gill conducted two surveys in 2021 involving 1,678 US-based respondents. Participants were presented with detailed information about AV benefits and challenges, including ethical dilemmas.
After ensuring comprehension of the material, respondents were asked to rate the importance of overcoming these challenges and allocate points among various issues.
The Ethical Dilemma: A Key Concern for Consumers
The results showed that respondents ranked ethical dilemmas—specifically the question of whether an AV should harm a pedestrian or its passenger—as the most significant challenge to address.
This concern outweighed even pressing technical and legal challenges.
While respondents acknowledged the importance of overcoming technical issues such as recognizing objects and operating in bad weather, the ethical dilemma loomed largest in their decision-making process about adopting AVs.
A Persistent Human Factor
The 2018 Uber incident, in which an autonomous test vehicle with a backup driver struck and killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona, highlighted these concerns. Despite the U.S.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) attributing the accident largely to human error, the incident intensified fears about AVs’ ability to detect and avoid pedestrians or effectively handle emergency maneuvers.
As technological advancements address the remaining technical hurdles and regulators prepare for the widespread adoption of AVs, ethical considerations remain a primary concern for potential users.
Gill’s research underscores the importance of addressing these dilemmas to foster consumer trust and acceptance.
A Need for Public Consensus
While AVs promise significant safety benefits by eliminating human error, potential users want assurance that these vehicles will handle ethical dilemmas in a way that aligns with their values.
As Gill concludes, “Whatever solution is proposed, it needs buy-in from the public, or else they will not adopt and the promise of AVs saving lives will remain unfulfilled.”