Expensive debates on horizon
Agreat deal of hot air is being generated over ethical and legal issues to do with driverless vehicles.
It seems to be generally accepted that, within a short time, we shall be technically ready to have them among us, but ticketpunchers are about to garner a huge bonus at the gates to the open road by insisting on endless expensive debates about the “who whom” quandary. This boils down to how an autonomous vehicle should respond when faced with deciding whether to protect its occupants or some other party, in an incident where injury to at least one is likely.
To my mind this is a pointless dialogue with only one possible answer, but lawyers need their cut . . . after which some incredibly complex guidance algorithms will be written, just to be legally assailed at every slightest opportunity afterwards — and lucrative arguments will rage on in court forever unless we stop them now.
In the first place, let’s look at the current situation. Roads are not perfect and never will be. All human drivers operate within a mental landscape that includes levels of competence, experience, background stress, immediate distractions and reactive ability. Then there’s general ethical outlook. Some are altruistic, some selfish, some cowardly, some brave, some simply unaware of moral dimensions. In the split seconds leading to impact, these factors may all interact to determine outcome. But they are only half, at the most, of the equation. We have vehicle condition, road environment and other complex synergies. And that’s before you get to the other party( ies), who may multiply complications exponentially.
This means, in a collision, each driver’s ethical standpoint is virtually irrelevant. I may have a benevolent attitude to people in general, but if two figures suddenly step out in front of me, would my philosophy overcome the sheer menace of a gigantic logging truck looming in the opposite lane? I would simply react, without time for existential questions to form.
So I would run down a mother and child. In court, the matter would be decided from the facts: my dash- cam and the truck are objective witnesses, I was driving within the law and in a cautious, sensible manner. The deceased To expect autonomous vehicles to comply with ethical quandaries is absurd. appeared with no warning and without taking any precautions of their own. I braked as hard as possible and aimed for the only sliver of road available: my own children were in the back seat. Despite all of that, I would still feel dreadful, but should I be ethically or legally liable for the slaughter?
If everyone used the road legally and sensibly, accidents simply would not happen, except from random natural events.
Maintenance and driver checks should mean no mechanical failure; strict adherence to road codes should eliminate incorrect use; cognisance of conditions and knowledge of the laws of physics should minimise human error. These are the exact fail- safes that can be programmed into autonomous vehicles.
By contrast, most human drivers are very imprecise: we operate on a “more or less OK” basis and usually get away with it. We think it may be OK to run on balding tyres, delay a brake service, sneak a few extra km/ h or ignore the recent rain to close a gap in traffic. Then the unexpected happens and bang! You’re dead. Or the other person is. There is simply no instance, except maybe falling meteorites, where the human factor isn’t paramount in traffic incidents. Ethics are irrelevant: chance, circumstance and reactions prevail.
To expect autonomous vehicles to comply with ethical quandaries we cannot agree on, in situations giving no time for moral consideration, is absurd. They are already capable of being programmed to comply with all regulatory and physical laws. In this, they are undoubtedly an improvement over us, since we show every day that we can’t.
If there’s time to make a moral choice, there is time to avoid or prevent an incident anyway. This applies to autonomous and human- guided vehicles. Keep the lawyers and hired philosophers away from this or we’ll go back to the Model T.
Disclaimer: I am a keen driver, now retired, previously in business and teaching . I do not look forward to being a passive occupant in my own car but, faced with the absurd behaviour seen constantly on every highway, I would prefer to enjoy my driving on a track and leave the road to driverless vehicles. If life- forms incapable of thinking for themselves can’t adapt there, then they will dwindle through natural selection. Roll on.