AA: ‘The Driverless Dilemma’ – Live or let die?

Monday, 28 January 2019 00:01

One in 20 would want the vehicle to hit someone else, including children or the elderly More than a third felt the decision too difficult to answer Technology must prevent fatalities says AA president Driverless cars could have to make life-and-death decisions that more than a third of drivers would prefer not to think about until they happen. More than half (59%*) say that should they be the passenger in a fully...Request free trial

One in 20 would want the vehicle to hit someone else, including children or the elderly
More than a third felt the decision too difficult to answer
Technology must prevent fatalities says AA president

Driverless cars could have to make life-and-death decisions that more than a third of drivers would prefer not to think about until they happen.

More than half (59%*) say that should they be the passenger in a fully autonomous vehicle, and it had no choice but to crash, it should put them at risk if the alternatives risked more lives according to a survey by the AA.

Surprisingly, more people were willing to put themselves at risk of death if they themselves were the passenger, as opposed to a generic ‘passenger’ travelling in the car (54%).

The AA-Populus Driver Poll of more than 21,000, found that one in 20 felt the vehicle should hit someone else. Respondents had the option to select a collision involving two children who had run into the road, or with two elderly pedestrians walking on the pavement.

Highlighting the difficulty software developers will have over these decisions, many people felt they were unable to determine what action the car should take (40% and 34% respectively).

The reaction times of autonomous vehicles, which is helped by sensors, cameras and radar systems are likely to be faster than those of a human driver. An autonomous vehicle is also more likely to travel within the speed limit.

The questions and answers are below;

Q1. Fully automated (autonomous cars) are expected to be much safer than human drivers and will react faster to events, but there may still be times when they have to resolve ethical dilemmas in an instant. Imagine that two children suddenly run into the road in front of an autonomous vehicle that is driving itself carrying a single ‘passenger’ and travelling too fast to stop in time. The vehicle has three basic options each of which is likely to result in at least one fatality, but which should it choose?
Swerve right into the back of a parked HGV	54%
Prefer not to say	40%
Carry straight on, running over the children	5%
Swerve left to run into an elderly couple walking on the pavement	1%

Q2. Imagine now that YOU are riding as the sole ‘passenger’ in an autonomous vehicle that is driving itself. Two children suddenly run into the road in front of the vehicle but it is travelling too fast to stop in time. Which of the following choices would you want the autonomous vehicle to make?
Swerve right into the back of a parked HGV	59%
Prefer not to say	34%
Carry straight on, running over the children	4%
Swerve left to run into an elderly couple walking on the pavement	2%

The question was asked in the context of the ongoing consultation by the Law Commission into Automated Vehicles**. The question is a form of “The Trolley Problem***” scenario that challenges ethical decisions in a life or death situation.

In Germany, the ethics for autonomous vehicles makes clear that in the event of an unavoidable collision, any distinction based on personal features, such as; age, gender and ethnicity are strictly prohibited****.

Edmund King, AA president says; “Autonomous cars should create opportunities for people who struggle to access consistent forms of mobility, like the elderly and disabled.

“These vehicles will have so much technology that one should never find itself in this kind of situation.

“Of those who could make a choice, a clear majority decided to put themselves in danger perhaps indicating they accept the risks and potential fallibilities of the technology.

“‘The Driverless Dilemma’ is a common question for programmers of autonomous vehicles, but the number of people who avoided giving a definitive answer shows this is a difficult ‘live or let die’ dilemma.

“Drivers and pedestrians will want to know that fully autonomous vehicles have been rigorously tested to ensure fatalities are prevented and scenarios like these are avoided.”

ends

NOTES TO EDITORS

* Populus received 21,039 responses from AA members to its online poll between 15th and 21st January 2019. Populus is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

** https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2018/11/6.5066_LC_AV-Consultation-Paper-5-November_061118_WEB-1.pdf

*** The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. The general form of the problem is:

“You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option?”

**** https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/publications/report-ethics-commission-automated-and-connected-driving.pdf?__blob=publicationFile