Ethical dilemmas are really important to potential adopters of autonomous vehicles

Abstract

The ethical dilemma (ED) of whether autonomous vehicles (AVs) should protect the passengers or pedestrians when harm is unavoidable has been widely researched and debated. Several behavioral scientists have sought public opinion on this issue, based on the premise that EDs are critical to resolve for AV adoption. However, many scholars and industry participants have downplayed the importance of these edge cases. Policy makers also advocate a focus on higher level ethical principles rather than on a specific solution to EDs. But conspicuously absent from this debate is the view of the consumers or potential adopters, who will be instrumental to the success of AVs. The current research investigated this issue both from a theoretical standpoint and through empirical research. The literature on innovation adoption and risk perception suggests that EDs will be heavily weighted by potential adopters of AVs. Two studies conducted with a broad sample of consumers verified this assertion. The results from these studies showed that people associated EDs with the highest risk and considered EDs as the most important issue to address as compared to the other technical, legal and ethical issues facing AVs. As such, EDs need to be addressed to ensure robustness in the design of AVs and to assure consumers of the safety of this promising technology. Some preliminary evidence is provided about interventions to resolve the social dilemma in EDs and about the ethical preferences of prospective early adopters of AVs.

Humans, machines, and double standards? The moral evaluation of the actions of autonomous vehicles, anthropomorphized autonomous vehicles, and human drivers in road-accident dilemmas

“…The presents study's aim was neither to develop guidelines for programming autonomous vehicles (e.g., Wolkenstein, 2018) nor to determine whether autonomous vehicles or other machines can be regarded as moral agents (for some points of view see, e.g., Li et al, 2016;Gogoll and Müller, 2017;Bonnefon et al, 2019;Scheutz and Malle, 2021) and in how far concepts such as responsibility, liability, or blame can or should be assigned to machines. We focused on the moral evaluation of actions in critical traffic situations as this might represent a first step in understanding the public's reaction to accidents with autonomous vehicles.…”

“…People have a bias toward judging actions of human drivers as morally superior to identical actions (with identical consequences) of autonomous vehicles. Accidents resembling moral dilemmas might be rare but they are emotionally salient ( Bonnefon et al, 2016 ) and there is evidence to suggest that moral dilemmas are regarded as an important challenge for autonomous vehicles ( Gill, 2021 ). Moral decisions—which include decisions about how to distribute harm in accident situations—have the potential to affect the perception of autonomous vehicles via media coverage of accidents (e.g., Anania et al, 2018 ).…”

“…However, accidents cannot be completely avoided. Apart from the fact that no technology will ever function without flaws (e.g., Lin, 2016;Gogoll and Müller, 2017), there is another reason why autonomous vehicles cannot avoid all accidents regardless of their driving performance: they share the roads with human road users whose behaviors are hard to predict (e.g., Lin, 2016;Koopman and Wagner, 2017;Nyholm, 2018).…”

An ethical trajectory planning algorithm for autonomous vehicles

“…They are also important for potential adopters of AVs. 4 To move ahead in the development of AVs, that satisfy ethical requirements, we have to consider ethical aspects of the AV's software. As the software part responsible for decision-making, behavioral and trajectory planning plays a decisive role in this process.…”

Autonomous Vehicles: Moral Dilemmas and Adoption Incentives

“…Surveys show that most people prefer AVs following a utilitarian approach by minimizing total harm, but, at the same time, are more willing to buy an AV if they protect the passenger(s) under most circumstances (Bonnefon et al 2016, Gill 2021, Liu and Liu 2021. A utilitarian regulator therefore needs to compromise between ex post and ex ante efficiency: Ex post efficiency requires that AVs protect third parties whenever their (expected) harm exceeds the passengers' harm.…”